₦airaland Forum

theunusualmoon:
As always let's start from how man came to be.I have read many athiests say here that man was as a result of evolution.......In order to be more direct I would like to say that man was created by something that wanted man to exist.
If you doubt this please state why and also state your opinion of how man came to be.

italo:
For you, life has no meaning...so same goes for suffering.
For Catholics, life has meaning, same goes for suffering.
You will not see the value of human life; we will.
You will not be perturbed by killing the weak, we will reject it.
Suffering is just an excuse for you to kill the infirmed.
In the case of abortion, you have other excuses.
Hitler had other excuses to kill the weak - Jews.
ISIS have other excuses to kill.

Misogynist2014:
Oh boy! The topic is about what started the world, if its something or nothing, and I think I have debunked the notion that the world started with nothing, even nothing has to be created by 'something.' With all certainty, I think this 'proof' is substancial and breeds no logical argument(s).

LordReed:
@Kay17

Faith does not seek to negate reality. On the contrary faith simply put says all that you see is not all there is.

Reyginus:
Lol. I don't think I agree with your impossibility of healthy skepticism in faith. What I gave you is the proper definition of healthy skepticism. I am sorry you are expecting irrational Skepticism.

addempsea:
I think you are just kidding. Like maybe you are a pastor's son. I might be wrong tho.

theunusualmoon: I don't want to derail this thread in a bid to prove to you that GOD exits.Please create a new thread where we can talk about it and I"ll join you there.........If GOD did not stop the persecution and death of the desciples that preached the gospel all around the world,why should he stop you from losing your life on the way to the redeemed camp?

UyiIredia:
Really SMH. Your case bad o. The facts I have stated. as premises are supported by the science. For starters, read up genetic code in Wikipedia.

Misogynist2014:
First of all, we have to know that nothing and something are two independent but complementary phenomena. It is actually right to say something is the absence of nothing and vice versa. It is also right to say both are mutually exclusive i.e they cannot co-exist. But can something come out of nothing? No! Can nothing come out of something? Yes! Therefore it is very right to say Something existed before nothing, that something is God (alpha and omega).

Kay17 what do you think about this priceless.....?

Runwellnow:
I hope that the following helps.

Some people argue that if all things need a cause, then God must also need a cause. So if God needed a cause, then God is not God (and if God is not God, then of course there is no God). Also if we are to remain in the realms of science then we know that life produces life. Everyone knows that something does not come from nothing. So, if God is a “something,” then, of course, He must have a cause.

The question is tricky because it assumes a false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that if you knew God then you would not even ask who created Him. God is the unoriginated (1), Almighty (2) {can we understand the concept that there is nothing that God is not powerful enough to do}, Whose understanding, and therefore His knowledge, is without any limits (3), Who is everlasting, has created everything and never becomes tired (4), Who is just and there is none beside Him (5). God is the everlasting, Almighty, all creating self existent I am and so Who could create Him? As God is by character or definition the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical. It is like saying, “Where can you get unwet water?”

We know that nothing produces nothing. Consequently if ever there was a time when absolutely nothing existed, then nothing would have come into existence from it. However people and things do exist. Therefore there could never have been a time when absolutely nothing existed. So something had to have always been in existence to start the whole process of time, space and matter. That ever-existing being is who we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it as as Romans c1v20 (6) teaches.
God is not like the universe, as He had had no beginning (7) and so doesn’t need a cause.

A more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ As mentioned above the universe exists and we are the result of a process. We are marked by time and matter and therefore someone must have started the whole process. God is outside of and greater than matter, space and time. Therefore everything which has a beginning has a cause which includes the universe. God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He must have always existed and so did not need a cause. A further point is that as the creator of something is not subject to the constraints of their creation so God is not subject to the constraints of His creation.

Genesis c1v1 ( informs us that God was a being capable of at least the creation of time, space and matter before the time when He created the universe. Other New Testament verses tell us that God was acting before time, space and matter began (9. 10). As we live in a universe of cause and effect, we automatically assume that this is how all existence functions. However, the supposition is false. Since God created time the elements of cause and effect would never apply to His existence.
God has no need to have been created, since He exists outside time, space and matter where cause and effect do not work. The only possible escape for the atheist to support the idea, that the universe itself is eternal and so does not need God, is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally. Therefore it is metaphysical and not scientific theory.
What if some say that the universe had a beginning but not a cause? But, as shown above, it is plain that things that have a beginning have a cause. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused, as nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is absurd.
Therefore God is by character or definition the uncreated Creator of the universe, and also wants to save you from the effects of your sin, that is your wrong thinking, attitudes, words and actions and be your Saviour too (11).

Bible References
1. John c5v26 “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.”
2. Genesis c35v11 “And God said unto him, I am God Almighty.”
3. Psalm 147v5 “Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.”
4. Isaiah c40v28 “Have you not known? Have you not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, faints not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.”
5. Isaiah c45v21 “Tell and bring them near; yes, let them take counsel together: who has declared this from ancient time? who has told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.”
6. Romans c1v20 “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”
7. Psalm 90v2 “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God.”
8. Genesis c1v1 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
9. 1Corinthians c2v7 “But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory.”
10. Titus c1v2 “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.”
11. Romans c1v16 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”

UyiIredia:
You are joking if you disagree with the premises. If I were you I would attack the conclusion. The premises are rock-solid facts.

UyiIredia:
You can know by inference from design. I will list it here.

1) Life is a coded system
2) Coded systems require intelligence to make
3) By inference life requires an intelligent Maker.

Ishilove:
WRONG. I know

Ymodulus:
Why do you pick out the design argument if i may ask> I asked cause i really don't think you need to isolate the design argument alone. I think arguments in general should be related to the first cause.

There are several arguments use to discuss or validate the existence of God. Popular arguments for existence of God includes;

1. the ontological argument,
2. cosmological argument,
3. moral law argument, and
4. the argument from Design. ( Which you refer to as the design argument )

The argument from Design or Design Argument is a more general version of the narrower perspective about irreducible complexity that forms the core of the Intelligent Design movement. Each of these arguments supports a certain belief in a creator.

Reyginus:
Of course it is, friend. Faith is NOT the irrational confidence in a thing but a rational confidence in anything thing.

If my reason for believing that a supernatural entity will do a thing is because the supernatural has done a thousand times, I don't see any reason why faith should not go with evidence.

Reyginus:
What design argument?

addempsea:
What are you implying?

italo:
Yes. You think it is not?

Reyginus:
No. That is more like a sermon on trusting on God. The same way a child trusts and hopes on his father of a particular gift he promised, because, by all standards, he has not broken any of the rules that qualifies him for the gift.

In skepticism, the child, due to ignorance of the reason his dad didn't get him his gift last time, he begins to doubt if his father will get him anyone today. The main his dad didn't get anything for him it is to test him and see how he handles himself when the expected does not show up. A precocious child may ask questions and come to understand his reasons.

The same thing happens when a Christian doubts. It will only be unhealthy when the Christain knows or have been told the reason for the delay but still doubts.

italo:
The same meaning I find in you. We are all children of God, here to know, love, serve him, and be with him in the hereafter.

striktlymi:
I am not here to defend the actions of the Catholic church. I am here stating why I believe Euthanasia is wrong.

italo:
I don't know. It doesn't exist. Period.

Reyginus:
If no, why do you seem to suggest that cannot be possible in faith even when we have overwhelming evidence that says the opposite?

Paul the Christian theorist saw faith as "an assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." He goes further that "for in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?" and "so we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."

UyiIredia:
It helped that there are many existing tribes God didn't mention and_by implication_tolerated. It also helps that Jesus Himself allowed his disciples work on the Sabbath and that he paid the price of obeying numerous laws on the cross.

Ukutsgp:
@italo


How do we know that the 66 books in
our Bible are the only inspired books?
Who decided which books were truly
inspired by God? The Roman Catholic
Bible includes books that are not found
in other Bibles (called the Apocrypha).
How do we know that we as christians
have the right books? These questions
are addressed by a study of canonicity.

“Canon” is a word that comes from
Greek and Hebrew words that literally
means a measuring rod. So canonicity
describes the standard that books had to
meet to be recognized as scripture.
On the one hand, deciding which books
were inspired seems like a human
process. Christians gathered together at
church councils in the first several
centuries A.D. for the purpose of
officially recognizing which books are
inspired. But it’s important to
remember that these councils did not
determine which books were inspired.
They simply recognized what God had
already determined.

it is important to point out the tests of
canonicity that were used, the history of
canonization and a brief explanation of
why certain disputed books are not
scripture.


II. Summary: The collection of
66 books were properly
recognized by the early
church as the complete
authoritative scriptures not
to be added to or subtracted
from.


III. Tests of Canonicity
The early church councils applied
several basic standards in recognizing
whether a book was inspired.

A. Is it authoritative (“Thus saith the
Lord”)?

B. Is it prophetic (“a man of God”
2 Peter 1:20 )?
- A book in the Bible must have the
authority of a spiritual leader of Israel
(O.T. – prophet, king, judge, scribe) or
and apostle of the church (N.T. – It must
be based on the testimony of an original
apostle.).

C. Is it authentic (consistent with other
revelation of truth)?

D. Is it dynamic – demonstrating God’s
life-changing power (Hebrew 4:12)?

E. Is it received (accepted and used by
believers – 1 Thessalonians 2:13 )?
(Norman L. Geisler & William Nix, A
General Introduction To The Bible. pp.
137-144).

IV. The History of
Canonization

A. Old Testament Canon – Recognizing
the correct Old Testament book

1. Christ refers to Old Testament
books as “scripture” (Matthew 21:42 ,
etc.).

2. The Council of Jamnia (A.D. 90)
officially recognized our 39 Old
Testament books.

3. Josephus, the Jewish historian
(A.D. 95), indicated that the 39 books
were recognized as authoritative.

B. New Testament Canon –
Recognizing the correct New
Testament books

1. The apostles claimed authority for
their writings (Colossians 3:16 ;
1 Thessalonians 5:27 ;
2 Thessalonians 3:14 ).

2. The apostle’s writings were
equated with Old Testament
scriptures (2 Peter 3:1, 2, 15, 16 ).

3. The Council of Athenasius (A.D.
367) and the Council of Carthage
(A.D. 397) recognized the 27 books in
our New Testament today as
inspired.

V. The Disputed but non-canonical
books

A. The Apocrypha is not scripture.


The Apocryphal books are 15 books
written in the 400 years between
Malachi and Matthew. They record
some of the history of that time period
and various other religious stories and
teaching. The Catholic Bible (Douay
Version) regards these books as
scripture. The Apocrypha includes some
specific Catholic doctrines, such as
purgatory and prayer for the dead (2
Maccabees 12:39-46), and salvation by
works (almsgiving – Tobit 12:9).

Interestingly, the Catholic Church
officially recognized these books as
scripture in A.D. 1546, only 29 years
after Martin Luther criticized these
doctrines as unbiblical.

Below are listed several additional
reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha as
inspired:

1. The Jews never accepted the
Apocrypha as scripture.

2. The Apocrypha never claims to be
inspired (“Thus saith the Lord” etc.) –
In fact, 1 Maccabees 9:27 denies it.

3. The Apocrypha is never quoted as
authoritative in scriptures. (Although
Hebrews 11:35-38 alludes to
historical events recorded in 2
Maccabees 6:18-7:42).

4. Matthew 23:35 – Jesus implied that
the close of Old Testament historical
scripture was the death of Zechariah
(400 B.C.). This excludes any books
written after Malachi and before the
New Testament.

jearile:
Obviously, it'd be futile trying to wet a dry stone... Have made my point, and asking me to repeat again and again what I think I've done justice to would be unnecessary - got more pressing issues to attend to.
Notwithstanding, it'd do me no harm to know what you think is "Agape" and "Philia"

jearile:
Agape is God to man, man to God which is initiated based on faith while Philia is man to man... The similarity is in the fruits they produce - care, forgiveness, patience, obedience etc and judging by that they proclaim the very nature of God which is summarised in one word - LOVE.

italo:
Nothing. It doesn't exist.

Reyginus:
Nobody. He is an uncaused cause. If he is caused he is not the first cause and if he is not the first cause then he is not God.

addempsea:
He's created out of nothing?

Reyginus:
Nobody. He is an uncaused cause. If he is caused he is not the first cause and if he is not the first cause then he is not God.

jearile:
These are just nomenclatures... But on a lighter note, without Agape (Divine) there's no Philia (brotherly affection). That's why a man out of greed and frustration would think of using family members or neighbours for money rituals.

Reyginus:
True, he relies on his knowledge. I don't really understand your understanding of a skeptic.

Do you call one who refuses to look at the facts presented by his unbelievers as a Skeptic? Does this your skeptic relies on his ignorance even when shown facts?