₦airaland Forum

To be sincere, Faith is almost unshakeable, it is not at all built on a conviction which isn't arrived by reason. Hence can't be destroyed by reason. Probably its a survival instinct.

In order to accept Faith, one must accept subjective truths and in turn rejects the objective truth that God exists. In short a meeting point with atheists.

Reasonable faith has an absolute trust in GOD out of love and not fear

That's the problem with reasonable faith

Reyginus: Interesting.. Not really about theism vs atheism. Just that I want to understand logically the basis for justification of things atheists hold.

The best basis for atheism is Naturalism. That all concepts are internally consistent. Unlike the supernatural.

plaetton: What do you mean by abstracts?

Discernible simplistic entities that exist outside space and time.

plaetton: Superconductivity is the hoy grail of science.

Super conductivity is a lot more than your definition.
A super-conducting source can send energy through infinite distances without wires, with loss of energy.

For example, a super-conducting energy source in the moon would beam same amount of energy to earth instantaneously beyond any barrier and without a single loss.

So far, it can only be achieved at very temperatures, yes.
That only means that we have a long way to go before we achieve room temperature superconductivity in a lab.

Well , when I study the way that brain generates and conducts electricity with no friction, no loss, That is a characteristic of super-conductivity.
Sentience, Self-awareness, cognitive abilities, is proof that the brain is not just electrons passing through wires.
It is much more complex, and only superconductivity can fully account for it's complexities.

Transfer of energy without loss? That's contrary to the laws of thermodynamics. Energy is always lost during transfer. Superconductivity does not explain Consciousness and qualia.

plaetton: ^^^
To expand a bit on this,
What we call life is simply invisible, and am sure , a purer form of cosmic energy that flows through and energises our denser physical bodies. When that interface is blocked or cut off, the flow of energy ceases, life departs into the nether dimensions as free flowing energy, and the denser physical bodies breaks down back into molecular and atomic components.

And the process goes on for infinity as newer formations arise from time to time.
Life begets life.
Everything evolves

How do you explain abstracts?

Reyginus: Can homosexuality be explained logically?

Only if the line of privacy can be drawn. This has nothing to do with atheism vs theism

@truthlight

I would want to agree with you tha Peter would naturally avoid the Capital of Christian prosecution, but it wasn't till Emperor Nero's reign that Christians were targeted by Roman authorities. If you noticed King Herod was the individual that prosecuted and imprisoned Peter. The prosecution of Christians prior to Nero was the Judaist institution.

The distinction btw Catholic and catholic is hopeless and useless unfounded semantics. You are unable to prove the particular date the Roman Catholic Church emerged. Also you are unable to prove that all Christians at a point never had divergent views of what Christianity was. Religions are not built to be universally agreeable. At that time, ppl were gnostics, arians, christians/neoplatonists etc. The only claim you can lay is to a True Church.

Another way to look at trinity is: not to assert God as a person, but as a Status, some unique phenomenonal character which the Father shares with the Son and the Holy Spirit. So in essence, in the divine plane above man/physicality and created transcendence, lies God (a flavour) (therein abstracts as numbers are inapplicable)

Back to the topic.

I still maintain the Catholic Church is responsible for the compilation of the Bible, via a mandate from Tradition. Also that the reading of the Bible is not necessary for being a Christian.

The Catholic Church was born upon the ascendancy of Peter on the seat of Rome, and his exercise of control over the Church's doctrines and bishops of other cities. Schisms from the Church, provide it the distinct character it has today.

Pls stop with the allegations.

I have temporarily suspended the Bible argument, all that is left for you is to provide the CC (canonical collection) that was prior to the Council of Nicaea, simple. Just tell us! Enigma simply answer or admit your error, no one will kill you.

^^^
You can't be giving me tasks, when you have a duty and a burden to prove /lay your case.

Enigma, this is simple; there was no such canonical collection/ Bible prior to the Council of Nicaea. Most christian fathers lived without a Bible, further proving that Christianity isn't laid on a foundation of the Bible but of tradition.

Also you are unable to point out the era where the Roman Catholic Church as you say, emerged.

Uyi Iredia: Intelligent Design isn't an argument for God, its a theory on how living things originate.

It attempts to explain natural life an intelligent effect of ultimately a supernatural being.

Enigma, I'm so convinced you have nothing really to say. What does Jerome have to do with books prior to the Council of Nicaea?! Either he wasn't born or was an infant at that time.

Also you haven't still mentioned any canonical collection adopted.

Enigma, are you serious?! You used the terms! The responsibility to explain and expantiate is yours not mine.

I'm still waiting for your answer nevertheless.

Besides check out Jerome's birth date.

^^^

Enigma, my question was:

Given your definition, can you point out any
canonical collection of sacred texts
used by the Christians before the 4th century.

My question is indifferent over Catholics.

@enigma

Since they are your words, you ought to have the foundation for them.

The similarity I find in both is: approval by religious institutions

Enigma: ^^^ I already gave you one definition of the Bible or a Bible as you seem to be making a modification. Is that modification accidental or due to the U-turn you had to make when you accepted you had a faulty understanding of what "the Bible" means?

Anyway, here is that definition I pointed out to you: for the third time on this thread, alas!


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible



If (a) you digest that definition carefully and (b) you try and mug up properly on the history of the "compilation" of the Bible, you will learn that it is false to say that the Bible was not "compiled" till the 4th century. We have evidence of use of various books of the Bible by early Christians some 200-300 odd years before the 4th century. Historians tell us that Origen was probably using or familiar with all 27 books that make up the modern/western New Testament in the early 3rd century.

Kay17, please go and study these things carefully then come back to assist in the arduous task of combating the spread of falsehood by different people with various agenda or agendaS to use the lazy English pluralisation.

Ok, I will concede to your definition and leave that issue for another time.

Given your definition, can you point out any

canonical collection of sacred texts

used by the Christians before the 4th century. Note that a individual texts themselves don't count as a collection, rather a number of individual texts adopted together

I wouldn't mind historical references too.

I think intelligent design is a bad argument for God. Because it acknowledges preexisting immutable uncaused abstract principles that govern Cosmos (includes Multiverses), to which God himself bows to.

Its her body and people understand and shape their faiths differently

Enigma: Question 1: what do you mean by "the Bible"?

NB Bear in mind our recent discussions on that matter.

This time I will give you the latitude to say your mind on what you believe a Bible is.

And somebody liked the above! Loool!!

Enigma: We already had "the Bible" waaaaaaay before the 4th century; Christians who were mostly not Roman Catholics had already seen to that.

Pls point any Christian authority (Church Fathers or Christian writers) in such periods that mentioned the Bible.

@enigma I was actually talking about the ontological effect of Being not simply living humans.

^^ you on the contrary, is espusing some sort of strange Being

You keep missing the rather salient point that this Being is not the regular sort, eh.

So obviously you know what Being is. However how it relates to Yahweh and still make sense is left to youto explain.

Enigma: Some people will sooner believe that it is possible to have an 'alien' being with two heads than that it is possible that God, the Ultimate and Supreme Being, could be a being existing in three persons.

Hope you realize that all persons are Beings. So in essence you are saying three Beings in One Being. That doesn't add up. A Being is indivisible.

LMAO!! Mad script

^^
Not the regular sort of Being? Being irrespective of being of the "highest existence"; whatever that means, relates/describes that as IT IS. And dwells on the singularity of the subject matter.

Pls explain year irregular Being more.

@OP

Supernatural is inherently irrational, it does not necessarily follow causality.

^^
But a Being is indivisible, there can't be three identifiable PERSONs in an indivisible singularity!

And what's trinity to you?

[quote author=Lord_Reed]I don't agree. The love is part of Their nature, it would be as old as They are.[/quote]The you'd imply that Creation had an infinite past! That definitely concludes an absent cause for Creation, it has an infinite past. And your post is hereby inconsistent.

@ihedinobi

Tirvumirate in the sense that three bodies form a unit: God. They are seperate persons forming one union.

mumumugu: when there iis no diagnosis .when doctor cant detect the cause

Regardless of the doctor's knowledge and skill?

And how do you defend against the God of Gaps theory

Thinking about this more: if Creation is a consequence of Love shared among the trivumirate, then it implies the love had a beginning contrary to the infinite lifespan God (tirvumirate) have.