₦airaland Forum

[b]Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang", expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory.

Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions
There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?

First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4

In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950. [/b]

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

HOW GREAT IS OUR GOD!!

just to make things clear. Though i know that i use big b.ang so much in my discussions, i understand that big b.ang is not enough to explain ALL observations in the universe. What i subscribe to is CYCLIC COSMOLOGY. googling that will tell you something more.

Rey is so crazy

striktlymi: Good morning ooman,

Pardon me but I couldn't hold back, I just had to laugh really hard...your response is a bit below the standards you have set for yourself. Let's take a cursory look at your response...shall we?

You mean you lack basic understanding of what mutual exclusion means and that freewill and omniscience are mutually exlusive??

striktlymi: First of, I fail to see how I defiled the 'bedroom' of logic by commenting before reading the OP despite the fact that I made the following comments:

God or its idea, one of it is controlling your life. Such delusion is the fraud here, which you are too blindly involved in to realise.

striktlymi: The above renders your accusations false! My comment above demonstrated that I did not just post without a thought on the matter.

Commenting before reading the OP shows a great level mediocrity. Something not to be expected from someone like you no matter your excuse. First i was disappointed and wouldnt reply this post, now i think i should because i never expected better from the religious anyway.

striktlymi: 'Evading the truth' pretty much sums up the meaning of the word. But what truth is there to evade and how have I evaded it? Let's put your 'defense' to the test:

The above defense is quite lame really cause I never denied the above nor try to evade it. The above is true for all time! God knows all that was, is, and is to come; this I say without mincing words.

God is indeed omniscient, knows what will be, which must be for his omniscience to remain valid, which therefore destroys freewill - this is the truth you continue to evade.

What is lame is your denial of obvious facts

striktlymi: You know I hate repeating myself Anyways, for the avoidance of doubt see my response below:

Note that in Revelation 17:17, all we have is a situation whereby God is 'guilty as charged' for given man freewill. Everything we do on Earth without being forced is done from the 'will' and this 'will' is given to us by God. Whatever we decide to do with this God given 'will' (whether good or bad) is entirely up-to us. The passage again:

Revelation 17:17
Good News Translation (GNT)
17 For God has placed in their hearts the will to carry out his purpose by acting together and giving to the beast their power to rule until God's words come true.

The 'will' to choose right from wrong has been given to us. If we choose to do wrong, it does not take away the fact that God is the one who gave us that 'will' as enumerated in that passage of sacred scriptures. The bottom line is: there is freedom of choice.

Still you willingly choose to not understand the contention here.
No one is saying God forces us to choose a particular thing here. And that is exactly the fraud - you think you are making a decision, God already knows the decision, therefore, for God to remain omniscient, you must make the decision God knows of, when not, God's vision of the future has failed. Such failure will never be attributed to God because according to the religious, God cannot fail. In order for God's perfect status to remain valid, every man must choose that which God sees, that is where freewill becomes nullified. And the freewill which every man thinks he has on earth becomes only a lie, a fraud. Hope you understand now.

striktlymi: It is true that God always have a plan for every man and that God knows what will happen next but very false and inaccurate to say that God determines the actions of man. I have explained why some part of sacred scriptures seem to suggest that God determines our actions so I won't go into this.

Your explanations denies simple logic.

When you say 'seem', what exactly are you suggesting. That the bible cannot be taken for its words. Well, i know that already. The bible contains crude thoughts of the ancients.

striktlymi: Point of correction...not every plan of God comes to fulfillment. If you read through John 2:4-10 you would see one of such cases. God has a plan for when Christ would start his public ministry but this plan did not come to pass as he started his ministry before the appointed time due to a request from his Mother. Verse 4 of that chapter reads:

John 2:4
Good News Translation (GNT)
The Wedding in Cana

4 “You must not tell me what to do,” Jesus replied. “My time has not yet come.”

Ok, by this, are you suggesting that God did not know that Jesus would start his ministry a little earlier than planned?
Are you suggesting that God isnt absolutely omniscient? Because according to the definition of omniscient, God must have known that Jesus would start earlier than they both planned, therefore, this example is irrelevant to this discussion and it is baseless and useless. Another prevarication.

striktlymi: Another baseless accusations!

Another denial

striktlymi: You have actually shown little or nothing!

You have denied every logic.

striktlymi: I agree with the above. Indeed man's freewill and God's omniscience are exclusive. They both co-exist without conflict. I have already demonstrated this in my first response so no need going through it again.

Ok, what is the problem here? you dont know what mutual exclusion means or what? freewill and omniscience cannot co exist. That is the essence of this thread. This fact is pretty obvious but i understand why you deny this though.

If God's aforeknowledge is to remain absolute, then every must happen according to how he knew it, this erases freewill because everything MUST occur according to god's aforeknowledge. This is what i have been trying to tell you which you willing prefer to ignore and give analogy of father and son. What you failed to realize is that all your analogies never include an omniscient, omnipotent, absolute and perfect God.

striktlymi: Oh, now I see where the ish is coming from. God knows everything i.e he has perfect knowledge and I agree that for one to be omniscient, everything must happen according to his knowledge but this is not the same as influencing everything to happen in that way. Knowing about something before it happens is different from making that thing happen in accordance with your knowledge.

and no one is saying that it is god that makes decisions for people which is infact the fraud here and which is what you just agreed to. Because god knows what will happen next, then it must happen or else god's vision is a lie. Now, the freewill of the person involved does not matter, what he must choose is what the omniscient being already knows. This is where freewill becomes nullified, hope you understand now as you have claimed.

striktlymi: Interesting thought but they are just your thoughts and do not constitute proof. I have demonstrated repeatedly that one can be omniscient without infringing on another's right to freedom of thoughts and actions.

all your demonstrations shows complete lack of understanding of the main topic of mutual exclusion of freewill and omniscience. Instead of attacking the main points, you attacked the fact that it is not god that makes decision for us, but that is not the point here, it is that since god already knows what a man would choose at a particular time, and since he is perfect and infallible, then the man must choose that option or else, god's afore vision is false. Once again, this is where freewill becomes negated and God making you thnk you still have freewill is the fraud.

striktlymi: This is very funny! How does this prove the existence or non-existence of God? The only way you can demonstrate that God does not exist with this gimmick is by showing that there exist a conflict between man's free will and God's omniscient. I have demonstrated, almost needlessly, that this is not the case.

Once again, your demonstrations are all prevarication. freewill and omniscience are mutually exclusive. Only one can exist, what we know to exist is freewill, never omniscience, therefore, presence of freewill destroys god, or at least an omniscient god.

striktlymi: You really are a piece of work You mean, knowing what will happen is the same as making it happen? Check out your logic:

Striktlymi is the man who saw tomorrow...

Striktlymi knew that the world trade centre would be blown up...

Striktlymi therefore blew up the world trade centre...

Does that make any sense? If you accuse me of withholding sensitive information, then I will be guilty as charged but to accuse me of making the bombers perform the act is very incorrect. ooman abeg your logic is more than this...use it!!!

i never made such claims that it is god who make decisions for people BUT that people must make decisions as already known by god, freewill therefore becomes nullified. what is so hard to understand in that?

striktlymi: Knowledge of something is different from making someone do what you know!

and that is the fraud here. in the case of god, people must do what he knows or he is not perfect, absolute, omnipotent anymore. Stop equating real, existing people with an hypothetical omniscient, omnipotent, perfect god, man is not perfect.

striktlymi: I have sent that argument to the 'recycle bin'!

what you have done is evade the truth of the matter and argue as it favors you.

striktlymi: Guy, I understand your argument but it is very flawed. The fact that an omniscient being has perfect knowledge does not undermine the choices Jack decides to make. Jack has the option of choosing A, Choosing another option apart from A, and not choosing any option at all.

if Jack chooses another option than that the omniscient being knows, the he is not omniscient anymore.

striktlymi: God knows the options Jack has to make, the dilemma he might face in making the decision and the final decision he comes up with. This knowledge God has does not stop Jack from choosing what he wants. Remember that there is the option of not going with anything if he so desires just like one can decide to stop making choices by taking his own life.

There is always the choice to choose and that choice comes from one's freewill.

any deviation from what god already knows denies him his omniscience

striktlymi: Nope!!!







Hmmm...



I did not ignore any point!

that is everything you have done, ignore the main point and argue as it favors you.

striktlymi: Laughable!!! If you have a kid and the child decides to destroy your television knowingly and with intent...you knew about this and decided to act like you are not in the know when you asked your child...does this sound like anything out of the ordinary? Is it wrong to do this? Anyways, no one's freewill was affected by this.

striktlymi: Knowing something is different from making someone do what you know!

in the case of god, people must do what he knows or he is not perfect, absolute, omnipotent anymore. Stop equating real, existing people with an hypothetical omniscient, omnipotent, perfect god.

striktlymi: Since when has making a reference to something else to demonstrate a point turned to an evasion of the truth?

Not theirs? May be the decision was yours then



I have put the above accusations to rest...no need explaining again.

If you 'punish' that child for the damage he caused, would that be inappropriate just because you acted as if you did not know? . That means every under cover operation of the police should be rendered invalid because they pretend not to know what they know.

you have done absolutely nothing. In the case of god, people must do what he knows or he is not perfect, absolute, omnipotent anymore. Stop equating real, existing people with an hypothetical omniscient, omnipotent, perfect god.

striktlymi: For your mind o!



Prove it na!

done that times without number

striktlymi: The substance of your substantiation needs to be substantiated cause it is highly unsubstantial



I have demonstrated why that claim is wrong!



This is it:

om·nis·cient [om-nish-uhnt]
adjective
1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
noun
2. an omniscient being.
3. the Omniscient, God.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omniscient

Now show us which part of the definition of omniscient says one has to be able to impair someone's ability to decide in order to be omniscient.

which is why god is a fraud!

striktlymi: Jesus actually prayed for all his disciples John 17:6-26

so what happened, why did one still fall to the devil. prayer obviously does not work.

striktlymi: You have substantiated nothing!

you have to stop using another topic entirely to explain your failed logic.

Freewill and Omniscience remains mutually exclusive and god remains a fraud.

Ihedinobi: Lol. I'm lying? I used the King James Version. I believe you've heard of it. Anyway, I see the NLT does indeed say that.

two versions of the same book self contradicts each other so much and you still think that such book is credible enough to teach you history of the world. You are quite disappointing intellectually!

Ihedinobi: Edit: however, how does inability to comprehend things preclude curiosity about those things? That is, does the fact I don't understand astrophysics prevent me from being curious about it?

being curious about it means reading and researching about it, never denying facts and holding on to ancient myths

Ihedinobi: How did you decide that the depths of the earth is the same as the earth's core?

you need someone to tell you that depth means the distance from top or surface to the bottom of something?

Ihedinobi: Why do you appeal to Strong's for the meaning of which heavens were being refered to there?

because Strong's expose the stup.id.ity of the bible in its original language

Ihedinobi: It's not rocket science but my feeble mind cannot understand it? Yeah, very intelligent speech

When you're done, however, feel free to explain how it is not by design that proteins must fold exactly in some way and not others to be of use to the organism using them.

that is called primary structure, as determined by DNA templates.

Science knowledge of people in nairaland is very low. I understand why you all languish in religion.

Ihedinobi: What is this gibberish about? You said that man has produced a non-mutable dna that codes proteins perfectly, did you not? I'm asking you how that proves that there is no design in nature. Attempt to do your explanation in.clear English or else by reason of the fallacy of appeal to science, I believe it's called, I will assume that you have no answer to my demand.

do we really have to go cycle. Mutations prove lack of ID'ner. how many times will i tell you that.
by the bold do you mean science is too much for you? then you and i cannot have this discussion.

Ihedinobi: Dude, which are you saying - that there are mistakes in nature which produce certain consequences or that there are no such things as mistakes, rather that there are random and spontaneous events in nature that result in yada yada bla bla?

dang, you are quite low intellectually to connect that spontaneity and randomness means that intelligence does not control nature but such process as mutations?

call your father in intelligence davidylan, perhaps then, we will make some progress.

Ihedinobi: Explain. And don't talk gibberish.

See above.

never mind, i made a grave mistake thinking that what you argue are within your ken. what is there to explain in that??

When ever someone with some level of intelligence comes around, i will resume this argument.

Ihedinobi: Lol. You guys are really rocking me with laughter today o.

Ok.

1. I was not making an argument, dude. I was showing you what yourself did. You made a claim and expected me to swallow it. And I made a counter-claim and waited to see you swallow it. Apparently, you don't agree with that style of doing things.

2. You've started on a path that you'll whine about in the end like musKeeto. You de form theologian now, when I begin to explain Scriptures, you'll start screaming that I'm spinning Scriptures.

3. Which verse 4 says such a thing? I quoted Proverbs 25:2, let's see what 3 and 4 say, shall we?

3 The heaven for height, and the earth for depth, and the heart of kings is unsearchable.
4 Take away the dross from the silver, and there shall come forth a vessel for the finer.

Where does it say that no one can discover the heights of heaven or the depths of earth?

4. Assuming there was really such a verse, how does an inability to discover all of God's secrets mean that we aren't allowed to be curious about them or anything else?

5. Has science really discovered where the heavens are and what the depths of the earth are to say nothing of calculating their distances?

another bible failure in display.

I quoted NLT v3 says-no one can discover the height of heaven, the depth of the earth or all that goes on in the kings mind.
what version did you quote? the IHEDINOBI VERSION?

stop the lies guy.

for your 5. -scientists have really drilled down to the core of the earth and now, we know its composition. doing some reading about that we do you good, dont be intellectually lazy.

and lastly, hope you understand that the heavens in that verse really means sky and astronomical location of planets in its original hebrew term according to Strong's concordance. so dont make the mistake of thinking I refer to the hypothetical, impossible kingdom of your god.

Emusan: Mr. Ooman thank God you know something sango and thunder, and you know what causes it.
Concerning the story I share with you other time, what force responsible for those stories? According to your research on thunder because the stories is not an ancient myths.

One cannot basically rely on what the Bible says to conclude the work of spiritual realm unless you carry out some personal work. I personally have encounter with God.

@kambo, more grace to your reasoning. You really gave my signature meaning.

I thought I had personal encounter with god too, but your visions are delusions. they are not real.

the stories you share are not complete, they are your failed attempt of explaining natural disasters. because it hurts you then you think its the spirit of your mothers sister chasing you. such is the dumb reasoning of the religious.
I would have to observe such situations myself before I can offer explanations.
am glad you know the bible is basically useless but its more damage to rely on mental conditions called revelations.

you need to be healed from all mental damage god has caused you.

Emusan: Mr. Ooman thank God you know something sango and thunder, and you know what causes it.
Concerning the story I share with you other time, what force responsible for those stories? According to your research on thunder because the stories is not an ancient myths.

One cannot basically rely on what the Bible says to conclude the work of spiritual realm unless you carry out some personal work. I personally have encounter with God.

@kambo, more grace to your reasoning. You really gave my signature meaning.

I thought I had personal encounter with god too, but your visions are delusions. they are not real.

the stories you share are not complete, they are your failed attempt to explaining natural disasters. because it hurts you then you think its the spirit of your mothers sister chasing you. such is the dumb reasoning of the religious.

am glad you know the bible is basically useless but its more damage to rely on mental conditions called revelations.

you need to be healed from all mental damage god has caused you.

Ihedinobi: It matters little what the consequences of mistakes are and who's responsible for their existence as far as this discussion is concerned.

What matters is that the existence of mistakes is strong evidence, in fact, pretty conclusive evidence for the existence of a design.

So, how is mutation evidence for the absence of a designer?

And since, you mentioned proteins, why do they have to fold in exactly a particular way to be of benefit to the living organism? Also, how does the fact that human beings produced a DNA that codes proteins perfectly prove that there is no design in nature?

Edited.

you really dont expect me to teach you protein folding right? its not rocket science, not something your feeble mind can understand. what I can tell you now is that chaperones facilitates protein folding. to really understand how protein fold, you must understand chemical bonding.

human beings DO NOT PRODUCE dna that codes for proteins. a cell and its dna are NOT mutually exclusive. dna is the life of a cell, there is no life without dna. cells DO NOT PRODUCE dna, they replicate already present ones. The spontaneous polymerization and spontaneous formation of monomers as observed in the laboratory proves the absence of a designer of life.

mutation - mistakes proves the absence of a designer because such spontaneous mistakes has been observed to produce new species of organism. examples include soapberry bugs, autopolyploids and aneupolyplouds. google those.

the presence of mistakes proves the only things observable in nature- spontaneity and randomness.

creation and intelligent design will be proved if only ONE new species was documented to have its genome built from scratch.

let me ask you, if you think creation and ID is true, of all the documented speciation processes, why have we not been able to document a single genome getting built from scratch? once that is possible, creation and ID will start receiving some attention but right now, there is no single shred of evidence for that.

Ihedinobi: Lol. No kidding. Our brains are locked up until we let go of God. And this is true because ooman said so. Right

Well, let's see if the Bible does not make its own counter-claims, shall we?

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.

Imagine what that means if Christians are royalty.

you know, one mistake you religious people make is to try to prove something using a perfectly self contradictory book.

bible verse to counter your bible verses include Job 38,39,40,41 where god took advantage of Job's lack of knowledge of nature and asked him all sought of questions he knew he didn't know just for show off. After which Job replied that-i am nothing, how could I ever find answers? in 40v3. The goodnews is that all of god's dumb questions, modern science can now answer.

there is also a verse that says who can search the secrets of god?

And now you are an hypocrite for quoting v2 only without going further. Lets see what v3 of your bible verse says-NO ONE can discover the height of heaven or the depth of the earth......

now you see how v3 immediately contradicts and destroys v2?

bible already says NO ONE so the next thought of the religious was it was futile according to history. But now, we know the height of the heavens and depth of the earth. Evolutionary scientists found that out.

that book of yours is self destructive, it is never useful in any logical debate.

Reyginus: Atheists and their delusion.

so dumb nut

Ihedinobi: "Mistakes" are evidence of a design. There is no such thing as a mistake where there is no perfect design to depart from.

you obviously dont know the magnitude of mistakes in nature. it leads to death and diseases, a total botch and ineptitude of this perfect, absolute, omnipotent designer

what mutations show us is never design but lack of it. mutation is enough proof against the existence of a designer.

man has produced a nonmutable DNA(search for venter's dna) that perfectly codes for protein. such is the work of intelligence. such has never been observed in nature.

Reyginus: Ah! This is the height of it. Dumbness raised to power infinity. Are you high?

and this is coming from who? a person who doesnt know what inanimate means? religious intellectual laziness is your condition

xtians and their illiteracy

Reyginus: Certainly, I do hope you realise that if you claim it never happened, you never said that, you are indirectly subscribing that they are opposites.

what exactly is the problem here? you couldnt quote me or what? just quote me, simple

^^^^you are in a state of great personality disorder.

You really think the spirit world exist based on what exactly? the bible?

You know what i believe is true? That it is Sango who causes thunder always because the book of Sango worshipers say so and no matter what i now know to cause thunder, that is just a lie, it is Sango that causes thunder always.

How does that logic sound to you?

Ihedinobi: This is such nonsense. How does religion inhibit curiosity? How does following God preclude discovering the world He created?

There is no denying that religion puts you in quietism. The only answer you get is "That is how God made it or God's wish be done".

To really search out the deepest secret of nature, you must do away with God, if not, you would think you are searching for the secret of God.

Ihedinobi: And I ask, where is the evidence for the lack of it?

mistakes called mutations are overwhelmingly present in nature. The bane of intelligent design that all ID proponents couldnt deny or absorb into their theory because it destroys ID'ner

woky: kano??

Yep, the highest muslim occupied state in Africa, i read

Bobbysworld28: U say there is no intelligence in d eyeball? U hv lost it then. There is & continually will be. If there is no intelligence how come man has never bn able to replicate it. They just might in d future but scientists still marvel at it.
U expect d creator of nature to be bound by nature? Hv u ever tot dt their dimensions greater than u can comprehend? D universe shows u d vastness of a mind dt dwarfs wht u can aim to comprehend in a thousand lifetimes. Omnipotence - as incomprehensible as d concept sounds to ur feeble mind, whn u come in awe of one of his creations (nature) u will be brought to ur knees abt his unfathomable might. All those characteristics compared to u r extraordinarily awesome.
When u aim to kill off God in ur life, it does nothing to depreciate d creator nor his creation. It is just like denying gravity yet its presence is with u daily. It only closes d door to u regarding a character so great one dt u can only gape in awe at his splendour.
Obviously we r going round in circles but my submission is dt u look beyond mans assumptions and focus on d grandeur dt is represented by d sovereign of d universe.
Peace

once again I ask, where is the evidence of intelligent design.

Bobbysworld28: U say there is no intelligence in d eyeball? U hv lost it then. There is & continually will be. If there is no intelligence how come man has never bn able to replicate it. They just might in d future but scientists still marvel at it.
U expect d creator of nature to be bound by nature? Hv u ever tot dt their dimensions greater than u can comprehend? D universe shows u d vastness of a mind dt dwarfs wht u can aim to comprehend in a thousand lifetimes. Omnipotence - as incomprehensible as d concept sounds to ur feeble mind, whn u come in awe of one of his creations (nature) u will be brought to ur knees abt his unfathomable might. All those characteristics compared to u r extraordinarily awesome.
When u aim to kill off God in ur life, it does nothing to depreciate d creator nor his creation. It is just like denying gravity yet its presence is with u daily. It only closes d door to u regarding a character so great one dt u can only gape in awe at his splendour.
Obviously we r going round in circles but my submission is dt u look beyond mans assumptions and focus on d grandeur dt is represented by d sovereign of d universe.
Peace

once again I ask, where is the evidence of intelligent design.

Bobbysworld28: Wht claims has God ascribed to himself or wht claims hv man ascribed to God?

omnipotence, omniscience and omnifiscience and perfection. just 4 out of like uncountable perfect qualities all of which contradicts observations in nature.

Bobbysworld28: Ooman, dt is a concept dt should be explored instead if d blanket statement u issued. I lay no claim to having all d answers but ur topic is too big for a living person in this 3-D world 2 say. UnLike wht ur signature said 'live curious', u seem to hv closed d chapter of curiousity

there is no way you can be religious and live curiously. to live curiously, you have to do away with religion.

god kills all curiosity in you and replaces it god's will and god's design.

to live curiously, the first thing to do is to terminate god off your life.

Bobbysworld28: If u r going to ask questions on intelligent design then u hv no right making spuurious claims.
Btw, do a research on just ur eyeballs & way they operate and see whether u won't marvel

you know the eyeball argument started early in the 18th century when so little was known of the eyes. Now experiments and research have been conducted and we understand that a protein called crystalin distincts the eyeballs during formation and maintains them throughout life. not just that, now we understand how it evolved and we are certain that intelligence or god was not involved in the appearance.

because you lack knowledge of the eyeball is not an excuse that god must exist

Bobbysworld28: Mans attempt at conceptualizing God might hv failed but it takes nothing away from d fact dt he could exist. D supercomputers of this world cannot light a candle 2 nature yet u come here making bold assertions regarding wht could be ultimately beyond ur comprehension

do you know that you offered no answers but adhominens?

I make logical assertions. I show the aporia concerning the concept of god. the god concept destroys itself by what it claims.

OLAADEGBU: Since atheist evolutionists cannot answer simple foundational questions such as the origins of the 7 day week or of life let me start by eliminating the presumptions they have as to the origin of the universe before I arrive at the creation account in the 6 day week.

There are only three possibilities from where the universe can come from. By way of the elimination we will arrive at the scientific evidence of the origin of the universe which took just 6 days.

(1). The universe created itself;

(2). The universe has always existed, and

(3). The universe was created.

1. The universe created itself:

Can something create itself? Can nothing create something? The answer to these is an absolute No. We all know that something cannot create itself and nothing can't create something. From Latin we have the phrase "ex nihilo, nihil fit" meaning "from nothing, nothing comes." It also violates the law of cause and effect, that says for every effect there must be a cause. The effect can't be greater than the cause and nothing cannot be greater than something. Therefore, based on the laws of science and logic, the universe couldn't have created itself. That leaves us with options 2 and 3.

2. The univese has always existed:

Lets go to the 2nd law of thermodynamics that basically teaches that "the whole universe is losing usable energy for doing usable work." This means that the usable energy in this universe is wearing down. The universe as a whole is losing energy. In other words, molecules as a whole are slowing down.

Therefore, if this universe was eternal we will be in what is called a "virtual heat death." This means that there will be virtually no molecular movement. Everything would have lost its available heat energy for doing work. Therefore, the universe cannot be eternal, it must have had a beginning. The theory that the universe has always existed or is eternal has to be false based on the law of science and logic, another speculation gone with the air. This leaves us with only one possiblility based on science. Which is that:

3. The universe was created:

"In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis 1:1

Science confirms the Bible. Simples.

7 days a week was derived from the Julian calendar dating system which is based on solar year and lunar days. 1 solar year is the time it takes the sun to complete a circle in its orbit and that takes 364 and 1/4 earth days. To account for the 1/4 day, we have a leap year every four years. That is your origin of calender days.

now to your 3 premises.

1-nothing creates itself - nothing comes from nothing and this also applies to God. God cannot create himself, he must also be created if he exist so who created him. The universe was not created but it evolved.

2-your interpretation of the 2nd law is pathetically wrong. its a chemical law that the amount of matter and energy in the universe is constant and so the UNIVERSE is a closed system, it cannot therefore lose energy or gain it. Only earth loses and gains energy, the universe does not.

your interpretation of the second law shows intellectual failure. I doubt your intelligent ability to understand facts after this great blunder of yours.

3-the universe was not created, it evolved in space from charges of energy that got concentrated into cosmic egg which exploded in the big b.ang. This area isnt fully explicable to science due to the fact yhat we dont have much equipment to space travel yet.

Genesis 1v1 never gave account of the existence of the uuniverse but of heaven, God's home and earth, man's home. so stop implying that heaven means unicerse because it doesnt.

Bobbysworld28: Science has developed complex algorithms and super computers most atimes to mimic nature towards achieving certain ends. Yet u come & say d same nature is a random chance thing & not ascribable 2 anyone.
Does it seem ur dismissal of him will make him less than He/she/it is? The world and everything in it when studied shows intelligence in design & I will always ackmowledge dt

pls state the instances of intelligent design.

Bobbysworld28: My one issue with Atheism is just dt everything has a maker and if d grandest of things (our lives, d universe) can be ascribed as having none, then I can't quite grasp dt concept.

the problem you fail to understand with this logic is that if everything has a maker, then God too must be made by someone or something. so who created God?

kambo: @ooman sincere seekers dont argue with facts and feelings hav no role in validating truths. The bible clearly and unequivocally states that humans are spirit beings with physical manifestations called bodies.. Humans ar just a class of spirit beings , accepting this statement puts a new spin on things and solves backlogs of puzzling questions. The bible says events originate first from d spirit realm b4 they bcome physical realities..but science or rather atheists want to believe this is not so. Ur education in life hasnt started until u really know these things.. U will find out d truth but it may b too late.

Are you seriously calling what that ancient mythology called bible says a fact?? then you have intellectual problems.

the bible is filled with lies and ancient attempt to understand nature. taking the bible seriously is a product of intellectual laziness.

all facts must be proven, there is no single shred of evidence for the existence of spirits.