₦airaland Forum

Just seeing Sabinus I was already laughing 😅
(Make I go YouTube watch am small)😂

JimRohn:
I leave you with this question:

If God is absolutely perfect, then how can He assume imperfection without ceasing to be perfect?

That is the real contradiction at the heart of the Incarnation.

Oh I just noticed I didn't answer your question.
Here:
How do you know God is absolutely perfect? I thought we agreed you're incapable of comprehending God?

So I leave you with questions too:
1) Can you please explain how an absolutely perfect can create an absolutely imperfect?
2) If you were the one who designed and launched something as unbelievably vast as the cosmos would you be interested that microscopic subjects in a spec of dust in it be constantly worshiping you and telling you how great you are and Allahu Akbar etc?
3) How can something that never changes be alive? And how can something that never changes make any moves at all?

JimRohn:
Thank you for your reply. While I note your shift in tone and the insertion of ridicule, I will maintain a respectful and rational approach for the sake of meaningful dialogue. Let me respond to your points clearly and carefully:

1. On Foreknowledge and Predestination

You argue that God’s foreknowledge must necessarily entail predestination, asserting that because God knew Adam and Eve would eat the fruit, they were destined to do so. This conflates knowledge with causation.

Let’s clarify:
Foreknowledge is the awareness of what will happen, not the cause of what happens. Knowing that a person will freely choose A over B does not make you the cause of their choice. For example, if I record a football match and know the final score in advance, that knowledge does not make me the cause of the result.

The logical distinction between foreknowledge and compulsion is widely recognized in both philosophy and theology. Denying that distinction results in fatalism—rendering moral responsibility meaningless. If God forced Adam and Eve to sin, it undermines justice. Islam avoids this by affirming God’s perfect knowledge and human moral agency—without contradiction.

You may call this "wordplay," but it is actually precise philosophical reasoning. Assertions do not replace argument.

2. On Time and God’s Will

You object to my explanation of God’s unchanging will by suggesting I have subjected God to time, and that this implies the universe is eternal.

That is incorrect. In Islamic theology, God is not subject to time—He is the Creator of time. His will is eternal, but the manifestation of that will can occur in time without implying change or temporality in God Himself. This distinction is not a “smokescreen”—it is a logical separation between God’s attributes and the created effects of His will.

The universe is not eternal. It had a beginning, brought into existence by God’s timeless command. God's willing the universe does not mean He changed His mind or was once inactive. Rather, His eternal will is timelessly linked to what He brings into existence at specific points in time. This is a coherent view that preserves God’s transcendence.

3. On the Incarnation and Logical Coherence

You write:

> “God can do just about anything. The least of what God can do is have his spirit occupy a human body.”

This is where clarity is essential. Islam affirms that God can do all things consistent with His nature. He cannot be ignorant, weak, or mortal because these are negations of divinity—not expressions of omnipotence.

Saying “God can do anything” does not justify affirming logical contradictions. For instance, can God cease to be God? Can He become ignorant, limited, or die? If your answer is “yes,” then you reduce God to a mutable being, which contradicts divine perfection.

Moreover, Christian doctrine insists Jesus is not merely a body possessed by God (as you seem to suggest), but one unified person who is simultaneously fully divine and fully human. That raises a contradiction, not a mystery: How can one person be both omniscient and ignorant, omnipotent and weak, immortal and dead?

These are not mysteries like the Trinity’s relational dynamics. They are metaphysical contradictions—affirming opposites in the same respect. That’s not "man's microscopic logic"; it’s basic reason, which must apply if faith is to be intelligible.

Even in Scripture, God says:

> “Come, let us reason together.” (Isaiah 1:18)

So appealing to reason is not a denial of God's majesty—it is a way to engage sincerely with revealed truth.

4. Final Reflection

Ridicule may feel satisfying, but it is not a substitute for clarity or logic. I am committed to respectful engagement and am willing to continue dialogue if it is rooted in mutual respect and intellectual seriousness.

As the Qur'an says:

> “Say: Are those who know equal to those who do not know? Only they will remember who are people of understanding.” (Qur’an 39:9)

I leave you with this question:

If God is absolutely perfect, then how can He assume imperfection without ceasing to be perfect?

That is the real contradiction at the heart of the Incarnation.

Thanks for your polite but funny response. Sorry you detect a shift in tone. It's just that your replies are inadvertently very funny and I don't know how else to convey that.

Example, whoever said God's foreknowledge caused anything? I never said so nor even implied it. God's foreknowledge MEANS things are predestined. Simple. There is nothing philosophy or anybody can add or subtract from that. In other words, either God knows everything OR man has free will. You can't have both. Yet we instinctively know we have both. Our brains just don't have the capacity to reconcile how.

So also with Incarnation. We know God definitely took on human body for some 33 years, but our brains don't have the capacity to reconcile how exactly it worked.

As for creation, God exists in the eternal now where time does not exist. To say his will started manifesting at a certain point in time is nonsensical wordplay.

We no longer even mention the contradictions of existence of evil, pain, disease, natural disasters, etc, simultaneously as an all powerful, all loving, and all good God!

In conclusion, you should really let these type of debates go. Nature hasn't given man the brainpower to be able to tackle them. Notice I never said any of the things are NOT true because they are contradictory? Infact I said we instinctively know they are true despite them being contradictory. Same with Incarnation, we may not comprehend the inside details of it all but we know God tha Son took on the nature of man and lived amongst us over 2000 years ago!

Thanks for chatting with me

[quote author= post=135702666]Apart from Catholic and Anglican, others are business centers.[/quote]How about Aladura Cherubim and Seraphim

Before that he said he can NEVER be president


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc6COWi65hU?si=7apYzBezdj1cBotI

JimRohn:
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your continued engagement and your willingness to explore these deep theological matters seriously, even if you express amusement. Let me respond carefully to the core of your points with logic, clarity, and mutual respect.

1. You Misstated My Position on Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will

You wrote:

> “You don't see logical contradiction between outcomes being dependent on man's actions and simultaneously being independent of man's actions…”

This misrepresents my position. I never said outcomes are “independent” of human actions. Rather, I clarified that God's knowledge of future human choices does not cause those choices. God knows them eternally, but the agency remains with the human being. There is a logical distinction between foreknowledge and predetermination.

This is a known philosophical issue that’s debated across religious traditions, but it does not require affirming a contradiction. One can coherently affirm both divine omniscience and human moral responsibility without affirming opposites at the same time in the same respect.

2. The Core Problem with the Incarnation Remains: Contradictory Attributes

You stated:

> “God decides to have the full human experience so his eternal spirit enters a human body with all its weaknesses… Everything that happens with the body only happens with the body and does not affect his spirit.”

Respectfully, this attempted resolution introduces the very contradiction I am highlighting.

Let’s analyze:

If only the body experienced ignorance, hunger, fatigue, and death—while the divine spirit remained unaffected—then the one undergoing those human experiences is not fully God and fully man in one person.

But Christian doctrine insists that Jesus as a person is simultaneously fully God and fully man—not a human body merely occupied by a divine spirit in parallel.

This introduces a compositional dualism that fragments the personhood of Jesus. Either:

Jesus died—meaning the divine died (contradicting divine immortality), or

Jesus didn’t die—meaning only the human nature died (dividing the person and nullifying the Incarnation).

Thus, the contradiction arises in the assertion of simultaneous opposites in a single person:

Mortal and immortal

Temporal and eternal

Dependent and independent

Limited in knowledge and omniscient

These are not mere mysteries. They are mutually exclusive definitions. To affirm both is to affirm A and not-A in the same respect and at the same time, which is the very definition of a logical contradiction.

3. On God Creating Without Change

You asked:

> “An unchanging God that was all alone suddenly starts creating without external stimuli or internal change. Can't you see that's impossible?”

This challenge arises from a temporal framework that assumes God’s will must be triggered by change or stimulus.

In Islamic theology, God’s will is eternal and unchanging. The effects of His will—such as creation—manifest in time, but His will itself is not newly formed or changed. We distinguish between:

God’s eternal attribute of will, and

The temporal manifestation of that will in creation

This is no more contradictory than an author who has had a story in mind eternally, yet chooses to publish it at a particular time. The expression in time does not imply a change in the author’s intention.

Furthermore, you stated:

> “He was all alone.”

But this is an assertion not grounded in revelation. Islam affirms that God is eternally perfect and self-sufficient. His act of creation is not a response to loneliness or need, but a manifestation of His wisdom and will. There is no contradiction here, only an assertion of divine transcendence beyond human categories of change and need.

4. Final Clarification

You concluded:

> “God temporarily occupying a body is easier to accept.”

What’s “easier to accept” emotionally or imaginatively is not the issue. The standard is not subjective plausibility, but logical coherence. Islam affirms that God is exalted beyond taking on human attributes. To claim otherwise is to collapse the distinction between Creator and creation, which leads to theological incoherence.

Conclusion: Faith Should Not Contradict Reason

Islam recognizes mystery—yes—but never embraces logical absurdity. There is a difference between what is beyond our comprehension and what is incoherent by definition.

Thus, the difference remains clear:

Paradox involves complexity or mystery.

Contradiction affirms opposites simultaneously in the same respect.

The doctrine of Incarnation falls into the latter, not the former.

I welcome further discussion if we remain committed to thoughtful, respectful dialogue.

> “Do they not reflect within themselves? Allah created the heavens and the earth and everything between them for a purpose and an appointed term.” (Qur’an 30:

Thanks for your polite (though laughable) response. I assume you're a fairly intelligent guy and that I don't have to spell everything out for you. I took it for granted you'd infer that God's foreknowledge inescapably means predestination no matter how anybody tries to confuse you with wordplay. Example, Adam and Eve were destined to eat the apple BECAUSE God knows to the last detail the where, how, and when. AT SAME TIME Adam and Eve had perfect free will to eat or not eat the Apple! And you don't see any contradiction there. All you see is "mystery"!😅

About the second point, I must admit I'm a bit disappointed in you (I hope I haven't overestimated your intelligence). How can you make anything about God subject to time?? Can you define this "time" in relation to an unchanging God? Atheists will just toy with you. Don't you know what yoiu just admitted is that the universe is eternal? Your placing it inside "God's will" is just a smokescreen.

On to the incarnation thing, the HUGE flaw in your reasoning about this is that you try to fit limitless God into man's microscopic logic and understanding. God can do just about anything. The least of what God can do is have his spirit occupy a human body. Even lowly demons can do that! I don't know how you can't see that God has the power to feel and do anything with that body while still remaining God!

JimRohn:
Thank you again for your continued engagement and for narrowing the focus of the discussion. I appreciate your desire for clarity and simplicity, so I will address the core of your paragraph as requested.

The Key Distinction: Paradox vs. Contradiction

You asked: What is the difference between my objection to the doctrine of Incarnation (God becoming man) and theological questions such as:

God knows everything, yet man has free will

God is beyond space yet present everywhere

God never changes yet began creating

God is all-good, yet evil exists

God is all-loving, yet suffering exists

God is just, yet injustice exists

This is a fair and important question, and the answer lies in a critical distinction between mystery and logical contradiction—or more precisely: paradox vs. impossibility.

1. Islamic Theology Affirms Divine Mystery Without Logical Contradiction

In all the examples you listed, there is tension or mystery, but not an outright logical contradiction. Let me illustrate:

a. Divine Knowledge and Human Free Will

> Apparent paradox: If God knows all future actions, how can humans be free?

Response: Islam acknowledges this as a profound mystery. But it is not a contradiction unless you assert that God’s knowledge causes human action in a deterministic sense. Islam holds that God's foreknowledge does not negate human freedom—He knows what we will choose, but we are still the agents of those choices.

The two can coexist without logical contradiction, even if the mechanism is mysterious.

b. God Being Beyond Space Yet Present Everywhere

Response: Islam teaches that God is not a body, not in a place, and not subject to spatial constraints. His “being everywhere” refers to His knowledge, power, and authority—not physical presence. There is no contradiction here, only a distinction between transcendence and immanence.

c. God Never Changes Yet Created

Response: Creation is not a change in God’s essence, but a manifestation of His eternal will. God’s will to create is eternal, but the effects of that will manifest in time. There’s no change in God Himself—only in the created world.

d. The Problem of Evil and Suffering

Response: This is an emotional and philosophical problem, not a formal contradiction. God may allow evil and suffering for purposes that include testing, purification, moral growth, or wisdom beyond human grasp. While we may not fully understand why, the existence of suffering does not logically contradict God’s attributes unless we define “goodness” in a limited, human-centric way.

2. The Incarnation Is a Logical Contradiction

Now contrast this with the doctrine of Incarnation—that Jesus is fully God and fully man at the same time and in the same person.

This is not a paradox or mystery—it is a formal contradiction:

God is immortal – cannot die

Man is mortal – does die

God is all-knowing – cannot be ignorant

Man is limited in knowledge – learns and forgets

God is independent – needs nothing

Man is dependent – eats, sleeps, suffers

To say Jesus is 100% God and 100% man simultaneously is to say:

He is mortal and immortal

Limited and unlimited

Created and uncreated

These are not mysteries—they are mutually exclusive attributes. It’s not that we don’t understand how this works; it’s that it cannot logically work by definition. To affirm both at the same time is to affirm that A = not-A, which violates the principle of non-contradiction—the foundation of all rational thought.

3. Conclusion: Logical Boundaries Matter

So, to answer your challenge directly:

> The difference is that your list includes paradoxes, which are difficult but not logically impossible.

> The doctrine of the Incarnation is a contradiction—affirming two opposite truths in the same respect, at the same time.

Islam respects mystery, but it does not affirm the logically absurd. Belief does not require rejecting reason. Rather, true belief integrates heart and mind.

If belief asks us to affirm that the unlimited became limited or the unchangeable changed, we are not dealing with mystery—we are dealing with incoherence disguised as faith.

Thank you for the thoughtful exchange. I remain open to continuing the conversation.

> “Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth… are signs for those who reflect.” (Qur’an 3:190)

Thanks for your erudite response and for giving me a good laugh!🤣😂😅
You don't see logical contradiction between outcomes being dependent on man's actions and simultaneously being independent of man's actions, but you see contradiction in God’s spirit temporarily occupying a human body!😅

Actually all the things I listed are harder to accept than God temporarily occupying a human body:
God decides to have the full human experience so his eternal spirit enters a human body with all it's weaknesses. Everything that happens with the body only happens with the body and does not affect his spirit.
Where exactly is the contradiction?

On the other hand an unchanging God that was all alone suddenly starts creating without external stimuli or internal change. Can't you see that's impossible. Can't you see you're making the atheists' argument for them?

emmabest2000:
Sex is overrated


No 12

Until you don't get it and desperately want it

yyba:
go back and check who called the police in 2015 immediately buhari became president, you guys must continue with it you like it or not. Operation fire for fire

I'm a police officer

yyba:
first to call the police doesn't mean you must win the case oo , if you know you know

Who called police?

Kalulu44:
Pls make me understand I beg of you.

You can't. You ain't built that way

Not bad

You don't understand
For SOME people, that's what they enjoy most - that back and forth tribal insults. Just as some men the joy of their lives is beatong their wives!

JimRohn:
Thank you for your reply and for engaging with the topic so candidly.

While I appreciate your sincerity and the intent behind your comments, I believe your response unintentionally illustrates the very dilemma I was highlighting—namely, the conflation of mystery with logical incoherence. Let me address your points clearly and respectfully.

1. Quantum Mechanics Does Not Justify Theological Contradictions

You’ve reiterated that quantum mechanics (QM) defies our understanding, suggesting that, similarly, theological contradictions should be acceptable. However, this comparison fails in a critical way.

Quantum mechanics may be counterintuitive, but it is not incoherent. It functions within a rigorous and mathematically consistent framework. Scientists may not intuitively understand wave-particle duality or quantum entanglement, but these concepts do not violate the law of non-contradiction. They are observable, testable, and mathematically predictable.

Contrast that with theological statements such as:

God is omniscient and grew in knowledge

God is immortal and died

God is immutable and became flesh

These are not mysteries—they are logical contradictions if affirmed in the same sense and at the same time. And no appeal to scientific mystery can resolve a formal contradiction. The issue is not that we don’t understand how these things work—it’s that they are logically impossible when taken literally.

2. Misrepresenting Islamic Theology Does Not Justify Trinitarian Contradictions

You proposed several rhetorical challenges to Islamic beliefs, such as:

“How can Allah be in one place and everywhere at once?”

“How can He hear all people at the same time?”

“How can He act while being unchanging?”

But these are not contradictions; they are theological questions that fall within the realm of divine attributes.

Islam holds that:

Allah is not limited by space or time. He is not "in" a place; He is beyond all spatial and temporal constraints (Qur’an 6:103).

Allah hears and knows all things, not sequentially or through physical mechanisms, but by His timeless, attribute of knowledge and will (Qur’an 2:255).

Allah acts without undergoing change in His essence, because His will is eternal, and His actions manifest in creation without altering His being.

These are mysteries of transcendence, not violations of logic.

But the claim that God is simultaneously fully God (immortal, all-knowing, omnipotent) and fully man (mortal, ignorant, limited) in the same person at the same time is a category error that collapses under logical scrutiny.

3. Reason Is Not the Enemy of Faith

You stated:

> “We instinctively know certain things though they can't stand logical scrutiny.”

But if that principle is consistently applied, then every theological claim—true or false—becomes equally valid simply because someone “instinctively” believes it. A Hindu could say, "I instinctively know there are many gods," or a polytheist might say, "I instinctively believe in divine incarnations." Does that make their beliefs true?

If we abandon logic as the filter, then all truth claims become equally unverifiable and indistinguishable.

Ironically, your very appeal to instinct or experience still relies on reason to argue that those instincts are valid and should be trusted. One cannot say, “Logic fails,” and then use logic to argue for that conclusion.

4. Faith Must Be Reasonable, Even If Not Exhaustive

No Muslim claims that God is fully comprehensible. Islam affirms God's transcendence and mystery. But it distinguishes clearly between what is beyond reason and what is against reason.

God’s essence may be incomprehensible. But His revealed attributes must be logically coherent:

Eternal = not subject to death

All-knowing = not ignorant

Independent = not in need

Islam never says “God became a man.” Because that would entail that the Unlimited became limited, the Eternal entered time, and the Dependent became Independent—which are mutually exclusive.

5. Ending a Conversation Doesn’t End the Inquiry

You concluded by saying:

> “Respectfully, this should be the end of the discussion. I don't see how you can have anything to say after this.”

I understand that theological discussions can be intense, and you are of course free to disengage. But truth is not a matter of who gets the last word—it is a matter of coherence, consistency, and sincerity in seeking it.

As Muslims, we believe in using the mind God gave us to test claims, weigh evidence, and avoid affirming contradictions—because the One who revealed Himself is also the One who created reason.

> “Will they not reflect?” (Qur’an 59:21)

If a claim demands that we suspend the very tools God gave us for discernment, then it is not a divine mystery—it is a human fabrication.

Conclusion

I don’t say this to win a debate, but to clarify a principle: Mystery is not a license for incoherence. Faith begins where reason ends, but it must never begin against reason.

Let us not confuse reverence with irrationality.

Islam’s message remains:

> “He is Allah, the One.
Allah, the Eternal Refuge.
He neither begets nor is born,
Nor is there to Him any equivalent.” (Qur’an 112)

This is not evasive simplicity—it is sublime coherence.

I remain open to sincere discussion should you choose to continue.

With respect and clarity!

Thanks for your Politeness.
Once again my analogy using QM is to illustrate just a little bit how limited man's logic is. We still don't know the why of QM, we just know it is the way it is. Naming something or using mathematics to describe it doesn't mean you understand why it is so.

Can't you see you can't win this argument? Because if you apply logic to religion as a whole it will also collapse. You can't selectively apply logic. You touched on it when you said that'd mean other religions are also right. YES, they are also "right"! It's all about belief NOT logic!
You keep using the word "truth". Just because you believe something doesn't make it the truth!

If you don't mind, please address only this paragraph in your next response, to keep things short and simple. Thanks.
Please, in simple language, clearly tell us the difference between your logical objections to incarnation and these:
* God knows everything (meaning everything is predetermined), yet man has free will
* God is in Heaven yet same exact God is everywhere and in everyone
* God never changes yet at some point same God changed and started creating things
* God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all good, yet evil exists.
* God is all-loving yet pain, disease, and natural disasters exist
* God is just, yet injustice exists and destinies seem alloted arbitrarily not based on merit

Add yours

tiswell:
The topic in context is about women with ovulation issues


That's how you lots fail exams

I only asked a question, madam examiner!

Successsearch90:
u never SEE natural beauty before

All I know is, untouched natural black hair like this below looks somehow

JimRohn:
Thank you once again for your response.
I appreciate your attempt to use an analogy from quantum mechanics to address the perceived paradoxes in Christian theology. However, with respect, your analogy—while imaginative—is flawed both in scope and category. Let me explain why, and respond directly to the claims you’ve made:

1. Category Error: Physics ≠ Theology

Quantum tunneling, as observed in quantum mechanics, describes a physical phenomenon occurring under specific probabilistic laws of subatomic behavior. It is not a logical contradiction, even if it defies classical intuition.

Physicists do not say:

> “A particle is in two logically opposite states at once (e.g., dead and alive in the same sense)”
They say:
“Our classical intuitions don't apply at quantum scales, but the event remains mathematically consistent within a testable framework.”

Now compare that to Trinitarian claims:

God is immortal and died.

God is omniscient and grew in knowledge.

God is unchanging and took on a new nature.

These are not merely counterintuitive—they are internally contradictory if taken literally in the same sense at the same time.

So the analogy to quantum mechanics misrepresents the nature of the contradiction. A mystery is not the same as a logical impossibility. One is unknown; the other is incoherent.

2. Evidence Cannot Justify Logical Absurdity

You said:

> “We start with the certainty that Jesus is God based on evidence.”

This raises an important question: What kind of evidence?

If the evidence you cite is scriptural, then we must ask: Does that scripture consistently and clearly teach the divinity of Jesus, without contradiction?

But even if one claims to have overwhelming textual evidence, it still does not resolve the issue. For example:

If someone says,

> “Here is strong textual evidence that 2+2=5,”
we do not accept the conclusion simply because it’s “evidenced.” We test it against logic and coherence.

Likewise, if a text asserts that God is both mortal and immortal, both omniscient and ignorant, both all-powerful and subject to death, we must ask whether the conclusion is logically tenable, not merely whether it's “claimed.”

Your assertion that logic is too “limited” to test such claims is self-defeating. Because your very appeal to “evidence” requires the use of logic to assess it.

If human logic is truly too limited to assess the claim “Jesus is God,” then you cannot also use human logic to argue that the “evidence” proves it.

3. We Must Distinguish Mystery from Incoherence

It is not arrogance to test theological claims with reason—it is essential. God, in all monotheistic traditions, is the author of both revelation and reason. To suspend one in favor of the other is to divide what God has unified.

Islam does not claim full knowledge of God's essence, but it affirms what God has revealed about Himself:

> “There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)

That is not speculation—it is revelation. And that revelation creates a logical boundary:

If God is eternal, He does not die.

If God is self-sufficient, He does not hunger.

If God is all-knowing, He does not grow in knowledge.

To say otherwise is to affirm contradictions—not mysteries.

4. A False Dilemma: Deny the Bible or Accept Contradiction

You stated:

> “The only way you can prove Jesus is not God is by denying the Bible.”

Respectfully, this is a false dilemma.

I do not have to deny every verse of the Bible to reject the doctrine of the Trinity or Jesus’s divinity. I can:

Recognize that the Bible contains authentic teachings of past prophets,

Acknowledge that it has undergone textual evolution and human interpretation,

And conclude that certain later theological claims—such as the full divinity of Christ—are not part of the original message of monotheism.

The Qur’an confirms earlier revelations but also corrects distortions introduced by people over time:

> “They distort the words from their places…” (Qur’an 5:13)

Thus, Islam neither rejects all of the Bible nor blindly accepts later theological innovations that contradict the message of pure monotheism taught by all prophets.

5. Conclusion: Faith Must Be Reasonable

Let me summarize respectfully:

Quantum mechanics describes physical mysteries—not logical contradictions.

Appealing to evidence does not override logic—it must be consistent with it.

Mystery does not license incoherence.

Faith in God does not require suspension of reason—it invites its use.

If the claim “Jesus is God” leads to a collapse of logical categories, then it is not the mystery that needs defending—but the claim itself that needs re-examination.

Islam teaches:

> “Say: He is Allah, [who is] One.
Allah, the Eternal Refuge.
He neither begets nor is born,
Nor is there to Him any equivalent.” (Qur’an 112:1–4)

That is not irrational simplicity—it is divine clarity.

Let us continue our discussion not by dismissing reason, but by honoring the very faculty God gave us to seek the truth.

Once again, thanks for your erudite response.
With respect, what you fail to grasp is the enormous limitations of human reasoning and logic. That's what my QM analogy is meant to illustrate. Remember, QM is still within this our dimension and within our microscopic spec of part of the universe, yet it doesn't make sense to us!
But the really big deal is that you selectively (actually deceptively) apply your insistence on detailed vigorous logical coherence and consistency, when in fact religion as a whole cannot withstand such test. Otherwise explain to us how:
* Allah can be in one place and everywhere at same time
* Allah can simultaneously listen to one person and every person at same time
* Never shows himself
* Is inside everyone yet separate in one place
* Starts creating when he never changes
* Should care about your extremely microscopoc spec of a world and minutae of your life when
there are trillions of galaxies
Etc.
So you see, we instinctively know certain things though they can't stand logical scrutiny. We know God can and did take on human form and visit planet earth. If you must subject that to rigorous logical examination, then subject religion itself to same, and you'll also conclude it doesn't make sense. Yet we instinctively know it is true.

Respectfully, this should be the end of the discussion. I don't see how you can have anything to say after this

delugadou:
Maybe the same reason. Do you know how many tongues have gone down there?

We await professionals to debunk/confirm the theory abi hypothesis

In that case many of our politicians and big men won't have any children, instead they're the most fertile!

AngelahFlo:
It
My Bro this one is hard but I'll forgive her still. You see she stole the coat and might even claim it's hers and not yours. Lemme share with you another experience to buttress this particular case. Years ago about 2015 a lady friend of mine who used to help me whenever I was in a financial mess had a financial challenge and wanted to borrow the sum of N4500 from me with a promise to pay back in a few days time. I borrowed her the money and sent her my account number to send the money to. When it was the due date, I messaged her on WhatsApp to know if she had sent the money as I couldn't receive alerts on my phone at the time and she responded that she had sent the money. I checked my account balance the following day to confirm only to see that the money didn't reflect. This led to a series of back and forth Chats with neither of us getting anywhere. When she blocked my line for awhile, cos she later unblocked it, I decided to forgive her the debt since our relationship was more important at the time. It's the real reason why till date I don't borrow friends money if they request. I'd rather give you if I have because of instances like this.
You forgive her and let her go with the coat. God will provide you with another coat in His time.

AngelahFlo:
Something I didn't share in my story above. This lady friend who's now a very popular celebrity broke my newly bought double layered frameless glasses and made it look like an accident. I didn't know at the time. It was during my moment of analysis that I realized she had done it on purpose..It's what made me shun the church for a long while just to avoid seeing them

Thanks for your erudite response.
You are forgetting the aspect of deterance both for the person who did the wrong and for onlookers watching the situation. People tend NOT to repeat something that is punished, and tend to repeat something that is rewarded. Example, let's say Russia invades Ukraine and takes Dumbass region and Ukraine let's them keep it. They'll next invade Poland, etc.
Meanwhile other countries (onlookers) will learn that it pays to invade their neighbors and take their land!

JimRohn:
Thank you again for your response. I appreciate the attempt at simplicity, but I must respectfully point out that oversimplification—especially in theology—can obscure rather than clarify.

Let me respond directly and clearly to the core of your argument:

1. Appealing to Mystery Does Not Eliminate Contradiction

You say that we cannot speak of contradiction because we “don’t know exactly what’s going on.” But this approach confuses mystery with incoherence.

Let me illustrate:

It is one thing to say we do not fully comprehend God's essence.

It is another to say God became mortal, ignorant, and died, while still being immortal, all-knowing, and eternal—at the same time.

These two sets of qualities are not merely mysterious—they are mutually exclusive. A being cannot logically be all-knowing and ignorant, eternal and mortal, self-sufficient and in need, all in the same sense and at the same time.

This is not a matter of "not knowing what's going on." This is a matter of logical coherence. [b]A square cannot also be a circle. [/b]And claiming that it is so “in another dimension” is not an explanation—it’s an evasion.

2. You Cannot Claim Knowledge and Deny It at the Same Time

Your argument contains a deep contradiction. You say:

> “We have no way of knowing the full nature of this God.”

Yet you also say:

> “We MUST believe Jesus Christ is God.”

But if we “have no way of knowing,” then you cannot also claim certainty about Jesus’s divinity. One cannot affirm a claim while denying the epistemological tools necessary to verify it.

You’re effectively saying:

“We don’t know what God is, or what divinity means, but we do know Jesus is divine.”

This is not humility. It is selective reasoning—asserting divine mystery when challenged, and certainty when convenient.

3. True Simplicity Does Not Mean Ignoring Reason

You mentioned that this is a “VERY simple matter.” Simplicity, however, does not mean ignoring complexity where it genuinely exists. The question of God's nature is not a trivial one—it is central to all theology.

If I were to say:

> “God cannot be three persons in one because that's contradictory—case closed.”

You would likely accuse me of dismissing too quickly, and rightly so. But when you say:

> “Jesus is God because we can’t argue otherwise—end of story,”

That is not a reasoned defense. That is intellectual resignation.

4. Islamic Consistency: Transcendence Without Absurdity

Islam does not claim to fully comprehend God. But it does affirm that God is:

Absolutely One—not composed of persons or parts

Eternal—not subject to time or death

Self-sufficient—not in need of food, rest, or protection

This is not speculative philosophy. It is what God Himself revealed. The Qur’an asserts:

> “There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)

This gives us a standard to test claims about God. If someone claims that God became a man, was tired, bled, and died, then we are not being arrogant to say: [/b]this contradicts what we know of God’s revealed nature.

5. Conclusion: Mystery Cannot Override Logic

Let me summarize the issue with clarity:

You claim we must accept that Jesus is God because we lack the capacity to reject it.

[b]But if we lack that capacity, then we also lack the capacity to affirm it.

Therefore, your argument defeats itself.

Appealing to mystery cannot justify accepting what contradicts God’s revealed attributes. True faith is not belief in logical contradictions, but trust in what is consistent with both revelation and reason.

So again, I say respectfully:

If Jesus was born, limited, and subject to death—then he cannot be the eternal, unlimited, immortal God.

That is not confusion. That is coherence.

Let us continue our discussion with sincerity—but let us do so without hiding contradiction behind the veil of mystery.

Thanks for your polite response.
For the sake of brevity and to not type too much I've tried NOT to repeat things I already said elsewhere or say things that should be obvious. But I see that doesn't really work.

So I'll instead use an analogy from Quantum Mechanics. In QM a particle is able to appear on the other side (pass through) a barrier it can't possibly pass through. Now, it can't possibly pass through the barrier BUT it did pass through it. We don’t come and use Bible and Quiran and logic to say it didn't pass through the barrier. We can ONLY say we don't fully understand what's going on.

Likewise with Christ, we start with the certainty that he is God, the Son of God, based on EVIDENCE - same way we started with the certainty that the particle passed through the barrier based on evidence.

The only way you can "prove" the particle didn’t pass through the barrier is to deny that it happened. Likewise, the only way you can "prove" Jesus is NOT God is by saying the Bible is false or is made-up. You can't accept that Bible is true and at same time try to use etremely limited human logic to say Christ is NOT God - because his being God is based on evidence NOT logic!

Just as the case in QM, you can’t say something didn't happen because it can't. The fact is, it DID happen. God DID come to earth. The fact that your extremely limited human logic tells you it could not have happened does not mean it did not happen!

JimRohn:
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the tone of sincerity in your response, and I will address your core claim directly.

You argue that my position is false because it begins with an assumption that humans can know something about the nature of God. You then assert that because humans are profoundly limited in knowledge, we are “incapable of formulating any argument” against claims such as the Incarnation.

With respect, I believe this position, while sounding humble, ultimately undermines the foundations of theology itself—Christian or otherwise. Allow me to explain why:

1. Without Some Knowledge of God, Faith Itself Collapses

If we truly know nothing of God’s nature, as you suggest, then we have no basis to say that anything is true or false about Him. That would include:

That God is One

That God is eternal

That God is all-powerful

That God is loving or just

That Jesus is God

If we follow your logic consistently, then we must also admit that we cannot even know whether Jesus is divine—because that would require knowing something about what divinity is. Thus, your argument does not support the Incarnation; it nullifies the very claim that Jesus is divine.

On the contrary, both the Bible and the Qur’an repeatedly call humans to reason and to recognize basic truths about God through reflection and revelation.

> “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord.” (Isaiah 1:18)

> “Do they not reflect?” (Qur’an 88:17)

Therefore, while our knowledge of God is certainly limited, it is not non-existent. We know enough about God—through revelation and reason—to identify contradictions when they arise.

2. Absolute Skepticism Is Self-Defeating

Your position leads to an epistemological contradiction. If humans are too ignorant to judge claims about God, then we are also too ignorant to affirm that Jesus is God.

You said:

> “We must accept that he is indeed God... because we are incapable of formulating any argument against it.”

But if we are incapable of formulating arguments against it, then we are equally incapable of formulating arguments for it. Total ignorance cuts both ways.

This radical skepticism is not a stable foundation for theology—it is a surrender of reason altogether.

3. The Islamic Approach: Affirming Revelation, Not Speculation

Islam affirms that God is beyond full human comprehension—but not beyond all understanding. God has revealed His names and attributes, and they are not arbitrary labels. They are coherent, meaningful, and non-contradictory.

God is not like creation. He is:

Eternal, not born or dying

All-Knowing, not learning or growing

Self-Sufficient, not hungry or in need

These are not “human inventions” or philosophical constructs. They are divinely revealed attributes that even Christian thinkers like Anselm, Augustine, and Aquinas accepted.

So when someone claims, “God became a baby, learned to walk, and died,” we are not being arrogant by asking, “How is that consistent with eternal, self-sufficient divinity?” We are doing exactly what the Bible and Qur’an tell us to do: examine, reflect, and reject contradiction.

4. Faith Is Not Blind Submission to Contradiction

Faith does not mean accepting what contradicts reason. Even in Christian theology, the Church has long used reason to defend doctrines—consider the entire field of Christian apologetics.

To quote C.S. Lewis:

> “Nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk it about God.”

Islam affirms this approach: God is beyond us, but never absurd. He does not reveal to us that which contradicts His own essence. And if a doctrine requires throwing logic out the window, then it is not humility to accept it—it is confusion mistaken for faith.

5. Conclusion: Humility Requires Discernment, Not Despair

You are right to emphasize human limitation. But from limitation does not follow irrationality. A blind man may not see everything, but he can still recognize the difference between fire and water.

Likewise, we may not grasp the fullness of God, but we can still affirm what God has clearly told us: that He is One, Eternal, Absolute—and that He does not become flesh, suffer, and die.

The Qur’an offers this clarity:

> “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.”
(Surah Ash-Shura 42:11)

So I repeat my earlier point in a spirit of respect:

If Jesus was ignorant, limited, and mortal—then by definition, he cannot be the eternal, all-knowing, immortal God.

This is not arrogance; this is theological consistency.

Let us continue this dialogue with mutual respect, but let us not hide contradiction behind the veil of mystery.

Thanks for your polite abd erudite response.
This is really a VERY simple matter that doesn't require too much talk. You try to confuse it by throwing in Bible and Quiran and Church fathers, etc.
Here's a succinct summary of it.
We know something must have created us. That something we call God. That God exists in a different dimension that is totally beyond our comprehension (hence "one God" to us may not necessarily be same as "one God" over there). Beyond these we have no way of knowing the full nature of this God. We MUST believe Jesus Christ is God if we believe those things in OT written about him and things said and done by him. This is so because we don't have the capacity to formulate an argument against it being so!
You keep talking of contradiction, you can’t say something is contradiction when 1) you don't know what it is supposed to be contradicting 2) You really don't know exactly what's going on

Lol guy can't you see that's 100% woman??
Na wa for you and your obsession with this woman

She looks prettier now. My spec

ruthieo:
I am in need of a God fearing,responsible and serious husband[31-37]
I want a Christian
I am 31years
I live in lagos
I am AA
I am from delta state
Kindly dm if interested

Love your I-dont-care attitude
Do you have money?

You mean the SHAMELESS THIEF of Kwara state

Congrats to her!
Calculator and AI renders math skill...

How about men? Did he reveal why so many men have low sperm count?

JimRohn:
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your engagement, but I must point out that your response, while rhetorically passionate, does not resolve the actual dilemma I presented. Instead, it shifts the focus away from theological consistency and substitutes it with an emotional appeal to divine mystery and human insignificance.

Let me clarify my position precisely:

1. The Core Dilemma Is Not God’s Power, But His Nature

You claim I am "limiting" God by asserting that He cannot become man. Respectfully, this is a misunderstanding of the Islamic objection.

In Islam, we affirm that God can do all things consistent with His nature and perfection. But to say that God can do anything—even things that contradict His own essence—is not omnipotence; it is incoherence.

For example:

Can God cease to be God?

Can God be ignorant?

Can God be created?

Can God die?

If you answer yes to these questions in the name of “divine freedom,” then you have destroyed the very concept of God as necessarily eternal, self-sufficient, and perfect. If you answer no, then you already acknowledge that divine power operates within the boundaries of divine nature. That is exactly the Islamic view.

So, the problem is not with God's ability but with the logical coherence of a claim that God can become limited, ignorant, tempted, or mortal—while still claiming to be fully divine.

This is not a limitation on God; it is a defense of His perfection.

2. Appealing to God’s Transcendence Doesn’t Solve a Logical Contradiction

You said: “Your thesis is laughable... you're obsessed with minutiae.”

But what you call minutiae are, in fact, the heart of Christian theology: the Incarnation and nature of Christ. I am not asking speculative or irrelevant questions; I am asking: How can the infinite become finite without ceasing to be infinite? This is not rhetorical—it’s a real theological contradiction.

If Jesus was God:

Was he omniscient while also learning like a human?

Was he immortal while dying on the cross?

Was he all-powerful while being beaten and crucified?

If you answer that this is a “mystery,” you are not solving the contradiction—you are merely shelving it.

3. Your Cosmological Analogy Is a Red Herring

You brought up the vastness of the universe and our insignificance as humans. I do not deny this. The Qur'an itself invites us to reflect on the majesty of the cosmos as a sign of God's power.

But this proves God’s transcendence, not His incarnation.

Your analogy inadvertently supports the Islamic view: God is unimaginably beyond creation, and thus is not subject to its limitations. Why would such a God become a man who eats, sleeps, and suffers?

If anything, the vastness of creation demonstrates how absurd it is to confine the Eternal Creator to a mortal body in a single time and place, as Christian doctrine teaches.

4. On the “Classical Attributes” of God

You asked who determined these "classical attributes." The answer: they are derived from revelation and reason.

Even Christian philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, and Church Fathers have consistently defined God as:

Eternal

All-Knowing

All-Powerful

Self-Sufficient

Unchanging

If Jesus contradicts these, then either:

1. Jesus is not fully God, or

2. The doctrine of the Incarnation compromises God’s classical attributes.

Islam simply preserves the unity and perfection of God without these contradictions.

5. In Conclusion: Logic Is Not the Enemy of Faith

You imply that raising these questions shows arrogance. On the contrary, the Qur’an itself says:

> “Do they not reflect upon the Qur’an? If it were from other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.”
(Qur’an 4:82)

God invites us to use reason to distinguish truth from falsehood. If a doctrine contradicts both revelation and reason, it deserves critical scrutiny—not blind acceptance.

I am not asking whether God can become man. I am asking: Can a being who is mortal, ignorant, and limited still be God by definition?

If your answer is yes, then you’ve redefined God into something logically incoherent. If your answer is no, then you have affirmed the Islamic position.

Let us continue respectfully, but let us not confuse mystery with contradiction.

Thanks 4 your polite and detailed response.
The problem with your thesis is that you start from a FALSE position. You start with the position that man knows the nature of God, you then present things that contradict that nature. The HONEST, REAL-LIFE position to start with is that man knows almost nothing, talkless of knowing the nature of God. Man, in real-life, practical terms, is almost blind, deaf, doesn't know where he is, doesn't know why he is there, and doesn't even know if he is really there. So you MUST start with the position that we know almost nothing, talkless of the nature of God. So that if things happen as they happened with Christ, we MUST accept that he is indeed God, the Son of God, because we are INCAPABLE of formulating any argument against it, because we know almost nothing, talkless of knowing the nature of God!

Celestialsword:
As a human, you have to use your brain to reason, expecially if you are leaned..

These are medieval tales that has no root or reference

The human you referenced is practically deaf and blind and doesn't know where he is or why he is there. Here's what I posted earlier:

If our galaxy were shrunk to the size of the earth, then the earth will be smaller than a grain of salt! But that's not all, there are more than two trillion (Trillion!) such galaxies in our universe. That's FACT. Then there is the theory that our universe is only one in a limitless sea of universes. Add to that, human can only see, hear, feel, perceive only a minuscule percentage of what's there, and has no way of knowing if what he's perceiving is real. That's the "human" you're talking about, right?

Successsearch90:
D girl am dying for no dey use makeup and she fine DIE

No make-up plus natural hair, she must wor wor

(Too much make-up is not what we talking about)

How about stolen? Can you do stolen cars? Or auction or water-damaged