₦airaland Forum

TenQ:
I no send you this: Irrelevant talk!

Yeah, the confident ignorance had to be shown for what it is, same as the rest of this comment. Let's demonstrate that again, shall we?

TenQ:
I don't know your Humbaba and moreover, It was YOUR criteria I asked for. Since apparently you know Humbaba, what is their criteria?
The question was very simple:

So, again:
1. You challenged the apparent "lack" of evidence for God: What kind of evidence do you think will suffice for YOU as evidence for the Creator?

Smh. Read again. Maybe this time you'd comprehend, but I understand why you're determined to miss the point.

Let me show you how silly your follow-up question is:

“I don't know your YHWH, and moreover, it was YOUR criteria I asked for. Since apparently you know YHWH, what is their criteria?”

The same evidence that would suffice for you to know Humbaba created it! If you had any evidence, you wouldn't be so determined to miss the point. You would have already gone ahead and demonstrated it instead of asking for “criteria.”

But since it's an empty claim that is in no way factual, ergo this dance.

Anyways, let me dance with you. Here, cant miss it twice:

Evidence that clearly demonstrates that the universe was indeed "created", and that it was created by a single creator and not multiple creators, and that this creator is not Humbaba or any of the other claimants but YHWH, evidence that doesn't hide in gaps in our knowledge and ignorance,. Easy, right?! Moving on.

TenQ:
Evasive as usual, I made a claim. make your own counterclaim or disprove the claim of the universe.

Unfortunately, you could have gotten the answer easily if you are not intellectually lazy

Planck Collaboration, Astronomy & Astrophysics — The Planck 2018 cosmological parameters paper reports an age of 13.787 ± 0.020 billion years under the base [\Lambda] CDM model, which is commonly rounded to 13.8 billion years
OR
Planck result overview, Astronomy & Astrophysics — The Planck 2018 overview paper also gives an age of 13.797 ± 0.023 billion years, again consistent with about 13.8 billion years

Oh, sweet irony. I love this tangential retreat.

I never asked you for the estimated age of the observable universe, but I understand why you'd prefer to answer that. So try again, please. Show us where, in what you cited, it establishes the consensus that the universe absolutely had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.
You claim science says the universe had a beginning. Show us where it says that.

TenQ:
WRT to the highlight in Yellow you are the one trying to force a certain narrative of the word NOTHING as objective reality as I did NOT qualify NOTHING other than the normal use of absence of Matter. Or you think matter had always existed?

Now, enough with the digression, please answer my question.

2. Since science agree that the universe has a beginning at about 13.8billion years ago, what in your opinion allowed the simultaneous creation of time, space and matter from NOTHING?

Again with the irony. We've gotten to the part where words don't mean words. Let's consult the dictionary, shall we?

«“Nothing, no-thing, or no thing is the complete absence of anything, as the opposite of something and an antithesis of everything.”»

So how can the absence of just matter be “nothing”? This is where the retreat happens. Spacetime, fields, energy, quantum states, physical laws and even quanyum vacuum — these are quite clearly something. But let's dance along and take it at face value. You're boldly making the claim that there was a state in which matter was absent, and that time, space and matter were subsequently "created" from it.

Can you show evidence for that claim, or any scientific consensus that makes that claim? You can't keep making unsubstantiated, empty claims about what science says and then fail to show that science actually says those things. It shows you don't know what you're talking about. This is the ignorance I said I'd demonstrate. So I await the evidence of science presenting as fact:

1. That the universe had an absolute beginning 13.8 billion years ago;
2. That there was a state in which matter was absent; and
3. That space, time and matter were subsequently "created" from it.

So I can give answers to facts, and not a caricature presented as the facts.

Tick tock.

Lucifyre:
Yeah, the confident ignorance had to be shown for what it is, same as the rest of this comment. Let's demonstrate that again, shall we?



Smh. Read again. Maybe this time you'd comprehend, but I understand why you're determined to miss the point.

Let me show you how silly your follow-up question is:

“I don't know your YHWH, and moreover, it was YOUR criteria I asked for. Since apparently you know YHWH, what is their criteria?”

The same evidence that would suffice for you to know Humbaba created it! If you had any evidence, you wouldn't be so determined to miss the point. You would have already gone ahead and demonstrated it instead of asking for “criteria.”

But since it's an empty claim that is in no way factual, ergo this dance.

Anyways, let me dance with you. Here, cant miss it twice:

Evidence that clearly demonstrates that the universe was indeed "created", and that it was created by a single creator and not multiple creators, and that this creator is not Humbaba or any of the other claimants but YHWH, evidence that doesn't hide in gaps in our knowledge and ignorance,. Easy, right?! Moving on.



Oh, sweet irony. I love this tangential retreat.

I never asked you for the estimated age of the observable universe, but I understand why you'd prefer to answer that. So try again, please. Show us where, in what you cited, it establishes the consensus that the universe absolutely had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.
You claim science says the universe had a beginning. Show us where it says that.



Again with the irony. We've gotten to the part where words don't mean words. Let's consult the dictionary, shall we?

«“Nothing, no-thing, or no thing is the complete absence of anything, as the opposite of something and an antithesis of everything.”»

So how can the absence of just matter be “nothing”? This is where the retreat happens. Spacetime, fields, energy, quantum states, physical laws and even quanyum vacuum — these are quite clearly something. But let's dance along and take it at face value. You're boldly making the claim that there was a state in which matter was absent, and that time, space and matter were subsequently "created" from it.

Can you show evidence for that claim, or any scientific consensus that makes that claim? You can't keep making unsubstantiated, empty claims about what science says and then fail to show that science actually says those things. It shows you don't know what you're talking about. This is the ignorance I said I'd demonstrate. So I await the evidence of science presenting as fact:

1. That the universe had an absolute beginning 13.8 billion years ago;
2. That there was a state in which matter was absent; and
3. That space, time and matter were subsequently "created" from it.

So I can give answers to facts, and not a caricature presented as the facts.

Tick tock.

I see that you are absolutely terrified of being asked questions that expose your frail foundations. The kind of fight you want is one in which you are the only one allowed to punch while your opponent is only allowed to defend your punch. SMH!

If you cannot answer simple questions to reveal exactly what YOU hold as a position, dont waste my time.

The Questions were elementary
So, again:
1. You challenged the apparent "lack" of evidence for God: What kind of evidence do you think will suffice for YOU as evidence for the Creator?
Its about your position and opinion not what others hold.


2. Since science agree that the universe has a beginning at about 13.8billion years ago, what in your opinion allowed the simultaneous creation of time, space and matter from NOTHING?
Except you want to tell us the name of that fundamental "something" from which time, space and matter evolved or assert that time, space and matter had always existed.
SMH!

Proverbs 26:12

TenQ:
I see that you are absolutely terrified of being asked questions that expose your frail foundations. The kind of fight you want is one in which you are the only one allowed to punch while your opponent is only allowed to defend your punch. SMH!

Fight?! Wow! Does exposing “frail foundations” suddenly make yours solid? Who knew! If that makes you feel better about having actually demonstrated your ignorance—confidently at that—it's fine. After all, we're talking feelings and empty claims, not demonstrable facts right? You guys are too easy. 😁

Guess I'm just so terrified that I purposefully refused to cite references for the things I magically claimed science presents as facts. It's okay to drop the mirror, you know. You claim “science agrees.” Show us science agreeing with the specific claim you made...
Error 404!!!!

TenQ:
If you cannot answer simple questions to reveal exactly what YOU hold as a position, dont waste my time.

You mean the question I already answered and you've simply chosen to ignore twice? I told you exactly what evidence would suffice: "Evidence that demonstrates the universe was indeed created, that it was created by a single creator and not multiple creators, and that this creator is not Humbaba but YHWH, and that it was made how YWHW claimed it was made and not the way Humbaba did." That's my answer to your question 1. The same evidence that convinced you it's not Humbaba, Allah, or any of the other claimants, but YHWH alone.

You don't get to repeatedly ask the same question and then pretend I haven't answered it simply because you don't like the answer, because you know the emptiness of your claim can't meet up. Even your retreating response says a lot about the emptiness of the claim - does knowing or attacking my position in anyway validate urs as true?. If I go to collect insurance because my house burned down, I don't ask the investigator “what evidence would convince you?” except I have nothing but emoty claims. 😁

Guess elementary questions aren't so “elementary” when they're built on ignorance. “Why do goats not come from seeds since chickens come from eggs?” Exactly why I said I'd demonstrate your ignorance. At least be knowledgeable about what you're trying to attack before attacking it with questions that make you look silly—especially when you can't demonstrate the “facts” baked into the questions you're asking.

There's a reason you could cite nothing, and would cite nothing—pun intended—10 years from now while still making the same imaginary claim. If I say Christianity and the Bible “agrees” that Mohammed was worshipped by Jesus in the wilderness, and then ask you when Mohammed baptised Jesus, that's your “elementary question.”

Sounds brilliant, right? Funny thing is, you'd obviously push back and ask: “Where does the Bible say that?”
And rightly so - Proverbs 26:12 indeed. So it's quite simple really: where does science present the conclusions baked into the premises of your questions as factual?

Of course, nowhere in the sources you've provided. That's why you can't cite it and keep retreating and dancing instead of demonstrating them. Next you'd claim “Science agrees humans came from monkeys lol.”
So I await the evidence of science presenting as established fact:

1. That the universe had an absolute BEGINNING 13.8 billion years ago;

2. That there was a state in which matter was absent called “nothing”;

3. That space, time and matter were subsequently “created” from said nothing; and

4. Where science demonstrated “NOTHING” as a fact that existed at a point.

The irony is that you're claiming I'm evading questions whose premises you haven't established, while you're the one dodging the establishment of the premises you claim as factual. Drop the mirror and stop projecting.
So go ahead: show us where science establishes those four premises, and I'll happily answer question 2.

This is a fun demo - Proverbs 26:5 & 7. Don't chicken out now with the "waste my time" gimmick. Tick Tock 😉

TenQ:
I see that you are absolutely terrified of being asked questions that expose your frail foundations. The kind of fight you want is one in which you are the only one allowed to punch while your opponent is only allowed to defend your punch. SMH!

If you cannot answer simple questions to reveal exactly what YOU hold as a position, dont waste my time.

The Questions were elementary
So, again:
1. You challenged the apparent "lack" of evidence for God: What kind of evidence do you think will suffice for YOU as evidence for the Creator?
Its about your position and opinion not what others hold.


2. Since science agree that the universe has a beginning at about 13.8billion years ago, what in your opinion allowed the simultaneous creation of time, space and matter from NOTHING?
Except you want to tell us the name of that fundamental "something" from which time, space and matter evolved or assert that time, space and matter had always existed.
SMH!

Proverbs 26:12

As expected — absolutely “NO THING.” 😄
There's no shame in tucking your tail between your legs on your way out. It's embarrassing, sure, but it happens. Sometimes you've just got to own it instead of being sly.
That's where confident ignorance lands you. Feel free to have the last word on your walk of shame.
Nice demo, btw. 🙌🏽

Lucifyre:
As expected — absolutely “NO THING.” 😄
There's no shame in tucking your tail between your legs on your way out. It's embarrassing, sure, but it happens. Sometimes you've just got to own it instead of being sly.
That's where confident ignorance lands you. Feel free to have the last word on your walk of shame.
Nice demo, btw. 🙌🏽

Lucifyre:
Fight?! Wow! Does exposing “frail foundations” suddenly make yours solid? Who knew! If that makes you feel better about having actually demonstrated your ignorance—confidently at that—it's fine. After all, we're talking feelings and empty claims, not demonstrable facts right? You guys are too easy. 😁

Guess I'm just so terrified that I purposefully refused to cite references for the things I magically claimed science presents as facts. It's okay to drop the mirror, you know. You claim “science agrees.” Show us science agreeing with the specific claim you made...
Error 404!!!!



You mean the question I already answered and you've simply chosen to ignore twice? I told you exactly what evidence would suffice: "Evidence that demonstrates the universe was indeed created, that it was created by a single creator and not multiple creators, and that this creator is not Humbaba but YHWH, and that it was made how YWHW claimed it was made and not the way Humbaba did." That's my answer to your question 1. The same evidence that convinced you it's not Humbaba, Allah, or any of the other claimants, but YHWH alone.

You don't get to repeatedly ask the same question and then pretend I haven't answered it simply because you don't like the answer, because you know the emptiness of your claim can't meet up. Even your retreating response says a lot about the emptiness of the claim - does knowing or attacking my position in anyway validate urs as true?. If I go to collect insurance because my house burned down, I don't ask the investigator “what evidence would convince you?” except I have nothing but emoty claims. 😁

Guess elementary questions aren't so “elementary” when they're built on ignorance. “Why do goats not come from seeds since chickens come from eggs?” Exactly why I said I'd demonstrate your ignorance. At least be knowledgeable about what you're trying to attack before attacking it with questions that make you look silly—especially when you can't demonstrate the “facts” baked into the questions you're asking.

There's a reason you could cite nothing, and would cite nothing—pun intended—10 years from now while still making the same imaginary claim. If I say Christianity and the Bible “agrees” that Mohammed was worshipped by Jesus in the wilderness, and then ask you when Mohammed baptised Jesus, that's your “elementary question.”

Sounds brilliant, right? Funny thing is, you'd obviously push back and ask: “Where does the Bible say that?”
And rightly so - Proverbs 26:12 indeed. So it's quite simple really: where does science present the conclusions baked into the premises of your questions as factual?

Of course, nowhere in the sources you've provided. That's why you can't cite it and keep retreating and dancing instead of demonstrating them. Next you'd claim “Science agrees humans came from monkeys lol.”
So I await the evidence of science presenting as established fact:

1. That the universe had an absolute BEGINNING 13.8 billion years ago;

2. That there was a state in which matter was absent called “nothing”;

3. That space, time and matter were subsequently “created” from said nothing; and

4. Where science demonstrated “NOTHING” as a fact that existed at a point.

The irony is that you're claiming I'm evading questions whose premises you haven't established, while you're the one dodging the establishment of the premises you claim as factual. Drop the mirror and stop projecting.
So go ahead: show us where science establishes those four premises, and I'll happily answer question 2.

This is a fun demo - Proverbs 26:5 & 7. Don't chicken out now with the "waste my time" gimmick. Tick Tock 😉

Sorry dear!

If you have no personal position, you are unworthy of my time. See how you had to rework your so-called questions with deception and lies in mind. Are you a postgraduate student from the school of 4plus1pus9 in Nigeria?

The level of ignorance of science you displayed is so appalling that it feels awkward discussing science with you

From your a questions, Tell me
1. Is it unscientific to state that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.
2. Is it unscientific to claim that matter came into being within the last 13.8 billion years ago.
3. Is it unscientific to state that nothing existed before the origin of the universe?
4. Is it unscientific to state that time space and matter simultaneously come into being within the last 13.8 billion years
5. That I anywhere insinuated that science demonstrated the existence of NOTHING at a point

Google is your Friend and better still, uses any AI of your choice to answer the questions , then apologise for displaying such gross level of ignorance!


You are indeed the "son" of your father and I must admit that you learnt so very well and you are becoming more like him.

Stephen0mozzy:
Read the comments again. This time, to understand the way it was used, not to nitpick just because you have heard the word before.

I did. Whats your point