₦airaland Forum

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

It's a question!
No!

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.

You are correct in this respect;

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

I wasn't even proving God: that is an impossibility. All I was doing was to show logicaly and Scientifically 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.

Every denial of we don't know doesn't invalidate the above. The acceptance of these is what leads to the finding out the nature of such a "mysterious thing".
Is it a Force Field?
Is it a Thing or a Being?
Is it Conscious or Unconscious?

It is not automatic to insert God as that "Thing". No way! But it is important as a first step coming from a logical and Scientific position in finding out if another dimension is superimposed on our reality.

Like I said: it is contradictory to say "we don't know" and yet we also claim "we know"!

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

I've corrected my earlier post. It didn't take circumnavigation of the earth to prove the earth was round. The Arabs knew this a long time before the Europeans.

As per burden of proof!

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Your conclusion will be like saying: let everyone believe what he wants. I like the example of "knowing ones mum"!

I know my mum
But I wasn't learned to know anything about her when I was born.
I do not have any DNA evidence to back my knowledge on
We don't even look too much alike.
Yet, she's my mum and I know her

Now, an atheist come to say "we can't know our mums " because there is no evidence that our mum is such.

Logicaly, it might be true but "I know my mum!" And it's a fact that I cannot throw away to join the band wagons of those who are ready to kill their supposed mother.

malvisguy212:
honestly, its baffled me top. when you tackle them very well, the best you will get from them is " I don't know" but on another thread, they will argued as if they know who created the universe . can you imaging an atheist asking a lady to prove with empirical evidence that God exist ? maybe he think God is one old man with white beard seated on the sky .

you don't need Faith, reason or logic to be an atheist. all you need to do is just reject anything someone told you about God .
John 14:6
Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth,
and the life; no one comes to the Father but
THROUGH ME.

JESUS exist and He has prove the Existence of His Father to the whole world long time ago.

You couldn't have said it better. Atheism doesn't care about the Truth. What matters is the CHOICE to DESBELIEVE in the existence of the creator.

It amazes me as some people desbelieve that Buhari is Buhari but Jubril from Sudan. No logic or sense will convince a donkey that has made up its mind

budaatum:
We might not be sure we don't live in a "higher dimension than the 3D or the trio of Energy, Space and Time", but why claim we do if there's no evidence to support we might? And why not just believe we live in a lower dimension of earth, water, fire and air instead, and that the earth is actually flat?

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?

budaatum:
One does not have to believe or disbelieve!

"I don't quite know", is always a third option.

"I don't know...!"
is an option if it would not be with ended with
" but I know...!"

How are we sure we don't live in a universe of a higher dimension than the 3D or the trio of Energy, Space and Time?

budaatum:
The universe may rest on top of a tortoise too but with no evidence to support it I just can't see why one should be compelled to believe it is.

I think you have to state your own beliefs (Logical and Scientific) about your perceived relation between the Uncaused First Cause, Entropy of the Universe/thermodynamics, infinite regress of cause and effect etc.

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:
This is called a strawman fallacy. That is not the Atheist position. You may have an Atheist who is brave enough to argue the position, in which case he would/could be an Anti-Theist. The Atheist position is much simpler and requires no burden of proof: we can't observe or detect gods/spiritual realms, therefore, we have no reason to believe such claims.

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!"

Hence, onus is on you to act like Christopher Columbus and prove otherwise. Otherwise, your ranting is like telling the "Flat earth proponents" to prove that the earth is flat.

So, you see the "sillyness" of your position!

Ihedinobi3:
This might interest you:

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

I wouldn't say that the universe is an isolated system. Theologically, it cannot be. Scientifically, the observation suggests that it is not. Logically, if something is increasing in some way, then something is being added to it by something outside of it. Finally, it only makes sense that a thing has boundaries if it is expanding, since expansion assumes the existence of limits that are being violated to establish new ones.

What an Interesting link (read)!

The expansion of the universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as everyone thought, it has been accelerating. No one expected this, no one knew how to explain it. But something was causing it.

It would mean our universe is inside a kind of force field and hence NOT isolated. What if this "enclosure of our universe" is infinitely sized or also expanding and drawing the universe with it.

Some scientists are of the opinion that the universe is an isolated system.

The universe itself is a closed system, so the total amount of energy in existence has always been the same. The forms that energy takes, however, are constantly changing.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/energy-can-neither-be-created-nor-destroyed/

Which one should we believe?
If energy is being added to our universe to cause it's acceleration, would entropy ,of our universe be increasing or decreasing?

Now, why do you say the universe cannot theologically be an isolated system?

budaatum:
You mentioned "entropy" which only applys in a closed system, one with defined boundaries.

Scientists, by the best of my knowledge, do not go by incomplete data. Neither is "belief" scientific. Scientists may speculate, but they don't expect anyone to run off and claim their speculation on incomplete data is the truth.

The universe may be open and yet isolated. If the universe is isolated, then the law of entropy still holds true.

That the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia

The gravitational singleton is a speculation isn't it? Yet this forms the best theory we have as per the origin of the universe.

On speculations theories are built whenever data is incomplete.

Nairaland's spam bots have banned me for no just cause. My second Monika is activated.

budaatum:
I don't think scientists assume the universe has a limit or is bounded. You yourself say "one of the most recent model of the universe assumes that the universe is unbounded", so what's your basis for a boundaried universe?

Don't such unevidenced assumptions reduce trust in your argument making it less likely to be believed?

I didn't say the universe was bounded.

I said:

There is actually no evidence yet that the universe is bounded in any way.

I believe the universe is open (expands forever) , isolated (no energy is entering or leaving the system) and unbounded (unconstrained by any external force).

The fact that I said the universe extends from +infinity to -infinity does not imply that it is closed or bounded.

Are we totally sure of this? No!
But such boundaries of the universe has not be detected nor is there evidence that the energy of the universe is increasing or decreasing.
As scientists, we can only go with what has been observed or inferred from even incomplete data.

This is more true now for people who desbelieve in God because no evidence to such has been seen.

Maximus69:
The rule:
Each person must first PRESENT the group with which he associates as a believer.
Each person must show appreciation for the others earnest effort to have time for God's word.
Each person must explain the reason for his conviction.
Each person must display a high measure of self control while reading the response of the other.
So i need to know your religious group [denomination] first before proceeding further in the friendly discuss!

After your talk with alBHAGDADI, we can now allow scrutiny of the scriptures and views as presented by each person.

The truth remains the truth in the face of QUESTIONS!
Questioning the truth actually VALIDATEs the TRUTH for the truth is invariant.

1Pet 3:15:
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

The keyword is REASON for our HOPE!

I have just been banned by Nairaland's Spam bots for my last post. I will edit the title whenever I come off the ban.


So, I created another Monika for this.
shadeyinka2

I have told seun to reprogram the algorithm the bots use to flag offenders but I guess he hasn't yet done it.