₦airaland Forum

thehomer: Once again, you're answering a question I did not ask. I asked if it was physically possible.

I remember pointing out to you that particles change speed all the time and asking you why you seem to be convinced that a photon can't.

That is directly contradictory to what is in the article.

This is also from the article:

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

This tells me that the key issue here is precision which is basically what I said.

Once again, you run from demonstrating your own claim that should be easy.

i don't see the need since you have now claimed ignorance.

This still stems from your failure to understand the entire realms of the possibilities.

Let me make it even more explicit.

Here are the only two possibilities.

1. The universe necessarily exists the way it does.
2. The universe does not necessarily exist the way it does.

My point is if (1) your response is: God did it that way. If (2) your response is: God did it that way. So in your attempt to explain it all, you explain nothing at all.

Lol, no that is not what I am arguing at all. What I'm arguing is that
If (1) the universe necessarily exists the way it does then there is no need to say that God did it that way.
If (2) the universe does not necessarily exist the way it does, then it can be said that God did it that way.

Then show that it doesn't follow.

I'll give you rough analogy. Let us say that Seun wrote the entire code that defines Nairaland. The constituent parts of Nairaland you see result from that code. The comments we type can be seen as our own creations made by re-assembling parts of an already created Nairaland.
Your argument against the moon is like saying Seun created Nairaland but didn't create the "Submit" icon. To make this argument you must show that another mind created the submit button and that it doesn't follow from the code.

The same can be applied to the universe and it's physical laws resulting in all of it's space, time and matter.

thehomer: So you're denying that people actually are homosexual. You're saying they only have the desire but are wrong to have it.

Temptation is not sin, commission is.

Of course a people's preferences influence their choices. That is what you've just said. The thing is that if someone can choose to have the desires removed, they have to be able to choose to get those desires back with that same free will. If it doesn't turn the person into a robot, then whatever the new desires may be, they would be able to choose to get the old desires back.

Not all choices are reversible surely you know that.

truthislight: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6).

"But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God". (Luke 22:69)

The more you fight against Truth, the more it stares you in the face

thehomer: You find it boring that you're unable to meet your own goals? I find that interesting.

No I find it boring that you keep harping on the same thing over and over without showing which goals it is that you'll like me to meet

Actually, according to the idea of free-will Christians generally use, a homosexual does have the freewill to become heterosexual.

That is not true. We say a person who is tempted by homos[color=#000000]ex[/color]uality has the freewill to resist the desire.

What you're saying here means that this process of transformation actually changes the person's will thus turning the person into a robot. Recall that according to you, the person first "freely" made the choice to become born-again. What you're later implying is that such a person cannot unmake that choice. If someone can "freely" choose something and while having an alternative cannot choose otherwise, then in what sense is such a person actually free?

No it doesn't transform the person into a robot it gives him new desires. He still makes his own choices. Unless you want to argue that a person doesn't have free-will in the first place because his preferences influence his choices.

thehomer: No I don't agree because I DNA is not unlikely to occur by chance. Note that DNA is a molecule that can be represented as a code.

Secondly, even if I agreed that DNA was designed, it still doesn't get you to God since there could be other designers like extra terrestrials and fairies.

Lol, interesting, first of all I'd like to know where you draw the line for things likely resulting from chance and things that are unlikely to result from chance otherwise what you've just said is pretty vague I can as well say that a computer software is not unlikely to occur by chance. You have really said nothing here. I am especially interested in where you draw the chance line between dna code of for instance a banana and a computer code like nairaland.

Secondly, a computer program is a software that can be represented by code. and by the way, we can engineer genes by tweaking the DNA code same as software programs by tweaking the code.

Thirdly, the question is not who designed DNA but whether DNA is designed according to your criteria. If you think there are extraterrestrial design teams floating about, feel free to give evidence for them later. For now tell us whether you think the DNA code is designed.

Pay attention to what you're doing. You're saying everything in the universe has: it's constituent parts all work according to a set of specific instructions such that we can accurately predict exactly how it ought to function therefore it is designed.

The part I highlighted there is your strawman. I said "the universe has constituent parts....." not "everything in the universe has....". I am focussing on the universe as a specific entity and applying my criteria for inferring design to it.

But what you're hiding is the fact that the entire phrase in bold is what you mean by design so you've successfully begged the question of design. Unless of course you think that that phrase in bold could be true but it still won't be designed.

What I'm pointing out to you is that you're saying everything in the universe was designed by God and with that, you've explained nothing by explaining everything.

This is the problem with your strawman not my argument

What I'm trying to do is to understand using examples, what you mean by inferring design. You can still help if you could tell me whether or not the following objects are designed.

Viruses, neutron stars, crickets, sand, melon, water, electron, vacuum, amoeba.

I have a feeling that this is a red herring but I'll answer you either way. I will only use this response to explain what I mean. I will not be drawn on a tangent following from this

viruses - i don't know enough about them to make a call
neutron stars - i don't know enough about them to make a call
crickets (by which I suppose you mean the insect) - yes, they consist of constituent parts arranged in such a way that they work according to a specific pattern that can be recognized analyzed and predicted.
sand - i don't know enough about them to make a call
melon - yes for the same reasons given for crickets
water - not necessarily designed
electron - not necessarily designed
vacuum (if by vaccum you mean nothing)- not designed
amoeba - yes

Note that you've not actually demonstrated your claim that I made the fallacy of composition but you on the other hand are saying that God did it all except when I point out to you what humans actually did.

I accused you of that fallacy because I thought you actually got my argument. I am now convinced you did not. You were arguing a strawman all along

thehomer: You just keep resurrecting it.



Then let me show you again. What you're describing is for instance a universe where the speed of light rather than being a constant at say 3E⁶m/s, you're thinking of one where it may be 1 m/s then becomes 200m/s then becomes 0.2m/s then 7E⁹m/s. My question to you is whether or not such a phenomenon is actually possible.

Of course it is possible. Do other particles not change speed? What is so special about a photon? Once again this proves that the speed of light does not exist by necessity. A universe where the speed of light varies is very logically possible.

No I don't because I presented you with what I meant by chaos. You on the other hand were talking about something else. You're saying we don't observe chaos but the article I showed you to said otherwise. Note once more that I'm talking about physical possibilities not logical possibilities.

But I have also shown you that what you mean by chaos is not truly chaos but can be predicted accurately as long as it is measured accurately.

What on earth are you talking about? You're the one talking about some necessary existence and claiming that I made some concession but for some reason, you've been unable to show me making these mysterious concessions.

Lol, never mind, you have already said that you don't know. Just don't get any bursts of memory soon.

If what I'm saying is wrong, then you have to actually show me that I'm wrong.

Lol, this is just too funny. Let me remind you what I asked you:

I asked you if the universe exists necessarily and I gave you this warning

"Be very careful how you answer this question. Let me tell you the implications: If you say yes, then you would be saying that the idea of a multiverse is a logically incoherent idea. If you say no, then you would be saying that the universe must ultimately be contingent on something that exists necessarily. Your call"

You read it all and then replied that you didn't know if the universe existed necessarily.

At that point, you knew fully well what it means to exist necessarily you knew that to say a thing exists necessarily is to say that it is logically impossible to exist any way else.
By claiming that you don't know, you have excused yourself from making the contention "if the universe were different" because that will mean that you KNOW that the universe does not exist and function necessarily. I pointed that out to you. Claiming ignorance is not a shield here sir. If you don't know, then you can't contend because contention requires that you know.

That is not a misrepresentation. That is the implication of what you said.

no it is not.

benalvino: he believes that verse is fake too

Don't mind him, no be today me and the guy begin argue I know Ijawkid's style:

1. When he sees a verse, first thing he does is search the internet for a bible version that renders it vaguely so that he can latch on to it. It is normal to see Ijawkid swinging from KJV to NIV to NLT to RSV and back to KJV. The funny thing is that if you quote KJV and he is quoting NIV then KJV is wrong. If you are quoting NIV and he is on KJV, then NIV is wrong. In Ijawkid's universe, only the version he quotes renders the verse correctly

2. If Ijawkid has searched the scripture and cannot find a vague translation, he'll do another search of the bible and find a verse that is completely unrelated to the context of the verse you provided for instance if you tell him that the Holy Ghost is a person because He speaks, he'll tell you that blood also speaks completely ignoring the context.

3. If that fails, Ijawkid will demand that you provide something that is not in the bible to back up what you have already showed him in the bible. For example if you show him where the bible clearly says that the Holy Spirit came from heaven, he'll ask you to show him where the Holy Spirit is in heaven conveniently forgetting that you have just shown him that the Holy Spirit came from hean.

4. Where that fails, he will start making infantile arguments involving God's mouth, eyes, and nose

5. If that fails, he'll ask you the same question ten times that you have already answered ten times before. For example after you have told him that "the Son is not the Father". He will continue asking you over and over again if the Son is the Father.

6. When all his objections fail, he will tell you that the bible is not correct and that what the bible said is not what the bible said. for instance; "the Word was God" does not mean that "the Word was God".

7. When you point out that that is a silly contradiction on his part, he'll tell you that what you are saying makes no sense. . .and so the cycle continues for 40 pages and counting

ijawkid: Like I said the holy spirit is Gods power...pneuma...signifying wind......

Let there. Be ofcourse was Gods command...but creation was accomplished by God using his power to accomplish all that.....let there be did not Just evoke the whole universe we see......and that command let there be isn't Jesus....

Why ??...

Becuase Jesus christ is the firstborn of all creation and also the beginning of Gods creation.....

Lol, so when God was speaking he wasn't using His power abi? E be like say e don tey wey you open your bible

And your comment made no sense.....

You only seperated God into 3.....when we know the only one God is the Father......

Are the rest member of the trinity the Father??.......

Is Jesus the Father....

Lol, go and read it again

ijawkid: And stopped being GOD??.......wasn't he GOD in that flesh?? Uh??.....

So his God priviledges he abandoned included his knowledge and memory??.......

Please try again....

He also gave up His omnipresence. It didn't stop Him from being God. If GEJ sits on the street and begs for money, he won't stop being the president, he'll only be the president in a beggar's cloak

ijawkid: I am using satan as an example who is also a spirit........if we have noticed a spirit that is prevalent in causing chaos in the world today,and it is then confirme that that spirit is satan,how does that differ from the point of 2 corinthians 3:16:18.....satan has its own spirit......

Go and read that verse again

God is head of Jesus....Jesus is head of man.....Man is head of woman,,,,,,who is the holy spirit head of or under the head of??

argument from silence

Only identifies God as a spirit.....

No it identifies the Spirit as the Lord which we are to turn to. Go and read it again

Shouldn't Jesus have also worshipped the holy spirit as he did the Father??.....

not necessarily. Even if jesus didn't worship the Father, it won't prove the Father wasn't God.

Mention just one person who worshipped the holy spirit...

Another argument from silence

Ok the holy spirit is confined to the earth right??....

Oh may I remind you that we've seen Jesus in heaven,the Father ,the angels and even the saints in heaven
............

The holy spirit is totally absent....

And where did the Holy Spirit descend from at Jesus's baptism? If your answer is Heaven, then you have shown that the Holy Spirit must have been present in Heaven. . . .You cannot move from point A to point B if you are never present at point A.

Now ask your self if we have 2 intercessors....the holy spirit and Jesus....

yes we do, we have two persons interceding

It is this same spirit that knows what only God knows....this spirit isn't a seperate person from God...but Gods own power,Life,and what have you...

lol, I am seriously beginning to wonder if you can actually tell the difference between a person and a force

The spirit of the son ofcourse is that same spirit which God has poured on Christ.....

The spirit isn't a different one..its just one.....

It is this same spirit which the apostles were able to transmit to the gentiles.....

Of course it is the same Spirit. The Spirit of God who speaks to us, teaches us, intercedes for us e.t.c.

ijawkid: I don't agree with the trinitarian definition of Jesus being the word of God....Jesus isn't just the spoken word of God...Jesus isn't just Gods spoken word......from your comment you are saying Jesus was in Gods mouth and not a seperate person......is that it??........

And adam was activated as a living soul by the breathing of this same spirit which isn't a person but a life activating force into him(adam)......

A person cannot be breathed into you......no way!!!.......

And all of creation wasn't just spoken into existence,they were infact created.....

Lol, seriously? Did you cut out all the "Let there be" in Genesis 1?

The nonsense about being in God's mouth is just infantile and silly. Was the Holy Spirit in God's nostrils when He breathed Him out too? Or was He in God's bucket when He poured Him out? If you want to argue like a child then tell me so I can go and find someone else who can argue with some maturity.

And you have failed to see that the one God in question is the Father alone....have you been missing that important information.....

All you have been doing is hide behind the title GOD......who is this one God??....the Father alone or a combo of the Father ,son and holy spirit??.....

Go and read my comment again here. Read it until you understand it, then come and argue with me

ijawkid: Mr anony and any other trinitarian/modalism adherent should face this problem quoted above.....

The trinity would surely have no root by the time this discussion is over........

No biggie, Jesus was in the form of flesh, He gave up His God priviledges and took the form of a man (Phil 2:6-7)

ijawkid: You are the steven wonder here........

The one God is the Father alone.......

Don't act like you didn't see it.......

And to us there is but one GOD the Father...

Stop the charade........

You just danced around in that post........

1 corinthians 8:6 debunked you well in advance.........

Stop hiding behind the title God.....

No it did not. As I said, it could as well have said "one God, the Son" and it would have been equally right

ijawkid: If it is said satan is the spirit behind the worlds chaos how does that mean that the influence of satan or his acts or his spirit that is causing chaos is a different person from satan..........

This scripture in no way suggests that the spirit of God is God almighty or a different person from the Father........

No way bro........

I give you more reasons....

1..That is why it is no where found in the headship arrangement...
2...the holy spirit is not the God of anybody ........neither can we say the Father is the God of the holy spirit......

3...There was never a time Jesus ever called the holy spirit his God just as he did the Father??.....

4...The holy spirit has never in this life shown himself as a person.....

It is either appearing as a dove,as fire,as strong wind, etc.......in all the times people felt the effect of the holy spirit it was always to fill them up with power ..........

5...And finally the holy spirit is not in heaven......if you've seen him please show us.....

All you have done here is close your eyes and ears and sing lalalalala.

First go and 2Cor 3:16-18 and tell me if your "satan is the spirit" objection makes sense in the context that verse was used

1. what headship arrangement
2. I have just shown you that in 2Cor 3
3. So what?
4. false Did you cut out John 14 from your bible?
5. Of course the Bible says the Holy Spirit is on earth to counsel us. By the way, the way you phrased your question is quite silly. I could just as easily have replied "Christ an the Angels are not in Heaven....if you have seen them tell us." See how silly that sounds.

By the way here is another bible verse that proves that the Holy Spirit is a person distinct from God the Father

Romans 8:27: And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.

Now tell me how can a force intercede? Isn't this similar to how Christ intercedes for us? It is obvious that the Spirit is a distinct person making intercession to God for us


Let's try another one:

Galatians 4:6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, Abba, Father.
Did God send two spirits or is the Spirit of the father also the Spirit of the Son?

Ijawkid, my friend, how long will you continue to deny scripture? In the end, it is either you accept it or you deny it. That's what it boils down to

ijawkid: And that the son and the holy spirit is the Father??.......

Hope you didn't wear a thick dull lense so as not to see that the one God is the Father alone........

Did you notice that mr anony.....??....

Ok now let me ask you......

Is the son the Father??
Is the holyspirit the Father??...

Link that to your definition of trinity and let's get your answers.......

Because as far as 1 corinthians is concerned the one God is the Father alone??........

And john 1:1 in no way shows Jesus is the one God who is the almighty and the Father........

Are you purposely missing my argument or are you just blind? All your questions have already been answered here

ijawkid: And please take a clear view of how that person is sent.....

Acts 2:17

New International Version
(©2011)
"'In the last days, God says, I will
pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will
prophesy, your young men will see
visions, your old men will dream
dreams.


John 20:22....

GOD'S WORD® Translation
(©1995)
After he had said this, he
breathed on the disciples and said,
"Receive the Holy Spirit.


I guess this is how a person is sent......

I gueSs this was how Yahweh sent the son...by pouring him from heaven and also breathing the son into us like some wind.....

Consistency bro........consistency....

Was Jesus Christ sent? If yes He sent as a Word. If you agree that Christ is a person then you have agreed that people can be spoken. If you already agree that persons can be spoken, then I don't see why you have a problem with persons breathed or poured.

By the way you believe that the whole of creation: trees, rocks, rivers, sun, moon, stars etc were spoken into existence and Adam was breathed into existence from being a dust figure. So what's your point exactly?

consistency bro......consistency

He or she does not make the holy spirit a seperate person from God......

I never said the Holy Spirit is a separate person from God, I said the Holy Spirit is a separate person from the Father and both are God (not gods, God)

Kay 17: @anony

The nature of an entity determines its function

Hence a complex entity performs a complex function/action.

The mind's intricate nature, which makes it difficult to even understand and describe

I don't know where you are heading with this. I have already explained to you that the mind is not the same kind of thing as a car or a swiss army knife. It is not intricate/complex in the same way a car is intricate/complex. You are comparing apples to oranges here. Besides you still haven't told us how this intricate mind is simpler than chance.

thehomer: Maybe you should have looked a bit closer.

It has everything to do with it. Basically, how immersed should the person be in the water for baptism?

The person should be immersed completely. The Greek word for it is baptizo which means to make fully wet.
In Colosians 2:12 Paul shows us that the batism involves fully submerging in water when he says

"....and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead....."

You should really have read that article.

Ok

It is funny how you keep yawning when you realize that you're unable to scale past your own goalposts.

Nah, I only yawn when you bore me

That's just it. If Mr. Dahmer has his own free-will, then he can act against God's nature. To say otherwise means to say that he actually has no free will.


This further demonstrates that you have no idea of what lies in the realm of logical possibilities. If he actually had free-will, then he will be able to go against God's character unless you wish to say that God's character has suppressed his free-will because his character is separate from God's character. For you to say otherwise would mean that his character and God's character are identical and if they were identical, then he actually has no free-will.

Being free to act according to his God nature also has the corollary of being free not to act according to his God nature since even then, there will be people who won't be acting according to this God nature. If he can freely choose to act according to this God nature, then he can freely choose to reject it. Saying otherwise means contradicting yourself on your notion of free-will.

Lol, on the contrary, I think it is you who doesn't fully understand the meaning of freewill. Let me see if I can help you by explaining it thus.
If you are heterosexual i.e. you prefer s[color=#000000]exu[/color]al intercourse with women than men, and as a result only have s[color=#000000]exu[/color]al relations with women and never with men, does this mean you don't have freewill? No it doesn't. You simply don't have any homos[color=#000000]e[/color]xual desires. Now what if all men who would have been a source of temptation were removed and you now lived in a land full of women. Now you neither have the desire nor the object. How can you possibly engage in homos[color=#000000]exu[/color]al s[color=#000000]e[/color]x? Does this mean your free-will disappeared? Absolutely not.

Now similarly sin is as a result of seeking to gratify the flesh. It is because we live in the flesh that we can be tempted. When we are not born again, our desires are to satisfy our lusts but when we get born again, our spirit man is transformed and the desire to sin disappears that's why you hear Paul saying:
"I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do....Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" This clearly shows that the desire is totally changed but the flesh seems to be prevailing against his will. Sometimes you'll hear christians say "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak"
But when we rapture, we will take upon us a spirit body while our sinful body will be discarded (1Corinthians 15). At this point both the desire to sin and the source of temptation have been removed and hence it will be impossible to sin.

For Mr Dahmer or anyone else, the very same applies.

thehomer: Generally, how we tell the difference is that works of intelligent agents are tools that are used to achieve a certain end while works of unintelligent agents don't have such ends. And these tools are often assembled in a way that is unlikely to occur by chance.

Now can you answer your own questions?

thehomer: Push all you want. No you don't have to know precisely what the end is but that isn't all I said about it.

Good. So according to you we can tell that something is the work of an intelligent agent when

1. the thing is assembled in such a way that is very unlikely to occur by chance
2. this assembly works in such a way that it achieves a certain end
3. we don't have to know what the particular end is all we need to see is that it is functioning according to a specific pattern.

For instance a computer program is designed because
1. it is assembled in such a way that is unlikely to occur by chance
2. it works in such a way that it achieves a certain end
3. We don't have to know the particular end all we need to see is that it is functioning according to a specific pattern

Compare with

1. The DNA code is assembled in such a way that is unlikely to occur by chance
2. it works in such a way that it achieves a certain end
3. We don't have to know the particular end all we need to see is that it is functioning according to a specific pattern

According to your criteria, the DNA code is designed. Wouldn't you agree?

But, based on what you said, the sun is designed even the electron is designed and once again, in your attempt to explain it all, you've explained nothing.

I have argued something specific which is that the universe is designed because it's constituent parts all work according to a set of specific instructions such that we can accurately predict exactly how it ought to function
In much the same way that I can say that a car was designed because it's constituent parts all work according to a set of specific instructions such that we can accurately predict and analyze how it ought to function.

All you have done here is ignore the reason why I inferred design (in bold) and thrown in silly questions like "who created the trafficator bulb filament?" "who created the car door handle?" You are reducing the design to it's components and trying to say if the components don't meet the requirements of the whole then the whole fails. What you have committed is the fallacy of composition.
If you are not interested in seriously tackling my argument then please say so.

thehomer: It does because you're still making the same mistake that has been corrected.

Lol, "corrected" indeed. Anyway, no need beating this dead horse

Is that something physically possible?

How exactly this question relates to my comment, I know not.

Is it possible for anything in the universe to violate the physical laws of the universe?

That is what you'll have to show in order to demonstrate chaos. You wouldn't have to show this if the physical laws exist necessarily. But if the physical laws do not exist necessarily, then it is logically possible but since we don't observe chaos, we can comfortably say that the universe follows a design.

It looks like you're still confused about the difference between logical possibilities and physical possibilities. I don't have to know whether or not something is physically possible in order to make a conditional statement about a logical possibility.

Seriously this is just you being dishonest. You know full well that to say that a thing exists necessarily is to say that it is not logically possible for such a thing to exist otherwise. In fact you employ this when questioning God's necessary attributes.
Now you have been caught like a fly in a web you have suddenly developed amnesia of what it means to be necessary and started "correcting" me into what you know full well is wrong. Don't be a coward now. You can't make an argument if you won't stick your neck out. You can't fire arrows while hiding behind a claim of ignorance

Based on what you've just said, God didn't create the moon while some man created a gun. The moon came about maybe while God was asleep.

Lol, I know what I said. Misrepresenting it like this doesn't help you

GeneralShepherd: Image123 don't you think its inappropriate to quote the bible when arguing with someone that doesn't believe in the bible.

Even Deepsight is not a christian.

No it is not

ijawkid: The source of this spirit is the Father.....sinning against the directives or leadings of this spirit is sinning against its source and so condemnation is the outcome.......

If you had noticed Jesus didn't mention the Father when he made that statement......

Or do you have any reference as to that??....

That if one sins against the Father and the Son that it can be forgiven but only the holy spirit....

A food for thought!!!!!!!!

So what? the source of the Son is also the Father yet they are two different persons.

Let us even try something else

And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you. John 14:16-17

Clearly the Holy Spirit is a "him" aka person. Notice that in the very same passage the Father too is described as a person which will prove to you that the Father is sending a personal Counselor and not a force. If you like close your eyes and ears again

Bidam: It will do you good not to speak ill of what you don't know or understand. Listen to the words of Jesus himself "I tell you the truth, all sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin"

I wonder how someone can blaspheme against a force. Nothing wey this Ama Jehova people no go talk to escape scripture

Boomark: One God the Father, 1Cor 8:6.
If you disagree, then you have to explain to us.

You not the Mr anony i know. You ran away from my questions and appeared here as if nothing happened.

I must have missed it please link the questions again.

By the way 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not refute the Trinity because Trinity holds that there is one God. That verse would have still been correct if it had said that One God, the Son or One God the Holy Spirit. In order to refute Trinity you must show a verse telling us that the Son is not God or that the Holy Spirit is not God. But I can show you verses specifically saying that the Son is God (John 1:1) and the Holy Spirit is God (2Cor 3:18)

ijawkid: New International Version
(©2011)
God is spirit, and his worshipers
must worship in the Spirit and in
truth."

E be like say you don high small. Is what you qouted there anything resembling 2Corinthians 3:18?

You asked for where the bible says that the Holy Spirit is God and i showed you a verse specifically saying "the Lord is the Spirit" and that's written clearly in your NIV (2011) version. But hey don't let the truth get in your way.

frosbel: ONE is not THREE.

ONE Person is not = THREE people.


Stop this nonsense !!

Understand the position first: It is 3 persons and 1 being. Desperately seeking a strawman won't help you

Wrong, Try John 1v14, should expatiate further.

Exactly. God became flesh

by the way, I noticed that you carefully avoided the rest of the post

ijawkid: Oya where him dey for heaven na??..........him no dey dey??......

Remember I had asked you once from a scripture in corinthians where th spirit of God,the spirit of man and the spirit of the world were juxtaposed??......I asked you if the spirit of the world and if the spirit of man are persons....you evaded with one wayo answer..........

If the holy spirit is a seperate person and a God as well it would show through out scriptures and in the end when all debates of headship must have been settled

.....

But lo and behold the holy spirit is no where to be found in heaven.....never ever......

I even debunked you when u claimed the holy spirit was a witness and so must be a person.........

Show us where the holy spirit is in heaven as a person alongside his colleagues.....

Or rather I quote 1 corinthians 11:3......

God is head of Jesus .....Jesus is head of man...man head of woman.......how can paul exempt the holy spirit a purported person and God at the same time from such important headship arrangement.......

Consistency bro....I look at scriptures all through before making conclusions......

And no where is the holy spirit called God.....it has no name......

So arguing about the holy spirit is a waste of time.......

. . . . but when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
2Corinthians 3:16-18

This is what the Trinity means in short form

1. God is One
2. The Father is God
3. The Son is God
4. The Holy Spirit is God
5. The Father is not the Son
6. The Father is not the Holy Spirit
7. The Son is not the Father
8. The Son is not the Holy Spirit
9. The Holy Spirit is not the Son
10. The Holy Spirit is not the Father
11. God is one being and three persons.


I challenge anyone to produce any bible verse/verses that refutes the above statements. And please when you do, point out which of the statements you are trying to refute and how your bible verses refutes it/them.

I await your responses


P/s: If you don't believe the bible is the word of God, please don't bother commenting. Your opinion is not needed here

frosbel: Is it now , and yet with your supposed 'cohesion' you are yet to show us ONE verse in the BIBlE where JESUS, GOD and the SPIRIT are listed as the SAME ENTITY.

Your doctrine is simply a derivation from fallacious illusions , passed off as facts , but in reality based in man made tradition.

Another attempted strawman. I said they are three persons and one God. What you mean by "the same entity" I know not

If you accept that the Word in John 1:1 refers to Christ then you have accepted that Jesus Christ is God that was made flesh and therefore is a different person from the Father but not a different being.
If you accept that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter in John 14:26 and is the same Holy Spirit 2Corinthians 3:18 then You have accepted that the Holy Spirit is a different person from the Father and the Son but not a different being

And Finally, be kind to give your explanation to Matthew 28:19

frosbel: Check your eyesight again, we have.

I am not in the habit of repeating myself to the obstinate.

humour me and provide them again stating precisely which of the statements it is supposed to refute

frosbel: You ignore hundreds of scriptural verses we provide to you and your Trinity team that debunk the 3-god doctrine and yet expect us to accept the odd few verses you post in support of this doctrine ?

It is not by number of verses rather it is about cohesion of verses

frosbel: Wrong again, GOD cannot be ONE and then THREE, who you kidding

I've ignored the rest because they are not relevant to the topic but I'll press you on this.

This is what the Trinity means in short form

1. God is One
2. The Father is God
3. The Son is God
4. The Holy Spirit is God
5. The Father is not the Son
6. The Father is not the Holy Spirit
7. The Son is not the Father
8. The Son is not the Holy Spirit
9. The Holy Spirit is not the Son
10. The Holy Spirit is not the Father
11. God is one being and three persons.


I challenge anyone to produce any bible verse/verses that refutes the above statements.