₦airaland Forum

franklyn009:
supernatural happenings such as miracles dat prove d existence of God

Don't be daft, a miracle is supposedly the effect and an effect does not lead to a cause. So if we experience miracles we still have to struggle with the missing cause.

Reyginus:
Of course it makes sense. A reasonable man is just a man that can consistently any rational train of thoughts he is not a man who has an absolute understanding of everything.

If he doesn't have an absolute understanding of everything then how can he know all impossibilities? So the idea of finding them to be apparent impossibilities is still called into questions because of this poor understanding. It is like a Philosopher in the subject of Rationalism arguing that Asteroids are impossibilities when he is not grounded in the in field of astronomy.

Skepticism has always been healthy for the faith, the major reason the faith undergo modifications. If there are no skeptics every thing practiced in a faith would be as it has always been.

I agree with you on the italicized statement. but the bolded analogy goes nowhere, because no one is omniscient; we have to live with our ignorance. Moreover the reasonable man is not making assertion rather expressing his doubts. In effect he relies on his knowledge not his ignorance

freeradical:
I understand why it is difficult for you to stomach christianity. You are quite inquisitive by nature and you apply logic to spiritual things. I know there are certain mysterious things in life which even science cannot explain. The physical world can be put under such scientific scrutiny with some success but not the spiritual. Spiritual things are learned by divine revelation. That's why different religions sprout out all in a bid to explain the spiritual. Every man knows deep down that he is a spirit being. The faith you channel into belief in a non-existent God can also serve you well to become a Christian. .

People like you will make the best xtians in the end because thru careful study ur faith will be unshakable!

But Mister, what are spiritual things? how did you know of spiritual things? what is the difference between the spiritual and the physical?!

Sunshinelady:
. How can u reduce a whole body of love to just an emotion? Noooooo. U r wrong! Its just like callin a pot of soup 'just oil', wen dere are oda sweet condiments dat join to make up d soup includin d oil

What do you think love is?

jmoore:
Love is patient.
Love is Kind.
It does not envy.
It does not boast.
It is not proud.
It does not dishonour others.
It is not selfish.
It is not easily angered.
It keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

God is love.


Source>> The best book ever, called the Holy Bible.

Wouldn't these be the fruits of love rather than love in itself?

italo:
How can you be sure that her medical condition was irreversible?

There are countless people whose medical conditions were deemed irreversible, only for them to make a partial or complete recovery e.g Jacqueline Cole, Teisa Franklin, Scott & Jeff Muller and countless others.

That is just ONE of the reasons euthanasia is wrong.

You KILL without being sure of the prognosis.

What do you think about meaningless suffering?

franklyn009:
IMO, atheists are irrational beings, who are deliberately ignorant of clear facts. Its only a crazy person dat would not believe dat der is a supernatural being out der with powers beyond human imagination. The universe and creation is a big mystery which can not be answered by science nor man......The best n logical answer to mystery behind creation and existence is just to believe there is a supreme being(which different religion all refer to as God) governing over the world.
And this supernatural being prove his existence through supernatural happenings on earth that are unexplainable by man. One of these includes MIRACLES....

So the BIG question here is how do atheists explain supernatural happenings such as MIRACLES since they don't believe in any supernatural being

Think about this question, "who created Existence."

Misogynist2014:
Love is a choice, though you can have emotions for someone, but you can only choose to love someone. The same way you chose not to love God.

Do you think such definition is whole and satisfactory?

jearile:
Love in all entirety (kinship, philia, eros, agape) carries the very nature of God and if God is not the one controlling you, definitely not love but something else will usurp your emotions.
So without all contradictions, it'd be a misplacement of intuition to think of love without first acknowledging God - This is beyond religion. We grow in love each day in as much as we draw closer to God each day. The seed of Love sprout its fruits - forgiveness, kindness, meekness, patience, selflessness, giving etc. How can you ask him to just forgive somebody that raped his daughter and as if that's not enough, you now say I should also bless (speak well of) that person? How can you ask her to forgive and still care for her husband after she contracted HIV as a result of his waywardness? These and many more most of the time does not actually make 'sense' to the common man but it takes only a life controlled by God to be controlled by Love.
So "Let's talk about Love" is like saying "Let's talk about God."

but would you say Agape is equal to Philia? if not what makes them both "love"?

Orikinla:
Love is a spirit expressed through a transparent soul in harmony with God.

If you see love, would you recognise it? For example a mother shielding her child from gunshots and bullets, would you say that is love?

striktlymi:
It becomes as irrational as 'blind faith' when that skepticism leads one to hold a view he cannot prove.

Don't you think healthy skepticism be different from absolute skepticism, and therefore not be as irrational as absolute skepticism? I am not opening the door to all sorts of skepticism, rather just one: healthy skepticism.

Emusan:
Yes because Christians are dealing with an invisible God just as the writer of Hebrew put it "And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that [size=14pt]he exists[/size] and that he rewards those who seek him." Heb 11:6 RSV

How possible to believe in an invisible God without holding unto to faith?



It is true that they later accepted the revelations of God through faith BUT God first revealed Himself to them.



How does it separate it? I need more clarification.



You're wrong here! Jesus' death, resurrection and sacrificial offering for sin are WHAT believers placed their FAITH of assurance of SALVATION.



It is first true BUT can't be applied to the rest of believer's activities.
As I said earlier you must first HAVE FAITH that God exists (if God didn't reveal Himself to you in the first place) because you're about to deal with an INVISIBLE BEING but what most people including some Christians themselves failed to know is that, God doesn't want us to have BLIND FAITH that is just believe in Him without any prove, if you read from Genesis to Revelation you will see that God wants to FELLOWSHIP with US.

How can God fellowship with us without revealing Himself to us? It is impossible.
Jesus said "21 He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.
22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?"
23 Jesus answered him, "If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." John 14:21-23 RSV

As you can see it here, Christian God promised all those who love Him A PERSONAL ENCONTER as it spreads out from OT.



Absolutely correct!



You've confused believers' faith on afterlife promise with that of SEARCH of invisible being.
Mind you Christian do dive more in search of reality but don't search on how universe came to be, the origin of life, why planet earth support life and others don't e.t.c



There was a little problem with the bolded part when we consider some points;
1. What is the origin of believing in supernatural being, did man just wake up one day and started building up false reason about supernatural being to create God, or the supernatural being actually revealed himself to people and these people share their encounter experience with their relatives?
I remember when my grandma was sharing her life story with me, she narrated everything she has passed through. I only have two OPTIONS about her story (a) It's either I discard it by concluding that the story is false, but why must I discard her story? Is she telling those story to scare me or deceive me? is she just pouring out her mind for me about what she has gone through in life? Actually, this is what most parent do.
or (b) I took it as her true life experience (which is happening to everyone of us)

2. Why every culture throughout the whole world have one story or the other about supernatural encounter?



It will conflict Atheist reality BUT those who have had personal encounter with God know it doesn't conflict anything.



If you never had supernatural encounter you won't believe supernatural do exist...Younguz
You may deny it but the truth is that they do exist.



Faith is the FIRST process to draw near God and in reality God reveals Himself to those who draw near Him.
So FAITH is not beyond your scepticism fantasy BUT a little step you can take to draw yourself nearer to God who is ready to reveal Himself to you so that your knowledge of transcendental reality can be opened.


I'm a fallible man with a limited mind trying to discern the mind of an infallible and unlimited God my post is opened to correction.

In the service of Our Lord Jesus...Come Lord Jesus!

Isn't it easier to prove God's supernatural existence by believing his existence first before proving it? One will see God everywhere, in your breakfast, in the sky, in the busstop, in the church, in the bible etc.

Reyginus:
A reasonable person is not reasonable enough to know all that is impossible. Never! That makes your suggestion still loose.

Skepticism doesn't equate ir-rationality. A rational skeptic is not a fool who keeps doubting a thing even when it has been explained rationally to him. If in my Christianity, I develop doubts and disbelief frequently which are paid attention to and solved with consistency, how then is such skepticism not possible?

I don't think the bolded made any sense. The reasonable man doesn't find them to be impossibilities but apparent impossibilities. The reasonable man is a simple person and not a sage but one of common sense. The skepticism he raises in his mind regarding fantastical phenomena he confronts, is healthy; because they are far from his commomsensical reach.

Dapo777:
And God said,let there be light and there was light.

Please What is the source of this light When the sun wasn't created yet?

God Later created the plants,still without the sun. How manage? How did the plants survived without the presence of the sun light?

Then Later Later that God thought about creating the sun. What's now the purpose of creating the sun When there was light already? The plant didnt need sunlight to survive as shown previously and we dont need the light from the sun to see,so what was Gods purpose of creating the sun when there was light and darkness already.Does the earth need more light from the sun in addition to the light he brought with his words?

Can you smell the impossibility of this story?

That story says it all. It's all man made. I won't force you to disbelief the Bible But this is my own evidence.

You are derailing the thread by the way.

Reyginus:
This is not good enough. It is more like substituting a word with another word without the previous word reduced to any meaningful explanation.

We know an extraordinary thing may be difficult to attain but a difficult thing is not so because it is extraordinary. Even ordinary things can be difficult. So, your idea of skepticism is not grounded enough. A better explanation will do.

I'm yet to even come in from the angle of difficulty implying impossible. Let's deal with above for now.

Because such feats approach fantasy and lack a process. And by extraordinary, I meant apparent impossibilities, remote odds a reasonable person does not consider to occur.

Reyginus:
Why do you think it is difficult?

Because they are extraordinary.

OLAADEGBU:
Yes, provided you know your purpose here on earth.

How does Christianity provide for each and every person's unique purpose? Please do not mistake purpose with salvation.

Joshthefirst:
love is a person: Jesus Christ. Wow. I really love talking about love.

Its the story of mans salvation you see. A love story.

Love is not an emotion. It is not a feeling.

This is love kay17: not that kay17 loved God, but that he loved her, and gave Jesus as a ransom for her wrongdoing.

We can start from there

This is almost nonsensical. We have agree "love" is some sort of action independent from persons. I can't make sense of "Jesus loves me" if the love means Jesus.

freeradical:
I dnt see the relevance of giving you anoda near thesis on the advent of sin in the world. What bearing does it have on your unbelief? Do u resent God because u feel he's responsible for evil or that he's not being just in his 'divine punishment'?

I do not resent God, but I find Christianity's explanation for our world unsatisfactory. I wouldn't say I'm an atheist in the sense that God does not exist, rather my God does not exist. The God from my childhood, the one within my experience does not exist.

Ubenedictus:
another christian teaching is that suffering has meaning, there is always a purpose. "by his suffering shall my servant justify many", it was a prophesy about Jesus, then paul continues by talking about our participation in the suffering, human suffering is a punishment for sin, but it goes futher than that. I don't know how to explain it even to a christian talkless of an atheist.

But suffering is never meaningless and is certainly isn't worth life.

But know that you have not explained it yet. So I will be waiting.

Reyginus:
Yes, it is. But it is not. Where it is suppressed, the faith suffers. Martin Luther is an example.

It is difficult to see how a healthy skepticism wouldn't intervene against hopes of an afterlife, a place beyond death or that there is a power that moves mountains and performs extraordinary miracles.

Is healthy skepticism tolerable with Faith?

Ubenedictus:
I agree with the guy in the article. We didn't create ourselves, God did, the life of a human isn't the same as that of a God. Suicide simply because of pain is not the way to go.

The main issue is meaningless suffering, is it justifiable? I say no, regardless of the remote possibility that God created humans.

Sola Scriptura is a victim of causa sui. It tries to beget its own validity from itself and fails as a result. To base Christianity solely around the Bible is to deny that the early Christians were Christians at all. Even Christianity's history denies the plausibility of Sola Scriptura, because it shows the process whereby the books were written by men.

freeradical:
Not so fast smartass. U r imposing a wrong inference on me. To clear it I may be sounding subjective(never timid)only because u directed to me a personal question and outta respect I indulged u with a personal answer. The truth is my God is also ur God because no amt of unbelief on ur part will change the fact that you didn't come to be of your own choice. You were created man!

Then lay the objective proofs for the existence of God.

freeradical:
Evil is the direct opposite of good. Sin and evil are quite synonymous because watever is sinful isn't good. God punishment was clearly spelt out. Death for man and toiling to eat. Labour pains for the woman and d curse on d serpent. So how can u say evil is the consequence of sin. Evil predates adam and eve. The father/source of evil is satan who stopped being good when pride entered him and he rebelled against God's word. Remember genesis account of creation keeps telling us that God looked and what he has created from time to time and saw that it was good. So God can only make sumthing that is good. Once d created ceases to b good it becomes evil.
Pls try not to make anoda flawed but logically correct inference from my response. I prefer u make ur points and not ask these questions if u will keep drawing such bias conclusions.

Although you almost approached a thesis, yet you failed to explicitly explain how Evil got into earth, whether as a natural consquence of sin or a consequence of divine punishment.

UyiIredia:
Life being created is based on the repeated evidence of people designing coded systems.

You are back to using vague language. What is a code?

Code is system of rules to convert information—such as a letter, word, sound, image, or gesture—into another, sometimes shortened or secret, form or representation for communication through a channel or storage in a medium. An early example is the invention of language, which enabled a person, through speech, to communicate what he or she saw, heard, felt, or thought to others. But speech limits the range of communication to the distance a voice can carry, and limits the audience to those present when the speech is uttered. The invention of writing, which converted spoken language into visual symbols, extended the range of communication across space and time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code

Except you reduce the DNA to chemical language, I don't see how the DNA is an alphabet system.

freeradical:
Adam and Eve in exercising their free will disobeyed God and that is what led to sin and evil on earth. Though they were led into this sin by the serpent(satan) but that doesnt mean they created evil. Sin had it's consequences on man because the bible made us understand it brought with it hardship and death. God didnt create robots so when Adam and Eve disobeyed God we shouldn't blame God for an action he didnt take.

Let me get you right, is Evil the consequence of Sin or the consequence of punishment by God? Note the entirety of Genesis 3.

freeradical:
Faith and my personal conviction which is a product of my life experiences. You know its also by faith that you take it that there is no God....if not can you disprove his existence with empirical evidence?

Freeradical, your tone seem to change from the over assured objective stance to the timid subjective. Because you seem to declare a universal fact that God exists and his existence is universally perceivable but now the Universal God is reduced to a product of your subjective and personal experiences. Isn't it more accurate that this God is your God and not everyone else' ?!

Ubenedictus:
i am saying that the genesis account is compartible with the big bang.

I am also saying that the big bang will be the most ridiculous of hypothesis unless God is factored in.

So where do you factor God in the Big ban.g?!

@mizmycoli

We have both agreed on the basics, the next step is acknowledging that love searches and attaches to a bond

plaetton:
I think the emotion itself is the outward or biochemical manifestation of harmony.
In fact, Harmonic Resonance is the best way to describe love.
When to atoms or atomic particles resonate in harmony or with a common frequency, they act in similar manner.
At the biological level, love is the biological or physiological manifestation of Resonance.

We can either tune into it, or in the case of parent and child, it comes as the default setting.

In the case of the universe, we can say that love pervades the universe, since particles do seek and find resonance with other particles.
As it is above, so it is below.

I hope I have made a little sense.
Lol.

Ok, where/what is the connection between the mental state of emotion and the physical state of atomic particles? Because without proving that vital connection, it is impossible to sustain a theory that atomic particles exhibit love.

Ubenedictus:
have you read up on the big bang?

that is the point on what pope francis said, he doesn't see any conflict.

this is your opinion.

Ubenedictus, I don't understand you, are you questioning the validity of the Big Ban.g theory the Pope endorses or you are saying the Genesis account is not at all in conflict with the Big Ban.g?!