₦airaland Forum

So?

needanswer:
Hebrews 3: 4 gives the answer when it states that "of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God."

To add meaning to Hebrews 3:4 consider man made objects. Hebrews 3:4 uses a "house" as the man made object that has been constructed. When we see a beautifully constructed house, not just in design but in functionality, what is our LOGICAL CONCLUSION?

We conclude that someone constructed it, someone put in HIS WISDOM, HIS POWER, HIS LOVE ( if it holds special sentiments to him) and HIS JUSTICE (it must follow legal proceedings to get a permit) etc into its construction.

What if we see this beautiful building in the middle of a desert, a forest, the bottom of the ocean or even in outer space, like in the planet Mars or any other planet, what will be our conclusion?

Logically we will still arrive at that sameconclusion, SOMEONE CONSTRUCTED it there.

It's location would not be important, neither will our INABILITY to DIRECTLY SEE the CONSTRUCTION PROCESS or THE CONSTRUCTOR.

Now that's explaining a part of Hebrews 3: 4. Things in nature are much much complex than even a sophisticated building or other man made things, they require complex laws to understand them, they operate in ways our brains cannot physically reproduce or replicate. Whether minute or gigantic they are outstanding. As the later part of Hebrews 3:4 points out, the constructor of those things is God.

We attribute buildings to someone because we already know that buildings are not naturally occurring. How do attribute the universe to a god when we have never seen the god doing anything? In fact we have never seen a god make anything so how can we know a god made anything?

needanswer:
These things are not God and never would be God but they point to his existence indirectly because everything God worked on he put his dominant qualities into it; his love, his power, his wisdom and his justice. They paint a mosaic about the designer and his attributes.

Of course, there is a difference between directly and indirectly. As with most living and non-living things in the physical universe, we examine their formation retrospectively, which is why what we know about them are indirect.

I didn't say directly, I said not directly. There is no difference between not directly and indirectly. But let's move on. How do we know to attribute these occurrences to a god since we cannot see the god doing any of them?

khia:
What's your evidence that Yah doesn't exist?

There is quite a bit of evidence so I am only going to point out a few.

Let me start by illustrating why I think what I am going to present constitutes evidence. Say for instance you wanted to know if a stored cylinder of air contains oxygen, you'd test for oxygen. If your tests reveal there is no oxygen, you'd say I have evidence there is no oxygen in the cylinder. When we reasonably expect the Abrahamic god to show up based on the attributes believers have said of the god and it doesn't show up then I consider it evidence against the existence of said god.

Consider this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZbR5DMksDE

1. The lady interviewed in this video was a child when she was seeking a miracle from god to make her healed from her disease and walk. Specifically she went to a Benny Hinn crusade to get prayed for. The crusade handlers refused her and her mother access to Benny Hinn to be prayed for but undeterred she continued to pray but she never got healed. Now her disease is at a terminal stage, still no healing. Her case is replicated the world over, places where the compassion of this god is supposed to be clearly visible but we see nothing. Children dying in front of their parents while the parents pray fervently for them to be healed.

2. Benny Hinn and others like him are excellent evidence the Abrahamic god doesn’t exist. Here we have a bunch of people virtually scamming people in the name of this holy god and nothing, absolutely nothing happens to them as a sign of divine disfavour. They accumulate power and wealth in the name of god while selling people nothing but a made for TV show. You'd think the so called holy god would dissociate very quickly from such but nope the heavens remain silent, testament that there is no big brother in the sky watching.

There is more but I just want to start with these.

needanswer:
Romans 1: 20 is the basis that follows the scientific logic that what can be perceived indirectly is a fact.

There points to the fact that "God's invisible qualities like power, wisdom, justice and love and his Godship can be PERCEIVED from his creation".

What is clear is that these things you are pointing to are not god hence the indirectly. There is no difference between not directly and indirectly.

NewSoul:
I actually stumbled on the popular post of that guy from 2016. "From pastor to atheist". It shook me. But I noticed he has been off for more than a year. Is he alive? Hope he's not dead and in hell.

I want to tell you something I noticed. You see those old thread that talks about atheism. I found out those people supporting the motion, their "last seen" is always like 3 years + and the ones trying to convert them are still active or is it me just imagining things?

I like the concept of atheism but I'm still afraid of hell because all my life I have heard things like "heaven and hell is real" "sinners shall burn in hell forever and ever"

Why did those atheist suddenly disappear? Did they die because God got angry with them?
Though I still see some from years back still active like HopefulLandlord (maybe God likes him and wants him to change)

and is it true the CEO of Nairaland is an atheist too. Because I'm sick and tired of religion, prayers, Bible reading and fasting and my life hasn't moved forward. I like the Idea of being responsible for yourself and getting things done without praying and fasting to an invisible being. I don't just want to die and wake up in hell and please I'm not looking for a way to sin. Morally without pride I'm much better than some pastors... I just don't want to die like a chicken and wake up as a roasting barbecue in hell. Help me get rid of this fear o have been brainwashed with right from birth...

Do you imagine that the only time a person is alive is when they continue to post on social media? LoL. Guy be calming down, people live healthy lives off of social media, don't let the current of today's fads give you anxiety.

As for your fear of hell, what exactly is it based on? Disputed tales of eternal fire that have no evidence except an acceptance of the tale as real? If I was to ask you where hell is located, would you be able to tell me? Why let fairytales from less enlightened times scare you and create anxiety in your mind. Think of more important things and occupy your time on earth with all the beautiful things you'd like to do, life is for living.

needanswer:
Wrong! By that statement "we see no direct evidence", that is where you got it wrong. Remember I said God can be PERCEIVED INDIRECTLY by his creation (Romans 1:20). I never said I was going to prove God directly, because the substance God is made from is beyond his physical creation which is the entire universe. I am explaining God's power in creation as can be PERCEIVED indirectly.

That statement at Romans 1: 20 follows logical scientific principles.

I am not seeing the difference between "we see no direct evidence " and "we perceive it indirectly". Enlighten me.

BadRadio:
Me: 20k in total, Glo sub for 1k


What about u?

Roughly 65k. 11.7k per month on fibre and the rest on mobile data.

needanswer:
Power is the ability to perform acts, the capacity to accomplish things, to do work; also, authority or influence as a result of endowments or position.

God’s acts are not isolated, unrelated, or erratic expressions of energy but are coordinated, purposeful acts with a definite end in view.

God’s power is revealed in many uncountable ways in the universe but I will explain just two close to our home Earth.

On Earth, two shields keep us safe—the earth’s atmosphere and its magnetic field.

The atmosphere, for example, does more than provide us with air to breathe. It also shields us from the majority of the debris that hurtles through space. Chunks of rock that could cause massive damage usually burn up on entering the earth’s atmosphere, creating beautiful bright streaks of light in the night sky.

The earth’s magnetic field also protects us from harm. This shield originates deep inside the earth. The earth’s outer core, mostly made of molten iron, generates a powerful magnetic field that envelops us and stretches far into space. This field safeguards us from the radiation emanating from solar flares and explosions in the outer regions of the sun. Thanks to the earth’s magnetic field, these bursts of energy do not scorch all life on the surface of our globe. Instead, they are absorbed and deflected. We see evidence of our magnetic shield at work in the gorgeous multicolored light displays that dance in the sky near the North and South poles. Without a doubt, God is “vigorous in power.”—Read Isaiah 40:26.

Man has found these two powerful shields very useful in transportation and telecommunication, amongst others.

But this is exactly what I said, you are attributing occurrences in the universe to a god, even though we see no direct evidence of a god doing any of these things you mentioned.

haddeylium:
The bolded, you pushed abiogenesis which is just a mere hypothesis without credible evidence as substitute for disbelief in a diety. Really?
Cos' in your personal opinion, the former holds more water that the latter. You can't prove that neither by experiment or results.
As mysterious as you claimed it is, you holding on to it now requires FAITH. (Yes! your faith in it does not produce any result)
Just like Many religionists on this forum, you're in the same category with them. They cannot prove the existence of their God either by experiment or any worthwhile results.
Just like how you chose your own mystery, others did with theirs

I didn't push abiogenesis, I corrected an erroneous generalisation. You can choose whatever fantasy takes your fancy but don't use it as a cover to spread misinformation.

Image123:
Keep learning. That's the goal, the lesser the folly the better.

Lagbaja Nothing For You!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd-MeDtmIbA

DappaD:

---

---

Unfortunately for you, your fellow atheist already wrote down on you so it’s clear who the misinformed person is between me and you. Guy accept your L like a man and move on.

L.MAO! EMILO2STAY is not an atheist, besides that's his opinion and he is entitled to but it doesn't make what you said correct.

Image123:
What sort of dumbing down is this? All humans are indicative of God's power. Like the verse stated, ALL His creation, all the birds, insects, animals, trees, skies, planets and systems. Abi which one your god don create without using billions upon billions of dollars and still needing improvement and update per term. Nonsense. Don't annoy me this afternoon with rubbish question.

Lagbaja Nothing For You!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd-MeDtmIbA

needanswer:
That's a good question. It will take me a little while to write it out, so bear with me.

Take all the time you need.

needanswer:
No, don't bring a comparison but follow the simple logic I put forward. Science believes that what can either be SEEN, MEASURED or PERCEIVED INDIRECTLY is real and a fact.

Roman's 1: 20 says God's qualities and his Godship can be PERCEIVED indirectly by his creation. It follow the same logic as science.

What in the universe is indicative of this god's power?

needanswer:
First you need to know what the qualities are: Of all God’s wonderful qualities, four are outstanding: his power (JEREMIAH 32:17), wisdom ( PSALM 104:24), justice ( PSALM 37:28), and love (1 JOHN 4: 8 ).

These are part of his qualities that can be PERCEIVED indirectly from his creation.

So basically let's attribute the universe to god because we attribute known effects to an unknown energy called dark energy, is what you are saying?

needanswer:
Boss it is clear from my post. Romans 1:20 points to the fact that God's invisible qualities and his Godship can be PERCEIVED indirectly in a similar way.

Atheist are yet to realize the third aspect.

In what way can these qualities be perceived?

needanswer:
To be concise, I am saying: Science accepts as facts what can be SEEN, MEASURED or PERCEIVED indirectly.

Ok, how does this relate to belief in a god?

needanswer:
The ball is now in your court to counter my post.

Ok, one more time, what are you trying to say?

needanswer:
Let's start on a clean slate then.

Ok

needanswer:
Excuse me, you thought otherwise. You never took your time to understand my position or write up since the beginning as I said, all you have just been doing is going left, right and back again.

You will still find another piece in my write up to attack and criticize without trying to understand what I wrote there first.

You are trying to make an argument for a god, it's only natural for me to think that you are trying to equate scientific certainty with religious faith. I think it's better we have a discussion so that your position is clearly understood, instead of expecting one to swallow everything without question.

needanswer:
But you also saw posit means in both verb and noun form to assume and to suggest?

When I said science BELIEVES in DARK ENERGY as a FACT, you didn't stand for it. I thought you would have figured out that the BELIEF there is based on scientific evidence which makes it a Fact, so when you used posit, the next logical thing was to conclude that you meant it as an ASSUMPTION, since it Carries that meaning too.

You brought us this far.

I agree, we do need to clarify meanings from time to time.

needanswer:
This other reference is the one you quoted online.

You left out the end.

Is it not clear from all you have posted that posit means to affirm? Or are you just reading the meaning you want into it?

needanswer:
This is where you brought confusion into your argument. I knew belief can be attributed to science BASED on SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE but you didn't think so.

Is not that I don't think belief can't apply, it's that you believers in a god usually try to equate them or use it as an argument that science is like religion since belief is involved. If you are going to use belief with science then you should make it clear that you do not mean it as you would mean religious faith.

haddeylium:
You nor anyone else has “blatant evidence” that the Evolutionary process of 'Abiogenesis' is a proven thing.
It's a different thing from a device that everyone can see it work. No sane person will deny it's theory because it's a scientific FACT.
It takes faith to trust in 'mysterious process' as a base for disbelief in a diety cos' you think it cannot be founded as FACT with science rule
So, let everyone enjoy their own mystery . WINWIN

I never said Abiogenesis is a theoretical fact, I was only illustrating how scientific facts work independent of any beliefs.

You can choose to believe in skydaddy, I have no problem with that but don't use your beliefs to shield misinformation. You won't get any protection because you think your sky daddy beliefs give you immunity from criticism.

needanswer:
Go and read your previous comments from the beginning of this thread and see how clear it is for the BLIND to detect how you have been deviating and even discrediting proven facts.

You don't even know there is a difference between saying DARK ENERGY is a posit and the MARK UP of dark energy is a posit. if you said the later, you would have been correct scientifically but you said the former.

Dark energy is a fact and not a posit, it effects can be observed in the universe indirectly. Our scientific techniques have just not gotten to the stage required to identify it's make up or measure it, which is the posit or which is being postulated.

LMAO! I now know your challenge.

needanswer:
You don't even know science position on dark energy and you are commenting on it. Dark energy is a fact because it is the only unseen force that explains why the universe is behaving the way it is behaving, what is been POSTULATED is the make up of dark energy and if we can detect it instrumently and not the EXISTENCE of dark energy


The name Dark energy is not the explanation please, if you don't know this then leave the science of the cosmos for those that know.

Since the beginning of your comments on my thread, you have just be deviating left, right and centre, bring wrong fallacies and theories. I just they laugh inside me like sho, this guy think say na only atheist get MSC or PHD for science, you never sabi wetin they supp.

LMAO! I dunno what is giving you the impression that I think dark energy is wrong or not a scientific hypothesis.

DappaD:
Oh, it will be? Which is a future tense? So for now you have hope that it will be supported by evidence? If that’s not faith, what do you call that? Or do you think faith is limited to only religious matters?

I am indifferent to what the actual outcome will be, it could be correct or incorrect, what matters more is we proved it either way.

Yeah faith as you intend it is reserved for religious matters. The trust one has for science is not required to process any outcome.

needanswer:
Rather it's you who claimed it is false, no other atheist here has dared to call dark energy a false science teaching, so if only you claim it is FALSE then show us your scientific evidence.

Huh? When did I call dark energy a false teaching? LoL. I said your saying scientists BELIEVE in dark enervy is not a fact, scientists posit dark energy as an explanation, they don't need to believe it.

haddeylium:
Well, it depends on how you define it.
'Belief' here means 'A trust in a claim'.
Many trust the claim of the 'mysterious abiogenesis' even though it's not a FACT yet.
Don't you think they're 'deluded' just the religious people you use that word for?

No I don't simply think people are deluded for using that word belief. It is necessary to point out that belief doesn't apply because they always invariably try to equate faith in god with trust in the accuracy of the scientific process. They not the same thing. I don't need to even trust the scientific process for it to work. The very device you are using to communicate is proof of that, whether you trust it or not, it will still work.

needanswer:
Don't waste your time with me, you either prove this statement of yours (which you can't) or just keep deceiving yourself.

You are the one who made a statement and called it fact. Produce the fact.

DappaD:
The Creation theory will give abiogenesis a run for its money any time any day. So in essence, those scientists hope that abiogenesis is true since it is widely accepted amongst them? Isn’t that the belief they have since they haven’t seen it with their own two eyes—which is similar to the belief in a God that Creationists haven’t seen?

LMFAO @ creation theory. OMFD!

Just like the authorities do not need to see with their own eyes to find you guilty, they don't have to see it with their own eyes to prove it is correct.

No it is not similar to faith in a god because it will be a conclusion reached by hard evidence, not hearsay and fanciful tales.