₦airaland Forum

xkape:
As always the KAG is here hacking God as usual.

The KAG? You make me sound like some kind of a machine or something, in fact, I like it, I'll use it. Also I'm not, or was not hacking God as usual (more difficult than you could probably imagine - no pun intended), I was hacking claims made in her name.

Denying Him in your head wont stop the nagging in your heart

My heart doesn't nag, she's good; but yeah, denying Allah in your head won't stop the nagging in your heart either, so there.

Dont even bother to respond, i am just an ignorant religious person

Yes, yes you can be sometimes, but it isn't because of religion.

shango:
Your sources say nothing on wether a law is above a theory. I posted a source with an example that proved my point and was pertinent to the argument at hadn.

Yeah, so I got the response below from former physics student, graduate and avid science nut Cav~., from a response he gave to a similar claim as yours.


“Not quite. They're "laws" because of a shift in language over the last few hundred years. Nothing differentiates these laws from theories of today, and it's worth noting that these "laws" aren't even true outside of a narrow range of observation. For example, Key gives the example of the Law of Gravity and then gives Newtonian gravity. While a very successful theory in its range, it is not accurate in general. We keep it because the range in which it is successful matches the range in which we live, and it is a relatively simple equation.


Second, Key goes on to describe facts versus theories. He uses gravity as an example again. He correctly says that gravity is a fact (he uses the word "law", but then incorrectly states this as Newtontian gravity. The problem here is that, while we may agree that we know a phenomenon exists, our theories are likely to just be approximations. We can't know that even GR is a perfect description. I think his willingness to state that his pet theories are fact, but the ones that he dislikes are "just theories" is a sign of hubris.”

I never said the TOE says a pine evolved to a dog. My point of that statement is The TOE implies common lineage.

No, no you did, see: “Sure we share common genetic traits, sure speciation occurs and we can say such facts in the evolution theory lead to macro evolution and therefore the pine tree evolved to a dog over billions of years.”

It theorises after hypothesizing. Do you even know what the scientific process is. A Hypothesis has to be made and evidence shown before you can theorise.

That’s wonderful, because the TOE does explain how one species evolves to another and theorises based on observable facts.

Ducking the question, are we? Define me species, physical experiment and totally new species and I will show you several instances.

I am going to start defining individual words now so you know the parameters to construct your arguments? If you do not know what simple english words mean LOOK THEM UP.

Actually it’s a valid and reasonable request, especially given the tendency for anti-evolution proponents to have different definitions for established terms, and their propensity to move goalposts on a whim. There’s also the added fact that it already looks like your definition of evolution and macro-evolution differs significantly from the science community.
[Quote]
Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens, in terms of the more fundamental laws.

Take Newton's law. One of its tenets is that the force of an object equals the mass times the acceleration due to gravity. That simple statement explains a multitude of things and events that occur macroscopically in nature, such as the rotation of planets, the flow of liquids macroscopically and a million other things. Tha law does not simply note that something happens. It tells us why as well. So your source and that statement, simply stated, is WRONG.[/quote]Er, no. Newtons laws[b] do not[/b] explain gravity or how it works. The laws simply state what happens. “The force of an object equals the mass times the acceleration due to gravity” is not an explanation, it’s clearly just an observed phenomena, like change in allele frequencies in populations occur over time, or organisms fall sick when subject to this type of bacteria”.

Erm, could you point out where wiki stated that the "theory of electromagnetism has been ELEVATED to law status."

I quoted the article verbatim and it said that, I am not going to repost my sources each time you request it when it is in this same thread. Just go up a few posts and read and you will discover where I quoted that source.

So you seem to be claiming, but I have read them over again, and still nothing on "theory of electromagnetism has been ELEVATED to law status.", what I still see however is, “depending on the context, an extremely well-confirmed theory may allow the terms "theory" and "law" to be used interchangeably without any objection by experts familiar with the current state of the research."; which, of course, is totally different from what you’ve claimed.

Speciation occurs and is reproduceable. I have said this since the beggining. However it doesnt prove macroevolution and show how macroevolution occurs.

Perhaps it’s time to give your definition of macro-evolution, which clearly must be different from the rest of the science community.

When we say evolution generically OFCOURSE we mean MACROEVOLUTION. Haven't I reiterated this point ad nauseum.

No you haven’t reiterated the point ad nauseam, and it’s more accurate to say, when YOU say evolution, YOU generically [probably] mean MACRO-EVOLUTION. Nobody, to my knowledge, in the science community uses evolution as a generic substitute for Macro-.

And I am not even saying macroevolution doesnt happen. I am just saying the TOE doesn't prove for a fact that Macroevolution does happen and doesnt adequately explain how and the mechanisms of how it occurs.
There are definitely extrapolations that occur when going from micro to macro evolution.

Here is the same old problem again, it doesn’t prove macro-evolution, but then again science does not prove anything,
Also, there are extrapolations involved in both micro- and macro- evolutions but that’s not a problem, because ample evidence is given to support the extrapolations.

When so called creationists argue against evolution, I am sure even some of the most hard headed ones know for a fact microevolution occurs, they are not arguing about speciation or breeding or other microevolutionary mechanisms, they are arguing about macroevolution. If it isnt obvious that when people say evolution generically they mean macro evolution then I can see why you have trouble with statements that speciation isnt evolution, because that means speciation is not the same as Macroevolution, it certainly supports the the hypothesis that Macroevolution does occur just as genetic similarity between species supports the hypothesis that Macroevolution occurs.

Erm, then what is macro-evolution if it isn’t speciation? And no, macro-evolution isn’t a hypothesis.

Aha. Try again.

That’s the best you can offer?

is NOT (MACRO) EVOLUTION. The macro is implied. Make sense now

I don’t see how the macro- was implied, but that makes sense now.

Russian, and no, neither French nor Spanish is capable of being the next "Universal language". If anything English will carry on being it, except a major disaster occurs.

Believe me, Adam and Eve would probably be the least of my worries; good thing they never existed then - at least not as described in the Literalists interpretation of the Bible.

Yes of course. I've seen Santa, therefore he is.

Madam, I'm Adam

Softee: In Christianity:

1.)The sick are healed

Alledgedly. Chances are a good number are akin to the placebo effect, a good number are false and/or exaggerations, and others are just natural and would have happened anyway.

2.)Demons are cast out

Allegedly

3.)Tongues are spoken to speak to the spirit

Gibberish, at least to some denominations.

4.)Holy spirit enters people

So some claim.

5.)Words spoken out of another persons mouth can come directly from God

Why God doesn't just quit her age old game of hide and go seek, and just speak directly for herself, is an issue that is usually handwaved away by them with teh voices in tehir head.

6.) Beauty of Jesus can be seen in People

Surprisingly, or not so unsurprisingly, they are usually not Christians.

All this is done in Jesus name. However muslims see him as just a prophet, can you do the above in mohammed's name?? So how can Jesus be a prophet??

Who said he was a prophet?

lol.

grailife:
Whether God exists?

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Two contaries be infinite? Also the word God does not mean infinite goodness, and that in itself isn't the objection skeptics bring to the table, but that I suppose is irrelevant.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.

On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14)

I'm not sure I agree with "For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will.", but the rest is pretty bang on.

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

I sincerely doubt that.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

You've just used a lot of words to disguise an argument devoid of actual content. What you've basically said is, "things are in motion, everything I know needs something to give them a push first, well everything except something else that is in motion which *ahem* did not require an initial push though, and that arbitrary thing would be my God, thank you very much". Why every other thing except your God required a push? Damned if we know. Now, I very well may be wrong on this, but don't things in quantum just happen without a "push"? Also, there are theories for how things got into "motion" in the first place, and they don't require the push of a deity anyway.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

What? Were you trying to argue that because entropy occurs, then God exists? I'm not completely sure what your argument was, but it looks highly ridiculous. Just FYI, the Universe isn't infinite, if that was what you were getting at. Also, arbitrary claims and assumptions without any backing evidence, do not proofs make. You saying there must be a being with immunity against entropy, doesn't make it so.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

This is getting (improbably) more and more ridiculous, what, in all that is holy, does "We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be" mean? Anybody? Also, the science community doesn't claim that the Universe came from nothing, IIRC, it claims that before the Universe there was some kind of a singularity that expanded, and became the Universe.

Also, I IRC, quantum gives the possibility of quantum particles (right word?) coming from nothing.

Finally, No, actually we can help but postulate the existence of some being with the ability to just simply exist, for it may very well be nothing but "God of the gaps" argument, and we all know how that's worked out since ages past.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

What? No seriously, what? People are good, fire is hot, therefore God? Seriously? No I'm not even going to bother. I mean who needs to explain that "good" really is a relative concept, and most of our morals and ethics are simply empathic and self preserving ideals (at least at their basest levels), that have evolved with human civilisations, brains, etc.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

No they don't, should suffice.

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

The obvious objection to that reply would be to ask why an omnipotent God needs evil to produce
Good. Why not just circumvent it, and just give goodness and be done with evil altogether. An omnipotent God could very well do that. The argument of good and evil is a silly one though, at least in my opinion.

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.

No. Nature does not work towards a determined end.



Reading through your "proof", all you've done was beg the question, make baseless assumptions, make strange claims, and assert that everything else is subject to arbitrary rules that for some bizarre unclear reason don't apply to your God.

KAG: He's a Muslim - I'm 95% certain.

Darkchild: KAG,

don't bet your life on it. U might just have it no mo'.

Darkchild: Lioness,

to answer your Question, I am a Muslim.

I'm not one for pointing out when I had something right (no, really. Ignore the green fella with his tongue out), so I guess I'll end with there are Chistian apologists on this site, so no need to don my already defunct apologist hat - not that I would have anyway.

Sorry about the posting disreprancy. This post should have appeared at a little after my response to Simmy, but I got disconnected till this morning (disadvantage of parents). I saved it though, and I see you guys have moved on a little, but I'll still post it. If I don't respond to your new post today, Shango, then I'll do it as soon as the internet let's me.

shango:
Einsteins theory of relativity attempts to explain many things. Newtons law of gravity still holds in a certain framework where the frame of reference speed is much less than the speed of light, in such a framework relativistic forces hardly play a part. Hence Eintsteins relativity theory made Newtons law of gravity more precise. The original law holds and still holds for most macro objects that move at comparitively lower speeds than c. A Scientific Law is and always has been above a Scientific theory.

Thanks for explaining the relativity thingie etc, don't rightly know if you are right, but it does seem plausible, so…. I do disagree though with your last sentence, and rightly so. To add on to NFeryn's post, I pulled this from the Wiki link, it explains the point adequately:

"Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens, in terms of the more fundamental laws."

Taken from a wiki article on law. Laws are understood to be unmutable. Hence over time the theory of electromagnetism has been ELEVATED to law status. There is a clear heirarchy. String theory for example may become a law when it is proven using empirical data and scientific methods. I do not get why you are still arguing this.

Erm, could you point out where wiki stated that the "theory of electromagnetism has been ELEVATED to law status." What it actually says is, "depending on the context, an extremely well-confirmed theory may allow the terms "theory" and "law" to be used interchangeably without any objection by experts familiar with the current state of the research.". This *surprise* applies to evolution too.

yes, I did the same as well. Both support my statements. The theory of evolution is NOT A LAW YET because it has not be rigorously tested to elevate it to law status like the theory of electromagnetism.

See above. Also, the theory of evolution has been tested over and over again, and is still yet to be falsified.

And while it explains genetic mutations it does not explain how and why species evolve. Show me ONE INSTANCE of a physical experiment showing a species that has been made to evolve to a totally new species. And no, cross breeding and mixed breeding is NOT EVOLUTION.

Erm, it explains and gives several reasons for how and why speciation can occur. An experiment? What about Drosophila (yeah, fruit flies)? IIRC, fruitflies with a percentage of genetic difference that surpasses or is about the same (I forget) that of humans and chimps would be a good example of speciation. No linkys though.

Uhhh, those are all facts.

Uhh, no they are still unbacked claims you've made. Substantiate or retract.

And what cell thing. Be specific.

That would be this cell thing: "It is a known fact that a single human cell kept alive for years does not spontaneously mutate (and as such what caused and drove the evolution of unicellular organisms to multicellular is not known).".

thanks for pointing out a TYPO on a inet forum.

You are welcome.

Can you also correct my punctuation pretty please.

Let me think about it.

Forgive me, next time I will reread what I type so it can face the scrutiny of a faceless Inet board user such as yourself.

It was bound to happen, especially considering you called a lot of people [science~] illiterates.

evolution is not a fact IT IS A THEORY. The theory explains certain facts like genetic mutations, it is not itself a fact. It is not a fact that things evolve. If it was it would be the law of evolution.

Didn't we just do this? Or perhaps that was some other person, I forget. Anyway, the ToE attempts to explain many things, including the fact that the allele frequencies of populations change over time. It also is a fact that things evolve, even most staunch anti-evolutionists agree that organisms evolve, they are careful to point out though, that it's "just micro-evolution and macro-evolution doesn't happen". They still haven't told us, at least to my knowledge, what magical barrier separates the two though.

The TOE does not fully explain how one species evolves to another, it hypothesizes based on certain observable facts, like shared phenotypical traits, genetic mutations, etc.

No, it theorises.

If it truly is a fact like you say, please explain how the homo erectus evolved to the homo sapien. GO ON. EXPLAIN IT. EVOLUTION IS A FACT RIGHT. GO AHEAD AND USE THE FACT OF EVOLUTION TO EXPLAIN THE EVOLUTION BETWEEN THE TWO SPECIES MENTIONED.

First, there's a good chance homo sapiens aren't direct descendants of homo erectus, although homo erectus would most likely have been in the same genus as the homo sapiens ancestor (someone correct me if I'm wrong, because it's being a good while since I read anything on human evolution, and my memory is kind of hazy). So, how could homo erectus have evolved into homo sapiens? simply put, mutations, selection, and genetic drift.

I bet my life you cannot, and I wonder why

You owe me part of your life at the very least.

edit: I forgot to ask you what exactly you meant when you wrote: "And no, cross breeding and mixed breeding is NOT EVOLUTION". Could you please explain. Thanks.

simmy:
@kag
Evolution is NOT a fact. T.oe tries to expalin something that does not exist.

No, evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution explains at its very simplest level the change in allele frequencies of a population. Change in allele frequencies has been observed overe and over again, and denying it "exists" is no different, as far as I'm concerned, from those who claim gravity doesn't actually exist (I've run into a couple, and for the love all humanity, I hope they were really trolls. Unfortunately though their post records said otherwise).

About the elephants i think i've posted about them before, i'm not too sure but until u expalin to me xctly how the african variety is a different species from the asian variety i'll just have to keep quiet

Well, I posted on the two African elephant species, which I pointed out were "as distinct as lions and tigers, which I’m sure you’ll agree, are different species.", and it seemed to have pretty much ended there, until you popped up asking for examples of speciation yet again. I can't pull up links on the Asian elephant, so I'll leave it at the African elephants, which is more than enough. I take it the peonies are to your satisfaction?

He's a Muslim - I'm 95% certain.

lioness:
na waoo. This thread still dey?

Well like all things must do, it seems to be coming to an end. Unfortunately though, this thread didn't feature much, if any, of the anti-evolutionists explanation of creationism/ID/wwhatever. Maybe next time.

ajia23:
Kag, Nferyn, Simmy, Rhodalyn etc,
Please check out this thread to see how logical and scientific our christian brethren are.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-17418.32.html#msg484688

Okay? What on earth does that have to do with the subject at hand? You do know many Christians are both logical and scientific right?

simmy:
yer rite, the scientific community agrees that a theory is not automatically equal to fact.

What? Of course a theory isn't a fact; theories are often used to explain the how of facts though.

In this case,(T.oe) the most amusing thing is that the theory tries to explain phenomena that exists only in the overworked mind of some self-deluding people.

Don't be silly. The ToE explains pretty well how evolution - which is a fact - occurs.

P.s no one has taken up my challenge on speciation

What challenge on speciation? Surely you don't mean the one where you asked for examples of observed speciation, and then either handwaved them away, or completely ignored them? Anyway, some examples of speciation for your viewing pleasure again: speciation in peonies; Elephants: two species of African elephant, and another species of Asian elephants.

simmy:
@nferyn
There are quite a number ways of defining the word theory in the scientific community, but 1 which tickles my fancy says a theory is"a reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof "(Steen, 1971).
This is a perfect description of Toe

Actually it isn't. This is a better description, "A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).". By the way, of course there a number of ways to define "theory" in the scientific theory (that's to be expected), but the scientific community gennerally agree on what a theory represents.

I'm assuming this post was addressed to me

shango:
the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. like all scientific thoeries that are not laws it has holes.

What? THank goodness Nferyn has reposted some links explaining what laws and theories mean.

i never said theories where not held in high esteem by scientists, learn to read.

My apologies, I thought that was what you were implying

And laws are held in higher regard to theories. Go read any introductory science book.

I made the mistake of elevating theory above law (thanks again Nferyn), and you've made the mistake of elevating law above theory, they are both held in the same regard. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, Einstein's theory of relativity superceded Newtons law of gravity, so sometimes theories can supercede laws.

The thoery of evolution does seek to explain the origin of species. read darwins work of the same name.

I know, that's what I said.

people try to reply to my facts by posting bs and irrelevant nonsense.

You mean facts like: "Jewish law and creation story based on earlier Pagan and nativist religions including aspects from Greek mythology", or "But ofcourse it doesnt address several things such as the driving force behind such said mutations", and don't get me started on the cell thing you wrote.

the evolution thoery contains alot of facts like genetic mutations (which supports the idea that organisms might infact evolve, so does dna and genes and genetic processes) it does not state for a fact that evolution does occur hence it is still a THEORY. When such physical proof is shown it will become a LAW

No, evolution, like gravity et al, is a fact, the theory of evolution, like the theory of relativity, uses a lot of evidence to try to explain why that fact occurs, and what it does, amongst other things. Also, theories are never graduated to laws, but hopefilly you already know that.

basic scientific methods illeterates

It usually helps, if you are going to accuse others of illiteracy, that you be able to spell "illiterate". Just a friendly tip.

and capitalistic society as we know it has huge problems and flaws. making money has inherent evils and is not neccessarily better than the barter system for example. the single minded viewpoints of post-colonial drones never ceases to amaze me.

That's nice.[quote][/quote]

Drusilla:
Scientific theory's do not work like other theory's, evolution can not be so easily dismissed because it is a theory. A lot of the parts to evolution are of course pure garbage (we do not come from monkeys) but a lot of other parts are just regular science that evolutionists like to label part of Toe.

More often than not, the "pure garbage" in the theory of evolution results from misunderstandings and strawmen; for example, the ToE doesn't say we come from monkeys (as in common use of the word).

shango:
There are unexplained forces in this world. Some of the smartest people on Earth including Einstein acknowledge this. HOWEVER it is NOT explained by the bible. The bible certainly has nuggets of useful information about and certain moral truths that are applicable in a secular society. But when it comes to explaining spirituality and divine forces it is a joke. Its first section is based on Judaism and outdated Jewish law (a HUGE section in the Old testament) and creation story based on earlier Pagan and nativist religions including aspects from Greek mythology

Which parts of the creation story are based on Greek mythology?

For anyone to hold the belief that evolution is th end all and be all of the origins of organisms is equally an idiot.

Idiot? No. Ignorant? Perhaps; but that's probably because evolution doesn't deal with the origin of organisms per se, but deals with the origin of species.

Evolution is a THEORY. Its not a Scientific fact or law. its a theory.

Sadly, your knowledge of scientific concepts seems to be lacking. A scientific theory is often regarded higher than Laws in science, I think Nferyn has posted a link explaining what scientific theory and law mean. By the way, evolution is a fact, while the theory of evolution seeks to explain it.

A very good one that seems to explain alot of events that occur in organisms such as why genetic mutations occur for example. But ofcourse it doesnt address several things such as the driving force behind such said mutations. It is a known fact that a single human cell kept alive for years does not spontaneously mutate (and as such what caused and drove the evolution of unicellular organisms to multicellular is not known). But Science evolves as well.

Erm, it's known why genetic mutations happen, imperfect replication is a start.

Anyone who doesnt believe that there is an unknown driving force behind this almostly infinetely complex world is an idiot.

That's wonderful, but an argument from incredulity (I think it's incredulity) coupled with ad hominems do not a sensible discussion make. When you have something besides those, start a new thread, and when I get back, I'll participate.

But you are a bigger idiot if you think the bible even addresses it sufficiently or is the end all and be all of explaining this unknown mysterious force. I hold Christianity on the same plane and level as Greek mythology, Judiasm and the plethora of native religions that where killed off by Christian Missionaries and those that still exist today.

Again with the ad homs, *tut*.

Gwaine:
@KAG,

It's interesting when convictions can be stated as clearly as you've done, and
I appreciate the fact that you've helped this to be easier for me at least, even
though I still would not agree with some of the ideas expressed.

There are a few things to bear out:

(a) the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is not to save humans from God; rather
it is to save humans from His wrath on sin.

You say potato, I say if she is indeed omniscient, and omnipotent, then she designed it that way. She created the rules, and man with the potential to sin, so she could be wrathful at the sins of man. So basically, Jesus' sacrifice really was to save us from God

(b) the sacrifice is divinely applied throughout all ages - past, present and future,
even though it happened at a specific point in history, so that those in the era
before Jesus was born (Jews and non-Jews alike) could benefit from the grace of
the atonement, as I'm persuaded is what Rom. 5:10-18 seems to teach.

What about those who have never heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ? They also
will be judged (if you permit the term) on the basis of what light they had in the
period they lived their lives. This is explained in Romans 2:6-11 and the summary
is that those who pursued 'good' or 'evil' will be rewarded accordingly either way
for whatever course they pursued.

Fair enough, that would make some sense to me, even though I have met Christians who have unequivocally stated that those before Christ, would be condemned because they didn’t accept Jesus as their personal Lord and saviour. So, it would seem that it isn’t actually necessary to accept Jesus personally, as long as you follow the empathic edict of "love your neighbour as yourself", or do I have it wrong?

And children? I'm also persuaded that children are innocent and those who die
in whatever circumstances (war, disaster, disease, murder, etc.) do not get sent
to hell. This seems to be implied in Jesus words in Matt. 18:14 & 19:14 - and to
just quote of the first:

"Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little
ones should perish."

You notice my use of "I'm persuaded" as not alll Christians will be persuaded of
the same thing, and I'm open to the persuasions and views of others.

I more or less agree with that, but doesn't that cotradict scriptures like "all have sinned, "? I also remember reading a writer of the A.W Pink school of thought, who provided a lot of scriptures to back up the belief that babies go to hell. In any case, it would seem God (or the characteristics you've attributed to her) does not revel in damning babies, so I'll leave that bit.

It's true that at the present discourse the reasons for going to heaven or hell
may not be all that central; yet it's not correct to assume that "an omniscient
God can intentionally make many of his most beloved creatures just to be
punished infinitely". No, 'infinite punishment' was and is not His intent in creation
and the issues would be better helped when we keep them in their proper
perspectives.

But if she is omniscient, then it was her intent to send a large amount of her creatures to hell, a punishment that really serves absolutely no purpose (at least from my perspective) in the grand scheme of things, well except from being some kind of a sadistic sport for the almighty.

I'm persuaded that God is both loving and holy - and the understanding of His
holiness would necessitate divine judgement upon evil, especially when He
had left a warning to the effect. This takes into account those who might not
have heard the Gospel, but who know in their consciences that somethings
are considered right and others wrong. And I dare add here that this includes
people who go by the name "Christian" though they contradict the pursuits
of "good".

What would be right, wrong and good though? Many Christians of time past knew in their consciences that slavery was right, and many even used Biblical verses to show that it was right, would they be denied heaven? Going farther back, many people did things they knew were right in ther hearts, like killing babies, women and children, because YHVH commanded them to do just that. I some instances, when they did right by their consciences, they were maimed, amongst other things, by those following YHVH. So what happens in those instances?

The preceding should not be taken as an attempt at "preaching" to you, lol. . .
but how else would I have been able to explain why I don't agree with some
of the views you expressed?

Oh, I don't mind being preached at, and I appreciate you taking teh time to actually discuss your point of view.

In anycase, I'm deeply persuaded that God's
attributes would not presuppose that He "intentionally" damns His beloved
creation; but at the same time, I don't see how a holy God would glibly pass
over "evil" simply because He is omnibenevolent.

It's a problem that stems from her omniscience though. An omniscient, omnipotent, and omni benevolent God could always just have stopped the creation of those to be condemned for flimsy "sins", or if the Omni- God was hell bent (no pun intended) on creating flawed creatures she knows will be "evil" and "sinful", then she could always mete out a punishment to fit the crime, coupled with given the damned the opportunity to learn from the punsihment and grow from it. Just off the top of the head of a mere mortal.

I've enjoyed your piece and the challenges posed. Warm regards.

As have I, and i thank you.

Until ample evidence is provided (like something peer reviewed, o something credible).I'm calling shenanigans.

Rottweiler:
No! You are not the only one. Your brethen in atheism also feel the same way.

I'd be surprised if other Christians don't feel the same way too.

goodguy:
Anyway, since I have found it somewhat difficult to prove to the atheists here, with my personal experiences, that God exists, I guess I will have to leave the rest to the Almighty.

Surely, you must appreciate the fact that anecdotal evidence really isn't compelling, what with human nature and all that.

Afterall, I've often heard a lot of people say Tai Solarin, the most famous and controversial atheist and secular humanist in African history (if not the only one of any real renown), actually professed the existence of God before he died.

Funny you should say that, cos' I heard Selwyn Hughes, Pope John Paul, Henry Morris recanted on their death beds. I even heard Paul and Peter, tehy of Biblical fame, categorically stated that there was no god, before they died. Funny how these things happen, no?

By the way, I suggest that the atheists here should check this out: http://bibleprobe.com/iansNDE.htm . Perhaps, they could have a re-think.

It's interesting, that much I'll say for now.

davidylan:
is that so? if that's true the likes of you, nferyn, kag and co have yet to prove your intelligence, educated in what sense? high school degree level?

Meh! Proof is for maths and alcohol. Speaking for myself, education on several topics, subjects, and ideas; master of none.

Charles Darwin, Sir Isaac Newton and other christian science greats where definitely not atheists.

Yes they were definitely not atheists (Darwin became an agnostic later on in his life, I think), but they were not christian scientists, but scientists who happened to be Christians. Would they still have still have beeen great scientists if they were of a different belief system? I'm inclined to say yes.

Also, there have been many great scientistists who were/are not Christians.

Newayz, the bible already predicted the rise of scorners and scoffers in the last days. As for me and my house, we will serve te LORD!

Ah, the ol' "He could foretell wars and famines, though that was not so hard, for there was always a war and generally a famine somewhere." (Mark Twain) type of prophecy. It isn't that impressive, if scoffers have always existed, and if the scoffers have dwindled with time (Christianity is the biggest religion in the world today, and even many from other religions respect it, so I would imagine less scoffers exist today).

retro:
True. Atheists are generally more intelligent. I'm yet to meet an intelligent christian.

I've met many.

swan:
:O i feel pity for atheist.how can a creation deny the existence of its creator!all this talk about evolution etc has confused a lot of people. God is merciful ,if not many people would have regretted
their utterances.i pray that the good lord , show you the right path to follow that leads to eternal life, amen

no doubt some atheists feel pity for you too, and perhaps the "creation" can deny the existence of its creator, when the creator seems non-existent, and no better than a metaphorical stop gap for the unexplained. Furthermore, yes, evolution has confused lots of people, but not the way you imagine it has.

Seun:
You have the right to believe whatever you like, as long as you don't violate my rights with your actions. I have the right not to believe what you believe in. Atheists are usually more intelligent, more educated, more rational.

I'm not sure I agree. I've heard of many idiotic atheists IRL. I haven't met that many ignorant and irrational atheist on the internet, but I have met a few, and they are usually on forums like EW.

Gwaine:
@KAG,

Thank you for at least seeing my point with the earlier attribution of the 'light'
thing to me - I suspected that was what might've happened, and we all make
mistakes sometimes, don't we?

Indeed.

I respect - and always try to respect - the views of anyone or their convictions.
True, I don't have all the answers and my opinions may be untenable to a
lot of people who read them. What I coudn't grasp and thus could not accept
out of hand is how the attributes of God contradict one another. Introducing
"evil" as the necessary ingredient for the inference that God's attributes are
contradictory and thus negate His existence thereby is actually weak - and
that's what I was appealing to or trying to point out.

It's not just the introduction of evil that makes her attributes contradictory though.

Again, one has to understand the context of whatever one discusses - I try
not to misread people, and apologise where they point it out to me that I'd
inadvertently done so. A case in point is that God did not create people in
order to send them to hell; the question is what qualifies one for either the
place we call 'heaven' or what we believe to be 'hell'?

From what I understand from Christians and Christianity, the majority consensus seems to be (just a quick, and very brief summary), a person goes to hell if he/she rejects the "temporary death of “God made flesh”’s sacrifice, to save humans from God", anybody that accepts the sacrifice gets an ultimate "get out of jail free" card, and goes to heaven. There are blurry lines though, like, “do those who had never heard of Jesus go to hell, or whether the unbaptised, or non-Christian babies go to hell.

However, the reasons for going to heaven or hell are unimportant, as it doesn't still address how an omniscient God can intentionally make many of his most beloved creatures just to be punished infinitely (and for all intents and purposes, it is the vast majority of his creatures that will be damned), and still be called omni benevolent.

It's difficult for people to understand or grasp the concept that a loving and
holy God must punish evil deeds - for that should also be a concern in this
issue. Like you, I agree that when we take it one step further, we'd all have
to come back defining concepts, and "evil" needs to be defined before we
trade ideas across board.

Indefinitely punished, and without the opportunity to learn or atone through the punishment. Also, irregardless of the definition of evil, it seems highly illogical for an omni benevolent being to punish humans for honestly held ideologies based primarily on empathy and love, whose only faults are/were rejecting a concept they deemed too ridiculous to accept.

Bottomline is: I don't necessarily agree that the attributes of God are in any
way contradictory - and the only way someone would suppose that they do
is to try and introduce 'evil' into them as if it's part of His attributes. That's
why for me, I would suppose by that very same rule of logic, 'darkness'
presupposes that light does not exist! But, of course, that would only be a
big laugh.

I also mentioned that some of the characteristics attributed to God contradicted some of his actions and behaviour in the Bible.

Thank you again for sharing with me, and I'd like to thank all who've made
challenging inputs, no less nferyn, even if I don't agree with some of his
logic.

And to you too, a hearty thank you.

Rottweiler:
Raining curses is just a little thing. If the moslems can kill people that disparages their God, I will do same if any bastard blasphemes my God.

Am I the only one that finds the above statement disturbing? I have no idea what the brotherhood fella is all about, but right about now, based especially on your words, it's looking a whole lot better than your religion.

Gwaine:
Question: does contradiction of attributes constitute denial of existence?

It could, but of course that wasn't the only option/conclusion that was given, and you know it.

Simply admit that the logic does not hold true rather than come back with
your accusations of my being disingenuous. What is even hilarious to me
is that one minute "it does not apply" and the next minute "it does" - and
then you excuse it under the sob story that my misrepresentation doesn't.
Repetition ad nauseam indeed, because you choose to edit and re-edit
the premises.

Come back yet again and cry hoo-ha, afterall you're entitled to your opinion.

If the argument contains both the either and the or part, did you fail to see
that I used the same application in an earlier reply? When your discourse
wobbles, then I'm all of a sudden at play with a "strawman"? Try something
else - not that weathered appeal you unsuccessfully used with 4get_me.

I'm one of those who believes that the attributes of God include His omniscience,
omnipotence and omnibenevolence. How these attributes are in contradiction
has been a concern in my discourse with you, but I haven't read anything in
your rejoinders to that effect other than the introduction of the existence of
evil in the world as a prism for scrutinizing His attributes.

One of the problems with being all the Omni-s you listed, is of course the hell issue. Basic it is illogical to claim an omnibenevolent God intentionally created (being omniscient) human beings, just to punish them infinitely for finite crimes, and sometimes nothing more than minor slights from his fallible creatures.

Others would be, his bloodlust in the old testament, his gaffes in Genesis, which of course led the illogically termed omnibenevolent, to destroy every human beings (if you hold to a literal view; and even if not, it does seem to tell us something about the characteristics attributed to God), and still not getting it right (which contradicts omniscience)…

Gwaine:
@KAG,

I'm sorry to say that you're not reading the logical sequence of our argument.

I skimmed very quickly through it, because the thread had been going for a while. Maybe I shouldn't have.

If anyone is having a weird inference, it's the gentleman who supposes that
the attributes of light contradict each other - and then my simple question to
him was: "how does contradiction of attributes constitute denial of existence?

I was just trying to "correct" (was I right?) the idea of light having contradictory properties, amongst other things. I did think you were the one that stated it, but meh!, my bad. The points still stand though.

The suggestion of the logic was not mine - it was his; and if anything at all,
you should have seen that clearly. At the end of the day, I made clear that
I did not necessarily agree with him and the only reason why I used what
he called logic was to amicably show him that his logic was weak and thus
untenable in its application. Trying to slice my post is hilarious - at least you
ought to have seen that I was quoting him verbatim; and your agreeing
with him is even more surprising because you're bending the rules as well.

My apologies then, for attributing the light thing to you, but yes i do agree, that the only way to debate the existence of a largely unevidenced, unfalsifiable entity, is to debate the attributes of the entity. If those attributes are contradictory, then it logically leads to several conclusions (which are in an earlier post).

By the way, how am I bending the rules, and which rules?

P.S. I slice almost every post I address, and I most definitely slice long posts that have a lot of points in them

Anyone is welcome to apply whatever logic they so please, but mark well:
they should not be so convoluted as to spiral out of context. Evil exists in
the world, but the logic you're all happy-clappy to apply is quaint because
you're making evil one of the attributes of God. How you manage to do that
is beyond me. Darkness is a phenomenon that exists but does not constitute
the attributes or properties of light - are you then saying that light does not
exist because darkness is real? Just because evil is real does not negate
the existence of God as far as evil is not one of His attributes - that's why
the "square-circle" concept comes closer home to you than anyone would
suppose it does to my rejoinders.

Actually, I haven't argued about evil being one of your God's characteristics (mainly because evil would have to be defined first), so that makes your point on me arguing for God having a evil character, and light and dark, moot at this point. I could argue that from my perspective, and based on acts attributed to him, God has acted immorally, and that means from my definition of evil, he is evil, but that's neither here nor there.

I'd normally hate jumping into the middle of a long discussion of this magnitude, but I felt like responding to this particular post.

Gwaine:
@nferyn,

I'm not surprised - it's becoming more contracted for you to apply some
logic in some situations; but when the same logic is used to mirror your
own reasoning, it "does not depend on what I or anyone else believes."
Don't sweat it out, pal - it does not help to try any logic at all if you're at
all uncomfy with it in your reasoning. The question still remains, though
I'm not forcing you to answer it - I'm only just wondering about it:

"How does a contradiction of attributes constitute a denial of existence
of any entity?"

Look again at the application of your own logic -

"Light has both particle and wave characteristics and these attributes
contradict each other."

Since the attributes contradict each other, then I suppose by your own
assumptions, the phenomenon called "light" does not exist? Or again,
it's either "light" does not exist or it does not have the properties you
ascribed to it. And if the entity called "light" has these attributes that
contradict each other, then it does not exist. So if it exists, it does not
have the properties you said it has.

That's a weird argument you have going on there. I'm no physics expert, but I've never heard anything on wave and particle attributes been contradictory characteristics. Al quick skim of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon, also suggests that photons have a dual nature, but that doesn't mean its properties contradict each other.

Now on to the existence of concepts the illogical "square-circle". I agree with Nferyn, that the only way to address the concept of a largely unevidenced being, concept, thing, etc, is to identify and debate the attributes given by the positive claimnant of the said being, etc. What can we deduce from a potentially unfalsifiable being like the christian God, with contradictory attributes? I'd say, it's either She doesn't exist, She doesn't have the attributes ascribed to her (but which one?), or she truly the very epitome of the illogical "square circle" (but that in itself is far too illogical a concept for me to think through and give credence to at this time of the night).

Of course, you shouldn't be alarmed about these suppositions, for I'm
not the one applying logic to the existence of God. My application of
your own logic to that argument, to the effect of disavowing the (non)-
existence of God, is to persuade you to see that your premise is weak.

The problem though is teh abandonment of logic, leaves the door open to all kinds of delusions and fantasies, which is all well and good, as long as those delusions and fantasies do not become dangerous ideaologies to oppress and /or justify injustice.

In the same vein, I'd like you to see that if you apply your reasoning to
the question of the existence of God, then perhaps it holds true and
becomes even easier for you to grasp that -

" . . our understanding of [God] is limited. It only shows that attributing
any characteristics to [God] does not adequately capture His essence."

Perhaps. Perhaps there is a Supreme being with characteristics that seem totally contradictory to our human senses, just perhaps. We can only do the best we can, with reason and logic.

Finally, the preceding argument does not in anyway indicate that I'm
admitting to any contradiction in the attributes of God; I'm only offering
at the present to amicably show you that the logic you applied is weak
and does not hold true.

The problem though is, from our view (the view of humanity), the characteristics attributed to God not only sometimes contradict themselves, but contrdict both reality and reports of God from his holy books.

woleprof:
i think this sign of the end of the world is all over the places

even here!!!!

in this forum

I doubt that.

@Simmy, now you are just being ridiculous.

woleprof:
hope u hv read your bible very well.

be careful the way u respond to sensitive cases like this

Indeed!

supaguy:
Wow!!! I am surprised at the very few number of Christians who came up to support the creation story.

You and I both mate, you and I both. It's almost like several people on here are under the misapprehension, that trying to discredit evolution, would by default make creation right.

One thing for sure, if you're using physical means to find your origin and how u were created, its a futile effort and a complete waste of time. There are facts to prove that there is a God!!! Tell me, how do miracles happen? There are people who have died and have returned to life, they share experiences of their encounter with God, what proof does science have to give concerning this?

Could you present the facts for the existence of God, and more than anecdotes for miracles? Also, science doesn't have "proof" for anything on NDEs, but it does have explanations based on research and evidence, for why they occur in some people, and why many don't experience them. Do you have any explanation for why many don't have NDEs?

The Bible is another evidence. If u feel its just a book, you're deceiving yourself. False prophets were spoken of in the Bible, and the fufilment is being witnessed by the world today. Is it still just a book? I hope u will not live to regret your decision after the rapture. Ppl like we Christians would have gone by His grace,, and it would be left for you who refused to believe to feeel remorse on nairaland. U still have a chance!

How is the bible evidence for God? Also, bear in mind that "false" prophets existed before the alledged prophecy, so it wouldn't have been difficult to prophesy that "false" prophets would come afterwards.