₦airaland Forum

KingEbukasBlog:
No dodging here dear . Since Dalaman is an atheist , he is expected to have a basic understanding of who God is and what the theists say about God . Right or wrong ?

How are the beliefs of the questioner relevant to yours on the existence of God? Why even assume the atheist has the correct idea of God?

It's best you respond to Dalaman's inquiries rather than beating about the bush and being evasive.

KingEbukasBlog:
Real of course



I don't have to support any position . I'm just aware of different positions on most theological concepts but just don't take sides .

How best do you test for the metaphysical time or is it outside our perception?

Suddenly you show an interest in divergent theological concepts but my question to you is upon what particular theological ground or concept does your belief in the existence of God lie?

KingEbukasBlog:
Well as an atheist who is seeking to be compelled by the proof of God's existence should at least tell us who you think God is since you reject it him

More dodging

KingEbukasBlog:
But hold on , aint you an ATHEIST ? As an atheist , you reject the existence of God . Who is that whom you reject ?

Dodging games

KingEbukasBlog:
Kay17 but why don't you want me to ask questions about your position as an atheist ? If you are bold and confident about your position then there is nothing to fear . Or does being an atheist make you immune to criticism or questioning ? Or are you using criticism of the theist's position to protect your beliefs as an atheist?

I never said such

KingEbukasBlog:
But I answered this question . I told you that you can choose Sir Isaac Newton's explanation which is that God endureth forever with the Newtonian absolute time (God has been existing for an infinite time and in infinite space prior to the existence of anything material or physical ) .

There's also the concept of metaphysical time or God's time which allows God to create a material universe ex nihilo in which time is a constituent .

Is the metaphysical time of God real or a hypothetical?

I don't understand how you expect me to elect your position. Which are the positions do you support?

felixomor:
By reading in context of the remaining parts of that chapter or scripture.

For example "ojo" in yoruba can translate to different things in english. (Although i am not yoruba, i know this)
You have to now translate other parts of the Person's statement to know the particular "ojo" he means.

And sometimes for other words, you may still not get the meaning till a new word emerges in English to describe the speakers intentions.

I understand that is a commonsense approach. . . The use of other words within the text to guide interpretation. Again any interpretation in that respect will be flexible towards a number of meanings.

1. Heaven as the sky
2. Heaven as the abode of God
3. Heaven as the Universe

1 and 2 appear to best fit in giving full meaning to the text.

felixomor:
Even more than.
As a matter of fact, even "clouds" is translated as "heavens" in some parts of the bible.

So how do we determine which of the definitions is apposite?

KingEbukasBlog:
More contributions please

You have not still explained how the Universe came to being without the passage of time from when it was non existent to when it began to exist.

[quote author=felixomor post=56295361][/quote]Heaven has two meanings?

KingEbukasBlog:
I don't think you understood my response . I was just trying to show you that we Christians not just the apologetics are aware of these interpretations whichever way we made these discoveries ( I got to about progressive creationism from Dake's Annotated Bible ) unlike the atheists . I can't speak for everyone .

Never mind.

felixomor:
Firstly, The writer didnt speak in english.
Besides there was no word like "universe" when it was written....

Secondly, And try translating your local language in Google and see the errors that come with it.
That should tell you that no two languages can be translated into the exact meaning of each other.
The best you get is the "nearest in meaning".

Thirdly, get a concordance.
There is already a screenshot of the root word it was translated from above on this thread.
You will get the meanings.
As English language dictionary continues to expand, more meanings of old word translations emerge.

You have made good sense, I accept there are no two languages that can be translated with exactitude. Most likely Hebrew was the original language in which the Bible was written and it lost its meaning gradually when it was being translated into other languages.

Now show us Hebrew words and why you are convinced they convey a meaning similar to the Universe as we understand to be today.

KingEbukasBlog:
You do realize that most Christians are educated and cognizant of scientific theories and philosophical opinions about creation stories . There is in the internet too - a repository of knowledge on so many things . As a Christian , I've reached the most logical conclusion in my opinion about creation and that's special creationism - God created primordial ancestors and allowed evolution to take its course to diversify life .

Are you saying that mainstream Christianity believes that God triggered the evolutionary process as a means to diversify life? Do they know why a diversification of life is necessary? Do mainstream Christians accept internet sources as their guidance in faith?

KingEbukasBlog:
My comment contained two proofs

1. The soundness of ontological argument

2. The evidence of God in nature

State your ontological argument and state the evidence of God in nature

KingEbukasBlog:
Saying that Atheism is based on faith does not mean that I agree that Theism is based on faith .

If all faiths are without evidence then you as an atheist has no reason to berate theists who have found the evidence for God in nature.



Looks like the word 'proof' has been redefined . Haven't you heard of one of the ontological arguments that says : if it is possible that God exists, then it follows logically that God indeed exists . The proof -as you have redefined it to be -of God's existence lies in the soundness of this argument.

Kaboom ?

Lay out your proof

KingEbukasBlog:
There are so many interpretations to the Genesis creation story .

1. Its an allegory : Did God really create everything in just 6 24-hour days ? . Theologians as early as the first century such as Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo suggested that the creation story shouldn't be taken literally . There are so many allegorical views of the creation story . Theistic evolutionists (Christian evolutionists in this case) - people who believe God orchestrated evolution - also subscribe to this perspective .

2. It wasn't actually 24 hour days : Historians and scholars have revealed that "morning" and "evening" are used by the Hebrews to describe the beginning and end of long periods of time . Progressive creationists subscribe to this view : God created life and diversified it over eons - millions of years as science has revealed .

3. Earth was created again , for the second time : There is what is called the Gap Theory - there seems to be a some sort of gap between Genesis 1: 1 and Genesis 1:2 and creationists who subscribe to this view believe that earth(first earth) was created and then destroyed by "Lucifer's flood" . It tends to explain Satan's fall and then his involvement in the origin of sin . Gap Theorists believe that "man" for (Pre-Adamites) and other life forms were created in the first earth but were destroyed before life was created and diversified again in just 6 days.

4. The earth is not actually 4.5 billion years but God made it seem like it : I really don't understand this perspective because I haven't gone deep into it for (I've forgotten the name it was labelled) . But the gist is : God created the earth not too long ago but gave it the appearance of a really old earth .

There are so many others .

Are these the views of the billion strong Christians or views of a selected few of apologists?

adelee777:
''in d beginning God made the heaven and d earth''. The ''heaven'' being referred to hear encompasses d whole universe. Ie all d planets, galaxies etc. So God created all of dem.

Is there a biblical guidance to this?

felixomor:
Firstly.
Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God Made the Universe".... (GNT)
The Universe encompasses all planets and everything pertaining to space and matter.

The literal meaning of the text best expresses the intent of the writer. If the writer said God made heaven and earth, then he must have meant what he said and meant what he said and not something else.

KingEbukasBlog:
I think something is a Law because it can be represented or proven mathematically something like that .

Atheism is based on faith ( belief without evidence ) which betrays common sense . Or can you prove to me that God does not exist ?

'Atheism is a faith' is your newest argument. How wonderful. At least you have accepted that all faiths are without evidence.

The biggest proof against your God is the incompatible concept you have made out of him and the improbability

KingEbukasBlog:
Does it matter where it came from ? If you wish to know : natural theology

Which means you picked up on the existence of a Cosmic Being by virtue of the evidence abound in nature as opposed to divine revelation, right?

KingEbukasBlog:
But sweerie , this is called the Genetic fallacy . And I didn't get the idea of a cosmic designer from the bible. The origin of an idea does not automatically invalidate it . The multiverse cosmology was gotten from science fiction but I deemed it plausible because the cosmic designer could have possibly created a world ensemble . Stay logical hunnie ... but I doubt you can .

where did your idea of a cosmic designer come from?

KingEbukasBlog:
Cyclical , "Mother and Baby Universe" , Ekpyrotic universe , Smolin's Evolutionary Cosmology(fecund universe) all these bull-crap were conjured to circumvent a beginning . You seriously embrace these ridiculous theories yet have to guts to call someone who accepts the most rational explanation of the universe which the existence of cosmic designer deluded ?

You don't know how the universe came about but you are certain that it is not a conscious cosmic designer ? You people just don't realize how extremely foolish atheism is . Are all these theories not inventions of men ?

Just like Kay17 speculated that multiverses could exist ( idea FIRST gotten from Naruto and other science fictional stories ) but blatantly rejected that a cosmic designer exists .

This is simple but you guys are too slow to understand : if you are ready to embrace the possibility of these ludicrous theories branded as scientific without any shred of evidence then you have no right no audacity to ask for evidence for God .

"I don't know" by the atheist is being shallow and evasive .

At least you should be able to recognize that Kay 17 can not claim the Universe sprung from an abyss of emptiness and at the same time claim the Universe emerged from a larger Mulitiverse.

Your level of dishonesty and self denial strikes me as immaturity in handling centuries old debates on existence itself. We all have to admit that we are engaged in thought experiments by speculations and hypotheses about the beginning of the universe. We were not present to witness the beginning of the Universe in fact we were billions of years late. Yet you act with a puerile certitude that your hypothesis is a naked fact.

Also you lack an understanding of modern science. You are probably stuck with the secondary school level science where every observation can easily be proven in the school lab. But modern science has taken up pace to the point that the epistemological relevance of empirical observations are put to question and that science works with paradigms "within a worldview" and assumptions.

Your attitude surprises me even more considering that your cosmic designer is from a bible

KingEbukasBlog:
I noticed this : you don't believe that the universe came from nothing like Krauss asserted , that means you believe the universe is eternal . Can you explain how you were able to ascertain that the universe existed from an infinite time past ?

Does it?

KingEbukasBlog:
AgentofAllah , Kay17 tacitly agrees with Lawrence Krauss .

Such lies!

KingEbukasBlog:
You clearly said earlier that we can ascertain the truth through reason . Now , all are truths obtained through reason supported by science ? Does science refute the existence of God ? How would science prove the existence of God ? Is your position as an atheist supported by science? Prove it if you think it is

Because someone labels his thought process reason, does not make it correct or logical. The argument and thought process itself must be x rayed for correctness.
Of course there can be speculations about God's other attributes it does not question the existence of God in any way .

I have noticed as well that you mistake logical rigour for truth. The logical rigour or validity of an argument is largely dependent on the basic premises and assumptions upon which it relies on. And it is not the same for the truth. Truth is independent from logical rigour.

So when Aquinas and Deepsight made logical deductions they make them from preexisting assumptions and premises. And when these assumptions are questioned, the logical rigour cannot make up for it.

KingEbukasBlog:
I gave you two examples . Apparently , Newtonian conception of absolute time solves this ' conundrum' since God as Sir Isaac Newton posited exists from an infinite past . I can explain God's relationship with time from the other example expounding how a timeless God could create a finite universe but I fear interminable arguments would ensue .

The issue of time is controversial . There are two theories of time : The A and B theory of time . And the B theory of time sees time as an illusion and tenseless . So according to the B theory of time , there was no infinite past , present , future , it is endless timelessness . Your question is not totally answerable because it depends on one's perspective of what time is .

Use your own theory of time to back up your claim

KingEbukasBlog:
The multiverse theory holds no water . And it still does not still preclude the existence of God . God must have chosen to create a world ensemble if He wished . And Its funny how you quickly accept the multiverse theory gotten from science fiction with no evidence whatsoever yet believe the existence First Cause is not possible . You are not done with one universe and you are speculating there are billions of them . Are you the one that kept them there

This is why your religious belief in God is an ideology. By mere pronouncement multiverse theory holds no water.

KingEbukasBlog:
These are not mere assertions , these are logical deductions .





Atheists believe that something can come from nothing uncaused - that's it so illogical .




Exactly .



God has no material nature and yes nothing comes from nothing which makes atheism is illogical .



This is a mishmash of contradicting thoughts . Nothing can't create anything . It is causally impotent .

All I'm trying to say is that something can't come from absolute nothingness uncaused or without a transcendent force which is eternal . Since something which is God already exists then How was it created ?

There is what is called infinite regress of causes : an infinite chain of cause and effect [endless beginnings] and this is totally illogical . And since infinite regress of causes is illogical , something has to be eternal . Something being eternal means it has always been . It never had a beginning and it is changeless or immutable . The term 'First Cause' was coined to represent this eternal being that could cause the existence of things while itself is uncaused or without any cause .

The atheist belief is that there is no such being . And that there was absolute nothingness then suddenly something comes into existence without any cause .



You clearly did .

Creatio ex nihilo : creation out of nothingness . That is the coming into being of our material universe caused by an immaterial entity an unembodied mind or consciousness

Creatio ex deo : creation out of being of God . That is our material universe and everything in it was created out of the being of an immaterial entity or an unembodied mind or consciousness



Its pretty simple . If you believe there is no creator . It is either

1. The universe created itself from absolute nothingness which is clearly illogical

2. The universe is eternal [ all scientific evidence show that the universe is finite or began to exist , physical laws show that the universe have a beginning but they don't show the universe began]

That means atheists believe in 1 which is clearly illogical .

The belief in an eternal universe is not a necessary belief be an atheist.

You keep hammering endlessly the point that the universe is finite in line with the contemporary scientific theories and ideas but you fail to follow through. The Multiverse theory shows the possibility that the universe is one of billions of other universes. When one contemplates this possibility the 13th century theory of first cause seems hopelessly outdated

KingEbukasBlog:
I think I should start asking you questions because it seems what you atheists are only good at is criticism . My dear , let me know where you stand :

1. Can you name an immutable material entity ?

2. If material entities are preceded by material causes , doesn't this suggest infinite regress ?

3. Is the material universe all there is ?

If the material universe was two years old then its cause would still be immaterial . Anything material and physical is solely of the material universe.

DO NOT SHUFFLE THE ISSUES!

It defeats the purpose of a meaningful discussion. Its best each issue raised is resolved and trashed. If you have questions for me to answer I will at the right opportunity.

We were in the middle of demonstrating the competence of your argument that an immaterial entity can be a cause for a material entity. And we used a material box substitution as an example to prove how absurd such a suggestion was. It is too arbitrary and lazy to suggest the universe has an immaterial cause without an actual scientific research. By merely ascribing the universe to being the handiwork of an immaterial being it creates a speculative abyss from which anything can be imagined.

KingEbukasBlog:
I answered this question in that post . I should rather question your ability to comprehend . Since the universe is finite and time is its constituent , the First Cause became temporal with the universe and is timeless without it . I'm sure you agreed unthinkingly with Stephen Hawking's prattle about the First Cause not having time to create the universe like it makes any sense . The same guy who said the universe created itself

Take A as the point before creation of the universe and point B as the point of creation, in a timeless realm, without time, how then was it possible for both points to meet?

I strongly doubt if you have an intelligible answer.

KingEbukasBlog:
2. Like I said before : You can see things from Newton's point of view where He sees God as existing from infinite time past but this does not entail the ever presence of physical things i.e space and time are infinite since God is eternal , omnipresent . This is what he said :

He is eternal and infinite . . .; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity . . . . He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures forever, and is everywhere present; and, by existing always and everywhere, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is everywhere, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and nowhere

But with this outlook , there was never a beginning per se. And God can still exist unchanging with time . I think DeepSight agrees with a Newton's infinite space perspective concerning God's omnipresence . Newton's point of view is very controversial and many disagree .

Because nothing would exist without it .

How do you ascertain an infinite past?

KingEbukasBlog:
Very correct reasoning . Impeccable

Absolutely wrong

KingEbukasBlog:
I think this is just common sense dear . The universe is a material one and it is finite so whatever caused its existence wouldn't be material as the universe , it should be immaterial and has to be immutable to circumvent infinite regress

And I demonstrated that this logic is flawed by substitution with another example - the material box. All material entities, by our experience, have been preceded by material causes so I wonder how you managed a leap in concluding that a material entity by virtue of being material necessarily has an immaterial cause. You have to bring a posterior example of this your special flawed argument.

KingEbukasBlog:
Something being transcendent means it is not a denizen of this universe , It exists outside the universe . There are so many insightful concepts about the nature of the cause . You can discover more in the philosophy of theism

Again I will reiterate that negative descriptions and properties are not useful nor insightful. Your argument against that was "no" without good reason.

KingEbukasBlog:
This is very specious . Let's say this material box is 13.5 billion years old and there was no time prior to existence of this material box , do you think the cause of the existence of this material box would still be a material entity ? The logical conclusion indeed is that the cause of this material box became temporal with the material box and it is timeless without it . And by timeless I mean non existence of time

Is the age of the material box that relevant? If the Universe was 2 years old, would your argument.

Your arguments on timelessness prove your poor understanding. If there was no passage of time how did the point before creation of the universe meet with the point of creation?

KingEbukasBlog:
Only primary substances are necessary , secondary substances are not . When something exists necessarily it cannot not exist because of its necessity of its own nature . And these necessarily existing substance is potent enough to cause the existence of other substances . Also , there can be a smorgasbord of secondary substances . Without the primary substance , nothing will exist . And of course , we know that something can't come from absolute nothingness , something can't create itself and infinite regress is impossible

What makes primary substance necessary?

KingEbukasBlog:
There are so many ways the deists used to arrive at the conclusion that God exists :

1. This is from DeepSight and it was done without any kind of divine revelation . Pure logic



2. Thomas Aquinas used primary and secondary substances to reach his conclusion . According to him , secondary substances are those substances that rely on the existence of primary substances and without the primary substance the secondary substance cannot exist . The primary substance is obviously self existent , eternal etc . This falls under the argument from necessity - God's exists necessarily .

3. The deists also used arguments like the Cosmological , Teleological , Ontological Arguments and so many others to support the existence of God . The argument from contingency (cosmological argument ) is my favourite . Still cogent and very convincing especially since Science and Philosophy support its premises .

4. There are other philosophical positions that tend to explain God's existence and other necessary 'beings' like Abstract Objects etc . Anslem's theological position : God is the greatest conceivable being . And so many others I can't think of right now .

There are myriads of philosophical , logical thoughts that support the existence of God and of course buttressed through science ( the deists also include Science as a way of supporting the existence of God) .

So dear , answer my question : why do you contravene their conclusions ? I mean there is no generally accepted rationale behind atheism so why use reason ? The deists have done that already and they acknowledged God's existence without any divine revelation even repudiating any claim of a divine revelation of God to man using reason , science and observation .

I noticed they have reasons for their respective conclusions, however, did it occur to you whether they were correct in their reasoning?

Haven't you noticed that the belief in God especially in the service of religion is an ideology. An outlook towards life that fuels itself. A false and biased lens with which the world is looked at.

Look at Deepsight's reasoning for the existence of a God that a material universe requires a cause and necessarily the cause must be immaterial. Meaning the cause must not be material which is merely a negative property without any further insight to the nature of the cause. Other descriptives include transcendental (which is equally a negative property).

Let's test the strength of the argument structure by analogy. There is a material box that requires a cause, therefore the cause must be immaterial.

Invariably Deepsight's argument carries hidden assumptions about the universe and more about the cause.

Aquinas on the other hand assumes two substances and uses the second substance to justify the first. If you were thoughtful enough you would have inquired why both the primary and secondary substances are necessary at all.

Again the common thread between both Aquinas and Deepsight is the ideology they both share which generates the hidden assumptions that fuel their premises as well as conclusions. Both will never address Being as a proper open question.

KingEbukasBlog:
You always quick to embarrass yourself . I mean you are an atheist so its kind of your thing .

Anyway , I said that some deists believe that God requires worship while some believe you can have transpersonal (panendeism ) , personal and spiritual relationship (Spiritual deism ) with God . I posted the snippet below so that anyone can see the foolishness the average atheist displays countless times and effortlessly .

So the deists disagree on what type of God they have. Hmmm

KingEbukasBlog:
Kay , this is what happened :

YOU said :



And I said :



You are way too smart to feign ignorance na ... it breaks my heart . So why don't you agree with the deists who deduced the existence of God based on reason - this according to you is a way of finding the truth .

And how did the deists come to the conclusion that God exists through reason?

You ought to have asked yourself that and referred the answer to me.