₦airaland Forum

This strikes me as a bad argument from ignorance. According to you, humans don't know everything etc so my God does.

That is not the point of the argument.

If Humans do not know everything about themselves then the person that created them (who obviously knows everything about them) is of an order higher than them (using knowlege as the object of classification)

Again what do you mean by order? What other creatures are on this "order" scale?

Bacteria and fungi are also on this scale but are of an order lower than humans (at least in the possession of the ability to think)

According to you, God or Rar also created plants, bacteria, fungi and other animals that cannot think in fact, these are the majority. What does this say about God's thought process?

If you want to know someone's capability you consider the person's highest achievement.
For example Bill Gates can create a company like Microsoft as opposed to Bill Gates is computer literate.

Therefore If God created Humans who can think then He himself can also think irrespective of whether he created other animals that cannot think.

I don't understand what you mean by order here.

By order I mean rank.

If we were to make a classification of all the beings in the universe, God would be higher than Humans.

Note that this is irrespective of the object (e.g. knowledge, strength, cmplexity et cetera) of the classification

Is this the same God of the Bible? What if I call this entity Rar? Can you demonstrate that this Rar is the same as the God of the Bible?

I believe this is the same God of the Bible but at this point in the proof we have not yet established that fact.

I know that you believe this but what I want to know is why. Again, why do you assume that "nothing" exists in the known universe?

The question is what created the something that existed before.

The most you will establish with your logic is that there are bounds beyond which we cannot know.

There are bounds beyond which we DO NOT YET know

We may be able to know (sometime in the future) but for now we do not know.

You have also forgotten that the theory of evolution also has something to say about the arrival of humans on earth.
You also assume that for humans to be here, it must have been a deliberate process. Do you have good evidence for this?

The reason why I believe that the arrival of humans must have been a deliberate process is because of the complexity of design that exists in the Universe.

There simply is no substantive evidence that order can come out of disorder without external influence.
All the purported evidences for evolution are just a bid to prove similarity between species or to try to establish adaptation by natural selection.

Another thing worthy of note is that adaptation within a particular species does not automatically prove inter-species evolution.

how is it even better? Forceful marriages are they moral?

Forceful marriage when all is fair and square (no war and no crime committed) may not be moral.

The assumption that if there is something available, then nothing must have preceded it. Have you considered that if a concept such as infinity does not exist in reality, then maybe a concept like "nothing" also does not exist in reality.

Ok if something preceded the thing that is available, what preceded the thing that preceded the thing that is available.
We can keep going on and on like that.

I don't see how this affects my argument though.

Ok. I've given you some links to check out. Besides do you have a better explanation for the diversity we observe?

I believe the Creator created the diversity of species we have on earth.

You could start a basic review from wikipedia.
Check this link out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

All of the evidences referred to in the wikipedia document are based on the premise that because 2 things are similar then one of them evolved into the other.

I have debunked that premise in the previous post.

If God is the creator then if He really needs humans, He can just create another Universe.

You have not shown how any God needs humans. . .You just keep begging the question. . . . .God really needing humans means he is NOT what ever you guys keep saying he is. . .God really needing humans means there are things that he needs but can't get which throws away some of the powers you have ascribed to him like all powerful or a God that knows and can do all things. . . .


Quote
based on the above statement I can infer that God does not NEED humans

What are you saying? I one statement you said your God really needs humans, now you are saying he does not need humans? Which is it Mr logic1?. . . . .

I said IF he really needs humans not that He really needs Humans. The word IF makes all the difference

And do you have a better inference that explains the observations etc. that we have?

For example, the observation that humans share 99% of genes with apes can simply be explained by the fact that God created it that way.
The fact that 2 things are similar does not mean that one of them evolved into the other. It can mean that the both of them were created to be similar by the same creator.

he NEEDED humans to help him write his book cos he probably was too lazy or illiterate to do it himself

he NEEDS humans to help him spread the gospel (both through force and coercion)

he even NEEDS 10% of humans income to help him do the above probably cos he's broke or something

infact, tell us something with conclusive evidence your imaginary god has ever done himself without the help of humans

if your all-powerful god existed we sure wouldn't be here arguing over it in the first place. makes sense?

The fact that someone does something in a particular way does not mean they NEED to do that thing in that particular way.
They may just prefer to do that thing that way for certain reasons.

I know for certain that God created humans without the help of Humans.

That we are debating about the existense of God does not mean that God does not exist sir.

Even if all we had were inferences, that does not make it inconclusive. Consider the fact that the earth revolves round the sun. This is an inference drawn from observations, laws and theories.

If other substantive inferences could be drawn from the same combination of observations, laws and theories then it would not be known fact that the earth revolves around the sun.

It is when a theory is the only inference that can be drawn from a combination of all observations, laws and theories that it becomes accepted fact.

Also the article at the link you posted refers to an instance of adaptation not evolution.

Evolution is based on adaptation but evolution is not adaptation.

I really don't want to quibble over what is or isn't a fact.

So what's the point of asking questions?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. What do you mean by fact?

By the way since when did you become God to know what he wants and what he does not want?. . .Self projecting yourself as God is the name of the game, no?. . . .

If God is the creator then if He really needs humans, He can just create another Universe.
based on the above statement I can infer that God does not NEED humans

You do not need to be something to know something about that thing.

I think you have it the wrong way around. The theory is the explanation that it occurred with mechanisms etc but science does not generally answer cosmic why questions.

by saying "why evolution ocurred" I mean facts from which evolution can be inferred.

It is also a fact the main problem is that many people refuse to accept it mainly for religious reasons.

Please post a summary of the facts that substantiate evolution.

I have never come across facts that substantiate evolution.

When Obama wanted to mend relationship with the Muslim world, he went an delivered a speech in Cairo, Now he is on his way to Europe to strengthen ties with his western European allies

obama NEEDED to repair relationship with the Muslim world for obvious reasons.

God does not NEED to repair His relationship with humans. He may WANT to but He does not NEED to.

Furthermore If you have never seen Obama you can debate that writings and videos of him were manufactured and are not true.

The fact that evolution is a theory does not make it unimportant, untrue or unverified. I take it that we are using theory in the scientific sense.
Scientific theories and scientific laws are quite different. In fact, scientific theories are ranked above and considered more important than laws. You should note that theories do not become laws neither does a law become a theory.

Yes laws and theories are different.

The theory of evolution has not become known FACT.
It has not been proven positively. It has never been observed. It has only been inferred from observations where other inferences could have been drawn.

For example, the inference I draw from the fact that apes share 99% of genes with Humans is that God created it that way and that the major difference between humans and animals is imagination and all our other meta-physical characteristics.

Who told you they did not experience the same situation?.

Please read through the thread at the link I posted. I have explained it there.

The fact that a scientific theory did not win the prize does not make it unimportant.

Yes I agree.

The theory of evolution is important but that does not make it true.

The theory of evolution is very well substantiated I wonder if you have considered the evidence for it.

If it is well substantiated it would have become known fact and not just a theory.
So NO, the theory of evolution has not been substantiated.

There have been various explanations as to why evolution could have occured but it is not known for certain that it occured.

If such a God exist, you will be the last person to be making his bidding for him, no?. . . . .A God that speaks, writes and perform miracles will not need logic to help make his case for him, no?.

The fact that an ambassador of a country makes a case for his president in a foreign country does not mean his president is imaginary.

The fact that obama visited Ghana in the past does not mean that there must be no US ambassador to Ghana.

All the moral laws that we know were created by humans, humans thought themselves all the laws they have in place. . . .Humans invented and wrote down all the moral codes of conduct they abide by in their various societies. . . .You are yet to show any God providing any moral code of conduct to any society

What I am proving is that God created us with an intrinsic sense of morality.
Various societies have various moral codes but they are all based on that intrinsic sense of morality.

You are just begging the question without making any valuable point at all. . . .You have NOT shown that any God exist and that the said God is moral or has any moral tendencies. . . . .The God of the OT is there for all to see, if we are to go by our moral principles today then that God is NOT moral because he does not fit into our moral codes today. . . .You just keep making blind statements, you are yet to demonstrate that the God of the bible is moral in any way

These are all categorical statements.
I am in the process of explaining.

I'd appreciate it if you point out the specific points in my argument that you think are weak so I can explain further.

Did you see where it said "make an offer of peace"? I thought you claimed there was no room for dialogue in ancient times? They had no choice?

peace there is synonymous for asking them to surrender.
It's not the same as dialogue today.

If the stories in the OT of your bible are true, then your God and most of his prophets(Jehu, Ezekiel, Moses, Joshua etc) and no different from Hitler, Stalin etc, no?.

1. Stalin, Hitler and Mussollini did not experience the same situations as Moses, Joshua or Jehu. (I don't know how Ezekiel comes into this picture)
2. Jehu was not a Prophet and he did some things that God did not like.

See the thread here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-155429.64.html#msg7171263 on what makes an action morally Good or bad.

Humans created what ever form of Justice system they are practicing no God created on handed down any Justice system to any body. . .What you consider to be a form of justice to you might be injustice to me. . .Take Sharia law for example. . .To the Muslim that is the ultimate justice system but to some one like me its a barbaric justice system

1. The presence of a fake does not disprove the existence of an original.
2. Justice goes beyond human justice systems.
Justice in its most basic form is the law of cause and effect (Newton's 3rd law)

Human morality today has evolved far ahead of that of those that invented your God

God that I am refering to is the creator.
The creator comes before the creation therefore no human could have invented his true creator.

The above statement is therefore fallacious.