₦airaland Forum

dalaman:
Quit telling lies. The people that wrote the bible never knew rhat humans will ever invent electricity. The writers of the bi Le SPECIFICALLY said that Jesus will be seen coming from the clouds. Jesus Himself said he will be seen coming from the cloud and you are here tring to.lie that the clouds means TV. No wonder christians can not even agree on anything again these days because making things up as your go is the American of the game for you guys. That was how KingEbukasBlog said that Jesus ascended into heaven through a defunct portal that he invented from his anuus.

Jesus said HE WOULD BE SEEN coming from the clouds right? HOW?

The writers of the Bible do not need to know anything about the invention of electricity in the future BECAUSE THAT RECORDED EVEN IS MEANT FOR THE FUTURE!

Why is this so hard to understand for you?

Carefully think then try to make meaningful comments sir. You guys say the most shallow things and it makes me wonder indeed.

ScepticalPyrrho:
You keep insulting. I really wish you were the Christian here.

Try harder to get it right.

I was simply stating the obvious and not insulting. Was it not OBVIOUS you did not know that LIVE STREAMING was already being done in space thereby proving my comment true per description?

I am a Christian who says it as it should be said. Some of you lot deserve some hard knocks.

AnonyNymous:
I will repeat myself. In different terms. Science discovers things. And makes theories based on their logical discoveries. Which can be repeated by anyone, anywhere in the world. When a new theory happens to negate an old one it is because of a new understanding of the process going on.

Religion on the other hand claims the existence of talking donkeys without visible proof. Without any data to support that a talking donkey has ever existed except on book written by some guy somewhere. Then they make hypotheses or rather 'excuses' to try to justify how a talking donkey could've existed. The claim of talking donkeys wasn't made by building upon data if whispering donkeys or humming donkeys. It was just rabdinly made one day and then excuses wee provided for it. Its the same way natural phenomena are 'explained'. Random statements are made to explain the reason for natural phenomena. Random statements that have no basis in science. Then these random statements are now rationalized by putting hyoithese and theories together to make it seem like they make any sense.

Religion is the scientific method backwards

It doesn't matter how many ways you say it, it's still crock.

The scientific method you know is simply showing perception bias in man.

Science does not prove existence!

That which is already existing does not need science to approve it's existence!

That which is existing was ALREADY FUNCTIONAL before perception warped man came on the scene and in their selfish attempt to help themselves and their scepticism began to discover and tell themselves that so and so exists even though they already knew that those things already existed before they discovered them.

Hypothesis is for man and not for those things which do not understand science or need science to approve of their existence.

Why don't you try explaining your scientific hypothesis to a quark or to an atom or even to a hairy chested Hoff crab and see them call you stupid . All they care about is their functionality and not your claims on them.

Do you understand me now?

I guess the camouflage wearing atheists here just got rightly trounced by little me. It must suck to be tackled so hard by a lady and stay down.

Free thinkers my bum.

More like caged thinkers!

AnonyNymous:
Maybe you misunderstood my post, hence the reason for all your incoherent rantings.

Make hypotheses from already existing data. That us logical, and that us what science does.

Instead religion makes random claims of what will/has happen/happened then after making the bogus claims, tries to form hypotheses on what could've happened. No verifiable, repeatable, prior supporting data.

And yes, this earth is very insignificant compared to the universe.

You just said a boatload of nonsense!

I asked a question. Did those FINDINGS and CLAIMS made on the findings negate the PRIOR EXISTENCE of that which is claimed?

Is the data proof of the point of existence or it simply exposes the limitations in man's perception?

Science simply confirms Religion and that's it. We say God CREATED ALL THINGS FOR MAN so let me ask you a question.

How is it that EVERYTHING ALREADY EXISTING in nature is what man utilised to his gain? Is there anything OUTSIDE that which is already in existence in nature that man uses or has ever used?

How is it that somehow CONVENIENTLY we have already existing IN NATURE EVERYTHING man used to push advancement in technologically or scientifically to the place we are today? Again I ask DID MAN USE ANYTHING OUTSIDE THAT WHICH ALREADY EXISTED?

ScepticalPyrrho:
Perhaps, humans in space stations or other planets will get access to a livestream... watch "the come back" on youtube...

Technology is obviously way ahead of your reasoning ability.

www.express.co.uk/news/science/784556/NASA-International-Space-Station-ISS-live-stream-watch-Earth-space/amp

That was published on the 9th of July. Get yourself updated.

So HUMANS are on other planets?

Wow! Just wow!

AnonyNymous:
I wish I got to this thread earlier. Its true, the Christians love to use deism to back up their arguments. These same Christians would call me insane if I told them a Yoruba speaking donkey is the only reason why Amadioha has not killed them. (See Numbers 22: 21-39) There's is no logical basis for most of the tales in the bible, it's even fun to rip them apart. I'm fully convinced that the bible is just a collection of stories of men who needed to ascribe their own moral code to some superior being. Because they needed to feel some sort of authority over them.



For the record I call myself a deist but recently I find myself drifting towards panentheism and pantheism. God is nothing more than an abstract concept for things like the cause of the beginning of the earth, the cause of our consciousness - the cause for life. 'Life force' in essence is God to me. I speak out against religion because its everywhere. At my work place for example I was invited to one stupid fellowship by my boss. I had to go just to please him. Because he wouldn't fucking let me go. It felt like I was being force fed cold oatmeal. Grown adults jumping up and down in reverence to some sky daddy that is concentrated particularly on this insignificant planet. And there is NO PROOF, except that the white man told them it exists and everything they recorded happened. You shouldn't have to make bogus claims and then try to twist logic and science until you find 'proof' for them. It should be the other way round, that is, making claims based on your already existing findings.

Wrong on so many levels. Claims made on "existing findings" proves that the findings ALREADY existed before being found and claims made on them. Human skepticism is simply the cause needed for discoveries and those not mean that their discoveries made those things begin to exist. They already existed prior to discovery.

Was there no MATTER before properties were given to it at DISCOVERY?

was their no gravity before properties were given to it after OBSERVATION?

Is there anything which man has attached properties to which NEVER EXISTED prior to those properties being attached when man DISCOVERED THEM?

does discovery disprove prior existence or simply show the warped perception of man?

Ahem! So you live on a planet that is INSIGNIFICANT?

[quote author=TLuzzie post=58422924][/quote]As predicted!

They just lied thrice in a matter of minutes. Gosh!

[quote author=TLuzzie post=58422681][/quote]Third times a charm! Let's see if they would be up to it. Those liars in camouflage!

[s][quote author=TLuzzie post=58421988]Harmful bubbles from the dirty river of lies and dishonesty floating about this thread.....

How many can I dodge? How many can I burst? [/quote[/s]]

They couldn't stay away from clicking on my comment. Talk about double standards after they said they would never ever do so again. Yet they called my comments lies. I guess not living up to what they said was truth.

hopefulLandlord:
so those guys running around for millennia are waiting for that "improvement" so they can stop running

Stop deliberately confusing yourself. I asked a simple question.

Those play things who see and call comments I made lies should do a double take on their atheistic forays and the comments attached to them. Their thought processes which challenge the existence of God or the scriptures are never seen as lies but everyone who challenges their thought process is seen as a liar.

Talk about a lack of covert self-esteem!

hopefulLandlord:
answer what? why many of those guys your Jew was talking to are still alive today running around israel?

Telecoms extinct or better improved.

hopefulLandlord:
nah, the post was based on another point entirely

I know what it was based on so I asked a question. Answer it!

hopefulLandlord:
those guys are still waiting for the TV that'll show Jesus

Communication has evolved over the years. It began with horse riding messengers then moved on to other forms of WRITTEN message before visual accompaniments were invented. All in all they serve one purpose and that is communication be it audio or visual. So you think telecommunications would be extinct at that time or even much better than it is now?

CatfishBilly:
Whatever, man.

Think deep and think wide. Or does that ability not apply to you?

felixomor:
So much for their "free thinking"

They are all so annoyingly dumb. They simply cannot think wide and far. All they see is NOW!

CatfishBilly:
As in, the post shut me up.
I couldn't comprehend such display of intellectual dishonesty.

Intellectual dishonesty or actual intellectual genius in truth. You are the one who is being intellectually defunct.

hopefulLandlord:
the level of idiocy in that post astounds me lol,via TV lol

We are getting there. Every corner on this earth would be lit up by a television or visual device as the case would be in the future then it would be clear to you

dalaman:
The people that wrote the bible do not even know that people lived in China and North America yet you are here trying to tell lies to yourself just to rationalize their ancient mythology and superstitions. You get work oo. So now every body will see the dead Jewish hippe's return via TV? You guys are real jokes. Keep making things up.

You are the one not seeing the bigger picture. The whole world simply meant THE WHOLD WORLD regardless of present or future locations or populations. It was simply documenting a FUTURE EVENT which would fit into the PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE IN THE TIME IT DOES HAPPEN.

you are so myopic to say the least. Can you deny the involvement of television in global viewing of symbolic events? Why do you think everyone is clamouring for an identity on cable television these days? It is all leading to a singular event and in time those who would witness it would make sense of it all.

hopefulLandlord:
lol

the hole-ly babble also said "all eyes would see Jesus" when he's coming back

*cough*Flat earth *cough*

Did you even bother imagining the way technological advancement would contribute to this?

You assume this means everyone would look up and see him in the sky? Satellite technology has linked the whole world together and if the whole world can have access to CNN or BBC etc you assume that such an event would not be immediately televised worldwide so ALL CAN SEE HIM?

Did you actually think this had to do with the shape of the earth? Gosh how do you guys even think? Rationality is lost on you.

The historic 9/11 attacks was practically beamed worldwide at the same time and some piggy backed off each other and you call this ridiculous?

ScepticalPyrrho:
I didn't mean the creator has to be here himself. The entire Bible was said to be inspired by Yahweh. But nothing in it shows an intellect beyond human perspective as at the time.

- Elijah rode on a chariot of fire, not chevrolet?
- Jesus ascended into heaven? that's primitive thinking.
- Jesus is expected to return riding on a horse...? Not a private jet?
- Okay, I'm trying to remember any part of the Bible that mentioned dinosaurs... none!


You guys need to re-establish communications with Yahweh to reveal something that doesn't expose the Bible as a myopic write-up from primitive men.

Let me break it down for you in extremely simple terms because your reasoning is at most extremely callow.

Human perspective as at that time did not in any way shape or form dictate that we stick to that perspective when we can easily draw a correlation to our present day with it.

If Elijah rode on a chariot of fire and not a flaming Chevy truck how does that even begin to eliminate the message being passed? It simply buttresses your first comment about the prevalent perspective back then (I guess your callow mind could not link this comment and your initial one)

Jesus ascended into heaven and you call it PRIMITIVE THINKING? Do you realise how many light years ahead of you that action was? This was a time when man NEVER HAD ANY IDEA OF FLIGHT OR EVEN THAT ANYTHING COULD GO BEYOND THE CLOUDS. Yet this was documented.

Today we have pretty much everyone attempting a new method of flying using Jet packs or even flying taxis.

I remember long before people even imagined methods of flight using rocket propelled boots we saw comic books with super hero characters or villains being drawn utilising these methods and today we are seeing advancements in those fields and actual prototypes being put forward.

Do you think the internet you know today would still be in existence in another 200 years? We could have gone into the level of telepathic communication via thought projections which to an extent are already being utilised in video game technology. You are actually the primitive mind here.

Jesus returning on a white horse showed strength and nobility in holiness. It was a symbolic gesture and if you take that as literally as you read it then you surely need help with how to think broad and deep.

Now you talk about dinosaurs even after I already told you that man named everything. SIR RICHARD OWEN INVENTED THE NAME DINOSAUR IN 1842 so why and how would it be in the bible which was centuries before that? ( Do you see why I said you are callow).

You need to go back to school so you can actually learn how to reason beyond your head because right now your thought process is stuck in a rut.

ScepticalPyrrho:
Lol. Just when I thought I've seen the worst.

No vex. I totally understand.

This is a public forum, expect to see more comments like that.

I'ld prefer the creators perspective on this subject not yours. Thank you.

You are actually the worst of the lot. You prefer the creators perspective yet you offered yours and I cannot offer mine?

Of course it's a public forum which is why all manner of crock like you said is permitted here.

JackBizzle:



This was direct and open warfare on ignorance and your ilk lost.

Let me list you and tour friends' failed arguments

1. Entropy applies to the universe.

2. Kalam cosmological argument proves God.

3. Creator is the same as God. (I had to point out to you that this to your Christian religion and not all religions)

4. Kalam cosmological argument (if true) does not work for a polytheist gods.

5. I'm summary. You guys still didn't give an argument for a religious God. Deism is your last refuge

The number 1 on your list shows you lack a modicum of intelligence. Despite my back and forth with lightandDarkness and he clearly understood it. You on the other hand are deeply obtuse.

ScepticalPyrrho:
Does the OT talk about galaxies and galaxy-clusters?
Does the Bible refer to the sun as stars?

Yahweh needs to do an updated version...

Seriously, you need to stop this shameful display. I don't find it interesting to mock the Bible or Christians, you always manage to drag me into this. That's why I try to ignore you and Ebuka.

After all our conversations on this forum you still want to drag in an ancient manuscript as if it would make your belief authentic.

Have a good day.

What manner of silly talk is this? Does the Old Testament talk about galaxies or galaxy clusters or call the sun A Star? How stupid can a comment be?

A creator God does not have to offer names to his creation but could value functionality above a name. Functionality is all there is to anything. A name does not mean functionality. Names are wasted when functionality is lacking. Proof of a name is in its functionality and not vice versa.

God left the naming of his creation to man. He does not desire such identities to his creation when he isn't resident on this earth. Man on the other hand needs to tag identities to everything since he lives here.

Even when he called the first man ADAM it meant HUMANKIND. Simply a first sample of all who are to follow.

I remember talking about our limited earthly perception here and same is applicable in this scenario.

What WE CALL stars here or the Sun or galaxies may not be how a creator God views them or calls them. We CHOSE to give them such names but do the names prove their functionality or their functionality was there FIRST before a name was given to it.

LightandDarkness:
I was already aware of everything you wrote. This specific aspect is where I wanted us to get. Any assertion about the specific of the nature of the universe at the start is based on assumptions and is not factually known.

Note how your reply didn't say that the universe being an open system was not possible or multiverses are not possible, they are just not known as fact. Thus, like any knowledge of the "something that always existed", is open to speculation. If a cyclical universe is theoretically possible, it can be speculated.

That's what JackBizzle fails to understand. People are free to run with assumptions and parade them as probable facts as long as it negates a creator God but when I believe in this God it becomes offensive to them yet their assumptions do not offend them?

A lot of people here are not atheists "seemingly" but they are simply sceptics.

felixomor:
Wow, well done.
I hope patient is doing well.

I believe he would pull through. It was a young man who got shot with a low velocity pistol. He was lucky!

Will check up on him tomorrow after his surgery. I always make friends on the job

Ermacc:
In spite of the u-turn this thread made, I really had a nice read. Learnt a whole lot. It was sad and funny seeing spacetacular and TLuzzie lashing at each other barely a week after reading this.

The little runt started it and he decided to paint everywhere with his venom. I simply applied an anti venom.

Ermacc:
you deserve an award.

I do? How so?

felixomor:
Hehehehe
Nice duty....

Had a call over a penetrating trauma so we had to stabilise and transfer then made a pit stop somewhere else.

JackBizzle:
The simple rebuttal is that entropy is applicable to a closed system (the universe is not closed) as you have already noted.

The issue here is that the entropy argument is usually misused by religious apologists. It has been also misused against evolution

Read my response to lightandDarkness.

LightandDarkness:
.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium). If the universes begin with a series of blackholes which draws in matter and light and a white hole which releases matter and light, entropy would remain constant. Furthermore each universe would not be an isolated system and therefore the law would not apply.

IF is the key word there. So your whole premise is simply a presupposition so does not apply.

The entire universe is an isolated system. The observable universe is an open system.

There are 3 main types of thermodynamic systems, defined by what the system can exchange with its surroundings.

1. An open system can exchange both energy and matter.

2. A closed system can exchange only energy.

3. An isolated system cannot exchange anything.

The entire universe, meaning everything there is, including things we cannot see, is an isolated system because it has no "surroundings"; it's literally everything there is. Obviously, a system cannot exchange energy or matter with "surroundings" that do not exist.

The observable universe, meaning only the part of the universe that we can see, is an open system, because the "boundary" of our observable universe is not actually a physical "boundary" in any possible meaning of the word, and both matter and energy can freely pass through it.

What I mean is that our observable universe has a "boundary" because if something is beyond this "boundary", the light from it has not had time to reach us yet (and may never will). If there was life on the "boundary" of our observable universe they would have their own definition of "observable universe" and it will not be the same as our definition, because there are things in the universe they can see that we can't, and vice versa.

The Multiverse is hypothetical Although there are many speculative theories hypothesizing some kind of multiverse, none of them have been verified experimentally and they are not considered to be scientific fact, just pure speculation.

However, if some day we establish the existence of some kind of multiverse as scientific fact, we will have to rethink if our universe is indeed an isolated system. This will, of course, depend on the exact nature of this multiverse and, in particular, how the different universes interact.

So when I talk about a universe I talk about the entire universe both observable and not observable. I hope this explains in detail what you did not quite understand.