₦airaland Forum

all thanks to our muslim brothers, mohammed's allah and his generous 72 virgins.

wishing u the very best Dele Momodu.

toneyb:
Mazaje asked a sımple question which is where is the said tomb of Jesus? You will first of all have to provide the allege tomb for people to go and see if there are no bones there, So where is the allege tomb? Does it exist? If it does then where is it?

but since Jesus rose, would it not be logical that the tomb was reused?

OLAADEGBU:
Amen in Jesus' name!!!

Noetic, may the good Lord remember you like He remembered Noah.  Favour you like Moses.  Honour you like Mary.  Fight for you like He did for the Israelites.  Prosper you like Isaac.  Promote you like Joseph.  Intervene on your behalf like Esther.  Protect you like Daniel.  Use you like Paul.  Heal you like He healed Naaman.  Answer you like Elijah.  Anoint you like David.  Keep you safe like Shedrach, Meshack and Abednego this new year 2010 in Jesus' name. 

amen and amen and amen , . . , thank u

viaro:
Like I said, reproduction does not explain existence or the ORIGIN of life. Rather, it is creation you should be looking at. Man cannot reproduce anything if he had not been first 'created'; and reproduction only appears later in the picture after the question of creation has been settled. How do you even read your own Bible? Check the facts:

I never said it does, all I did was express my surprise that non-creationist theories (evolution) did not lay claim to reproduction. I do not consider this an accident. if we have no witness at the point of creation who saw God create man. . .we can at least see men reproducing.

(a) God first said 'Let us make man' (Gen. 1:26) before He said next 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth' (Gen. 1:28).

But the way it seems you're arguing is to place verse 28 before verse 26 and 27! Your 'reproduction' argument comes late into the picture AFTER the question of creation has been settled.

since I never said so. .  . .and what would be the basis of the above? 

Whose dogma - yours? hehe. Please get a good grasp of the meaning of the words you use in your arguments, otherwise you'll be doing far more damage to your ideology than is necessary.

Let me just say that you are only struggling to believe what you have chosen to believe - not because you are persuaded anything can add to your understanding. Please do me this fav: go back and check carefully what is meant by 'anomalies' then I shall share a few stuff with you accordingly. It does not mean therefore that 'anomalies' discredit God and His creation; infact, the Bible does not deny such even though it does not dwell so much on them.

1. is this not misplaced. how have I brought belief notions into play when science and evidences are being discussed. must u twist words to suit ur baseless assertions?

2. I just checked the meaning of the word "anomalies" again. . . .and I am awaiting ur further education on the subject.

3. would it amount to u reading upside down (on ur part) to falsely deduce that I stated that ur perceived anomalies discredit my belief in God and His creation? . . .  .of what use is this? 

Again, for the umpteenth time: "It still does not negate the very fact that man was created from non-living matter according to Genesis 2:7." What you are doing here is ignore the fact of the non-living matter and put all your arguments on the end of the verse! That is simply saying that you cannot be objective enough to make simple inferences from anything presented before you. Ha-ha!!

Please sir: look again at that verse and see what the Bible is saying - see the outline:

        (a) man was formed from non-living matter:
             'God formed man of the dust of the ground'

        (b) non-living matter received life:
             God 'breathed into his nostrils the breath of life'

        (c) man became what he previously was not: soul -
             'and man became a living soul'

The fact that man was created from non-living matter ('dust') is affirmed in so many verses of the Bible:

       Gen. 3:19  -
      'for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return'

       Job 4:19  -
      'How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay,
       whose foundation is in the dust, . . .'

       Job 33:6 -
       '. .I also am formed out of the clay.'

These and more show that man was formed from non-living matter and that is incontrovertible, deny it all you want! As delineated above, it was after man had been formed from the dust of the ground that he became what he previously was not - he became a living soul!

All these do not mean the same as 'spontaneous generation' or 'equivocal generation' attributed to abiogenesis. And as far as we can see, the verses we are considering in Genesis point to the work of God in having created man from non-living matter: dust of the ground. The difference here is that abiogenesis as a theory attempted to explain the origin of life from non-lving matter all by itself without any intelligent Being - and we know the results: a failure.

at what point in creation did man become a LIVING being? was it when he was formed of dust . . . . or when he received the breadth of life?

viaro:
@noetic,

Thanks for replying. And yes, it is out of place to dismiss my reply as innuendos as I did not ignore anything in yours. You would notice that I did not argue against reproduction at anytime, but was concerned that you were using an assertion as an 'empirical evidence' for your postulation - which is not the way science works at all.

Reproduction does not explain 'existence' in terms of the ORIGIN of life, unless you're quickly forgetting that 'origin of life' is the exert of this thread. I would rather say that creation explains my existence, and that is the underlying factor for all talk about existence before you can even begin to mention 'reproduction'. Reproduction comes from what is created, and creation explains existence.

Can u stop running around? are u debating out of an obligation or what?  

how have I related the origin of life to reproduction? . . . .  . did u not read the following?

Lets be objective like u said. . . . .assertions can be assesed based on scientific notions. That some scientists claim that human life comes from dust is just a baseless assertion. .  .when placed under the microscopic analysis of independent scientific thoughts it becomes even more ridiculous to assert that organisms came into being from inorganic substances.
why then can we not put biblical claims under such scientific scrutiny? if we can put the claims of men under microscopic analysis. . .why not biblical claims?
Since the bible asserts that man should be fruitful and multiply. . .what exactly stops man from doing so? has man not been reproducing since God knows when?. . . why do u then want to excuse biblical assertions on the basis of dogmas?

from the above was I not clear that I wan simply placing biblical assertions under the same analysis as I place scientific notions?  

Objectivity is not vague; and I never made any attempt to make such reconciliations as you suggested. My statement is crystal clear and pointed out that an 'assertion' in itself is not 'empirical evidence' in science; and if you want to maintain an assertion as 'empirical', then there is nothing stopping any other religion from making assertions and declaring them to be scientifically valid as 'empirical evidence'. If you maintain the fallacy of 'asssertion = empirical evidence', then the Hindu example of 'cows are God' is an assertion and cannot be dismissed by you; otherwise you would be applying a double standard and playing the tartuffe.

what is this?  

Precisely my point, noetic. There is no scientific foundation for validating such an assertion as an 'empirical evidence' in just the same way as arguing that an 'assertion' in the Bible by itself is 'empirical'. Please try and find out the meaning of the term 'empirical' before you try to use it any further.

would it be rude to say the above is dumb?
what assertion are we talking about?. . .  . .does the assertion in itself not suggest reproduction?. . . how then does ur being alive not serve as an empirical evidence for reproduction?  

Excuse me, noetic - I'm not one who disparages the religions of other people, especially because I do not know what precisely they might mean. Our own Bible says that our God had 'horns coming out of his hand' (Hab. 3:4) - and any careless reader could take that statement as literal as you want to take the Hindu quote. If you believe Hab. 3:4 is true, what is your scientific basis to qualify that as 'empirical evidence'? I'm not trying to defend Hinduism, but you cannot just take a small quote from other people's writs and trail off ignorantly to condemn them by your own hermeneutics.

This is a pathetic attempt at being politically correct. . I am not interested.

I think you're getting it all mixed up. It is not the statement in itself that settles the matter; but the meaning of that statement (whatever statements) that should be our main concern. There's plenty of verses in the Bible to show that man was made from inorganic substances - 'the dust of the ground' - does that sound ridiculous to you as well? If yes, then you're plainly shooting yourself in the leg and don't even have a grasp of what you're arguing.

That is what I am asking you to do before making a huge assertion plastered with 'empirical evidence', unless you also don't know what 'empirical' means and just go by the nice sound of the word.

And does any of those verses describe man as having LIFE until he received the breadth of LIFE?  

mazaje:
You made a claim that you have empirical evidence to show that Yahweh created birds magically by uttering words. . .Why are you back tracking? I will love to see you empirical evidence that shows that birds were created from a combination of Hebrew words. . . .I did not even talk about how birds came about you did and you also claim that you have empirical evidence that establish that fact so will you provide it or will you keep displaying your usual antics . . . .

is this the best u can come up with. . .how about saying  the magic words"I DONT KNOW" 

This is a claim and it does not serve as an evidence. . . .This claim that god created the plants is nothing different from scientist claiming that plants evolve from simpler life forms which evolved from the primordial soup. You will first of all have to show where the garden of eden is first before any body can even take your hypothesis seriously. . . . .

I did not produce an evidence either, all I did was to correct ur erroneous knowledge that plants came into being (according to the bible) via magic hebrew words

You are only trying to rationalize the two completely different accounts of creation that were written by two completely different authors IMO. . .The bible does not even talk about any of the creation accounts as god's account or man's account, It is you that says so and I believe that there are so many other christians here in nairaland like OLAADEGBU that will disagree with you because they do not see it that way. . .It juts gives it's own hypothesis. . .According to genesis 1 plants were created on the 3rd day and the sun and stars were created on the 4th day, That is what the bible says, Your redefinition does not matter at all here to me, The bible says so and so it remains. . . .You can throw the bible under the bus all you like but I will go by what it says. . .

blah blah blah. . .same old fairy tale.
it does not require rocket science all u have to do is to read the very first verse of Genesis 2 to confirm my assertion.

Where does the bible talk about photosynthesis? The creation account in genesis 1 which is different from the one in genesis 2 says that plants were created on the 3rd day before the sun was created. . .Your redefination is very telling I must say. . .

Gen1: 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was s[/b]o.
Gen 1:12 [b]And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

why the dishonesty now? 
I laid emphasis on the second chapter of Genesis and even went ahead to post the relevant verses. . .  .would u state confidently that the assertions in genesis 2 do not conform with modern knowledge of photosynthesis? 

What has the god did it hypothesis ever explained? NOTHING. . . .What was holding the earth and the other planets in in orbit before the sun was created if we are to go by the genesis hypothesis? How were asteroids, dwarf planets and other bodies in our solar system formed? Did your god speak them into existence using Hebrew too? 

I am fast loosing interest in this one-sided "debate". . . I have explained the source of my ignorance to u, . . . .so why dont u come up with a meaningful alternative? 

The biblical account does not mention other planets because the writers of the bible DID NOT KNOW that other planets existed. They did not even know what the stars were, They did not know that the stars were distant suns. . . . .

ok 

. . . .Pls read about[b] planetary formation[/b] and explain to me how the scientific explanation agrees with the genesis hypothesis. . . .Your scientific evidence that the earth in its lifeless state existed before the sun is what?. . . .What was holding the earth and the other planets in orbit before the sun was created since we now know that it is the sun's magnetic force that holds the earth and other planets in orbit and provides them with energy. . .I can't believe that you are making this ridiculous claim. . . .Again what was holding the earth and other planets in orbit and providing them with energy before the sun was created if were are to go by the genesis hypothesis?

is this not simply ridiculous? what exactly then was the source of the sun according to planetary formation? does the sun have a begining? how verifiable is this claim? are the assertions of planetary formation a scientific notion? does it conform with basic verifiable assertions?

The bible does not say that the sun gives the moon its light. . .The genesis hypothesis says that Yahweh magically created two lights at the same time. . . .How does the moon rule at night, what does it rule over?

The sun and the moon were created. the sun gives the moon its light. . .but the moon rules and reflects predominantly at night. does this stop the moon from being a light on itself?. . .what happens if tomorrow we find out that the sun gets its light from another "element"?
what would happen to ur dogmas?

Google how oil and gas are formed and show me where it says that magical input from a deity is needed for oil and gas to form. . . .

again u miss the point i was making 

What about the stars? And what about the days that the moon does not even appear in the night sky?. . . . .The moon is NOT the predominant element in the Night sky, there are stars so many stars that are also predominant in the night sky. . . .Again I ask how does the moon rule over anything? When I come out at night I do not see the moon ruling over anything. . . .

is this a joke?. . . . .

holiness

mazaje:
Same old noetic and his antics. . . .Here is what you said. . ."The "God did it" hypothesis has provided empherical and common sensical evidences which establish that God indeed did the things He did.". . . So your empirical evidence that establish that birds were allegedly spoken into existence is WHAT?. . . .I did not make any claim weather birds came into existence by chance, You were the one that says that you have empirical evidence that establishes the claim that Yahweh created the birds by magically uttering Hebrew words. . .Where is that empirical evidence?

The major problem with my ignorance is that, I just cant find an alternative plausible explanation to the concepts I know and believe in. . .so please help me, since u are the scientist. . ,   , what is the source of the birds as we see them today? did they evolve from the dust?

I don't know how plants and animals came about, You claim you do and I will like to see your empirical evidence that shows that plants were magically brought into existence with Hebrew words. . . .

I appreciate ur honesty. . . u dont know how plants came about, but I do.
Genesis 2:5-6
5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

verse 8:
8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The genesis hypothesis claims that there was water and plants on earth BEFORE the sun and the other stars were magically created on the 4th day of creation according to the hypothesis. . . .How does this hypothesis agree with the scientific position with regards to solar and planetary formation?

and how do u read the bible?. . .upside down or what?
Genesis 1 gives us a Godly overview of the accounts of creation. . .while Genesis 2 gives us the human overview?
why then would God have to plant a garden and get it watered, as the verses above shows? why would the garden of eden be subject to the primordial definition of photosynthesis if ur assertions are true?
The point is that when God planted the first garden as is depicted in genesis 2 . . . . there was every scientific element (as we know of them today) that makes it possible for a plant to grow and survive.

Are you redefining the genesis hypothesis or are you trying to throw the hypothesis under the bus by saying it does not say what it says? According to the hypothesis there was soil on the surface of the earth(The earth was created before the sun) and the plants were created on the 3rd day of the 6 days of creation and the sun and stars were not created until the 4th day of creation, That is what the hypothesis says and that is what I will go by not your redefinition of what it says. . . .

and when did the plants start growing?

A little study on the scientific explanation for solar and lunar formation will show you. . . .According to the scientific explanation the sun came first then the planets and after that the moon. . . .How do you reconcile that with the genesis hypothesis that says the earth came first and that the moon and sun were created on the same day?. . . .

with due respect. ,  .  I find it absolutely ridiculous that I am being made to reconcile a scientific "attempt" at explaining the solar system with biblical accounts. I find this ridiculous simply because this "attempt" gives an order at which these elements came into existence by stating that the sun came into existence before the moon. . .yet this same scientific notion cannot explain just how the very origins of life as we see it today came into existence? how the pioneer concepts of life kick started? the very source of this life as we know it today? how then does the scientific notion of the sun coming first into existence become plausible?

However, Let me indulge you. . . . . . .
1. the bible gives no account of the creation of the other planets. what we know is that at a point in time called the BEGINING, the heavens (which includes the planets in question) were made. Their composition is not discussed as biblical analysis suggest that the earth was made for men.

2. if we analyse the biblical accounts we would realise that there was no form of life on the planet, prior to creation, as such it is plausible to state that the earth (in a lifeless state) existed long before the sun. To state that the earth came into existence after the sun was made is to suggest that the earth consist some form of life at the point of inception. . . . .there is NO scientific notion that makes this claim.

3. whether the sun was made before the moon or they were both made on the same day as stated by the bible. . is of little or no difference if u consider the fact that the sun gives the moon its light. . .but the moon rules predominantly at night.
unless I do not understand the context of ur poser.

The oil and gas all have natural explanations that does not require any input from any deity at all. . . . .Of course the sun, moon, planets and stars were created because we see them and we know what they are, we even have names for them that is not the issue, Do you know how the asteroids came about? If you do can you tell me? Did you god created the planets? How did he do it? Did he magically speak them into exsietence in Hebrew too?. . . .Saying that god did it explains NOTHING at all. . . .A better example lets assume that nobody really understands gravity or can provide substantial evidence for it. If I tell you that it exists because some invisible vacuum demons hidden in the Earth that cannot be experienced or seen by mere mortals put it there, What will you say? The fact that you cannot disprove that hypothesis, nor replace it with a better one, doesn't make it right at all. It makes it highly speculative at best, and more likely, just a convenient fiction. This my friend is the same with the God did it hypothesis. . . .It explains nothing beside the fact that it is only the default position of I don't know by the proponent of the god hypothesis as my man toneyb has said on another thread. . . .

and on what basis do u make this assertion?

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also

from verse 16 we understand that greater lights were made to give light to the earth. . . . . .would this not imply that the stars had other purposes?

How exactly does the moon rule anything by night?. . . .

Same to you. . . .

by being the predominant "element" in the sky at night.

viaro:
1. says who? you? and your reason is?

Actually, my reason is derived from your own statements:

       1.  based on biblical accounts of the "God did it" case we know from
        the assertions of God that He commanded that man be fruitful and
        multiply and replenish the earth.

        2.  simply put He asked them to reproduce after their own kind.

Statements based merely on 'assertions' are not 'empirical' of a scientific nature. If that is the way to argue veracity for empirical evidence, then every religion in the world would have a 100% equal validity for whatever assertions they make - including the Hindu writs that say that 'cows are God', and you would have no justification whatsoever to falsify their assertions and claim that yours is 'correctly' more empirical and evidence-based.

1. would it be out of place to dismiss ur innuendos considering that u have completely ignored the major point made in that post which largely reflects on REPRODUCTION. The ability of man to reproduce after his own kind? this is NOT an assertion but a scientific notion buttressed by the ability of u viaro to exist today . . . .what plausible explanation do u have for ur existence other than reproduction?

No, I'm not trying to bring up a baseless worldview. I believe that as Christians, we should be very objective and avoid mixing things up.

You just did.

objectivity is a vague word and concept. . .but within the subject of discourse, ur attempt to reconcile the hindu belief of a "cow God" to the inherent evidence in human reproduction is appalling.
what would be the basis of asserting a scientific basis to a belief that a cow is a god? by God, we refer to the creator of all things, would a reproduced cow, who is unable to decipher a thought on its own, be the creator of his farmer? I dont think so.

Lets be objective like u said. . . . .assertions can be assesed based on scientific notions. That some scientists claim that human life comes from dust is just a baseless assertion. . .when placed under the microscopic analysis of independent scientific thoughts it becomes even more ridiculous to assert that organisms came into being from inorganic substances.
why then can we not put biblical claims under such scientific scrutiny? if we can put the claims of men under microscopic analysis. . .why not biblical claims?
Since the bible asserts that man should be fruitful and multiply. . .what exactly stops man from doing so? has man not been reproducing since God knows when?. . . why do u then want to excuse biblical assertions on the basis of dogmas?

What if you are shown numerous cases of anomalies within our orderly world and experiences? What would you do or say? How would you begin to explain such anomalies away in the face of incontrovertible evidence?

I would become a learned and better person if and when incontrovertible anomalies are established in my world view and understanding. I am a student of knowledge. . . . .but until then, my knowledge, faith and beliefs remain as they are.

It still does not negate the very fact that man was created from non-living matter according to Genesis 2:7.

please read that verse again. . . . . .while man was created from dust. . .he did NOT become a LIVING being until he received the BREADTH of LIFE. how then can we disassociate man from the life he carries?

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and[b] breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;[/b] and man became a living soul.

viaro:
Did a search and found 'Noetic2 Explains Why Genesis Is More Credible Than Science'. I'll take some time to read through in coming days.

ok

I'm afraid that's not an empirical evidence in the least. I won't go into that presently, but maybe we shall have ocassion to think carefully through and see that an assertion of such does not actually establish empirical foundations for evidence of a scientific nature. One point we should note is that within an ordered and orderly world, there are anomalies; and if you had taken that into account, you might not so much be given to conclusions as the above for what is 'empirical evidence' for your case.

1. says who? you? and your reason is? . . . . .I hope u dont come up with a world view that has no basis. . . .I would be too disappointed.

2. I refuse to take into account your presupposition of an anomaly in the context of this assertion cos there is no basis for such.

It all depends on how the hypothesis is set forth, afterall man was created from non-living matter (from the dust of the ground - Genesis 2:7).

The same man was not a LIVING soul until he received the breadth of LIFE (genesis 2:7)

mazaje:
Noetic happy new year. . . .  

Your empirical and scientific evidence that says that Yahweh magically spoke(supposedly in the hebrew langauage) the birds into existence is WHAT?

would I be wrong to say that the above is pathetic? and where is ur evidence that suggests that a bird evolved by chance?

The scientific explanation is not plausible according to whom? If it is not plausible then why do scientist agree with its plausibility? Your scientific and empirical evidence to show that a living being that is allegedly uncreated gave life to plants and animals is what? What is the supernatural explanation for the existence of plants and animals? How did your god create a toad?. . . .How did he create a baobab tree?

when did scientists become infallible? in ur previous post u admitted the ignorance and limitations associated with science?  did scientist not previously state that the earth was flat? what exactly do u understand by science, if i may ask?
what is ur explanation for the existence of plants and animals?. . . . .did they descend by chance from planet jupiter?

, Noetic my man when has the biblical claim stood the test of time when compared to scientific claims? The biblical creation stories would have us accept that the earth existed (complete with liquid water and plants) before the sun existed, How does that agree with the scientific process of solar and planetary formation? According to the creation accounts in genesis the the moon was created at the same time with the sun and also produces it's light, how does this claim agree with the scientific explanation about the solar and lunar formation? It also claims that it took 6 days to create our planet but a moment on the 4th day to create the rest of the universe (all the uncountable stars, nebulae, galaxies, etc); that humans have existed on this planet for most of its existence. How does this agree with the current scientific understanding and explanation of the universe and the earth? Why and how did the bible god create the other planets? Why and how did he create the asteroids? Did he speak them into existence too? . The bible says that the moon and stars were created solely to provide light unto the earth and for seasons. . . . .How does this claim agree with scientific explanations? Are the stars really created solely for the purpose of providing light here on earth?. . . . .Was the moon solely created to rule over the night as claimed in the bible? How does a rock rule over anything? What about the scientific explanation of the Earth's ocean tides which come about as a result of the moon's gravitational pull on the earth? How does that agree with the claim that the moon was created to rule over the night?

1. The mere fact that the entire earth surface is dominated by 70% water is enough hypothesis to understand that the earth as described in genesis was contained with water until the creation began.

2. there is no where in the biblical accounts where plants are said to precede the sun (from human manifested point of view). I take it that u cannot find a comprehensive understanding of the accounts in the first two chapters of genesis to gasp the entire concept of creation.

3. how does the creation of the moon and sun on the same day contradict the scientific explanation for the solar and lunar formation?

4. would it not be ridiculous on ur part to attempt to scrutinise the ability of the creator to create the components of the universe on the fourth day? at a point in time called BEGINING . .  .the same creator made the heaven and earth. . . ,  .how do we decipher the time he created precious stones including gold and diamond, oil and gas? Since we cannot give these works a time-scale. . .would be meaningful to denounce the fact that they were created?
in what quantity do u measure the task of creating the galaxies as more cumbersome than that of other creations? in what capacity do u make this claim?

5. where in the bible did u read that the stars were created to give light? and what scientific explanation prevents the moon from ruling by night?
what is stopping u from making analyses to support ur assertions?

happy new year mazaje.

viaro:
Howdy, noetic16. I am not sure about this:

'Empirical' and 'evidence' - those are very heavy words to throw around. Could you please show such empirical evidence establishing what you asserted?

empirical evidence that "God did it"?. . . . . .

This is pretty obvious and I have repeatedly stated this on this forum. . . , . just cant lay my hands on the links now, . .but the thread is titled NOETIC EXPLAINS WHY GENESIS IS MORE CREDIBLE THAN SCIENCE. . . .the thread was initiated by krayola.

1. . . . . based on biblical accounts of the "God did it" case we know from the assertions of God that He commanded that man be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. simply put He asked them to reproduce after their own kind. The only explanation for the continuos increase and sustanance of the worlds population has been reproduction. . .which u and I are products of. . .this is experimentable and observable and as such empirical and serves as an evidence. Reproduction as a means of replenishing is an exclusive preserve of the creation argument.
The claim that other species (including man) are products of inorganic/non-living substances as postulated in theories is false and not empirical.

Abu Zola:
You sound silly, does God need to descend before He is obeyed, what a dunce

I am not as dunce as mohammed and the koran's allah. . . . . .I tot we were talking about divinity. . . . .so if Jesus was a product of God's word, how did He come to being here on earth?

Abu Zola:
Is a lie, God does not have a son, the fact that it was a virgin that born jesus doesn't mean the father is a God, God is powerful, when He says 'Be' then it is

so do u mean Jesus jumped down from heaven after God said. . . ."BE". . .are u dumb?

I am sure the angel has given banom a new list

Image123:
While I'm not exactly for pictures of anyone on every manliness and harry material, I'll say you're taking the Deuteronomy passage out of context. It talks about worship of GRAVEN images and its like. Putting a picture on a billboard is not exactly worship or idolatry. BTW, many will be quick to point fingers and insult the churches but when it comes to more salient issues, they'll begin to claim Christ has fulfilled the law. This is hypocrisy

GBAM!!!

Thou hast spoken well.

islam is an ugly contradiction . . . . on one hand it claims peace yet breeds rogues and terrorist

Happy new year Sir OLAADEGBU
May the peace of God forever abide with u, may u increase in wisdom, knowledge and understanding.
May the fortitude God gave u to speak and stand by the truth forever increase.

toba:
Happy new year viaro,noetic,jcross & everyone else.Lets prepare ourselves to defend what we believe in.

@igbo boy lets meet on this thread "jesus&mohammed" read my posts from pages 2 to 4, then we continue from page 5

wishing u the very same and many good tidings in this new year.

mazaje:
Science tries its best to offer natural explanations for most of the phenomena and events we see around us, does science have limitations, Yes it does and science even acknowledges that it has its own limitations, despite its many limitations science still offer the best explanations for most of the things that we see around. Take any event or occurrence which explanation will you prefer? The scientific one or the so called supernatural one? Having no explanation for an event means nothing more than we don't know. We don't know yet means we don't know It is ignorant to conclude or claim that god did it.If you say that god did it then be sure to provide empirical and scientific methods of showing that it was your own particular god that did it and not other gods that have also claimed to have done it. God did it has never explained anything at all. Even those the subscribe to the god hypothesis very much prefer natural explanations because it is more reasonable and makes much more sense than the god did it hypothesis that makes no sense at all. I say this because you will realize that the god did it hypothesis is only a claim that offers no explanation, and is unverifiable at all.

1. This is largely FALSE sir.
The "God did it" hypothesis has provided empherical and common sensical evidences which establish that God indeed did the things He did. You are mixing up your ability to accept these evidences with the availability of these evidences. That u consider this evidences and explanations unacceptable does nt imply that these evidences lack integrity or cannot stand the test of intellectual or scientific scrutiny.

2. You have largely admitted the limitations and ignorance associated with science. And u have also attempted to excuse this ignorance on the premise that it offers the best explanation on issues. . . No I strongly disagree.
Based on the current subject it is inconceivable to suggest that life started from inorganic substances. . .this scientific explanation is not plausible.
whats the supernatural explanation?. . .this explanation makes the case of a Living being giving life to other beings to exist. This supernatural explanation adds up with all known scientific and biology-related knowledge we have today. only a living organism can bring forth another living organism. This is my dear is a pathetic exposure of the limits of science.

The only way to know that the god did it hypothesis is inferior to scientific explanations is when you have two different proponents of the god hypothesis(e.g a Christian and a Moslem) trying to show that their own god hypothesis is the true one, They sometimes try to use science and the scientific explanation to show that the assertions of their opponent is invalid because it does not agree with science and there by declare it invalid, If a Muslim claims divine healing from say cancer and tells the Christian that it was allah that healed him the Christian will try to look for natural and scientific explanations to show how the cancer was healed and show the Moslem that it was not allah that really healed him. If the Christian points to the creation accounts in the bible, The moslem will point to all the scientific inconsistencies that are found in the creation account to show to the christian that Yahweh did not really create the earth and the universe because that creation account does not agree with the scientific explanations.

what really is science? if we are going by the lay man definition of science, then both the muslims and xtians are allowed to use scientific notion to justify their inherent claims.
1 believe that it is only pertinent that everyone's claim is analysed and scrutinised to come to an acceptable plausible conclusion. on several ocassions on this forum the biblical account of creation has been brought under the knife and it has stood the test of time. how then do u excuse this on the premise of an islamic account of creation?. . the koran's allah does not even know how many days it took him to create the earth?

Christians use the scientific process and knowledge to show moslems for example that the method of conception explained in the koran is false because it does not agree with modern scientific explanations. The Christian accepts the christian hypothesis and all its ridiculous claims but tries to use science sometimes to discredit his opponents who also subscribe to a different god hypothesis. The problem is that things are not done that way.

do u an atheist agree with the conception assertions of the koran?

The god hypothesis explains NOTHING at all, because it explanations are not self evident, The god hypothesis only offers claims and counter claims but it explains nothing to any body apart from those that subscribe to the particular version of the god hypothesis they subscribe to. We don't know means we don't know, saying that god did it and offering no explanation with regards to how he did it is just a baseless claim. If you claims that god created the universe then you should be able to explain how and why god created the asteroids and why and how he created planets like Jupiter and Saturn. Saying the god spoke them into existence makes it highly speculative at best, and more likely, just a convenient fiction.

there is a huge difference between the plausibility of God making the universe and the ability of u as an atheist to accept such claims. ur position is largely influenced by dogma in believing that God does not exist. . how then would u accept evidences and explanations that analyses His creation. unless the root cause of ur dogma is addressed, regardless of how many times such explanation is proffered, u cannot accept it.

Lets ponder over the alternative, could life have come into existence without the need for God. . .without the need of life. . .without the need for a more super-intelligent being, . .NOPE.
My dear the analysis that suggest a random occurrence of matter and the conception of life from an inorganic substance is largely ridiculous and holds no water.

Do u have any plausible explanation for the beginning of life and the universe?

Pastor AIO:
He came in through the window
with the sound of a crescendo
He came in her apartment
he left bloodstains
on the carpet
She ran under the table
he could see she was unable
so she ran into the bedroom
She got struck down it was her doom
Annie are you okay? Annie are you okay?
Are you okay Annie?
Annie are you okay? Annie are you okay?
Are you okay Annie?
Annie are you okay? Annie are you okay?
Are you okay Annie?
Annie are you okay, won't you tell us
That you're okay
There's a sign outside your window
says you got struck down
DA CRESCENDO annie


You been hit by, you been struck by
A Smmooooooth Criminal

oh i c

Abu Zola:
@jarus and sir olabowale-

you didn't do justice to my question.

Even a satanist knows that killing innocent civilian is wrong,

in this scenario we are talking of killing our civilians and Allah said fight them the way they fight you.


As for suicide can anybody open the dictionary and define suicide, is suicide a sacrifice of ones life to inflict damage on the enemy ? Thank you

EXACTLY . . .please do the will of allah and not some ignorant folks.

Abuzola its ur choice . . . . . , if u want to make allah's paradise and get 72 virgins the u have to do what allah says u MUST do. Go and perform a terrorist act and BLOW UP a plane.

but if u want to die like any other average muslim. . . I hope u are aware that allah says all MUSLIMS would go to hell (surah 19:71)
If I were u. , . .I would just join al-queda and blow up a plane. why would anyone miss a lofly bunch of 72 virgins?

omobadan:
I was having a discussion with my brother about Allah being the same as the christian God. He informed me they're two different 'Supreme Beings'. I said I've always thought when Muslim say Allah they're referring to the same Christian God. I want to ask my fellow forumites, how many supreme beings do we have?

your brother is definitely right.

1. Jehovah is the biblical God whose traditions and commandments are consistent and traceable to the OT and subsequently the NT. The laws of Jehovah and His relationship with man coupled with His antecedents best explain His very ontological nature. It is from this nature that we can deduce a loving God, a powerful God, the maker and creator of all things that exist, the begging and end of all "existence", a merciful God, one who rules in the affairs of God, a warring God. . . .who fights for His people, one whose love cannot be quantified, who in faithfulness afflicts His people that they may learn His commandments and love them.

2. allah is one of the 360 idols in arabia. he was worshipped by mohammed's father called abdallah. abdallah means the slave of allah. since abdallah died before mohammed was born, not forgetting that it was mohammed who introduced islam and allah.
mohammed's family idol was allah, . . . .amongst the other 360 gods. mohammed started his campaign of proclaiming allah as the supreme being. . .he claimed that allah was the same God of the bible. his claim was false simply because. . .
A. if allah was the same God of the bible, why did allah stop using anointing oli? why did allah stop accepting sacrifices and burnt offerings? why did allah stop having priests?
B. if allah was the same God of the bible, and if mohammed was the one who introduced the world to allah . . . , who then was mohammed's father worshipping? and why was allah one of the 360 gods in arabia?

3. due to linguistic escapism, Jehovah God is also called Allah in arabic, hausa and other arab languages. but that does not deny the ontological fact that the koran's allah is an arabian idol and Allah is a linguistic interpretation of Jehovah God.

4. The bible makes it clear in ephisians that if we hear any strange gospel which we have not been "taught" . . .we should reject such as the product of the anti-Christ. Islam is a STRANGE gospel. . . . .islam denies the death, resurrection, divinity, messiah-ship sacrifice and salvation of JESUS CHRIST. islam is a strange gospel with a strange message from the pit of hell.
We also know that God (Jehovah) is not the author of confusion. . .how then would he send a p.aedophilic prophet to denounce the message of His only begotten son?

5. the life of mohammed shows that he definitely was not from the bible God (Jehovah). there was one thing which was consistent in the prophets of Jehovah. . . this was the elimination of sin and the presence of genuine repentance.
mohammed was a slave of sin. . . .he had untenable sexual relations with a 9 year old, he disobeyed allah by marrying 11 wives instead of 4, he stole his adopted son's wife, he called for the killing of christians and jews, he called for the killing of apostates, he killed virtually everyone he could kill.
mohammed also suffered from a suicidal spirit, he was concerned that he might be possessed by a demon.

6. mohammed's allah promised ALL muslims a place in HELL (surah 19:71). . .Jesus promised all who believe in Him till the end a place in eternal life.
mohammed's allah promised only terrorist a place in his paradise with 72 virgins. . . .Jesus condemned violence by stating that those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.

7. Jesus asked that gospel be preached to all those who are yet to hear of it and even those who have another religion. . . . .mohammed's allah ask that all those who have other religions be killed.

8. One of the greatest lies through which satan is deceiving the world today is to make people believe that muslims and xtians serve the same being. . . . .but Jesus said that . . . . You shall know the truth and the truth shall set u free.

manmustwac:
@jumaingirl
dose god of the bible exist?

is there any "reason" to believe that He does not? . . . . considering the criteria set out by the OP, can u objectively deny the existence of the God of the bible?

Lagosboy:
Salam to you Jumain, firstly who do you refer to as Allah, the answer will inshallah let me proceed in answering your questions. you seem to be confused due to the environment you find yourself. I am not sure of your location but it appears you are in an environment dominated or surrounded by christians.

what has any of the above got to do with answering the simple question in the OP?

ednut1:
Jesus saves and he did nt save 9/11 pple. Tudor leave dis brainwashed pple 2 die in ignorance , i bet they neva knew d first protestants were always killed/beheaded wen caught wit their children kidnapped by the catholic church and the crusaders were busy fighting 4 d holyland in d name of jesus(just as farouk). your religion often protrayed as clean is nt.

am I the only one who thinks that this post is just dumb?

ElRazur:
You are on a forum where majority are mentally challenged, immature, see the need to impress with big English language, not enlightened, still think Nigeria is the giant of Africa, have faith in some sort of god will come from heaven to sort our problems, mentally lazy and highly ignorant. It should be no suprise, after all Nigeria is God's very own latrine.

when would u learn to see things from other people's perspective?

Ibime:
This journalist should be fired for quoting an open source like Nairaland and labelling it a news service. Might as well quote wikipedia.

Seconded.

I wont be surprised if he quotes becomerich tomorrow.

Let me ask the following questions

A. when David had 2 close opportunities to kill Saul but refused to, was that predestination? considering that NOTHING stopped David from killing Saul, but the fear of the Lord and his concern that Saul carried God's anointing?

B. When Saul went to war against the amakelites as commanded by the Lord and he refused to destroy all that was in that Land as God had promised/predestined thousand of years earlier. . . was Saul's inaction the will of God?

C. when Gabriel visited Zacharai in the temple and prophesied the birth of John the baptist. was it the will of God that Zacharai did not believe? was it the predestination of God that Gabriel makes him dumb?

D. the many kings of Israel who ignored the words of the prophets during their days as recorded in the 4 books of kings and chronicles . . . .was their inaction a predestination, considering that God gave them His law to follow and sent His prophets to call them to repentance and warn them of the consequences of their inactions?

God has a will/plan called predestination . . . but He  is calling all men to SUBMIT to his plan . ,  , cos the very end of His plan is peace.
The choice of submiting or ignoring this plan is called FREE-WILL

1. The plan/predestination of God is that all men do not die sinners but die redeemed by the lamb. For this reason He sent Jesus. . . .the life Jesus lived showed that He willingly and CONSCIOUSLY SUBMITTED Himself to the will/predestination of the father even till the point of death. .  .this suggests that He could have done otherwise had He chosen to. Jesus exercised FREE-WILL to do the will/predestination of the father.

2. The predestination of God is that all men are redeemed. to this effect an invitation was sent out to all men 2000 years ago to be saved. men were told the predestination of God but were also asked to exercise their FREE-WILL. many accepted the gospel, others ignored the gospel, many others rejected the gospel.

3. The likes of prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah suffered a great deal by virtue of FREE-WILL just in order to bring the predestination/will of God to pass. Jeremiah was imprisoned on several occasions while also loosing his loved ones. . . just so that the work of God might continue. . . . . and Isaiah had to walk naked for three years in Egypt and Ethiopia just so that the will/predestination of God be done (Isaiah 20:3). These men exercised their FREE WILL by SUBMITING themselves to the will of the father.

4. apostle Paul comes to mind. There is no record of him marrying. . . . . .his many persecution and eventual decision to preach the gospel in Rome, which was at that time a super power, was a suicide mission denoted as FREE WILL in submission to the predestination/plan of God.

Submissively. . . . . . .PREDESTINATION is the plan and counsel of God as depicted in his will and spoken often times as prophecy. Man's decision to play his role in this plan (either in SUBMISSION or REBELLION to God's plan) is called FREE WILL.
PREDESTINATION and FREE-WILL go hand in hand.

toneyb:
Neotic and his endless escapism

ok . . . to hit the nail on the head. . .Judas is condemned. For it is written that whosoever through whom the prophecy is fulfilled is condemned. That probably explains why Jesus did not pray for Judas.

JeSoul:
And Noetic, I pray your passion never falters but continue to fervent in the truth that you have believed. Happy new yr to you too brother.

Thanks.

May the peace of Christ that passes all understanding encompass and may u continue to grow in more wisdom knowledge and understanding and forever remain a vessel unto honour.