₦airaland Forum

Many ancients thought it hanged over nothing, Hindus tHINK its over an elephant who is on top a tortoise.

Not explicitly mentioned??

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lol, see jamb question! Why doesn't Kay 17 exist?[/quote]I meant my contention was God doesn't exist.

Reyginus: ¤What's all this talk about google. Google might give a different explanation to what you understand it to be.
¤ You don't want to answer my question, but I will answer yours.
You know a thing is true, when it is absolute. What do you mean by statement truths? Answer my question by the way.

1. But isn't it the same Google I will source a link? Better still do it yourself and respond. Its too trivial.

3. Absolute statements make truth?? "I'm probably going to work" false? "I'm going to work" truth?

Where is MR ANony to explain the relativity of morality in the Bible?!

Why God doesn't exist.

Ok, mr anony, I get your point.

On my next contention with God, his supernatural nature.

Reyginus: 1. How about you tell me?
2. Lol. Science might have caused it too. You can never tell. Lol.
3. I know is hard to admit you were wrong. I understand. Another problem again. You don't assume that truth is constant. We know truth is. To claim that truth is 'assumed' to be constant is self-contradictory. To assume, is to have a quality closer to truth. That I look like my father doesn't mean I am him. How can something closer to truth be truth?

1. Seriously try Google.

3. Ok, how do you know the truth? And prove that statement "truths are constant" true.

Mr anony, I think you are being dubious, because I at almost every post defined and stated clearly the word "incomprehensible". Muskeeto and wiegraf followed by thoughts, and everyone on the thread seem to follow that direction and suddenly you thought the word meant some else entirely!

At a point you admitted to muskeeto and I that God was not incomprehensible! That i was mistaken in that belief.

However to move forward, and by accepting my definition of the word, is God incomprehensible?

Reyginus: 1. What do you mean by optical illusions.
2. You know what I think. Truth is even better than conviction. You can be convinced on a thing that is false.
3. What is hard to admit here. You made a claim that scientific truths are provisional. I asked if truth can be provisional? Just a yes or no. Why are you making it seem difficult?

1. Try to Google that.

2. Ok, you haven't made sense yet.

3. I assume the truth is constant.

Todaynatoday: Oh mhen!! Oh mhen!!! The bible said the earth was/is hanging on nothing (isn't this a scientific fact?). The bible said the earth was round (isn't this a scientific fact?). The bible talked about rotation of the earth causing day and night in different areas of the world (isn't this a scientific fact?)

Even the ancients thought the flat earth hung on nothing.

Circular??

Where is that verse for rotation of earth causing night and day in diff areas?

Reyginus: Lol.
1. Is it even possible to consciously see an illusion?
2. As it stands now, it doesn't matter what I believe. That I even believe in anything does not make it true. Don't forget the concern here is the claim of science. I really don't understand how it is possible to believe a theory without facts on the events prior to creation and still claim science is all facts.
3. With a yes or no?

1. Optical illusions for example.

2. You weren't convincing with your point here.

3. Science doesn't say much about truths, its more concerned with knowledge.

tobechi20: Bible existed years b4 science

I would love to see how you'd explain this!

honeychild: incomprehensible: impossible or [/b] very difficult [b] to understand. I think the contention here is that while Kay17 uses the word incomprehensible to mean impossible to understand, anony uses it to mean difficult to understand.
And quite Frankly, I honestly do not see how God being difficult to understand Is a problem. Do we really need to know all there Is to know about God? A child, for instance may find a parent's way of handling a matter difficult to understand. When I was a child, the standard response I got when adults around me did something incomprehensible to me was: when you get older you will understand. And there are many things I did understand as I got older. Why do we deny God the right to tell us: I am like this and like that, but as for some other parts of me, when you get older I will show you?

When did incomprehensible begin to mean difficult?! What kind of planet are you in? Ok, assuming we will know God sooner THEN he is not incomprehensive.

@mranony

For a doctor that has sufficient grasp of his field, it wouldn't apply.

@regynus

1. What if the dog you saw was an illusion? Or you were in a trance or some altered reality What fact will use to prove that dog is real

2. Maybe I wasn't clear to you. The assumptions Science was making, you made the same too, believing the events leading to the big ban.g were under the same laws as now!

3. I answered it.

Onto God's next attribute: Supernatural.

Basically means that in spite of God's character, God can act beyond his self. For example God despite being absolutely good and act evil. Hence an irrational attribute.

Mr anony, you can't rationally deny that God is not also the Devil, and that God isn't good; since your knowledge struggles haplessly to grasp a bit of God, right?

In other words, there isn't any absolute truth you have about God.

@reyginus

1. An example: you see a dog and believe you saw a dog. You used the assumption your senses are correct.

2. If you believe you can work with pure facts, why ask me for the cause of the Universe, if you know nothing about the laws supposedly present in the beginning? Your questions of why wouldn't make any sense.

3. More or less knowledge. As to truth, huge question marks we have about it.

From what I understand from mr anony, is God is incomprehensible to us until a particular future date. Right?!

Ok, at least everyone including mr anony agrees God can't be incomprehensive.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I am saying that we know God partially.

You have misrepresented my analogy. I did not use calculus as a metaphor for God. I used calculus to show that there are aspects of reality the baby cannot grasp yet until it reaches maturity. I'll quote myself again.[/quote]you are deliberately ignoring the fact that its a permanent inability to understand God at all, it doesn't leave space for future understanding.

God would be still be comprehensible if we can understand him sometime in the future.

And the dictionary meaning for incomprehensible doesn't mean partial understanding, its null, zero, absolutely zero knowledge. If we can't grasp it yet, then its not incomprehensible, its actually comprehensible cos we are able to understand and appreciate!!

ijawkid: No one is saying worship the bible....we are saying applaud the scriptures for its authenticity...besides these men who penned down those truths through inspiration were never philosophers...they were not schooled people..........they were illetrates........

_____________________________

Y'all atheist are not sincere people.......

who dis the Bible educate on Science?

Mr anony, my argument is very simple. God being incomprehensive means he is by his Nature impossible to understand. As a result can not come within human knowledge at any time. That's not the same with a subject that is not fully grasped. There is partial understanding at least.

Just as calculus is to the baby, God is to us. Simple.

Rather than inability fully grasp, its inability to sufficiently grasp his nature.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Incomprehensible simply means He cannot be completely known because our human senses are ill-equipped to comprehend Him fully. There is nothing logically incoherent with that.[/quote]Incomprehensible means he is unKNowable.

not able to be understood

Todaynatoday: All these people sef.
The point is; the bible is not a scientific book but when it touches on areas of science, it is always correct.

What does this mean? I agree its not a scientific book and it is not correct when it touches on science.

All the attributes taken together make him incoherent. For example, for an incomprehensible being has all those attributes?!

From the OP, the Bible didn't mean any that. If one followed the story, you realise that the OP is offpoint. Who was the bible educating on lights? Or radio signals? Or electricity?

If we must worship the Bible for its scienific truths, then we must worship the Greek philosophers, finding out about stars, about an atom, about the CORRECT shape of the earth, about biology, about geometry, astronomy, medicine with the best precise language they have.

And these all happened thousands of years before Jesus.

Reyginus: 1. The main thing is, so long you call them assumptions, that they have a basis is not necessary. Because assumptions are not facts.
2. No I'm not. My point is simple. We can only know the causes and effect to the point we our universe began to exist. We can not know the laws governing the system from where originated our universe.
3. Thus the acceptance of any claim it makes.

1. We necessarily hold facts with assumptions. Neither are interpretations facts per se.

2. As I said earlier, if you don't want to work with some assumptions, you can't speak of the origin of the Universe as you are now, cos the physical laws present at the beginning probably doesn't recognize causality.

3. If you understand the workings of Science, you'd understand its claims. And as I said earlier they are provisional.

@ Zexten

Its a general epistemological problem.

@mranony

Supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, incomprehensible, all good, perfect.

Reyginus: 1. The moment we even begin to assume, rather than working on proof, whatever claim we are making is unfounded and not certain.
Unfounded in the sense that we don't know whether the laws prior to the big bang were physical or metaphysical.
2. Any evidence we are following will stop making sense the moment we reach the point when the universe was formed. We can never further backward. Our evidence will only be concrete, if we can go back in time to the events prior to initial phase of the big bang.
3. Yes ofcourse it isn't. Their is always a limit to what science can achieve. It's quite unfortunate that scientists will never agree to this, instead they end up making watery claims.

1. What we know is troublesome, cos if you know nothing, you'd need a reference point. One has to start somewhere. But assumptions must always have a basis and be simple. For example to test for the speed of light, you have to assume your senses can correctly determine it.

2. Except you have problems with causes and effects, your point doesn't stand, cos you keeping ignoring the causal link btw causes/effects.

3. Science is only held to be more superior.