₦airaland Forum

FiveFootNinja:
From your entire writeup, I think it won't be out of place to conclude that you seem to have a fundamental problem with the Theory of Evolution. It's very easy to look at something you don't understand and conclude that just because you can't explain it, then God must be the only thing that can explain it.

But it's still a cop-out. It simply smacks of ignorance and intellectual laziness for me.

I'd rather we all just admit we don't know the facts about something, instead of imagining things just to satisfy our ego. I will admit, I don't fully understand evolution myself, but I don't feel the need to. Personally, I didn't become an atheist because of evolution. I became an atheist because I haven't come across any solid evidence that can convince me God exists. And the evidence presented by Christians so far have been lacklustre to me.

While I don't give a shít about evolution, I firmly believe there is stronger evidence attached to it, than there is attached to religious creationism. You can mock evolution all you want, but you'd be out of your mind if you seriously think that God creating the world in just 7 days is a far more plausible hypothesis.

Let me ask you then, since you're obviously on the side of religious creationism, if God truly created all species on this earth as they appear today, then can you provide a very solid explanation for why God will create vestigial structures in human beings and animals (appendix, wisdom teeth, coccyx). If there is no apparent purpose to these organs (and some are even harmful in some cases), then why did your God create them?

I don't have a problem with evolution 🤔.
I'm familiar with it, I know what I need to know about it.

The bible doesn't provide a basis as to why these structures were created.
It only provides the basis for which man as a whole was created🤔!!!

----------------
To reply you, seven days of what?
We have no empirical measurement as to what these seven days constitutes.

Some might argue using peter's words that a thousand years is like a day before God🤔 but even that fails!

We might also posit, taking into cognizance the questions God directed to Job as regards the storehouses of hail etc
We can extrapolate further by assuming that the first seven days were used to make these storehouses, this entire process is often referred to by some christians as the "spiritual creation" by reconciling this with Genesis 1 & 2.

There we see that although man was created on the sixth day he hadn't been molded from the ground yet.

Thus we can speculate that whatsoever those six days are, it could be 'spiritual' based on some measurement we don't yet know about, or it could be relative to our spatial system.

It's all speculation but the consensus among theologians is that gen1 summarized the spiritual creation while gen2 talks about the physical processes 🤔.

Judging by the usual biblical narrative to only give you what is 'sufficient' one can infer even from Cain's statement that there were others🤔

Whether 'others' were of "humankind" is still a big question and judging by historical evidences, there seems to be at least a little "cohabitation" or "coexistence" between men and some "creatures".
The obvious one being dinosaurs.

In conclusion, while yet empirically there is no storehouse for "humans" or even hail and
there is insufficient physical evidence to back biblical claims🤔 but it doesn't negate its plausibility.

Gabrielshow24:
In conclusion, while yet empirically there is no storehouse for "humans" or even hail and
there is insufficient physical evidence to back biblical claims🤔 but it doesn't negate its plausibility.

Can you not hear yourself? The god made everything yet there is insufficient evidence?! An oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

LordReed:
Can you not hear yourself? The god made everything yet there is insufficient evidence?! An oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

We believe God made everything.
There are indirect evidences to support our belief🙃.

Also, He was asking for direct "evidence".
Even from the term "spirit" we can definitely conclude that it(spirit) can not seen but its effects are seen.

You also misrepresented what I was talking about.
I was answering the scientific plausibility of "seven days".

Gabrielshow24:
We believe God made everything.
There are indirect evidences to support our belief🙃.

Also, He was asking for direct "evidence".
Even from the term "spirit" we can definitely conclude that it(spirit) can not seen but its effects are seen.

You also misrepresented what I was talking about.
I was answering the scientific plausibility of "seven days".

There should be CLEAR AND DIRECT evidence. How can a god make something and you are unsure, you simply believe. Wow.

Indirect evidence is what is called conjecture.

Maybe I did but I wonder how you interpret the statement "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day", a statement repeated for each day and say naa it wasn't an actual day and night period.

LordReed:
There should be CLEAR AND DIRECT evidence. How can a god make something and you are unsure, you simply believe. Wow.

Indirect evidence is what is called conjecture.

Maybe I did but I wonder how you interpret the statement "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day", a statement repeated for each day and say naa it wasn't an actual day and night period.

One thing is certain.
The earth isn't the absolute point.

At best, Moses used "physical understanding/processes" to relate his message.

Day(light) existed before the 🌞 sun and the night(darkness) existed before the 🌕 moon based on biblical accounts

This two are what forms the basis of calendar years along with the stars.
Ancient Egyptians used 24 stars to depict the passage of time before 24-hour-day became standardized.
My point being that existence of day or night depends on movement as it relates to a source — measurement of time!

Some ancients used the stars at some point, some used the sun while others used the moon and if you want you can use another frame of reference to measure your own perception of time.

Hence it can't be physical "days", it has to be a measurement based on some source🤔.
------------------
Indirect evidences are not called conjectures.
Like I said above, in some fields, indirect evidence is a 'credible' source of truth.
------------------
One thing is certain, when God made all things he set certain "rules", one being repetitive pattern and the other being change to name a few.

Science can easily make theories based on these two but they are not 'direct evidences' to support his existence because from the scientific dogmas, you need to infer their conclusions from their observations!!!

The other direct evidence will certainly be the gospels, even this is subject to interpretation and scrutiny; as a lot of people do not believe in the existence of Jesus like our beloved friend, somvayina, while some believe he existed but he was just a man🤔 etc

The other 'direct evidences' will be subjective not objective 👀.

While 'direct evidences' which are based on biblical miracles can 'easily' be thrown away as works of fiction👀 or textual corruption or worse plagiarism🤕. Which is the beloved sentiment of our in-house atheist👀 that loves bringing out similarities between the bible and the enuma elish/atrahasis.

Gabrielshow24:
One thing is certain.
The earth isn't the absolute point.

At best, Moses used "physical understanding/processes" to relate his message.

Day(light) existed before the 🌞 sun and the night(darkness) existed before the 🌕 moon based on biblical accounts

This two are what forms the basis of calendar years along with the stars.
Ancient Egyptians used 24 stars to depict the passage of time before 24-hour-day became standardized.
My point being that existence of day or night depends on movement as it relates to a source — measurement of time!

Some ancients used the stars at some point, some used the sun while others used the moon and if you want you can use another frame of reference to measure your own perception of time.

Hence it can't be physical "days", it has to be a measurement based on some source🤔.
------------------
Indirect evidences are not called conjectures.
Like I said above, in some fields, indirect evidence is a 'credible' source of truth.
------------------
One thing is certain, when God made all things he set certain "rules", one being repetitive pattern and the other being change to name a few.

Science can easily make theories based on these two but they are not 'direct evidences' to support his existence because from the scientific dogmas, you need to infer their conclusions from their observations!!!

The other direct evidence will certainly be the gospels, even this is subject to interpretation and scrutiny; as a lot of people do not believe in the existence of Jesus like our beloved friend, somvayina, while some believe he existed but he was just a man🤔 etc

The other 'direct evidences' will be subjective not objective 👀.

While 'direct evidences' which are based on biblical miracles can 'easily' be thrown away as works of fiction👀 or textual corruption or worse plagiarism🤕. Which is the beloved sentiment of our in-house atheist👀 that loves bringing out similarities between the bible and the enuma elish/atrahasis.

Dude do you understand you are saying the exact argument people give for why a god doesn't exist? That it was merely the authors understanding of physical processes.

One thing is certain you are attributing what we now understand of the universe to a god. You are actually regressing in understanding if you look at it.

The ancient authors attributed to a god some things they did not understand about the world which we now understand and can definitely say no god is behind them. You on the other hand have regressed to the ancient authors position to say this thing I don't properly understand therefore it was a god that did it.

Miracle in the bible is not direct evidence. Those are stories which have no practical demonstrability. Has anyone demonstrated praying and stopping the apparent motion of the sun? No. Has anyone demonstrated turning a stick into a snake? No. Has anyone demonstrated walking on water without aid? No. Has anyone demonstrated the ability to multiply food just by praying over it and dividing it? NO! You have to ASSUME those were real in other to consider them evidence, which just means any written fantastical story should be considered evidence.

LordReed:
Dude do you understand you are saying the exact argument people give for why a god doesn't exist? That it was merely the authors understanding of physical processes.

One thing is certain you are attributing what we now understand of the universe to a god. You are actually regressing in understanding if you look at it.

The ancient authors attributed to a god some things they did not understand about the world which we now understand and can definitely say no god is behind them. You on the other hand have regressed to the ancient authors position to say this thing I don't properly understand therefore it was a god that did it.

Miracle in the bible is not direct evidence. Those are stories which have no practical demonstrability. Has anyone demonstrated praying and stopping the apparent motion of the sun? No. Has anyone demonstrated turning a stick into a snake? No. Has anyone demonstrated walking on water without aid? No. Has anyone demonstrated the ability to multiply food just by praying over it and dividing it? NO! You have to ASSUME those were real in other to consider them evidence, which just means any written fantastical story should be considered evidence.

Again, a straw man.
That's not my position.

My position is to exemplify that your allusion of physical "days" stemming from the 'literal' interpretation of Gen1 is not sufficient and it's a misrepresentation of christian theology.

As there must be a time measurement(or perspective) to determine "a day" except if the "day", he(Moses) meant was based on the Lord's POV.

We can't substantiate its earthly(physical ) equivalence.

Secondly, I have answered your rhetoric for you!
That's why we use indirect observational evidences because anyone can cry "foul" in the same way you are doing now.

All direct physical evidences can be disproved with the simple question, were you there?🤔

We have to make assumptions or have a foundational basis of truth inorder to call something reliable and true.

Hence what's good for the goose is good for the gander!!!

Gabrielshow24:
I don't have a problem with evolution 🤔.
I'm familiar with it, I know what I need to know about it.

The bible doesn't provide a basis as to why these structures were created.
It only provides the basis for which man as a whole was created🤔!!!

----------------
To reply you, seven days of what?
We have no empirical measurement as to what these seven days constitutes.

Some might argue using peter's words that a thousand years is like a day before God🤔 but even that fails!

We might also posit, taking into cognizance the questions God directed to Job as regards the storehouses of hail etc
We can extrapolate further by assuming that the first seven days were used to make these storehouses, this entire process is often referred to by some christians as the "spiritual creation" by reconciling this with Genesis 1 & 2.

There we see that although man was created on the sixth day he hadn't been molded from the ground yet.

Thus we can speculate that whatsoever those six days are, it could be 'spiritual' based on some measurement we don't yet know about, or it could be relative to our spatial system.

It's all speculation but the consensus among theologians is that gen1 summarized the spiritual creation while gen2 talks about the physical processes 🤔.

Judging by the usual biblical narrative to only give you what is 'sufficient' one can infer even from Cain's statement that there were others🤔

Whether 'others' were of "humankind" is still a big question and judging by historical evidences, there seems to be at least a little "cohabitation" or "coexistence" between men and some "creatures".
The obvious one being dinosaurs.

In conclusion, while yet empirically there is no storehouse for "humans" or even hail and
there is insufficient physical evidence to back biblical claims🤔 but it doesn't negate its plausibility.

WTF 🤣🤣🤣

LordReed:
Dude do you understand you are saying the exact argument people give for why a god doesn't exist? That it was merely the authors understanding of physical processes.

One thing is certain you are attributing what we now understand of the universe to a god. You are actually regressing in understanding if you look at it.

The ancient authors attributed to a god some things they did not understand about the world which we now understand and can definitely say no god is behind them. You on the other hand have regressed to the ancient authors position to say this thing I don't properly understand therefore it was a god that did it.

Miracle in the bible is not direct evidence. Those are stories which have no practical demonstrability. Has anyone demonstrated praying and stopping the apparent motion of the sun? No. Has anyone demonstrated turning a stick into a snake? No. Has anyone demonstrated walking on water without aid? No. Has anyone demonstrated the ability to multiply food just by praying over it and dividing it? NO! You have to ASSUME those were real in other to consider them evidence, which just means any written fantastical story should be considered evidence.

I admire your patience, seriously cause...

Gabrielshow24:
Again, a straw man.
That's not my position.

My position is to exemplify that your allusion of physical "days" stemming from the 'literal' interpretation of Gen1 is not sufficient and it's a misrepresentation of christian theology.

There is no straw man. This is what you yourself wrote:

At best, Moses used "physical understanding/processes" to relate his message.

Which means the author was using language of things he did understand to describe things he didn't understand. So how can we tell apart the imprecise language describing this, from the imprecise language describing or attributing events to a god. As you say: what's good for the goose is good for the gander!!! If the author is not describing a physical night and day here then he is not describing a god elsewhere.

As there must be a time measurement(or perspective) to determine "a day" except if the "day", he(Moses) meant was based on the Lord's POV.

How do we know the author was describing it from a god's POV since he does not use first person perspective in any passage? As a matter of fact the whole book is written in 3rd person perspective so where did you get that from?

We can't substantiate its earthly(physical ) equivalence.

Exactly! Your god stands unsubstantiated just like the words of this passage.

Secondly, I have answered your rhetoric for you!
That's why we use indirect observational evidences because anyone can cry "foul" in the same way you are doing now.

What?! In any of our discussions have you requested direct or indirect observational evidences? You have always asked for direct observational evidences but now for this case you are satisfied with indirect observational evidences. Obviously, your methodology is incongruent and skewed.

All direct physical evidences can be disproved with the simple question, were you there?🤔

Incorrect and a straw man. I didn't ask you were you there to observe these miracles, I said they cannot be demonstrated to be real. Most direct observational evidences can be repeated with the same result given the same set of factors. Even the ones that cannot be repeated leave loads of data that can be observed. Where is either of these for these miracles?

We have to make assumptions or have a foundational basis of truth inorder to call something reliable and true.

Yes but the assumptions have to be congruent with reality, not based on some fairytale. Fairy godmothers have not been demonstrated to turn pumpkins into carriages therefore there is no reason to believe it is possible or do you believe the Cinderella story by faith? If those miracles cannot be demonstrated or showed to have left any physical trace then there is no reason to assume they are real.

Hence what's good for the goose is good for the gander!!!

Yes indeed, plenty of good for goose and gander.

Lucifyre:
I admire your patience, seriously cause...

Sometimes my brother, we dey try.

LordReed:
There is no straw man. This is what you yourself wrote:

At best, Moses used "physical understanding/processes" to relate his message.

Which means the author was using language of things he did understand to describe things he didn't understand. So how can we tell apart the imprecise language describing this, from the imprecise language describing or attributing events to a god. As you say: what's good for the goose is good for the gander!!! If the author is not describing a physical night and day here then he is not describing a god elsewhere.



How do we know the author was describing it from a god's POV since he does not use first person perspective in any passage? As a matter of fact the whole book is written in 3rd person perspective so where did you get that from?



Exactly! Your god stands unsubstantiated just like the words of this passage.



What?! In any of our discussions have you requested direct or indirect observational evidences? You have always asked for direct observational evidences but now for this case you are satisfied with indirect observational evidences. Obviously, your methodology is incongruent and skewed.



Incorrect and a straw man. I didn't ask you were you there to observe these miracles, I said they cannot be demonstrated to be real. Most direct observational evidences can be repeated with the same result given the same set of factors. Even the ones that cannot be repeated leave loads of data that can be observed. Where is either of these for these miracles?



Yes but the assumptions have to be congruent with reality, not based on some fairytale. Fairy godmothers have not been demonstrated to turn pumpkins into carriages therefore there is no reason to believe it is possible or do you believe the Cinderella story by faith? If those miracles cannot be demonstrated or showed to have left any physical trace then there is no reason to assume they are real.



Yes indeed, plenty of good for goose and gander.

I'm satisfied with "indirect observational proofs" because I have proofs that are rather more subjective than objective.

Also, not everything in this world has direct observational proof, a lot of concepts rely on indirect evidences!!!
-------------------

As touching the miracles we are saying similar things. I'm saying it can be dismissed because there's no eye witness account, save the bible, while you are asking for its repeatability.

Of course, that all depends on God if he wills to show but if not he will most likely use "physical processes".

-------------------
The assumption of God stems from an higher abstraction of morality.

Some sociologist argue that 'God is society' but this falls short as different societies have different values and so and so forth until we reach the edges of the known universe.

Thus, God is the universal abstraction for morality that is above all.

To answer, your retort to assumptions.
The first assumption of God states he is immaterial!!!
Hence this discourse should be more related to the philosophical sciences!!!

Physical methods fail woefully to prove or disprove immaterial things.
Thus in order to reconcile such a nature to materialism we have to use 'abstractions'.

This by far is a direct Implication of God's nature!!!
God is a spirit, whose effects are seen!!!

This is why we mostly use indirect evidences for God as most direct evidences can be subject to great scrutiny.

Mind you, there are some miracles that are documented such as the "miracle of the sun" with their repeatability entirely subject to God.

This above isn't a direct observational proof, it just leans more into those "display of Glory" narrative.

Hence,the christian argument has always been that "materialism" is a good view but it fails to answer loads of question.

And at best, you can only use it to determine processes and laws which were set from the very "beginning" implying , permit me to say, the predation of mathematical laws.

Although some people argue against the predation of mathematical laws, that's a different story.

My point is that the very laws break down when we reach the beginning suggesting an insufficient framework, co-beginning with the universe or one that philosophically predates the universe 👀.

Irrespective of whatsoever stance you choose, there are reasons to suggest that cosmological fine tuning occurred in our universe 👀.

Lucifyre:
WTF 🤣🤣🤣

Lol. I'm coming back later to address his response. I'm equally gobsmacked. 😂

Edit: Notice he didn't reply to the core question in my address.

FiveFootNinja:
Lol. I'm coming back later to address his response. I'm equally gobsmacked. 😂

Edit: Notice he didn't reply to the core question in my address.

That's his M.O word salad plus evasive maneuvers 😄

Gabrielshow24:
I'm satisfied with "indirect observational proofs" because I have proofs that are rather more subjective than objective.

Of course you do, the challenge is out here in the open your subjective "indirect observational proofs" have no weight. Which is why we need objective evidences that anybody can interact with.

Also, not everything in this world has direct observational proof, a lot of concepts rely on indirect evidences!!!

All the things that matter do.
-------------------

As touching the miracles we are saying similar things. I'm saying it can be dismissed because there's no eye witness account, save the bible, while you are asking for its repeatability.

As I said we need objective demonstrations because then we can interact with it. Asking someone to go off of a story in an ancient compendium doesn't cut it in this day and age.

Of course, that all depends on God if he wills to show but if not he will most likely use "physical processes".

LoLz. So the all powerful god is bound by the rules of this universe? Doesn't sound all powerful or even like a god at all.

-------------------

The assumption of God stems from an higher abstraction of morality.

I disagree. More likely it seems from an abstraction of parent or guardian figures. Most of the ancient conceptions of gods was tied to the environment of the ancient in question because their lives were tied to their immediate environment.

Some sociologist argue that 'God is society' but this falls short as different societies have different values and so and so forth until we reach the edges of the known universe.

Thus, God is the universal abstraction for morality that is above all.

Like I already stated I strongly disagree. Morality is a concept that got elucidated as populations began to grow larger while god concepts arose before that.

But even if the your god was a universal abstraction for morality, it still of no consequence if it cannot be demonstrated to be real. Besides leaping from universal abstraction for morality to created the universe is a very mighty leap indeed.

To answer, your retort to assumptions.
The first assumption of God states he is immaterial!!!
Hence this discourse should be more related to the philosophical sciences!!!

That is an assumption that is a relatively recent development. The ancients didn't write about their gods as though they were immaterial. Even the bible indicates that the god ate food, has bodily parts and so on.

Physical methods fail woefully to prove or disprove immaterial things.
Thus in order to reconcile such a nature to materialism we have to use 'abstractions'.

The problem being these are all conceptual stuff. You are saying the god is responsible for tangible things. You cannot seriously be implying that a concept is responsible for everything we see.

This by far is a direct Implication of God's nature!!!
God is a spirit, whose effects are seen!!!

Again this is a relatively new concept. The bible depicts spirits as being visible and tangible.

This is why we mostly use indirect evidences for God as most direct evidences can be subject to great scrutiny.

Well then, it remains insufficient and I dunno what you want us to do with it.

Mind you, there are some miracles that are documented such as the "miracle of the sun" with their repeatability entirely subject to God.

LoLz. The god who never responds?[/quote]This above isn't a direct observational proof, it just leans more into those "display of Glory" narrative.[/quote]So basically just a story.

Hence,the christian argument has always been that "materialism" is a good view but it fails to answer loads of question.

As a methodological naturalist the only tools I know are all material or at least materially accessible. I welcome some new tools to investigate the immaterial, you just have to demonstrate that they are reliable.

And at best, you can only use it to determine processes and laws which were set from the very "beginning" implying , permit me to say, the predation of mathematical laws.

Which have so far have provided very reliable results. Produce your tools which can investigate the immaterial with the same reliability.

Although some people argue against the predation of mathematical laws, that's a different story.

My point is that the very laws break down when we reach the beginning suggesting an insufficient framework, co-beginning with the universe or one that philosophically predates the universe 👀.

Doesn't matter since you insist that the god is real here and now. Therefore what came before is not as important as here and now.

Irrespective of whatsoever stance you choose, there are reasons to suggest that cosmological fine tuning occurred in our universe 👀.

I don't believe there was any fine tuning. Even if there was it would not suggest an all powerful god at work since it implies there are constraints that cannot be overcome even by a god. If the god could create any universe it liked why would it create one in which it needs to fine tune it for life and thereby waste 99.9999999999999999999999% of the universe? It makes no sense given what we know of the universe. Back when we didn't know how large the universe is it would have seemed like a good answer. Now that we know I don't see any reason to hold on to a primitive idea.

🤦🏽

Bro, first of all, you've gone off on a completely absurd tangent waffling about something else entirely. The time period in which God created the earth wasn't exactly the focal point of my question. It was specifically about purpose and the concept of ideas behind intentional design. I don't understand how you missed that. We'll get to the topic of the length of time of creation but for now, I need you to quit the unnecessary dodge-and-weave and let's focus on the original question which I asked you: if God truly created all species on this earth as they appear today, then can you provide a very solid explanation for why God will create vestigial structures in human beings and animals (appendix, wisdom teeth, coccyx). If there is no apparent purpose to these organs (and some are even harmful in some cases), then why did your God create them?

Now, for the rest of your reply:

Gabrielshow24:
I don't have a problem with evolution 🤔.
I'm familiar with it, I know what I need to know about it.

Of course you do. But do you know enough of it to discard it entirely as a complete lie?

Gabrielshow24:
The bible doesn't provide a basis as to why these structures were created.
It only provides the basis for which man as a whole was created🤔!!!

.

Then why is it called the infallible word of God, and why is it held in such high regard if the information contained inside is incomplete 😕?

I'm pretty sure a book that is believed to perfectly explain the process behind the creation of humans and other living, can also explain why they were created. Why should the two concepts be mutually exclusive? You Christians believe everything happens for a reason so definitely there has to be a very sound and convincing reason why vestigial organs exist 💁🏽.

If you accept that the Bible cannot provide any reason for vestigial organs, then the Bible is just as unreliable as the Theory of Evolution in your own eyes. You can't give what you don't have. You should be treating the Bible with the same level of skepticism because it clearly doesn't have the answers. Yet, you guys don't see the irony in turning a blind eye to the faults of your Bible, while in the same breath decrying evolution for lacking complete information at every chance you get.

Gabrielshow24:
----------------
To reply you, seven days of what?
We have no empirical measurement as to what these seven days constitutes.

Some might argue using peter's words that a thousand years is like a day before God🤔 but even that fails!

We might also posit, taking into cognizance the questions God directed to Job as regards the storehouses of hail etc
We can extrapolate further by assuming that the first seven days were used to make these storehouses, this entire process is often referred to by some christians as the "spiritual creation" by reconciling this with Genesis 1 & 2.

There we see that although man was created on the sixth day he hadn't been molded from the ground yet.

Thus we can speculate that whatsoever those six days are, it could be 'spiritual' based on some measurement we don't yet know about, or it could be relative to our spatial system.

It's all speculation but the consensus among theologians is that gen1 summarized the spiritual creation while gen2 talks about the physical processes 🤔.

When I first read this part of your reply, I burst out laughing 😂 🤣. I need you to take a deep breath and read what you've just written here. If your self-awareness is still intact, you will quickly realize that this tired perambulation about temporal relativism that you did here is a telling indicator of the problems affecting your position in this debate. Now, look at all the speculation you've been reduced to making, even though the Bible you rely on is supposed to be the unrivaled arbiter of universal truth.

What am I supposed to learn from this response you've put up now? Where is the objective, undeniable truth in all these guesstimations 🤔?

If you would be open minded enough to embrace it, science has very strong and convincing answers to the same questions you're tripping over yourself just to answer, dating the age of the universe and our entire solar system to billions of years.

Don't get me wrong, it's your own prerogative to reject scientific assertions, in spite of all the evidence. My only issue is that when you guys reject these assertions (the overwhelming evidence supporting them regardless), you fall back on even worse beliefs and worldviews to answer the questions that you claim you can't find in scientific theories. The funniest part is, on a fundamental level, majority of you have no issue with science at all, except when it stands in direct opposition to your beliefs.

So basically, all you wrote up there is just random guesses and arguments born out of your own ignorance. Notice how you didn't give any definite or profound answers. It was funny watching you bring up Peter's statement though ("a thousand years is like a day before God", completely forgetting that he very likely meant that statement as poetic theological verbiage, which cannot possibly constitute actual fact, given that he didn't arrive at that statement by carrying out any measurements. It read more like a metaphorical expression to describe God transcending the concept of time.

Gabrielshow24:
Judging by the usual biblical narrative to only give you what is 'sufficient' one can infer even from Cain's statement that there were others🤔

Whether 'others' were of "humankind" is still a big question and judging by historical evidences, there seems to be at least a little "cohabitation" or "coexistence" between men and some "creatures".
The obvious one being dinosaurs.

None of what you've just said makes any sense. Where did you get the atrocious idea that humans were cohabiting with dinosaurs? Because science doesn't support this. And I don't think the Bible does either.

Gabrielshow24:
In conclusion, while yet empirically there is no storehouse for "humans" or even hail and
there is insufficient physical evidence to back biblical claims🤔 but it doesn't negate its plausibility.

😕🤔??

😂😂😂😂😂

Dude, you've indirectly just admitted that your position has no basis and is most likely false. I don't know if it's cognitive dissonance or something else, but it's damn too funny watching you feign ignorance at how lost your position is. You've said it just now that there is no empirical evidence for the Bible, and that's fine, but stop pretending as if it's not an issue. The lack of physical evidence for your claims should be enough reason for you to at least re-examine them, and appraise them in the light of the facts, instead of using deflection and window-dressing to avoid facing the uncomfortable truths about your position.

Science is far from perfect, but it has at least 1 thing that your religion cannot boast of, and that is OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE. With science you can even conduct experiments to test the validity of a claim, something we can't do with most of what the Bible says. Science is far from perfect, but one thing it doesn't do is rely on "plausibilities".

LordReed:
It is. Read again the definition of evolution you were given.

It is not. The fact that there are giant on earth is a proof.

So what if they had tales of giants? Where is the physical evidence?

You that can't provide a single proof of Evolution transition is talking about tale and PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

Yes there could be a gene develop that could make us grow wings but it won't happen tomorrow and the environment has to favour that change for it to propagate into the population.

Pure lie.

There's no gene that could make human have wings, if there's, human will have wings.

The kind of changes that are more likely are to the shape our skulls, bone density, limb length, lung capacity, thoracic size and so on. This is because we can see things already happening like our brains becoming bigger, changes in nutrient availability, changes in air quality and so on. Its not magic. Nobody is telling you humans will become flying monkeys tomorrow.

Just another lie, do ape brains also getting bigger?

The pattern in human has remained the same, if human will be 100 millions years, human will continue to give birth to human and nothing like transition to another thing will ever occur.

No single person would have seen it happen all at once but if they had been keeping records of the changes they would see something like the attached picture.

And you believe it.
Attached picture by just your imagination not what not anyone can observed.

The common ancestor of humans, apes and monkeys was a mammal that already had four limbs, 2 eyes, 1 nose, 1 mouth, 2 ears, a tail and other anatomical features you can see on any mammal.

Does the ancestor of the common ancestor of your ancestors started with 2 eyes, four limbs, 1 nose, have brain or no brain?

If there were people to observe and record the changes they would have see the tail get shorter and shorter till it is no longer visible.

Speaking so confidently as if he saw them with tails

The spine will change curvature as bipedal motions becomes more and more used rather than going on all fours. Skull shape will be changing because the brain is getting bigger and diet is changing. Fingers, thumbs and toes change shape because of more terrestrial dwelling than arboreal. And so on and so forth. These changes will be observed over several million years not at once like a magic show.

When you don't even know how anything was like in just 500 thousand years ago.

How does evolution happened within Tree to living beings?

Which first came up?

What transition do you think we should have observed by now?

Like human begin to born a baby with a finger like wing or rock or instead of hair on the head we should be seen grasses which will show human are evolving at least human have being on earth for over 300,000 years.

But as long as human will give birth to another human, it shows that's how the Creator designed them to be.

FiveFootNinja:
🤦🏽

Bro, first of all, you've gone off on a completely absurd tangent waffling about something else entirely. The time period in which God created the earth wasn't exactly the focal point of my question. It was specifically about purpose and the concept of ideas behind intentional design. I don't understand how you missed that. We'll get to the topic of the length of time of creation but for now, I need you to quit the unnecessary dodge-and-weave and let's focus on the original question which I asked you: if God truly created all species on this earth as they appear today, then can you provide a very solid explanation for why God will create vestigial structures in human beings and animals (appendix, wisdom teeth, coccyx). If there is no apparent purpose to these organs (and some are even harmful in some cases), then why did your God create them?

Now, for the rest of your reply:



Of course you do. But do you know enough of it to discard it entirely as a complete lie?

.

Then why is it called the infallible word of God, and why is it held in such high regard if the information contained inside is incomplete 😕?

I'm pretty sure a book that is believed to perfectly explain the process behind the creation of humans and other living, can also explain why they were created. Why should the two concepts be mutually exclusive? You Christians believe everything happens for a reason so definitely there has to be a very sound and convincing reason why vestigial organs exist 💁🏽.

If you accept that the Bible cannot provide any reason for vestigial organs, then the Bible is just as unreliable as the Theory of Evolution in your own eyes. You can't give what you don't have. You should be treating the Bible with the same level of skepticism because it clearly doesn't have the answers. Yet, you guys don't see the irony in turning a blind eye to the faults of your Bible, while in the same breath decrying evolution for lacking complete information at every chance you get.



When I first read this part of your reply, I burst out laughing 😂 🤣. I need you to take a deep breath and read what you've just written here. If your self-awareness is still intact, you will quickly realize that this tired perambulation about temporal relativism that you did here is a telling indicator of the problems affecting your position in this debate. Now, look at all the speculation you've been reduced to making, even though the Bible you rely on is supposed to be the unrivaled arbiter of universal truth.

What am I supposed to learn from this response you've put up now? Where is the objective, undeniable truth in all these guesstimations 🤔?

If you would be open minded enough to embrace it, science has very strong and convincing answers to the same questions you're tripping over yourself just to answer, dating the age of the universe and our entire solar system to billions of years.

Don't get me wrong, it's your own prerogative to reject scientific assertions, in spite of all the evidence. My only issue is that when you guys reject these assertions (the overwhelming evidence supporting them regardless), you fall back on even worse beliefs and worldviews to answer the questions that you claim you can't find in scientific theories. The funniest part is, on a fundamental level, majority of you have no issue with science at all, except when it stands in direct opposition to your beliefs.

So basically, all you wrote up there is just random guesses and arguments born out of your own ignorance. Notice how you didn't give any definite or profound answers. It was funny watching you bring up Peter's statement though ("a thousand years is like a day before God", completely forgetting that he very likely meant that statement as poetic theological verbiage, which cannot possibly constitute actual fact, given that he didn't arrive at that statement by carrying out any measurements. It read more like a metaphorical expression to describe God transcending the concept of time.



None of what you've just said makes any sense. Where did you get the atrocious idea that humans were cohabiting with dinosaurs? Because science doesn't support this. And I don't think the Bible does either.



😕🤔??

😂😂😂😂😂

Dude, you've indirectly just admitted that your position has no basis and is most likely false. I don't know if it's cognitive dissonance or something else, but it's damn too funny watching you feign ignorance at how lost your position is. You've said it just now that there is no empirical evidence for the Bible, and that's fine, but stop pretending as if it's not an issue. The lack of physical evidence for your claims should be enough reason for you to at least re-examine them, and appraise them in the light of the facts, instead of using deflection and window-dressing to avoid facing the uncomfortable truths about your position.

Science is far from perfect, but it has at least 1 thing that your religion cannot boast of, and that is OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE. With science you can even conduct experiments to test the validity of a claim, something we can't do with most of what the Bible says. Science is far from perfect, but one thing it doesn't do is rely on "plausibilities".

I answered your question, the bible doesn't give detailed explanation as to why vestigial structures were formed.

It gives reasons why man as a whole was formed!

To use the words of Galileo, the bible shows the way to get to heaven but not how the heavens go!!!

The bible's core message is about salvation.
Giving historical contexts where necessary.

It gave us an overview that the heavens and the earth were made in seven days!
I have gone through this already.

-------------------
Based on fossil records and artifacts found in ancient civilizations, the images of some "dinosaurs" are clearly depicted!!!

That's why I said so.
My bad for not clarifying the era!!!
You can do your research and refute me, if possible.
---------------------
Once again, I am not against scientific principles, I use and embrace them in my day to day activities.

My allusion to Reed's question was that the seven days wasn't "physical" hence the "guess estimations" to prove my point!
--------------------
My 'lack of evidence' statement is related to the "seven days" explanation. There's no way to reconcile this with physical explanations!
I hold on to that out of strong belief.
--------------------
Also, like you said Science isn't perfect we are still far from unifying every principle but like I said, you will at best just be looking at the "factory processes" and not the "maker".

That's the christian belief!!!

LordReed:
Of course you do, the challenge is out here in the open your subjective "indirect observational proofs" have no weight. Which is why we need objective evidences that anybody can interact with.



All the things that matter do.
-------------------



As I said we need objective demonstrations because then we can interact with it. Asking someone to go off of a story in an ancient compendium doesn't cut it in this day and age.



LoLz. So the all powerful god is bound by the rules of this universe? Doesn't sound all powerful or even like a god at all.

-------------------


I disagree. More likely it seems from an abstraction of parent or guardian figures. Most of the ancient conceptions of gods was tied to the environment of the ancient in question because their lives were tied to their immediate environment.



Like I already stated I strongly disagree. Morality is a concept that got elucidated as populations began to grow larger while god concepts arose before that.

But even if the your god was a universal abstraction for morality, it still of no consequence if it cannot be demonstrated to be real. Besides leaping from universal abstraction for morality to created the universe is a very mighty leap indeed.



That is an assumption that is a relatively recent development. The ancients didn't write about their gods as though they were immaterial. Even the bible indicates that the god ate food, has bodily parts and so on.



The problem being these are all conceptual stuff. You are saying the god is responsible for tangible things. You cannot seriously be implying that a concept is responsible for everything we see.



Again this is a relatively new concept. The bible depicts spirits as being visible and tangible.



Well then, it remains insufficient and I dunno what you want us to do with it.



LoLz. The god who never responds?

This above isn't a direct observational proof, it just leans more into those "display of Glory" narrative.

So basically just a story.

Hence,the christian argument has always been that "materialism" is a good view but it fails to answer loads of question.

As a methodological naturalist the only tools I know are all material or at least materially accessible. I welcome some new tools to investigate the immaterial, you just have to demonstrate that they are reliable.

And at best, you can only use it to determine processes and laws which were set from the very "beginning" implying , permit me to say, the predation of mathematical laws.

Which have so far have provided very reliable results. Produce your tools which can investigate the immaterial with the same reliability.

Although some people argue against the predation of mathematical laws, that's a different story.

My point is that the very laws break down when we reach the beginning suggesting an insufficient framework, co-beginning with the universe or one that philosophically predates the universe 👀.

Doesn't matter since you insist that the god is real here and now. Therefore what came before is not as important as here and now.

Irrespective of whatsoever stance you choose, there are reasons to suggest that cosmological fine tuning occurred in our universe 👀.



I don't believe there was any fine tuning. Even if there was it would not suggest an all powerful god at work since it implies there are constraints that cannot be overcome even by a god. If the god could create any universe it liked why would it create one in which it needs to fine tune it for life and thereby waste 99.9999999999999999999999% of the universe? It makes no sense given what we know of the universe. Back when we didn't know how large the universe is it would have seemed like a good answer. Now that we know I don't see any reason to hold on to a primitive idea.

You can disagree all you want, that's the consensus of sociologists, although not all.

Some equate God to society, I have been through this already.
----------------
Fine tuning doesn't necessarily mean that the same 'God' or 'process'👀 can't fine tune 'others'.

It doesn't also mean that 99.99% percent ended as a failure.
That's a bad argument, there's no way to determine such!!!
-----------------
You seem not to have gone through the miracle of the sun's documentation.

That's just one basis.
The same can't be said for other miracles found in the bible as it will be subject to great scrutiny.
Thus they do not fit scientific materialism!
----------------
Based on the Scientific approach the miracles if at all they occurred will be just one time events.

One that the repeatability factor depends on the will of God to perform such act!!!

I mentioned 'physical processes' because they are the laws initialized with the universe 👀.
It's when He has to prove something that He 'suspends' the laws he has set down!!!
----------------
We will keep going back and forth without any head way!

The scientific principles leans greatly into "materialism".

Which has it's own flaws!!!

While materialism will be suitable for all "materials" it will fail for other non concrete concepts!!!

Keep that in mind!
-------------------
Most of those things there are not relatively new.
Since the time of the early Jews they believed that God was a spirit. He was all powerful and everywhere!!!

Thus the believe of the Jews, was that God transcended all!!!
---------------------
The bible provides context for spirits suggesting that they can take up physical forms at will!!!

It doesn't negate their original nature!!!
Thus from the biblical principle, God transcends all!!!

Emusan:
It is not. The fact that there are giant on earth is a proof.

Very much is.

This is the definition of evolution you were given:

Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. It occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection and genetic drift act on genetic variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more or less common within a population over successive generations. The more these changes occur and accumulate the more diversity you get.

Exactly what is happening with the change in average height I gave as example.


Provide evidence of these giants.

You that can't provide a single proof of Evolution transition is talking about tale and PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

You're still looking for magic tricks. I have given you an example of an evolutionary change. Speciation and branch off events can also be evidenced. Read: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evo-news/speciation-in-real-time/

Pure lie.

There's no gene that could make human have wings, if there's, human will have wings.

LoLz. It's a hypothetical. I never said there's a gene in human's that can make them grow wings. I said it is possible given the right set of evolutionary conditions for it to happen but what we see now makes it unlikely.

Just another lie, do ape brains also getting bigger?

LoLz. You just keep shouting lie, lie with nothing to back it up. Meanwhile read: https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/human-brains-are-getting-larger-that-may-be-good-news-for-dementia-risk/2024/03#:~:text=A%20new%20study%20by%20researchers%20at%20UC%20Davis,surface%20area%20than%20those%20born%20in%20the%201930s.

The pattern in human has remained the same, if human will be 100 millions years, human will continue to give birth to human and nothing like transition to another thing will ever occur.

The pattern in humans has not remained the same. Anatomical modern human emerged about 200,000 years ago. Other forms of humans were present at some point also in the past, like Neanderthals.

And you believe it.
Attached picture by just your imagination not what not anyone can observed.

LoLz. You want pictures of fishes that lived before cameras were invented? You must be a joker.

Does the ancestor of the common ancestor of your ancestors started with 2 eyes, four limbs, 1 nose, have brain or no brain?

Yes it had a brain.

Speaking so confidently as if he saw them with tails

No need, we have vestigal tails. In fact some times children are born with tails poking out, read: https://scientificorigin.com/why-are-some-babies-born-with-a-tail

When you don't even know how anything was like in just 500 thousand years ago.

We do know what things were like 500,000 years ago because of both geologic and fossil evidence.

How does evolution happened within Tree to living beings?

Which first came up?

I don't understand this question. Are you asking if trees evolved into humans? If that is the question then no.

Like human begin to born a baby with a finger like wing or rock or instead of hair on the head we should be seen grasses which will show human are evolving at least human have being on earth for over 300,000 years.

But as long as human will give birth to another human, it shows that's how the Creator designed them to be.

You keep asking for magic tricks and fail to understand what is being explained to you. I have no magic tricks to show you.

Gabrielshow24:
You can disagree all you want, that's the consensus of sociologists, although not all.

Some equate God to society, I have been through this already.

There is no such consensus.

Good for the some, I disagree with them.
----------------

Fine tuning doesn't necessarily mean that the same 'God' or 'process'👀 can't fine tune 'others'.

Fine tune other what?

It doesn't also mean that 99.99% percent ended as a failure.
That's a bad argument, there's no way to determine such!!!

I said waste not failure.

You mean a god wasting 99.99999999% of the universe is a good argument?
-----------------

You seem not to have gone through the miracle of the sun's documentation.

It's a story, there is no documentation.

That's just one basis.
The same can't be said for other miracles found in the bible as it will be subject to great scrutiny.
Thus they do not fit scientific materialism!

Whether or not it fits scientific materialism is irrelevant. What matters is neither you or any other believer can demonstrate the reality of those miracles.
----------------

Based on the Scientific approach the miracles if at all they occurred will be just one time events.

One that the repeatability factor depends on the will of God to perform such act!!!

I mentioned 'physical processes' because they are the laws initialized with the universe 👀.
It's when He has to prove something that He 'suspends' the laws he has set down!!!

Then get your god to repeat it. Have the god's powers been exhausted?
----------------

We will keep going back and forth without any head way!

The scientific principles leans greatly into "materialism".

Which has it's own flaws!!!

While materialism will be suitable for all "materials" it will fail for other non concrete concepts!!!

Keep that in mind!

Then give me the tools that are just as reliable as the scientific method. Simple.
-------------------

Most of those things there are not relatively new.
Since the time of the early Jews they believed that God was a spirit. He was all powerful and everywhere!!!

And they believed spirits could eat and be touched.

Thus the believe of the Jews, was that God transcended all!!!

Irrelevant. The so called transcendent god came to eat with his friend so he might as well do something special once again.
---------------------

The bible provides context for spirits suggesting that they can take up physical forms at will!!!

Great, let them come let's see them.

It doesn't negate their original nature!!!
Thus from the biblical principle, God transcends all!!!

Again irrelevant. They should demonstrate their being and/or powers or remain stories from an ancient compendium.

Gabrielshow24:
I answered your question, the bible doesn't give detailed explanation as to why vestigial structures were formed.

It gives reasons why man as a whole was formed!

To use the words of Galileo, the bible shows the way to get to heaven but not how the heavens go!!!

The bible's core message is about salvation.
Giving historical contexts where necessary.

It gave us an overview that the heavens and the earth were made in seven days!
I have gone through this already.

-------------------
Based on fossil records and artifacts found in ancient civilizations, the images of some "dinosaurs" are clearly depicted!!!

That's why I said so.
My bad for not clarifying the era!!!
You can do your research and refute me, if possible.
---------------------
Once again, I am not against scientific principles, I use and embrace them in my day to day activities.

My allusion to Reed's question was that the seven days wasn't "physical" hence the "guess estimations" to prove my point!
--------------------
My 'lack of evidence' statement is related to the "seven days" explanation. There's no way to reconcile this with physical explanations!
I hold on to that out of strong belief.
--------------------
Also, like you said Science isn't perfect we are still far from unifying every principle but like I said, you will at best just be looking at the "factory processes" and not the "maker".

That's the christian belief!!!

Fine then. So why should I believe your God and trust his soteriological proclamations and promises (salvation), if he can't even be bothered to provide validation for his cosmological claims 🤔? Something like that should be fúcking simple for an all-powerful being, so I don't see why not. And in tandem with his desire for mankind's salvation, what exactly is stopping him from elucidating the creation process accurately 💁🏽?

The Bible can't even get basic facts about our observable universe correct, but you expect us to take its metaphysical claims for granted?

It's cute that you want to maintain your "strong belief". But whether you believe or not is inconsequential to the universe. The universe operates strictly according to immutable physical laws, and it makes no difference if you comprehend them or you don't.

And if truly you cared about scientific principles, or at least respected them, then you would know that it makes no sense to make random speculations or try to force-fit biblical narratives into the observable reality. For your info, the point of that quote by Galileo that you cited was to express a similar sentiment, fighting against scriptural literalism or the combination of religious beliefs with scientific ideas.

Regarding the dinosaurs, the geological evidence is as bright as day: they went extinct roughly 60 million years before human beings even came into the picture. So your reference to fossil records depicting dinosaurs in ancient civilizations sounds like a misunderstanding of paleontological taxonomy to me 🤷🏽.

FiveFootNinja:
Fine then. So why should I believe your God and trust his soteriological proclamations and promises (salvation), if he can't even be bothered to provide validation for his cosmological claims 🤔? Something like that should be fúcking simple for an all-powerful being, so I don't see why not. And in tandem with his desire for mankind's salvation, what exactly is stopping him from elucidating the creation process accurately 💁🏽?

The Bible can't even get basic facts about our observable universe correct, but you expect us to take its metaphysical claims for granted?

It's cute that you want to maintain your "strong belief". But whether you believe or not is inconsequential to the universe. The universe operates strictly according to immutable physical laws, and it makes no difference if you comprehend them or you don't.

And if truly you cared about scientific principles, or at least respected them, then you would know that it makes no sense to make random speculations or try to force-fit biblical narratives into the observable reality. For your info, the point of that quote by Galileo that you cited was to express a similar sentiment, fighting against scriptural literalism or the combination of religious beliefs with scientific ideas.

Regarding the dinosaurs, the geological evidence is as bright as day: they went extinct roughly 60 million years before human beings even came into the picture. So your reference to fossil records depicting dinosaurs in ancient civilizations sounds like a misunderstanding of paleontological taxonomy to me 🤷🏽.

Science alludes to dinosaurs going extinct around that time yet fossil records reveal representations of such 'animals' in human civilizations.

While some suggest they most likely stumbled upon the carcasses of these extinct animals

There are slight reasons to suggest they 'saw' and recorded of such creatures.

The last theory just borderline centers on human creativity.
Where man's creative expression is at foot.

It just an allusion to a different view 🤔 based on ancient artifacts.

To answer your question on God.
Well, that depends on God.
God said "I am that I am".
He also doesn't need your validation to be God! He revealed what was sufficient!

God is not after those that are materialistic that can't see beyond the realm of materialism!
He wants those that put their trust in him despite physical odds.

The immaterial brings forth all things.
And all things are contained within the immaterial!
The big bang in a way confirms this concept!

God decides to reveal himself to whomsoever he wills, it's more of a test.
Surely if God revealed himself today, all of you will convert immediately 👀 which denigrates his MO for this present world —living by faith.

THE GRAND ORDER DOMINION LIVES FOREVER.

Gabrielshow24:
Science alludes to dinosaurs going extinct around that time yet fossil records reveal representations of such 'animals' in human civilizations.

While some suggest they most likely stumbled upon the carcasses of these extinct animals

There are slight reasons to suggest they 'saw' and recorded of such creatures.

The last theory just borderline centers on human creativity.
Where man's creative expression is at foot.

It just an allusion to a different view 🤔 based on ancient artifacts.

To answer your question on God.
Well, that depends on God.
God said "I am that I am".
He also doesn't need your validation to be God! He revealed what was sufficient!

God is not after those that are materialistic that can't see beyond the realm of materialism!
He wants those that put their trust in him despite physical odds.

The immaterial brings forth all things.
And all things are contained within the immaterial!
The big bang in a way confirms this concept!

God decides to reveal himself to whomsoever he wills, it's more of a test.
Surely if God revealed himself today, all of you will convert immediately 👀 which denigrates his MO for this present world —living by faith.

What are these slight reasons to suggest they 'saw' and recorded of such creatures.

The god will never be revealed because it doesn't exist, that's why you need to invent all these excuses.

Gabrielshow24:
Science alludes to dinosaurs going extinct around that time yet fossil records reveal representations of such 'animals' in human civilizations.

While some suggest they most likely stumbled upon the carcasses of these extinct animals

There are slight reasons to suggest they 'saw' and recorded of such creatures.

Let's not get lost in the shuffle here. Even if humans really did come across dinosaur fossils, it's not the same thing as actually recording living breathing dinosaurs. So your earlier claim about humans and dinosaurs cohabiting together is still very much suspect because there's no evidence for that.

Gabrielshow24:
The last theory just borderline centers on human creativity.
Where man's creative expression is at foot.

It just an allusion to a different view 🤔 based on ancient artifacts.

When it comes to reality, evidence trumps human creativity all day.

Gabrielshow24:
To answer your question on God.
Well, that depends on God.
God said "I am that I am".
He also doesn't need your validation to be God! He revealed what was sufficient!

You Christians always present this kind of talk or a variation of it whenever you want to hide your God from further scrutiny. There's little choice for you besides placing him above human reach or understanding. Except most of you Christians don't even try to be consistent with your logic because you'll later go to church on Sunday and start telling people what God wants and what he doesn't want as if you're in his mind. If your God is beyond human comprehension, you shouldn't be knowing that much about him. Lol.

Gabrielshow24:
God is not after those that are materialistic that can't see beyond the realm of materialism!

Irony is you probably learnt this theological axiom from a physical book: The Bible. It's a bit funny though. God needs you rely on a material object to study his word and gain belief and understanding.

If you want me to accept that there is any such thing as a spiritual realm, you'll have to demonstrate it to me somehow. If you can't, them I'm justified to assert that it's all in your head, no matter how much you protest.

Self-evident facts are never contested. It is a fact that you and I exist, else this conversation wouldn't be happening, and our conversation wouldn't be this intelligible. You can't say God exists, then make his existence selective based on certain criteria. It strips away from the objectivity of your claim.

Gabrielshow24:
He wants those that put their trust in him despite physical odds.

I'll just take it at this point that you're admitting you don't have any evidence for your God. Yes?

Gabrielshow24:
The immaterial brings forth all things.
And all things are contained within the immaterial!
The big bang in a way confirms this concept!

Then you're not well informed on the Big Bang because it does not involve the invocation of an immaterial realm. The current laws of physics, are already enough to explain the evolution of the universe from the initial singularity to the present day.

Gabrielshow24:
God decides to reveal himself to whomsoever he wills, it's more of a test.

More pussyfooting to hide the fact that there's no proof of his existence.

Gabrielshow24:
Surely if God revealed himself today, all of you will convert immediately 👀 which denigrates his MO for this present world —living by faith.

I will acknowledge that he exists, but I definitely won't worship him. The God of the Old Testament is a petulant and immature deity that doesn't deserve my respect. If you're cool with genocide, infanticide and all that crap, then that's okay for you.

Emusan:
Growth has been part of living things, it's not a proof for evolution.

The same part of Europe that are getting taller can be grown smaller in few years time.

Have you recorded transition of one animal to another thing as you claim about living things evolution on earth?

You don't even understand what I'm saying.
I said the average growth of some regions of Europe are higher than what it was decades or centuries ago.
Also I asked you about human tail. U haven’t replied

advocatejare:
😆
In short, you can’t provide the signed documents to your lies!

Now the whole world can see you for your lies.


Now that I’ve proven that you lied that the Residents Doctors’ strike was due to insecurity and not because of Dr. Ganiyat that was kidnapped, let’s talk about how you became an atheist because your father who destroyed many lives with his alcoholic business also died and you got disappointed in God for allowing your father to die

Keep on twisting stories.
If you cannot see where the NARD President said the strike was due to insecurity, then its on you. I also told you all those were discussed in the NEC which you weren't there.
Please where did I say I was disappointed with your god in my write up? Do you have comprehension issues?

advocatejare:
@Jaephoenix you lamented that “ This man was a vibrant Christian. Left his booming alcohol business to become a Christian and from there his health dwindled….
Then I started digging.”
https://www.nairaland.com/7942670/why-became-atheist

From what you wrote, it was because your dad “left his booming alcohol business to become a Christian “ was the reason his health dwindled.

So you’d rather he continue using his alcoholic business to destroy peoples’ lives and not stop to become a Christian. You’re a selfish person, you’re only concerned about the gains your father was making from selling alcohol to destroy peoples’ lives,

But when he eventually died, you now started digging and the digging led you into atheism!

Did you read the part I said I was asking questions as a child or like I pointed out before, u have comprehension issues?

TenQ:
Good!

The SOUL is similar to the SOFTWARE that runs the body of an orgasm where the Brain serves more or less as the CPU and HDD.

Just like for the Software in a System, There is no known physical means of determination it's existence.



All Atheist argument focus on the Hardware (Brain and Chemicals) but forget that a software (SOUL) runs under the hood.

Why do you think that even though we learn as we grow, Babies seems to come with some limited pre-programmed behaviours that aren't a product of learning by experience.

1. Then how do you know in fact we have souls when u cannot determine its existence by any means?
2. Babies have limited knowledge cos their brains are immature and small. As they keep on growing in age, they acquire more knowledge and experience and their brain size grows rapidly. As they reach a particular age, maybe 3 to 5 years, the rapid growth in brain size reduces. It has absolutely nothing to do with any soul?

jaephoenix:
1. Then how do you know in fact we have souls when u cannot determine its existence by any means?

Even common sense tells you that we have a kind of Programming or Software that operates the hardware of our body. This is what is called the SOUL!

How do you know that a vehicles Navigator system has a Software running it?


Babies seem to come preprogrammed to learn and to survive outside the womb of their mother's isn't it?

jaephoenix:
2. Babies have limited knowledge cos their brains are immature and small. As they keep on growing in age, they acquire more knowledge and experience and their brain size grows rapidly. As they reach a particular age, maybe 3 to 5 years, the rapid growth in brain size reduces. It has absolutely nothing to do with any soul?

Babies seem to come preprogrammed to learn and to survive outside the womb of their mother's isn't it?

You have just described a self learning AI system isn't it?

jaephoenix:
Did you read the part I said I was asking questions as a child or like I pointed out before, u have comprehension issues?

You wrote that you started digging after your father died. The digging eventually led you into atheism.

So when your father was ruining people’s lives with his alcohol sales, you weren’t digging then because he was spending the proceeds on you and the rest of the family? You’re a selfish person!