₦airaland Forum

malvisguy212:
how do I know that who I am charting with is a human ?

tintingz:
Seriously?!

Please answer my question first.

malvisguy212:
I am serious. I may charting with a ghosts , you know!

shadeyinka2:
Those of us who know God at an experiencial level know that God is a Spirit and that the spiritual realm exists. This knowledge/position cannot be denied especially in the face of several gaps within scientific knowledge. So that, it may be ok for an atheist to say "I do not know" but for a Christian, the claim of I do not know would either be a statement of untruth or a blatant deception.

I do not come to the knowledge of God through Science and my knowledge of God (which is the truth) biases me to fill in the gaps with what I already know as true until proven otherwise.

So, can I truthfully say I do not know? No!
Can I say I understand the science of how God made everything? No!

But the gaps within our present Scientific knowledge is massive. We can't even conclusively say whether the universe is open or closed, isolated or not. We hold on to some assumptions as if it is the complete truth and build empires of knowledge on them as if they are the basic truth eg. the Gravitational singleton etc.

How can Science discover if we have another dimension other than that of Energy, Space and time when we have completely shut our mind to its possibility?

shadeyinka2:
Sorry sir!

There was a time the earth was thought to be Flat, it took the Circumnavigation of the earth to debunk such error.

Theists never had to justify why or how God existed until Atheists like you came around screaming " we have seen no Scientific and Emperical proof of God!"

Of all the wild, crazy comments you've made on this thread, this one surely takes the cake. Really? Do you really expect you can go about making unevidenced extraordinary claims and not get called out for it? Lmao... Bruh you're going insane

budaatum:
I don't do "beliefs". The devil believes and shudders so I don't see it as a good thing to emulate. I admit my ignorance when I don't know instead of claiming my beliefs are actual knowledge, which they aren't, because if they were knowledge, I would not believe it but would know it instead.

Examples are, I do not believe my mother is my mother because I know my mother is my mother.

I do not believe I have a million pounds in my bank account because when I checked I found much less than that there.


If I don't know, I don't know, and would only be showing how ignorant I am if I fill my ignorant gap with God. And if I do that, everytime I mention my God, the atheist hears "I don't know", even when I argue that God is actually my knowing, though I'm likely to claim it is a belief, which amounts to the same thing.

Besides, Jesus warned me not to be wasting my time on things I see not, for "inasmuch as I have done for those things that I do see, my Father in heaven is pleased". But most especially, in trying to show atheists that my God exists, I am forced to present them with an image of my God, and we all know how God feels about images.

One should not allow oneself to be led into temptation, I say.

tintingz:
Why must whatever outside the universe be a God, why can't it be an alien or super fairy or pink unicorn or Thanos or Galactus or magical tortoise like Budaatum suggest?

And I don't think Atheists (at least the ones I know) made such claim that whatever that's outside cannot be God, ofcos there are many logical reasons it cannot be the personal anthropomorphic contradictory God.

TheArranger:
SHADEYINKA / SHADEYINKA2

1. People figured out the earth was not flat long before the circumnavigation of the earth occured, and some still deny it till today. I've even seen flat-earthers on Nairaland!
2. Theists always had to justify their god against other religions ("atheists" at the time. Look up the definition and history of the word "atheist". There was a time when "atheist" simply meant "people who didn't believe in our god" even if they believed in other gods.
3. Christopher Columbus did not prove the earth was round. Which primary school did you go to?
4. Do you know what the burden of proof is? Would you really not demand the flat-earthers prove their position? So... you would just accept them as being correct, right? Do you believe the earth is flat? Serious question

TheArranger:
Between 500 and 450 BC Anaxagoras determined the true cause of solar and lunar eclipses, and based on the shadow this earth cast on the moon, a round shape was the correct answer. 150 years later Eratosthenes calculated the diameter of the earth with great accuracy.


Of all the wild, crazy comments you've made on this thread, this one surely takes the cake. Really? Do you really expect you can go about making unevidenced extraordinary claims and not get called out for it? Lmao... Bruh you're going insane

shadeyinka2:
1. You are Correct
2. Atheists desbelieve in God very much like those who still claim the earth is flat (a choice they make after seeing all the evidence of pictures, horizon, reason etc). The only thing that may satisfy them is to take them in a space ship around the earth.
3. My error. I apologize. It was a myth built around Columbus as such. BTW, I went to One Alalubosa LSMB school...no wonder LOL!
Thanks for the correction.
4. There isn't any need to prove that the earth is round or flat. Evidence abound for such now!

The burden of proof belong to whoever is challenging the status quo!

Even in the court of law, the burden of proof belong to the person who is laying an accusation (a challenge).

Biodun Fatoyinbos case comes to mind. The default is that Biodun is an MOG and therefore is innocent of any known crime. The challenge is from Busola: "Biodun is a rapist!" therefore she should have to prove her challenge.

It would be silly for Buhari to come out to defend a case of $230 million scam for which no one has accused him yet of! He is innocent until someone can lay a challenge. The burden of proof will now be on the challenger.

Atheists are the ones challenging the status quo, therefore it is logical that they present their proof. It is stupidity to challenge a "defacto" and then say the burden of proof belong to him who was accused.

budaatum:
No one is asking you to say you don't know what you know. But I can't understand why you would ask those who say they don't know to know or believe what they've told you they don't know nor have evidence for, and asking people to fill their ignorance with a belief is just silly.

If you can't provide evidence for "another dimension", there's absolutely no point claiming one exists, but if you do, then someone else can equally claim multiple dimensions and you should not be arguing against it unless you have some motive you need to justify or evidence to prove they don't exist, but such proof would likely invalidate the existence of your one dimension too so I can't say I see the gain.

It is one thing disputing scientific knowledge and quite another to try using science to prove the existence of God. You'd have a problem where the two conflict and might find yourself arguing for a 6000 year flat earth, not to justify God's existence, as you might think or intend, but to validate your own belief in Scripture.

Have you considered that perhaps you are blessed with an ability to know that is lacking in others? If you did, I think you might be tempted to say, "thank you Lord that I am not like that atheist over there", though just being grateful for an ability you have been given without the hubris should suffice.

God is a Spirit, I am told, so one can't expect those who are spiritually blind to see what the spiritually unblind see, and asking them to is like telling blind people to believe they see when you have not first cured their blindness, or telling people to pay you their tithes so they can be blessed. It might work with those who know no better but one would have to really wonder what your gain is.

I got to add that I often find the Christian claim to know to be false, especially those who take their knowing from Scripture. I'm sure you'd tell me how ignorant I am if I claim I get my history of Nigeria from Scripture. And some will say the same if one claims to get ones science from Scripture.

God is a Spirit, I am told, so one can't expect those who are spiritually blind to see what the spiritually unblind see, and asking them to is like telling blind people to believe they see when you have not first cured their blindness, or telling people to pay you their tithes so they can be blessed

tintingz:
Do you believe a snake swallowed 32 million naira?

malvisguy212:
Read this thread I created , old thread. https://www.nairaland.com/3288341/how-satan-deceived-atheists

TheArranger:
SHADEYINKA / SHADEYINKA2

Unlike the round earth, your god has approximately zero conclusive evidence for its existence. Your endless word games on this thread is proof of that

How many times have we told you that a first cause argument does not (particularly) demonstrate a god? Can you count that high? How many more times do we need to tell you?

shadeyinka2:
You think I'm demonstrating God? Its impossible

shadeyinka2:
It's a question!
No!

tintingz:
Why?

shadeyinka2:
I haven't asserted that that outside the universe is God!
I have only asserted that
1. The thing outside the universe is the Uncaused First Cause
2. That the thing outside the universe is mysteriously complex and may not be subject to the normal laws of Energy, Space, time or 3D

These too you seem to deny because in your head anytime you see these you know it's pointing at the God you'll rather have buried forever.

Why is it difficult to accept that the two points above is TRUE, it is only after that that one can examine the nature of this mysterious "Thing". It's one thing to keep one's mind open to other possibilities since we don't claim to know, it's another to shut out the possibility while claiming "I don't know".

I don't know if "2+3=5" but the answer cannot be "5!". The first stance is ok, (not knowing as we can't know everything) but the second knowing is a statement of brute obstinacy!

God is simply a NOUN to "describe" without describing the Uncaused First Cause as the origin of everything. After this point, what ever one knows about God is personal and subjective

I hate a situation where an atheist is willing to hide under "we don't know what is outside our universe" AND yet still come out to assert that " whatever is outside the universe CANNOT be God"![ If you don't know, how do you then know?

TheArranger:
Well then, that settles it! If honestly and without any ulterior motives, you're only trying to suggest a source, that's fine. The problem arises when people conclude that it must be a god. Well, maybe it is a god. Afterall, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has its own religion. If you dismiss the FSM as a petty parody or rebuttal to creationism, then i'm sure there are countless other creator "gods" that have been proposed in the past. If something is impossible to demonstrate, it remains a claim and not a fact.

shadeyinka2:
Spiritual snakes could swallow spiritual money.
Spiritual snakes should not swallow Physical money!

tintingz:
Then why did you made this statement below?

tintingz:
Then why did you made this statement below?

tintingz:
So your reason is this.

Do you then believe a spiritual being can create a physical world?

You don't have to believe this explanation below:
If indeed the report is that "a spiritual snake swallowed spiritual money" what it simply means is that the physical money (in this respect) has been cursed to dissipate through every Physical means eg theft, loss, spent on useless things, hospital bills etc
At the end, the custodian of the money will not be able to account for the dissipation of such money

budaatum:
No one is asking you to say you don't know what you know. But I can't understand why you would ask those who say they don't know to know or believe what they've told you they don't know nor have evidence for, and asking people to fill their ignorance with a belief is just silly.

If you can't provide evidence for "another dimension", there's absolutely no point claiming one exists, but if you do, then someone else can equally claim multiple dimensions and you should not be arguing against it unless you have some motive you need to justify or evidence to prove they don't exist, but such proof would likely invalidate the existence of your one dimension too so I can't say I see the gain.

It is one thing disputing scientific knowledge and quite another to try using science to prove the existence of God.

XxSabrinaxX:
LOL. Further proof that shadeyinka's thesis is truly DOA (Dead On Arrival) . Notice how the poor guy is still stuck with the fact that no one can determine what could cause the universe into existence. It's really sad that this argument (The Kalam Cosmological Argument) is (one of) the best argument theists can present

1> It is not a deductive logical argument, and non have ever been and likely never will be made.
2> It tries to use physics that it clearly doesn't understand.
3> There are perfectly valid models of infinite universes, some using a reversal of the arrow of time etc
4> It cannot answer WHAT the first action was, WHO did it and HOW it was taken, so that we can objectively and empirically determine if it's true or accurate
5> It ALWAYS postulates an entity that contradicts and requires the suspension of physical and natural laws

Plus, shadeyinka's stubborness and dishonesty just makes it 10x worse.

shadeyinka2:
I am suggesting a SOURCE!

The next question would then be:
Is this source just a mysterious Force-Field?
Is this Source a Thing or a Being?
Is this Source Conscious or Not?

Etc.

It is your conclusion after this that determines of this Source fit into the definition of a "Noun" called God!

But the problem is, when one Denies the Source just because of the possibility of the Source becoming God.

shadeyinka2:
It seems tintinz is 10 times more reasonable than you.

shadeyinka2:
It's easy!

I know without an iota of doubt that the spiritual realm and God exist (my subjective experience). However, my knowledge (even though true) doesn't change the fact that many (especially Atheists) do not have the same experience. It is impossible for me to deny what I know.

In other words, I know what is outside the universe as God!

Now, Atheists claim "they do not know what is outside the universe." However they contradict the statement by saying that "whatever is outside the universe cannot be God!" This contradiction is what I'm against.

I have not tried to prove that God is outside the universe (even though I know you this is true), I have only tried to show that:


1. There is something unknown outside our universe
2. The thing outside the universe is the Uncaused First Cause
3. That the thing outside the universe is mysteriously complex and may not be subject to the normal laws of Energy, Space, time or 3D
4. What ever that thing is, it is a NOUN...a description.

Only after an unbiased person accept this reality can he move on to accertain if
1. The SOURCE is a mysterious Force/Energy Field
2. The SOURCE is a THING or a BEING
3. The SOURCE is CONSCIOUS or UNCONSCIOUS

The answer to the last three questions is what determine if the SOURCE fit the definition of the NOUN "God".

Denial of the source is unreasonable (my submission)!

shadeyinka2:
I haven't insinuated that the spiritual cannot influence the physical. I have only said that a spiritual snake should not swallow Physical money.

tintingz:
You assume the spiritual snake is holy?

tintingz:
So it's in your fact that many Atheists has never experienced spiritual realm?

Why must it be call God?

tintingz:
I don't think Atheists make this claim and even if they make such claim they are mostly talking about the anthropomorphic personal God.

tintingz:
Are these your claim evidential or just assumptions?