₦airaland Forum

DuaWorrior:
May Allah punish you with intense pain for one week for this blasphemy, so you will be careful what you say to Muslims.

If you want to know, Allah is satan himself feigning to be Yahweh the God of Israel.

Jesus raises the Dead by the command of His voice BUT Allah needs the carcass of a cow to do the same: is this your God?
Why is Allah not different in attribute from shaitan?

Expanse2020:
You should tell us the religion the Jesus brought to earth
You should tell us the religion the Jesus did on this Earth

Jesus did not bring any religion on earth.
Religion is what man does in the hopes of pleasing their God.

With evidence, tell me the name of the religion of Moses or Zahariah or David or Solomon or Isaac or Jacob!

DuaWorrior:
I made this prayer because you insulted me an another two billion people worldwide when you post absolute garbage about our religon. Go through my posts and you won't find a single insult against Christians and Christianity. For your information, my mother is a Christian. Her father was a pastor who worked with missionaries. Half of my relations are Christians. We grew up together as kids, ate in the same dish, slept on the same bed, and we still help one another today. If a problem befalls me, my Christian cousins will work harder than my Muslim friends to help me. similarly, I and my Muslim siblings contribute more money than their Chrisitian friends in church whenever one of my Christian cousins needs financial help for school, medical treatment, etc. So, why would I insult Christians and Christianity? We can disagree with one another respectably. But when you start to call Muhammad (SAW) possessed or Allah possessed, or Muslims terrorists, then you are going beyond the limit because you can't prove any of that. You can't find a single historical or scientific findings or investigation reports to support those accusations. This is what makes such accusations offensive. And by doing that, you actually infringe upon our rights and we can pray against you and the prayers will be accepted because you wronged us deliberately (not a mistake). It is because I do not want to wrong any Christians that I'm careful what I say about them, their religion, or their holy book. I don't want any Christian putting a curse on me for wrongfully hurting his/her feelings . . . because such curses may very well take effect.
If one Muslim insults you or your faith, direct your insult at him without targetting the entire Muslim population. They didn't send that Muslim to insult you or your religion.
If you can promise to not insult Muslims or their faith without any solid basis again, I'll reverse the curese, otherwise it stays and let's see if it takes effect or not.

I think you are assuming too much especially about the highlighted.
Mohammed isn't who you think he is
What if I can show you historical evidences from your Islamic sources, will you take it seriously?

AntiChristian:
Yeah i will slam my head like Jesus too did!

I slam my head!
Jesus slammed his head too!
We all slam our head in Islam!

Going a little farther, he (Jesus) slam his face on the ground and prayed, Matthew 26:39

You slam your head While facing the black stone in the Kaaba!? What an Irony!

Is the Black stone your prophet kissed not at the Kaaba?
Is the Black stone not your intercessor on the day of judgment?


Quran 19:71-72 already condemn you. There is no escape from hell to you unless you open your eyes , learn the truth. Allah is satan and Mohammed is one of the main antichrists. A 419 whose stomach has mislead you.

Here are Muslims like you who slam their faces on the ground for their deities

MightySparrow:
Hello friend. Quite an age.
You remind me of the satanic verses cast into Mohammed's revelation.
Who even knows whether all his revelation is from Satan?

All the good part of the Qur'an is certainly from Shaitan. Mohammed has succeeded in converting him to a Muslim.

Mohammed is the most successful 419 in history till date. Muslim clerics and leaders are still benefiting from his business empire till today.
This is why Islam has to be sustained with LIES upon lies to keep on existing.


A Schizophrenic man who was delirious for almost a year on the excuse of being under the influence of Black Magic (from satan) and hears Jibril speak like a bell and donkey and could bow down to the three daughters of Allah cannot be less than the son of satan himself.

AntiChristian:
Did The Qur’an Copy The Bible’s Violence?



K.

Slam your head on the ground a million times you will discover that you have been scammed by the antichrist himself.
Did Allah not decived Iblis?
This same Allah has succeeded in misleading you.

No wonder Allah promised you Muslims will end up in hell fire: you cannot escape it

AntiChristian:
K.

You hate the truth

Sunan an-Nasa'i 3960
It was narrated from 'Ubadah bin Al-Walid bin 'Ubadah bin As-Samit that 'Aishah said:
"I looked for the Messenger of Allah and I put my hand on his hair." He said: "Your Shaitan has come to you. " I said: "Don't you have a Shaitan?" He said: "Yes, but Allah helped me with him, so he submitted."


Mishkat al-Masabih 67
Ibn Mas'ud reported God's messenger as saying, “There is none of you who does not have his partner from among the jinn and his partner from among the angels put in charge of him.” The hearers asked, “Does this also apply to you, messenger of God?” He replied, “It applies to me too, but God has helped me against him and he has accepted Islam, so he commands me to do only what is good.”


Sahih Muslim 2814 a
Abdullah b. Mas'ud reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said:
There is none amongst you with whom is not an attache from amongst the jinn (devil). They (the Companions) said: Allah's Messenger, with you too? Thereupon he said: Yes, but Allah helps me against him and so I am safe from his hand and he does not command me but for good.

AntiChristian:
What Did Jesus Forget and Why Does Paul misquote Scriptures?
K.

Again, even though You hate the truth

Your prophet is a vile man who was shameless to enter the house of Zainab when her husband wasn't at home and covet her. Is this act lawful for any Muslim to enter the house of a married Muslim man when the husband is not at home?

A shameless man who was caught pants down on top of Mary the Copt. Or is Mary one of the wives of Mohammed? How come she gave birth to Ibrahim for Mohammed?

I forgot that illegal sex doesn't prevent Muslims from entering paradise!

Mohammed is just an opportunistic son of satan using 419 to mislead people for wealth, women and food.

Is it untrue that Mohammed serves satan?

AntiChristian:
They were drinking wine and Matthew called it blood! Is blood not expressly forbidden as an everlasting covenant in Deuteronomy 12:16? And Jesus's Jewish disciples are drinking wine which is metaphorically blood? They must have been ignorant of those laws!

This is how you will argue yourself into hell fire. Indeed the wine was metaphorical for the real blood.
So, can you please Explain how the wine of Jesus was shed for the forgiveness of sin!

AntiChristian:
How does this mandates anyone to believe in his death to be save? Some Prophets including John the Baptist have been condemned and killed! Wetin do their blood?

Where is it written in the Law of Moses, in the Prophets and Psalms the name Christ that is to suffer and rise from the dead the third day? And Where is Jesus mandating people to believe in his death to be saved?

Did Jesus die on the cross or not?

AntiChristian:
"The Lamb of God" can be a Prophet who makes others repent.
God sent Jonah to Nineveh and they repented of their sins! Jonah is the Lamb of God! He doesn't need to be killed to take away the sins of Nineveh!

Show me anywhere in the scripture where any prophet was called a Lamb?

AntiChristian:
Na Jesus talk this one?

Did you not say that it was Paul and the Council at Nacea that claimed that Jesus Blood was for atonement for sin?
You said:

Back to where we diverted from, Jesus never told anyone to believe he's gonna die to save the world!
Paul did!
The Nicaea Creed did!

I have Just shown you Peter and John and at least four passages.
Shouldn't you apologize for false statements?

AntiChristian:
You can reply when you are less frustrated!
Bring where Jesus mandated people to believe in his death to be saved!

Jesus preached to his disciples, to crowds (sometimes in thousands, don't bother who did the head count), to Pharisees and Religious Leaders, to Sinners and Tax Collectors, to Jews in synagogues and other Jewish settings and Gentiles (e.g. the Samaritan woman).

Who among them did he tell to believe in his death to be saved!

Is the only message of Jesus according to Islam not preaching about the oneness of Allah!?
Did Jesus preach any other things apart from this?


Why don't you explain these scriptures:
1. Mat 26:28:
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
What is the purpose of the blood of Jesus?

2. John 3:10-17
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.


3. Luke 24:44-47:
"And he said to them, These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said to them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
After you have done justice to explaining what these three verses mean, call back.


At least I have shown you that Allah is very much a limited ONE like Iblis. He is neither Omnipotent not Omniscience nor Omnipresent. No argument here can change the fact that you worship a Deity unknown to Moses not Abraham nor any of the prophet of old.

LegalWolf:
This chap just talks for talking sake. Our people sincerely dodged a bullet!

Hello
Just checking up on you. How are you?
It's been a while

Take care of yourself

AntiChristian:
Did Jesus say he will die for your sins and you must believe in his death to be saved?

All the above is just pure nonsense!
Muslims believe in Jesus!
You don't believe in Muhammad!

Where did Jesus say anyone should believe he died for their sins to be saved?

Your prophet is a vile man who was shameless to enter the house of Zainab when her husband wasn't at home and covet her. Is this act lawful for any Muslim to enter the house of a married Muslim man when the husband is not at home?

A shameless man who was caught pants down on top of Mary the Copt. Or is Mary one of the wives of Mohammed? How come she gave birth to Ibrahim for Mohammed?

I forgot that illegal sex doesn't prevent Muslims from entering paradise!

AntiChristian:
Of course Jesus forgot to tell his anyone directly that they must believe he died for their sins to be saved!

Jesus preached to his disciples, to crowds (sometimes in thousands, don't bother who did the head count), to Pharisees and Religious Leaders, to Sinners and Tax Collectors, to Jews in synagogues and other Jewish settings and Gentiles (e.g. the Samaritan woman).

Never for once did he tell anyone they have to believe in his death to be saved!

But then Paul happened!

Romans 10:8-12
But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: that if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with your heart you believe and are justified, and with your mouth you confess and are saved. It is just as the Scripture says: “Anyone who believes in Him will never be put to shame.”

Paul as usual misquoting Devarim 30:14 totally out of context!
But the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you may obey it.

Where can we find “Anyone who believes in Him will never be put to shame.” in the scriptures?

Definitely not Isaiah 28:16
So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who relies on it will never be stricken with panic. Isaiah 28:16

Back to where we diverted from, Jesus never told anyone to believe he's gonna die to save the world!
Paul did!
The Nicaea Creed did!

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.

Lame attempt indeed but it still doesn't help the case that Islam is a religion whose foundation is LIES and if you are not careful, you will die before knowing the truth: by that time unfortunately, it is too late for you.

1. Jesus clearly stated that His Blood will be shed for the forgiveness of sins for many
Mat 26:28:
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

What is the purpose of the blood of Jesus?

2. Jesus explained how it will be done by comparing salvation from Sin with salvation from the judgement of the serpents as found in Numbers 21:8-9

John 3:10-17
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.


Jesus after His resurrection spoke these words to His disciples
Luk 24:44-47:
"And he said to them, These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said to them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

3. Jesus final charge to His disciples after His resurrection was to clearly explain to them why it was important that the Messiah should be killed
Luk 24:44-47:
"And he said to them, These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said to them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

But of course:
Satan says that Jesus was neither Crucified nor Killed.
SInce he said it, gullible people have believed him not knowing that they have been mislead by satan.
Till today, we are asking the questions
1. Who was crucified instead of Jesus
2. WHy did Allah deceive Mary, the Apostles and All the disciples of Jesus?
3. In whose presence did Jesus go to heaven?

Donkeys and children of perdition do not have any answer for their conjectures and they have to manufacture tales like their prophet to coverup.


I guess Paul also wrote the Gospels where Jesus Blood attones for the sin of the world.

According to you, It was Paul who said:
John 1:29
"Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

Check another verse by Paul

1 John 1:7.
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin

I guess that Paul also wrote these two scriptures below
Revelation 1:5
5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,

Revelation 7:14
14 I answered, “Sir, you know.” And he said, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb

I guess Paul wrote this verse for Peter

1 Peter 1:18-19
18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors,
19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect


Go face your self delusion prepared by Mohammed aka Allah and ask the questions I am asking you to be free

AntiChristian:
Very often I am presented with two claims.

Claim #1: The Qur’an copied from the Bible
Claim #2: The Qur’an is a manual for violence.

Those who make these claims do not seem to understand that the only possible conclusion in which both these claims can be true is if the Qur’an’s “violent” verses were copied from the Bible. To help those who hate us understand this point, I often ask the question:

Did the Qur’an Copy the Bible’s Violence?

Quite often the answer is no. Yet if the author of the Qur’an did create a religion for the purpose of warfare, genocide and terrorism, and if this author was copying from the Bible then it stands to reason that the Qur’an at the very least should contain some or most of the Bible’s most violent verses. Yet this is not the case. In fact, the most violent verse in the Bible is not matched by any verse of the Qur’an:

“However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.” – Deuteronomy 20:16 (NIV)

It would seem very strange that the author of the Qur’an (assuming it is not God as Christians claim) would create a religion for the purpose of warfare and copy from the Bible, while at the same time avoiding copying any verses which allow for violence. Surely, a religion created for the purpose of warfare which had the Bible available for source material would quote the most violent verse possible to support its ideology, yet we find no equal verse to Deuteronomy 20:16 in the Qur’an, or a verse more violent than it altogether.

On the other hand, the Qur’an echoes a teaching once given to a previous messenger (or messengers) to the Children of Israel:

“That is why We ordained for the Children of Israel that whoever takes a life—unless as a punishment for murder or mischief in the land—it will be as if they killed all of humanity; and whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity.” – Qur’an 5:32 (translation by Dr. Mustafa Khattab).

and Allah knows best.

By Ijaz Ahmad

The Qur'an is a book made by man with all the signatures of the work of a 6th century Arabian man. It is a book of deceit and 419 set up to enrich Mohammed and the leaders of the Muslims.

Quran as said earlier even by the Meccans is a collection of tales of the ancients mixed with tales from the people of the book.

Beautifulday:
It is not about what we import or do not import. It is what the government can afford to pay.

Did the government care if we could afford the so-called subsidy removal which was done by an executive fiat? Did the governments (previous included) care that their policies and foreign loans was impoverishing the citizens and devaluing the Naira?

Why should government use this time to speak of what they can afford to pay instead of that which is realistic and fit for the ordinary Nigerian?

Do you have any idea of Governments expectation for the minimum standard of Living for a Nigerian?
Should the least paid Nigerians be able to eat
1. One Egg per day @N200*30= N6,000 per month
2. One Meat or Fish per day @ N200*30 = N6,000 per month
3. Two Square meal per day @ N500*30 = N15,000 per month
4. One "Tinned milk" per day @ N700* 30 = N21,000 per month
5. Transport to work of N1000 per day = N30,000 per month
6. Phone of N100 per day = N3,000 per month
7. Electricity and Water bill of N6000 per month
8. Housing @one Room (N10,000) per month
9. Clothing @ N3000 per month
This is N100,000 but your Government is offering N60,000 : what should we remove from this list?

Do you think this estimates are bogus or unreasonable for a single adult Nigerian mouth?
(Note: I didn't include things like Hospital Bill, Dependants, Vacations, Vehicle maintenance etc

Government should be thinking of the minimum standard of living expected for a Nigerian and work towards it rather than impoverishing the citizens in other for those in government to have money for white elephant projects

Beautifulday:
Yes! 490k minimum wage is not realistic. Government proposed 100k which is realistic. Labor said government should break the proposed wages down. This shows dishonesty on the part of the government.

Even if the breakdown is bad, drop it and let them dialogue with it.

Is a minimum wage of $350 per month realistic knowing that we import almost everything we consume

AbuTwins:
Where is the proof that many Jinns work for Allah?

Tell me that Muslims do not do the work of Allah!
Don't Muslims work for Allah?

AbuTwins:
How is Iblis omnipresence? Allah is omnipresence in his knowledge! And this is not comparable to Iblis in any way!

You said it yourself, didn't you?
You said:

The so-called Omnipresence of Iblis was granted by Allah till the day of ressurection. This is well established in the Qur'an.

Did you not say this?

AbuTwins:
Allah's omnipresence makes sense! I can't expect your God to be with you in the latrine when you poo!

Omnipresence has just one meaning: present Everywhere. This isn't a place God isn't.
Are you saying that the best place to escape from Allah is inside the toilet?

Notice:
Allah and his angels are afraid of the toilet!

AbuTwins:
So the OS creator need to be present in the system to be able to control/monitor it? The OS creator created the OS and he knows everything about it. Allah's knowledge is omnipresent in all his creations! Allah's knowledge is His attribute!

Same thought process! Allah's knowledge is part of His attribute! His knowledge encompass all things!

Omnipresence is different from Omniscience.

AbuTwins:
The ram na to chop! No sins was washed away by it!
And at least the child wasn't killed! It was just a test for Abraham whether he would obey Allah with regards to his loved one! But your own God killed his son eventually!

According to your logic, Allah is a Bablawo demanding Ram of sacrifice from Abraham.

AbuTwins:
I agree with you! Once your God was even be in the womb to later pass through the vagina! Your God need to be present as he wasn't sure the report he got was correct! Na live update he need!

Can you God become anything without Creasing to be God Almighty?
If he cannot, then Allah is NOT also Omnipotent.
He cannot even enter the toilet not any of his creations if he wanted to.

Can you see how you have limited your Allah?

AbuTwins:
Donkey carries book without knowledge! So where is the knowledge Muslims don't care about? The falsehood you dey peddle na knowlege?

Too much lies in order to support Islam is your problem.
Does the sun set in the murky waters?
Did Jesus die on the cross?
Why is it that Jesus is the only human granted the power to create life aside Allah?
Where is the wall of Gog and Maggog?
Why is Jesus with Allah above the 7th heaven when he is supposed to be in his grave?

Of course, you don't even care about the truth.

AbuTwins:
Ask me once again! You can ask Him when you meet Him!

Who are Uziar and Ezra?

AbuTwins:
In the Bible Satan tempt Jesus and whined God!
Allah is not whined by Satan!
Allah does whatever He wills!
Muhammad went through many trials and this is normal as a human!
Righteous slaves of Allah are tried as well. Prophet Ayub aka Job was tried with Ill-health and was steadfast! Similarly Prophet Muhammad was tried too! Jacob was tried with the loss of Joseph! All these people were not servants of Satan! Satan can not deviate them from the path of Allah! The Promise of Satan is to attack humans and jinn away from the message of Islam!

Temptation is NOT a sin.
Temptation is your flesh wanting something different from your will to put God first.
Anyone with flesh and blood can be tempted.

Temptation becomes a sin when you put yourself first rather than God !

AbuTwins:
I know you don't want clarification but endless argument!

Here are 6 translations of the same verse you misinterpret!

All misinterpreted to escape the obvious embarrassment of the truth.
Read your Quran:
Quran 2:73
And We said: Smite him with some of it. This is the way (or this is how) Allah bringeth the dead to life and showeth you His portents so that ye may understand

Why does Allah need dead cow carcass to raise the dead?

AbuTwins:
I don't think you have the mind to accept any truth!

This is the Truth

John 14:6:
"Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me."

Unfortunately,
1. You reject Jesus teachings and commands
2. You adopt a Deity who is a slave master and not a Father


Again:
Answer my questions if you love the truth

1. Why did Satan touch your prophet Mohammed with black magic for almost a year. Can you proof that Mohammed is a righteous slave?
2. Why does satan command Mohammed only for good? Does it not mean that Mohammed is also a servant of satan? How are we sure that the words of shaitan is not 3/4 of the quran?

WriterNig:
[color=black]The US has crashed more aircrafts in training this year than 🇷🇺 Russia that is fighting in a war has. More than 35 crashes in just the last 5 months.

🇺🇸 US military aircrafts are flying coffins. World's number 1 🤡 Army indeed.

United States Of Americrash. 😂 [/color]


👍🏻 Like for Russia-Putin, share for USA/Nazi/NATO 卍

US had thousands of different kind of planes while Russia has in their hundreds. This is the diffysir

AbuTwins:
Jinns are like humans they could be Muslims or non-Muslims. Stop telling lies na! Allah can make any of His creatures do His bidding as He so wills!

Are you dazed?
Here was what I said:
Allah is one but he has many Jinns working for him (Are many of the Jinns not also Muslims?)

Tell me the lies told here?

AbuTwins:
The so-called Omnipresence of Iblis was granted by Allah till the day of ressurection. This is well established in the Qur'an.

We are saying the same thing!
According to you, the Islamic Iblis is omnipresent BUT Allah himself is NOT Omnipresent.
What can be clearer than this that Allah is NOT omnipresent.

How can the creator of the universe not be omnipresent?

AbuTwins:
What does Allah need to enter His creation for? Does the creator of a computer OS need to enter it for any reason? Iblis is just one of the many programs of Allah to test us! This analogy doesn't work for a Christian. The OS creator doesn't have any power to affect the system until he enters it as a son and kill himself for his creations!

For Allah to be omnipresent, he has to be able to be both inside and outside his creation.
But Allah is NOT omnipresent.
Case closed!

AbuTwins:
Iblis is a creation of Allah! He is a Jinn. Again, Allah does not need to be everywhere to know everything! He already know everything before He created all things! He knows the past, the Present and the future!

But he is NOT Omnipresent as he cannot.

AbuTwins:
Allah is not everywhere! God can't be in filthy places like soak-away, dumpsites, etc.
Allah is with all things by His knowledge!

Exactly!
Allah and his angels are afraid of the toilet. To escape Allah, all what one need to do is to sit on the dumpster and the power of Allah over the person will dissolve like wax.

AbuTwins:
It would be silly to a trinitarian who believes his God passes through the vagina canal and started crying just as he cried!
Allah created Angels from light. They never disobey Him in any of His command.
Allah has no son! Your God have son!
Sons of God in the Bible slept with humans and had offspring!

Vail repetition that has no value

AbuTwins:
If it is a metaphor then John 3:16 says "Only begotten son"! Jesus can't be the only begotten son if it is metaphor. Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, because they will be called sons of God” (Matt. 5:9). So all peacemakers are such metaphorical sons of God! Why is Jesus special then?

This shows that you don't even have an idea of what is called a metaphor.
Your Allah is so limited that you Muslims don't know that whatever God touches become Holy.
Light must kill bacteria and its not the other way round as bacteria can never contaminate Light.

AbuTwins:
Satan is not in the dustbin but Yahweh can be in there right?
Yahweh can't save people without spilling the blood like Satanic babalawo vicarious atonement!

Did your Allah ask Abraham to sacrifice his son to him?
Did Allah finally supplied a Ram for Abraham as a ransom for his son?

This means that Allah must be a Babalawo!

Why did your Allah require a sacrifice from Abraham?

AbuTwins:
Genesis 18:20-21 (NIV): "Then the Lord said, 'The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.'"

If i create a code now i have to enter into the code too! Lol

My God can be EVERYWHERE, in HEAVEN and ANYWHERE all at the same time.
Can your Allah be everywhere without ceasing to be Allah?

AbuTwins:
You are calling me a Donkey just as Jesus was written to have called Peter Satan and those he was preaching to bad names like snakes, etc! Wetin Satan dey look for in the presence of God?

I did not call you a donkey.
I was only quoting the hadith of your prophet. A donly will carry a whole library of books on its back but yet he is devoid of knowledge.
Muslims do not care one bit about knowledge, thus they would never learn.

AbuTwins:
Allah did spoke to Adam and Moses! Even an unnamed Prophet probably Uziar (Ezra) too in Qur'an 2:259)!
Are they not creations of Allah?

Uziar and Ezra are not he same person.
Who is Allah referring to in particular

AbuTwins:
Allah has already given him respite till the day of resurrection! Allah already told him he can't touch his righteous slaves! So what is Satan doing in the presence of God? And he was even whining Him o!

if this is true, can you answer these two questions
1. Why did Satan touch your prophet Mohammed with black magic for almost a year. Can you proof that Mohammed is a righteous slave?
2. Why does satan command Mohammed only for good? Does it not mean that Mohammed is also a servant of satan? How are we sure that the words of shaitan is not 3/4 of the quran?

AbuTwins:
This your statement is wrong!
Moses did raise the dead in that verse of the Qur'an. And that is the way Allah instructed him.
Jesus did raise the dead without any cow (Qur'an 3:49).
Even Abraham raised some birds up after slaughtering them and cutting them to pieces without cow (Qur'an 2:260)!
Even an unnamed Prophet was raised up by Allah and He showed him how he raised up his long dead donkey (Qur'an 2:259)!
You just dey mix up things to prove your falsehood!

Read your Quran:
Quran 2:73
And We said: Smite him with some of it. This is the way (or this is how) Allah bringeth the dead to life and showeth you His portents so that ye may understand

Moses was just to follow the method of Allah who raises the dead with meat from cows.

Read the Arabic: It said: "this is how Allah raise up the dead"

I am actually busy now but let me respond to some of your posts.

AlbertNewton:
Actually, you're the one making a very costly and somewhat ridiculous mistake of assuming that atheists assume (or believe) that everything real must be tangible. Atheists of course know that gravity and electromagnetism are intangible real things !
Perhaps you should have asked for the opinions of atheists on intangible real things before reaching that erroneous conclusion.
And by the way, you should also stop assuming that ALL atheists have the same set of beliefs. The main thing that unifies atheists is that they are unconvinced that a god or gods exist. The reason for their lack of conviction can vary very widely.

It is not my fault that Atheism is so incoherent that one thousand atheists have a thousand belief system.

AlbertNewton:
On the matter of intangible real things, here is what I personally think:
Intangible real things are a product of tangible real things. In other words, everything that exists is a consequence of complex interplay and interaction of matter and energy.

True for the subset of intangible realities produced from tangible realities.
The converse may not also be untrue.

AlbertNewton:
I think some of these your examples here are poorly chosen. Mathematics and logic for instance are not "real" things in the same sense that magnetic field is. I do get the point you're trying to make anyways.

Everything you said here did not prove any point

Mathematic, Logic and Software etc fall under the realm of INFORMATION. Information is REAL but not Tangible

AlbertNewton:
Like I said up there, you made a wrong assumption about what atheists believe about intangible real things. So you're basically arguing with yourself here.

This is why it is impossible to debate with a thousand faced individual.

AlbertNewton:
As we've learned in physics, gravity controls the "Working Interconnection" of star systems and galaxies. Can we then say that gravity is an intelligent mind 🤔?

Is gravity conscious?
If it is , yes but it isn't!

JessicaRabbit:
When I called your logic simplistic and charming, I was making a valid critique of your argument's substance. I was not, however, attacking your character or emotional state. That's a crucial distinction you seem to have missed. On the other hand, your response of "You're just being emotional" was a blatant attempt to discredit my argument by attacking my emotional state, rather than addressing the points I raised, which is a form of ad hominem. So, while I was making a substantive critique, you resorted to a cheap, fallacious trick to avoid engaging with my argument. And now, you're trying to play the victim by claiming I started it? Please. If you can't keep up with the intellectual rigor, it's better to concede than to resort to such transparent evasions.

No comment!

JessicaRabbit:
The atom didn't "self-assemble" in the sense of a conscious, intentional process. Rather, it formed through the natural interactions of its constituent parts, governed by the laws of physics. The proton, for instance, is composed of three quarks held together by the strong nuclear force. These quarks aren't conscious entities that chose to form a proton; they simply interacted according to the laws of quantum chromodynamics. Similarly, the structure of atoms arises from the interactions between these subatomic particles, governed by the laws of electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. No intelligent mind is required to explain the formation of atoms; only the laws of physics and the inherent properties of the particles themselves.

How then did it acquire consciousness?

JessicaRabbit:
Actually, the existence of these interdependent systems doesn't point to an intelligent designer. It points to the remarkable properties of our universe and the ingenuity of life to exploit them.

How did dumb atoms acquire consciousness?

JessicaRabbit:
Consequence of basic physics -- the sun's energy heating water, causing evaporation, condensation due to cooler temperatures, and precipitation.
Energy flows and transforms according to the Laws of Thermodynamics. Plants capture sunlight, animals eat plants, we all release energy back into the system.

Like dominoes falling, complex molecules self-replicate based on their structure. Natural selection then favors those replications that best suit the environment. It's a brutal but effective system, not a divine baby-making factory.

The they suddenly found out how to store data and instructions of how to replicate themselves in their DNA.

JessicaRabbit:
Carbon literally gets everywhere. It cycles through the air, land, water, and living things. It's a natural process driven by geology, biology, and chemistry.

Plants take in CO2, release oxygen, animals breathe in oxygen, release CO2. It's a beautiful cycle, but it's nothing more than a byproduct of how these lifeforms function.

So what if some of these cycles were different? Perhaps with a slightly less efficient water cycle, life as we know it wouldn't exist. That doesn't mean a designer got it "just right". It simply means in this particular universe, with these particular physical laws, these are the cycles that emerged. The vastness of space likely holds countless universes with wildly different conditions, some with no life at all.

You still cannot fathom that life wouldn't be with just one of them missing!?

JessicaRabbit:
This is you begging the question. Rules and patterns in nature can arise from inherent properties and interactions within the system itself, without the need for an external intelligent mind. Think of the laws of physics, the structure of crystals, or the branching patterns in trees. These are all examples of emergent properties, which can be explained by the interactions of their constituent parts, not by an intelligent designer.
As I said earlier, even if we can't explain the origin of these rules and patterns, it doesn't mean we get to insert an intelligent mind as a default explanation. That's not how science or logic works.

i understand.
Like given enough gibberish, correct information acting on data will come out of it.

JessicaRabbit:
Again and again, your comparison is a non sequitur. Both systems use symbolic representations to convey information, sure. But they don't operate under the same principles or logic. Besides, the complexity and nuance of genetic expression, regulation, and evolution can't be reduced to a simplistic comparison with computer programming. The beauty of DNA lies in its intricate, dynamic, and context-dependent interactions, which can't be captured by a straightforward binary or quaternary code.

The DNA is extremely complex!
Of course we know that AND the simple binary code cannot be made to illustrate the complexities!?

JessicaRabbit:
Another clever attempt to shift the goalposts -- this time, with a red herring. Those binary states are still part of a human-designed system, created to represent and process information in a way that's meaningful to us. The rules and meanings assigned to TRUE and FALSE are arbitrary, but they're agreed upon by convention and used consistently within the context of computer science. On the other hand, the DNA code wasn't designed by humans. It's a naturally occurring phenomenon that's been shaped by millions of years of evolution. The rules and meanings assigned to the nucleotide sequences aren't arbitrary, they're determined by the chemical and physical properties of the molecules themselves and the cellular machinery that interprets them. So yes, it may seem like both computer binary and DNA sequences can be thought of as "codes". However, they operate in fundamentally different contexts and are governed by different rules and meanings.

The binary codes were designed by humans.
Thus if we do not know the programmer of a code, it is a reasonable proof that no one programmed the machine! SMH!

JessicaRabbit:
A random sequence of A, C, G, and T can contain information and data in the sense that it can still be subject to chemical and physical rules that govern the interactions between nucleotides and the cellular machinery. But without a specific context and a predetermined set of rules, a random sequence would not contain meaningful information or data in the same way that a specific DNA sequence does. Also, random sequences of zeros and ones can be both instruction and data within a computer hardware, but only because we've predefined a set of rules and a language (machine code) that gives meaning to those sequences. In the same way, the chemical and physical rules that govern DNA give meaning to the sequence of nucleotides, but it's not the same as human language or machine code.

Okay!

Even mutations usually are not positive but destructive to the organism, how much more a random sequence of DNA sequence.



I will like to plead that we end this discussion. I have some targets to make and it might take a while.

Have a beautiful day

JessicaRabbit:
Let's play along for a thought experiment. This all-powerful, all-knowing being... why would it be invisible and intangible? Throughout history, humans have generally depicted their gods as reflections of themselves: powerful, jealous, sometimes even petty. Appealing to the invisibility of the creator is quite simply a blatant and obvious dodge. Point, blank, period. It is nothing more than a way for you to avoid the glaring lack of evidence for a physical deity. As for science, it doesn't need to know what an alien creator looks like. With science, we can explain the formation of galaxies, the evolution of life, the dynamics of subatomic particles etc. It's a much simpler, more elegant explanation that actually aligns with the evidence we do have. If you want to believe in an invisible, intangible super-being, that's your right. But claiming such a being exists based on philosophical musings and hypotheticals will NEVER hold water. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and a vague "maybe it exists" just doesn't cut it.

You did not answer my question:
Let's say that A non material Alien exists and the Alien is the One who Created Everything seen and unseen in the Universe: How do you expect Him to look like?

JessicaRabbit:
The beauty of demanding evidence for extraordinary claims is that it doesn't require me, a humble atheist, to have all the answers. Software is real, demonstrably so. It runs this very conversation, for goodness sake! The question of how it "looks" within the computer's memory is like asking what the wind sounds like on Neptune. It's a category error. Software exists as a complex series of instructions the machine interprets. Just because it's not tangible doesn't make it any less real. The existence of software has observable effects. It can be tested, replicated, and used to build things -- like, say, the very internet that allows us to have this little debate. That's a big world of difference from your many god claims.

As for entropy, as you likely know (being a beacon of logic yourself), it is the natural tendency for disorder to increase over time. It's a fundamental law of thermodynamics. Now, I'm not claiming to be a physicist, but the existence of a closed system where entropy might decrease for a brief period wouldn't disprove the existence of deities any more than your favorite brand of toaster proves Zeus throws lightning bolts. So I'm afraid, the challenge still remains. Can you provide any evidence for your extraordinary claim? Because the laws of physics and the logic of demanding evidence seem to be a rather formidable tag team against your argument.

It is good at least that you agree that the software is not tangible nevertheless it is REAL.
So also,
God as a spirit is not tangible nevertheless REAL.

There exist no known physical means of proving that a software exists within a Computer.
You have taken for granted the fact that almost everyone know that a software is programmed by programmers.
A question for you:
When an Ignorant Aboriginal man say to you-
"Show me the software inside this computer. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."
Is he correct in his logic?

I used the law of entropy to show that the universe had a beginning and will have an end. The implication is that it had not always existed. The Questions to you is what suddenly caused the universe to start expanding 13.8 billion years ago? Whatever that was does not obey the laws of physics, chemistry or biology

JessicaRabbit:
A washing machine's function does imply a programmer. But guess what? That programmer is demonstrably human. We have blueprints, patents, and maybe even receipts from the hardware store! Washing machines are built on established scientific principles. We understand electricity, mechanics, and yes, even the logic of software. The existence of a universe, however, is a whole other ball game. We're grappling with dark energy, quantum mechanics, the origin of everything -- it's miles beyond what our tiny little minds can fathom. So demanding the same level of proof for both here only serves to further demonstrate your poor grasp of the logic. But perhaps you can prove me wrong and shut me up for good. Show me evidence of a divine programmer with the same level of traceability, and we'll be in business.

How do you convince me of a programmer if I do not know anything about computers AND I adamantly refuse to accept that softwares are intellectual works written in the memmory of the washing machine.

What kind of evidence will you show me?

JessicaRabbit:
I see. So, you've defined 'concrete' and 'objectively' as... 'whatever I say they mean'? Well, I suppose that's one way to avoid actually engaging with the complexity of the issues. Do go on, I'm eager to see how you plan to redefine the laws of physics and philosophy to suit your purposes, rather than deal with the nuances of reality.

Have I done any of such redefinition?

JessicaRabbit:
LOL. That's a risible and narrow definition of "intelligent creatures" you've conjured there. Are we talking about beings who craft sonnets and build spaceships, or are we open to the possibility of a different kind of intelligence? After all, here on Earth, we have complex ecosystems teeming with creatures who excel in their own unique ways, even if they don't write code. Perhaps a Martian intelligence wouldn't look like a human with a pocket protector, but it could still be incredibly sophisticated in its own right. Furthermore, the "trillions of years" bit is a bit of a strawman. Evolution doesn't have a set timeframe. It depends entirely on the environment and the selective pressures at play. If Mars once had a suitable environment and the right building blocks, who are we to say a complex device couldn't emerge over a very long period?

Can you explain how inorganic chemicals can suddenly have consciousness and store data and several instruction sets.

My submission was simple:
If a kind of computer was found on Mars, we would conclude that it was brought there by some intelligent creatures and not that the computer evolved after trillions of years from the martian soil.
Do you disagree with this?

JessicaRabbit:
This is just like asking for the color of sound. It's a different kind of experience altogether. We can measure brain activity that correlates with consciousness, just like a seismograph can measure tremors that point to an earthquake. Basically, we might not be able to bottle consciousness and sell it on the open market, but its effects are totally undeniable.

This is exactly what you ask for as evidence of the Spirit realm.
You demand a physical evidence for what is clearly not physical.

JessicaRabbit:
Need I remind you that YOU are making the extraordinary claim that your dream dinner with esteemed political figures was some objective truth. The burden of proof, as they say in court lies with YOU. Just because science can't definitively tell us what you dreamt about doesn't validate your dream as reality. And sure, eye movements during REM sleep can be an indicator of dreaming, but it's not a dream decoder ring. Plenty of non-dreamy eye twitching happens at night too. There's no "dream-o-meter" because frankly, dreams are the product of your own brain firing its nonsensical neurons.

Oh, and atheism doesn't have a position on dreams. It's simply about the lack of belief in deities, not the regulation of the nocturnal mind.

Only an Ignorant mind can lack a belief about a subject.

Just because science CANNOT relay to me my dreams does not connote that I did not have my dream!

JessicaRabbit:
Hold on a minute! It seems we need to have a quick crash course in the difference between throwing physics jargon about and actually understanding it. You're assuming infinite regress hinges on the universe endlessly chugging along, forever generating new causes and effects. That is a strawman argument. The concept of infinite regress deals with the theoretical possibility of causes stretching infinitely backwards in time, not some perpetual motion machine. Imagine a never-ending line of dominoes toppling each other. Each domino is a cause, the next one the effect. That line can theoretically stretch back forever, even if there's a perfectly good reason why the dominoes eventually stop toppling (maybe the last one runs out of steam, or maybe a net force intervenes). The heat death of the universe is like the net force or object -- it puts a stop to the domino-effect, but it doesn't negate the possibility of there being an infinite line in the first place.

You also mentioned wanting to see a universe where entropy decreases. Interesting thought experiment, but unfortunately, it's outside the realm of our current understanding of physics. However, the fact that we haven't observed such a universe doesn't disprove the possibility of infinite regress in abstract, logical terms.

It is simple my dear.
If the Universe will come to an end at a point when Entropy is maximum, (Heat Death of the Universe), automatically, Cause and Effect ceases.

Thus , cause and effect cannot continue indefinitely!

JessicaRabbit:
"Nature abhors a vacuum" is a fun turn of phrase, originally used to describe a now-obsolete theory about physics. Sorry to disappoint you dear, but in the real world, nature seems perfectly content with vacuums, as evidenced by the vast emptiness of space. You obviously think when people abandon religion, they need to fill that void with something else. To an extent, that may be true. But something seems to keep flying steadily over your head in this debate: science isn't a replacement for religion. It's a separate methodology for understanding the natural world. If someone doesn't believe in a creator, it doesn't automatically mean they need to worship the "god of Science." It simply means they prioritize evidence and reason over faith. By the way, it's funny you talk about idols. I must say, that's a very rich accusation coming from someone who reveres a book written and rewritten by countless humans over millennia.

Something always replaces God the Creator in the life of people. It could be Science or Wealth or Self!

JessicaRabbit:
Even a person who can't perform the calculation understands the basic concept of "more" and "less." They can point to four distinct objects and recognize it as different from three. Numbers are a human abstraction built on that foundation. Secondly, the Pythagoras example is a wonderful case of mistaken causality. The physical principle Pythagoras described -- the relationship between sides of a right triangle -- existed before humans, sure. But mathematics isn't just about passively observing reality; it's about actively constructing a system to describe and manipulate those observations. The theorem itself, the elegant equation, is a human invention.

Gravity existed long before Newton, but that doesn't mean there was an apple hurtling towards the ground with a tiny "F=ma" label slapped on it. So effectively, my point still stands. Without a mind to create and utilize the concept of "4," or the relationship between addition and quantity, "1+3" is just a meaningless scribble. It doesn't magically transform into "4" in the cosmic void.

My point was that man just discovered the guiding laws of mathematics
BUT
You are saying that man invented the guiding laws of mathematics
SMH!

JessicaRabbit:
Ugh. C'mon now, TenQ. This is basic comprehension in English, so how do you keep missing the point? Confusing a map with the territory is a classic explorer's folly. Logic is a tool we use to navigate reality, not some inherent property of the universe whispering sweet nothings of truth. You might need to spend less time worshipping logic and more time observing the universe it (hopefully) describes.

Does logic exist because we realize its application or logic exist whether we realize its applications or not.


My point was that man just discovered the guiding laws of mathematics
Check what, exactly? Thermodynamics 101 or basic logic? Entropy is like a room reaching maximum chill -- it doesn't mean the air molecules stop moving, just that their chaotic dance is less energetic. So brush up, then maybe we can discuss the ever-after of a lukewarm universe.[/quote]Maximum entropy occurs when dE=0 everywhere in space. (E=Energy)

JessicaRabbit:
Wow. So consciousness is the magic ingredient that grants an understanding of burnt toast, but not the complex electrical and mechanical processes that went into browning it in the first place? Wow. Very interesting.

You dont get the poijt.
The fact that you have a whole community of Ignorant fools does not invalidate LOGIC!

JessicaRabbit:
Well, your question is a classic bait-and-switch, assuming life needs pre-written instructions like a computer program. But let me indulge you. The beauty of evolution is its elegance in simplicity. Interactions of atoms and molecules are governed by the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry. These laws dictate how atoms with specific properties bond, react, and organize themselves. Are you familiar with Legos? Those plastic little bricks themselves don't hold instructions, but their shapes and properties determine how they can connect and build complex structures. Similarly, the building blocks of life i.e. atoms and simple molecules, have inherent properties that, under the right conditions, lead to the formation of more complex molecules like amino acids, the precursors to proteins. Plus, the emergence of DNA as the information carrier is a gradual process, not a single step. Early life forms might have relied on simpler information storage mechanisms, like RNA, before transitioning to the more robust DNA molecule.

Of cause Life and consciousness is like an AI program operating on a hardware called our biological body.

JessicaRabbit:
😂 So, you're ditching the whole, you know, fiery chariot and white beard get-up from your Bible for a formless entity? Now that's a plot twist even the writers of ancient mythology wouldn't have dared to dream up!

You have made God according to your imagination'

JessicaRabbit:
But I just have to ask you this question TenQ: If this all-powerful creator isn't bound by the physical realm, why bother to anthropomorphize it at all? What if it's just a symphony of subatomic particles conducting the cosmic orchestra? Or perhaps a swirling vortex of pure information? Are you a hundred percent confident that neither of the above two options are possible? Personally, I think the possibilities are as endless as the universe itself.
Now, if you insist on a visual aid, I'm partial to a good fractal pattern myself. Fractals are infinitely complex and self-similar, a bit like the universe.

How can the creator be just a symphony of subatomic particles conducting the cosmic orchestra when matter was created just 13.8 billion years ago?

Are you making a bet on possibility that the creator might just be some perhaps a swirling vortex of pure information?
Can information exist without a mind?

JessicaRabbit:
Perhaps you're thinking of a different evolutionary process? Because the one that involves chip designers spending years crafting intricate blueprints, photolithography etching circuits onto silicon wafers, and then meticulously assembling the hardware... well, that sounds suspiciously like intelligent design to me. So, unless you have a compelling explanation for how these elements spontaneously organized themselves into a functional computer chip, complete with transistors and logic gates, I'm afraid your analogy is still dead on arrival, and your "primordial soup" theory might need a bit more seasoning.

This is the logic of the Atheist.
Something as complex as the Silicon chip you say it evolved. But you wouldn't answer the question how inorganic chemicals reacted together and somehow gathered data, information and consciousness

JessicaRabbit:
Pretty much everything you've said here has been addressed and debunked at many junctures of our discussion thus far. To start with, it has been obvious for a long while now that you're just suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias. It's very convenient for you to see the complexity of life and ignore the mountains of evidence for evolution through natural selection, just to cling onto "intelligent design". Nature doesn't need some divine engineer to tinker with pre-built parts. Evolution works through incremental changes, building on existing structures. It's like starting with a paperclip and, through a series of bends and folds, ending up with a ship. As for consciousness? Philosophers and neuroscientists have been grappling with that conundrum for centuries. We don't have all the answers yet, but the beauty of science is that it's constantly seeking them. So, the choice isn't between absolute knowledge and blind belief. It's between embracing the wonder of the universe with a critical eye, and settling for a pre-written story that feels comforting but lacks the thrill of discovery.

All I am asking is that you give us an alternative EVIDENCE that consciousness can self evolve from inorganic chemical reagents.

JessicaRabbit:
Well, I'd say that believing in a God without objective proof is like holding a map without a compass -- you might think you know where you're going, but you're just navigating through faith alone.

You don't have a proof of God BUT the fact that you don't have a proof does not mean that others do not have the proof of God.
What is a blind man's argument about colours amount to?

JessicaRabbit:
Your test is highly ineffectual because the fact that I don't believe in deities doesn't mean I believe in their absolute non-existence. It's like asking if I believe in fairies without wings and translucent tutus -- sure, I can acknowledge the concept is unlikely, but that doesn't mean I hold a fervent belief in their absence. You're right that babies, animals etc. lack belief in deities. But why? Because they lack the cognitive capacity to grasp complex concepts like gods, not because they hold some inherent "position" of disbelief. A dog doesn't disbelieve in Odin; it simply doesn't have the mental framework to process such an idea. I, on the other hand, do have that framework. I've examined the concept of deities through the lens of science, philosophy, history and so on. And after that critical analysis, I'm left unconvinced. That's not a belief in non-existence, my friend. It's the very definition of reasoned skepticism.

Nicely summed up
Meaning that you do not lack a belief in the subject of God.

JessicaRabbit:
I'll give you a simpler analogy: I don't believe there's a talking teapot orbiting Pluto. Not because I believe there definitively isn't one, but because there's no evidence to suggest its existence. Is that so hard to grasp?

You have just giving me a reason for your position. Thus you do not lack a belief in a talking teapot. You actually have a negative belief about it enough to reject the idea.

JessicaRabbit:
No, no, no, no, no, TenQ. Now, you're just moving the goalposts. First, the creator was beyond the reach of science. Now you need it existing before the very concept of "before" existed. 😂

Cause and Effect my dear.
The Universe expanded from the gravitational singularity 13.8 billion years ago and not earlier because there was a Cause that made it change state and begin to expand..

JessicaRabbit:
Last time I checked, the natural world operates strictly on principles of survival and adaptation. Hurricanes don't sit you down for a post-devastation lecture on wind resistance. Predation isn't exactly a "character-building exercise" for the gazelle. And by the way, comparing my existential angst to the "suffering" of bacteria wouldn't win any awards for scientific accuracy. Bacteria don't contemplate the meaning of life, they don't write angsty poetry about the cruelty of the universe. They just...exist. Their "struggle" is a basic biological process. My "suffering," on the other hand, can be a complex interplay of emotions, memories, and social interactions. Big difference.

How do you know that bacteria do not contemplate on their lives?

JessicaRabbit:
And finally, this whole "you created your own image of God and rejected it" business is a very interesting case of psychological projection. The God you describe -- the one who's both omnipotent and apathetic -- isn't one I invented. That's the God presented in your own holy book, the one who allows innocent children to be slaughtered and then demands their parents praise him for it.

If anything, I'm simply rejecting a character whose moral compass seems perpetually stuck on "Lawful Evil."

It's still your image of God according to your own understanding.

JessicaRabbit:
Let me put it this way: just because you've found solace in a particular brand of mythology doesn't make it an objective truth. I mean, I've found comfort in a good plate of jollof rice, but that doesn't mean it's a fundamental aspect of the universe. And as for your "He is real to us" retort, well, that's the thing about subjective experiences -- they're subjective. I'm sure the Easter Bunny is very real to some people on Easter morning, but that doesn't mean I should start worshipping a giant rabbit.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to invalidate any subjective experience.

JessicaRabbit:
Addressed above. You proved nothing, except the fact that your capacity for logical reasoning leaves much to be desired.

And you'd be the first to protest if I pay you back in kind.
It's a choice to be civil in speech ma.

JessicaRabbit:
Repeating yourself after your points have already been debunked doesn't accomplish anything for you here, my dear. That tactic might be very effective in a kindergarten show-and-tell, not in grown-up debates. Here's a question that should be easy for you, since you want to double down on your ignorance: Can the sky be both blue and… not blue at the same time, depending on the lighting? If you can answer that, we can maybe move on to the complexities of human belief.

Points you debunked!?
LOL!!

AbuTwins:
Allah created Iblis. This is clear from the Qur'an and Sunnah! Must you spread falsehood to prove your point?
Iblis is one but has many workers like him that do his biddings!

Allah is one but he has many Jinns working for him (Are many of the Jinns not also Muslims?)

AbuTwins:
Satan can tempt multiple people at different places in the world at the same time!

Are you saying that Iblis is more omnipresent than Allah?
Allah cannot even enter his creation unlike iblis who can enter your nose at night

AbuTwins:
Allah doesn't need to be everywhere since His knowledge encompasses all things!

Allah cannot be everywhere: he is not omnipresent.
Exactly like Iblis!

AbuTwins:
Everything Allah does is as it befits His majesty!
He doesn't need a son nor depend on any creation or food to survive!

What a silly argument. As if Angels have sons and have to eat to survive.
How is Allah then superior to Angels if this is your best argument?

AbuTwins:
How was Jesus born by God? Can it be through reproduction? Sexual or Asexual reproduction?

Donkeys do not know what figure of speech means.

AbuTwins:
How is Yahweh different from Satan?

Yahweh is Omnipresent, Satan is not
Yahweh is Omnipotent, Satan is not
Yahweh is Omniscient, Satan is not
Yahweh is self Existing, Satan is not
Yahweh is self Sufficient, Satan is not

AbuTwins:
Satan appears among the sons of God in Job!
Then Satan whines Yahweh to destroy Job's family and properties!
Same Satan came to whine/tempt Jesus again!
How can Satan frolic with God?

Donkeys ask questions when they do not intend to learn.
If you check, it was God who asked satan the questions to which satan responded to in the case of Job.
Does Allah have the power to speak to any of his creations?

If humans can talk to God in prayer, you think satan cannot talk to God if he was given the opportunity?

Why does Allah need a Cow to resurrect the dead?
Quran 2:73
And We said: Smite him with some of it. In this is the way (or this is how) Allah bringeth the dead to life and showeth you His portents so that ye may understand

Check: The word كَذَٰلِكَ (kadhālika) means this is the way or this is how or this is the manner or like this

Translate:
يجب أن تطوي الورق كَذَٰلِكَ.

AbuTwins:
He who has only a hammer will see every obstacles as nails!
One who believes in trinity will see trinity in everything!

Since Jesus is Pseudo-Yahweh why won't you call Muhammad such!

Muhammad is the messenger of Allah and His Prophet!
Jesus is the messenger of Allah and His Prophet!

How is Allah different from Iblis?

Is Iblis not one?
Can Iblis be in more than one place at a time? No!
Exactly as Allah cannot be in more than one place at a time!

Is Iblis finite in dimension? Yes!
Is Allah finite in dimension? Yes!
This is why Allah has to descend from his throne above the seven heavens to hear the prayers of you Muslims!

Jesus has a Father but Allah is the father of no one!
Allah is an imposture unknown by all the previous prophets!

JessicaRabbit:
Dismissing valid criticisms as emotional is just you trying to poison the well and make it seem like I'm incapable of making rational points. Not only is it a pitiful deflection on your part, it's also downright disrespectful and arrogant. I thought you were better than this.

Just responding to:
"The simplicity of your logic is almost charming, but unfortunately, it's still so very misguided. It also strikes me as intellectual laziness because your argument amounts to nothing beyond guesswork, if you're really being honest to yourself."

JessicaRabbit:
How about the structure of atoms? Protons, neutrons, and electrons work together in a delicate balance, and we've understood the physical laws governing their behavior without needing to invoke an intelligent mind.

Can you please tell me how the atom self-assembled itself?

JessicaRabbit:
Or consider the water cycle: evaporation, condensation, and precipitation all work together to distribute water across our planet. How can you honestly try to shoehorn an intelligent designer in all of the above phenomena?

This just proves that there was an Intelligent Mind behind it else there would be no life here on earth.
#Water Cycle
#Energy Cycle
#Reproduction
#Carbon Cycle
#Carbon Dioxide-Oxygen

Tell me if there would be Life here on earth with just ONE of these missen

JessicaRabbit:
Do you seriously think you can just casually ignore the fact that natural processes operate under specific conditions and constraints, not random chance? The emergence of complex systems in nature follows rules and patterns, not arbitrary juggling of characters. And, by the way, even if an infinite number of characters did produce a sentence, it wouldn't imply the existence of an intelligent mind. Again, you're making me repeat myself.

From where does these rules and patterns come from?

Rules come from intelligent minds else everything will be random chaos.

JessicaRabbit:
Indeed, just like it's easy to string together a few words to form a sentence, but that doesn't mean you've necessarily formed a coherent argument.

Is it untrue that in the the DNA, Each gene's code uses the four nucleotide bases of DNA: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T) — in various ways to spell out three-letter “codons” that specify which amino acid is needed at each position within a protein.

It is like in our computer program that uses TWO states TRUE and FALSE to generate every command and Data withing the computer. The DNA uses Four.

These four DNA bases form coherent commands, instructions and data.

JessicaRabbit:
You're still demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of chemical information and the DNA code. The string of alphanumeric characters, in this case, the sequence of nucleotides (A, C, G, and T), does represent information, but not in the same way that human language does. The decoding language is not English or any human tongue; it's the chemical and physical rules that govern the interactions between nucleotides and the cellular machinery that interprets them. The lexicon is the set of chemical and physical properties that define the behavior of these molecules. And as for the sentence you provided, it's just a collection of letters cobbled together carelessly, not a real sentence in any language. It's a classic example of a meaningless sequence, much like a random assembly of nucleotides would be. But, unlike DNA, this sequence doesn't have any chemical or physical properties that would allow it to be interpreted or translated into meaningful information.

Now contrast that with the DNA sequence. Though it may appear random at first glance, it contains a wealth of chemical and physical information that is decoded and interpreted by the cellular machinery. It's a highly specific and organized sequence that contains instructions for life, not just a random assembly of atoms.

The two states of the computer TRUE and FALSE also is NOT like the human language: is it?

JessicaRabbit:
So, your attempt to equate the DNA code with a meaningless sequence of letters falls flat on its face. The DNA code is a remarkable example of chemical information, and it would be more reasonable to acknowledge its natural origins, rather than trying to impose human language and meaning onto it.

I am actually saying the opposite. The DNA contains INFORMATION and DATA. It is not a random assembly of sequence of the A, C, G, and T.
From your understanding, can a random sequence of A, C, G, and T contain information and data?

If not, do you know a single instance where a random sequence of ZEROS and ONES can be both Instruction and Data within a computer hardware?

AbuTwins:
We don finish the mistakes of Jesus according to Matthew and Mark?

And we have shown you that Allah is pseudo-Mohammed!

This is why Allah's intelligence is no higher than that of a 7th Century Arab man.
*A God who thinks women have reproductive fluids from their rib bones is not God
*The God who does not know that the sun does not set in some murky water is not God.
*A God who can only be in one location at a time is at best Iblis
* A God who tells as real stories and fables of the ancients is not God

JessicaRabbit:
Ok. So what about scientific theories like gravity? We can't directly observe an invisible force pulling objects together, but the evidence is overwhelming. Countless experiments, from dropping apples to orbiting satellites, all point towards gravity's existence. It's a well-tested and highly predictive theory, even if we can't definitively "know" it in the same absolute way we know 1 + 4 = 5. This perfectly highlights the spectrum of knowledge in science. Facts, like basic mathematical equations, are generally considered irrefutable truths. Theories, on the other hand, are constantly evolving explanations for natural phenomena. They're built on mountains of evidence and tested predictions, but they're always open to revision if new data arises. It is true that we can't predict the future with certainty, so we can't "know" the boy in your second example will be alive next December, even with a decent health bill. But let's not pretend that ultimately, we wouldn't still base our decisions on medical diagnoses and statistical probabilities due to the confidence we have in them. I hope you can see how blurry the distinction gets. It's not a binary choice between absolute knowledge and blind belief.

It is amazing how humans see only what they want to see and choose to be blind when they do not want to see.
Using your case for gravity:
Can we not see the effect of LIFE, CONSCIOUSNESS and INTELLIGENCE in man?
You think this ns not a sufficient proof that man was made to be so by an Intelligent Mind?

Jessica, you are the evidence that you were made. You are not just a random assembly of atoms. Everything about you had been assembled to make you able to function as a living being.

Until you can show me a computer that self assembled itself, you are just having wishful thinking.

JessicaRabbit:
Probabilities, not certainties. And "informed science" is just a fancy way of saying "educated guess".

The point is that we hold a position of believe when we think we hold a reasonable position that our position is the best of other alternatives.

Like you hold a believe that there is no entity called God who created everything without an objective proof.

JessicaRabbit:
Wow. I mean, bless your heart for trying to spin that around. Did you miss the part where I argued for the absence of belief, not the existence of the opposite? Your conclusion makes absolutely no sense at all. Possessing reasons for disbelief doesn't equate to holding a belief itself. My reasons for disbelief in a deity stem from a lack of verifiable evidence, a world seemingly at odds with an all-powerful, benevolent being, and science offering a compelling narrative for the universe's existence. The absence of a belief in a creator doesn't equate to the presence of a belief in its non-existence. It's simply the state of not being convinced based on the available information. I appreciate the enthusiasm on your part but perhaps a quick reread of my post would be in order before you fall headlong into a pile of your own shit.

Just test it out.
Is there anything you hold a position of believe on without an iota of reason?
It doesn't exist!

Babies, Animals and Imbe.ciles cannot hold a position of belief in a Deity and the reason is obvious why they lacked a belief. But certainly not Jessica.

JessicaRabbit:
A poor dodge. So you're saying the creator is somehow beyond the reach of our scientific tools because it's not made of matter and energy? I'll admit that's a convenient excuse, but it's not a serious argument. If your creator is beyond detection, how can you be so sure it exists in the first place? And if it's beyond our understanding, how can you attribute human-like qualities like creation and intention to it?

Matter, Space, Time were simultaneously created 13.8 billion years ago. If God existed before matter,how can he be made of it?

JessicaRabbit:
You're missing the key difference here: intention. I take out the trash because I don't want my home to reek of horrible odours. The bacteria, bless their tiny hearts, were just trying to live their best single-celled life. Your all-powerful deity, on the other hand, is supposedly aware of all suffering and has the power to stop it. Yet, according to you, he chooses to let it happen. I hope you took notice of the operational terms I emboldened. Now I'll give you the floor to explain how that squares with the concept of an all-good being. I'm interested to hear your defense because frankly, this whole "bacteria cleansing" scenario you manufactured feels more like a flimsy attempt to deflect from valid criticisms. You're not making a theological argument here, as far as I can tell.

You make yourself of something while you are nothing before your Creator.
Your "suffering" isn't different from the suffering of the Bacteria you killed in your toilet. Your apparent suffering is inconsequential ma!

The earth is a school or place of selection: thus you must experience hard things. Did your parents send you to school because it was easy?

You have created an image of God in your shead and you rejected the same image you created. No wonder your stance of atheism.

JessicaRabbit:
It's a demonstrable fact that the quest for knowledge through scientific inquiry, though imperfect, surely surpasses blind faith in ancient myths.

And unlike you. Some of us have found God from the so-called ancient myths and He is real to us.

JessicaRabbit:
This ridiculousness has been addressed above. The only thing I've proven is that logic takes a two-step, not a victory lap.

I have just shown you that because you have several cogent reasons to choose not to believe in God the Creator,
You successfully proved that you do NOT lack a belief in the existence of a Creator: Your reasons support your Belief (as you dont lack it)

JessicaRabbit:
False. You're misapplying the law of the excluded middle. As a matter of fact, I'd argue that beliefs are not always binary or mutually exclusive. Many beliefs exist on a spectrum, like shades of gray, rather than absolute black or white and some of these beliefs might be orthogonal, unrelated, or even contradictory to others, defying a simple FOR/AGAINST dichotomy. It would be outrageous of you to flippantly disregard the context, experience, and nuances that influence many beliefs. Furthermore, some beliefs might be provisionally held, pending further inquiry or evidence, rather than being rigidly FOR or AGAINST. So the fact that you think that beliefs can somehow be neatly categorized into binary oppositions is just you demonstrating a staggering lack of understanding of the very thing you're attempting to analyze.

My Question was:
Will you agree to the proposition that: Every position of Belief is either FOR or AGAINST a position!

All you needed to do was to give me some real examples of how you held a position of belief without ANY reasons

JessicaRabbit:
Apologies for the long wait. If I hadn't kept this tab open, I might have completely forgotten this thread.
Please understand this: science doesn't deal with absolute, unknowable realities. It deals with EVIDENCE, with observations that help us understand the universe, and right now the evidence points towards a universe that functions perfectly well without a divine creator. So even if your statements may be technically true in a philosophical sense, they still don't come close to addressing the specific issue of a god's actual existence.

I have at least proved to you except if you still disagree that:
1. Not everything that Exist is Tangible.
2. I have a simple question for you:
Let's say that A non material Alien exists and the Alien is the One who Created Everything seen and unseen in the Universe: How do you expect Him to look like?

JessicaRabbit:
I'm sorry, but demanding evidence for extraordinary claims isn't some atheist conspiracy, it's just basic logic.

Interestingly, you just failed the same basic test:
Can you show Entropy decreasing without an external influence?
A software is real BUT certainly not Tangible: can you show us how a software look like within a computer memory?

JessicaRabbit:
"Force Atheists"? Now, I'm curious. Did you just open this thread to get people to indulge in your puerile "gotcha!" game, or do you have intentions of making honest inquiry? Some terms you are citing here are mostly irrelevant. Take "tangibility" for example. We deal with things like dark matter and radio waves, both very real but not exactly cuddle-material. Tangible is for textures. I'd rather focus on verifiable evidence. If you told me you could fly, I wouldn't demand a specific type of proof, I'd just ask you to, well, fly. Same principle applies here. Show me something mind-bending, universe-altering, and then maybe we can talk about "objective proof."

Apart from the fact that we know that programmers must have programmed our washing machine: can you show with some objective proof that the washing machine is run by a software?

I am curious (don't tell me its the effects it produces) or it will be used against you (and you should honourably accept the conclusion).

JessicaRabbit:
Since you want to play "define everything" so badly, then I guess we both need to define "concrete" and "objectively" too. Shouldn't be fuzzy at all, right?

You can take the lead as I have defined my terms: Atheists on Nairaland have ways of twisting simple and concise definitions to serve their purpose.

JessicaRabbit:
Are we assuming Martians are nature's engineers now? Because unless this device builds furniture and writes haiku, I think "evolved" might be a bit of a stretch.

All I am saying is stating the obvious:
If a computer was found on mars, we would conclude that it was brought there by some intelligent creatures and not that the computer evolved after trillions of years from the martian soil.

JessicaRabbit:
Let's say we're exploring the building blocks of consciousness. I posit that testing your postulates might be easier said than done. How do we objectively measure a subjective experience like "feeling the environment"? And even if we could, wouldn't that just be measuring the physical processes behind it?

Are you concluding that consciousness is NOT real?
Other than "effects" what is your physical and objective proof of consciousness (What is its mass, colour, frequency, dimensions etc)?

JessicaRabbit:
Subjective experiences like these dreams can be analyzed through a more objective lens. They could actually tell us something about you, your interests, and maybe even your anxieties. But to claim they represent some absolute truth, well, that's where things get a little dicey.

No madam.
You can only know when a person is likely dreaming because of the movements of the eyes during sleep, otherwise, there is NO way to determine the content of anyone's dream.

I guess, Dreams do NOT exist by the application of you Atheists philosophy!
IS their any instrument that can narrate any ones dream?
No!

JessicaRabbit:
You should be careful not to conflate thermodynamic entropy with casual chains. Increase in entropy only signifies a growing uniformity in energy distribution throughout time. It doesn't forbid infinite regress -- a completely philosophical (not physical) concept -- at all. Physics tells us about the behavior of the universe, but it doesn't dictate the rules of logic or metaphysics. The universe having a beginning doesn't inherently negate the possibility of an infinite regress in a logical sense; it just means our universe had a starting point in its current form. So, while the heat death might put a damper on future cosmic shenanigans, it doesn't logically preclude an infinite regress. It's like saying because the party ends at midnight, there couldn't have been an infinite number of songs on the playlist. The playlist's potential infinity isn't limited by the party's curfew.

What a contradiction?
Increase in Entropy is increase in disorderliness. At maximum entropy, there is no single energy difference between one point and another. Energy difference is zero. Matter ceases to exist.

It is not a mere philosophical argument: it is simple physics
If the Entropy of the Universe is increasing, it proves that Infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible.

Except you can show me that somehow a physics exist where the Entropy of the Universe will start decreasing at a point.
I am waiting

JessicaRabbit:
You're still dancing around the maypole of semantics here. The beauty of scientific theories is precisely their falsifiability. It's what makes science so dynamic and self-correcting. Unlike dogma, science welcomes challenges and revisions. It thrives on them. However, a theory being falsifiable doesn't make it flimsy or unreliable. It makes it robust. It's like building a bridge that can withstand earthquakes: it's designed to adapt and survive new data, not crumble at the first tremor of doubt. I should probably remind you as well that laws and theories in science play different roles. Laws describe the patterns we observe; theories explain why those patterns exist. Newton's law of universal gravitation tells us that objects attract with a force directly proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers. But it was Einstein's theory of general relativity that explained the "why" by describing gravity as the warping of spacetime. So, when you simply say a theory is an explanation for observable effects, you might be selling it short. It's the best explanation we have that fits all the current evidence. And if a new theory comes along that explains the evidence better, then huzzah! Science marches on, and our understanding deepens.

See how you praise the god of Science.
Nature indeed abhors a vacuum.

When a person rejects the Creator, he automatically replaces Him with something far less, an idol.

JessicaRabbit:
Without a conscious entity to perform the act of counting, does 1, 3 or 4 have any actual meaning? These are not just symbols but concepts that require a mind to define their relationships. In a universe devoid of consciousness, there would be no 1 apple plus 3 apples equals 4 apples because there would be no concept of "apple", let alone 1 or 4. To say that mathematics exists independently of us is to imbue these abstract concepts with a sort of mystical autonomy they simply do not possess.

It seems you dont get this point:
Does it matter if a person is a 100% numerical illiterate, 2+3 will always be 5.

What I was saying in other words is: Even if no humans existed in the world, 1+3 will still be 4.
Mathematics exist regardless of whether we know it or not.

Mathematics is just a discovery of some of the numeric laws on which our reality is founded. Pythagoras theory had been in operation well before it was discovered.

JessicaRabbit:
Of course not! However, even the sturdiest instruction manual needs a machine to operate on. That's my point. Stop making me repeat myself please.

LOGIC does NOT require humans to be TRUE?
The implication is that the coherence of LOGIC was not a human construct: it is fundamental to the universe.

JessicaRabbit:
Wrong. The law of entropy doesn't negate the concept of infinite regress; it merely describes the behavior of energy in a closed system. If we reach maximum entropy, we're talking about a state of equilibrium, not the cessation of all processes.

It does ma!
Please check!

JessicaRabbit:
Fair enough. So, tell me, does your toaster understand cause and effect when it pops after sufficiently browning your bread? Or is it just divinely ordained toast?

No!
Because they are not conscious!

JessicaRabbit:
Where? As far as I can tell, you're only retreating to the comfort of "...we've trashed this out!", which is pretty much the universal euphemism for "I've run out of arguments and logic, but I still want to sound profound!" in debates. But if you insist, then we can just agree to disagree, and I'll let the universe's weirdness and non-conformist nature have the final say.

LOL!

JessicaRabbit:
They don't hold coding bootcamps for atoms, my dear. Their properties are fundamental, not programmed.

Why dont you answer he question:
Atoms and Molecule is the building blocks of any cell: at what point did they acquire data and instructions? (I need you to explain the evolution from atoms to DNA)

JessicaRabbit:
Why don't we start with the fact that the universe was around for about 9 billion years before Earth even formed, and humans only popped up in the last minute of the cosmic day. If we were the main event of the entire program, it seems the universe had quite a lot of time to kill, doesn't it? To be honest, while scientists are still working out the kinks in the theory that the universe creates itself, I personally think it's a far more plausible scenario than thinking a cosmic extraterrestrial with a penchant for humanoids decided to sprinkle a little stardust here and not on the other billion galaxies. Talk about playing favorites.

You've just said this:
Even though we don't yet know the answer to how the Universe got created, we are working on it. Any other theory is better than "God Created the Universe"!

You argue so passionately like someone who knows the answer!
I asked a question:
Let's say that A non material Alien exists and the Alien is the One who Created Everything seen and unseen in the Universe: How do you expect Him to look like?

JessicaRabbit:
This comparison would only hold water if the computer chip had evolved from a primordial soup of silicon, and the hardware had assembled itself through natural selection. Unfortunately for you, that's not how computer chips are made.
Perhaps. But it does nothing for your argument.

It did: the computer chip had evolved from a primordial soup of silicon, and the hardware had assembled itself through natural selection..
Silicon and the dopants Boron and Aluminium are elements abundant in the earth!

JessicaRabbit:
The simplicity of your logic is almost charming, but unfortunately, it's still so very misguided. It also strikes me as intellectual laziness because your argument amounts to nothing beyond guesswork, if you're really being honest to yourself. We're still figuring out how the natural world works, and that's fine. But the fact that you think you can just hastily fill in the gaps with some spurious theory of a divine maker that you pulled out of your ass doesn't inspire a curious mind. It's just straight up complacency and resigned speculation on your part. And attributing human-like qualities (intelligence, mind) to an unknown entity is a fallacy of reification. We can't assume that the natural world operates according to human logic or design principles. Your argument from "interdependent assembly of systems" is a form of the "watchmaker analogy," which has been thoroughly debunked. Natural processes can give rise to complex systems through self-organization and evolution, as I mentioned earlier, or haven't you considered the possibility that the natural world operates according to its own principles and laws, without the need for a designer? It doesn't necessarily have to be intelligence vs unintelligence. That's a false dichotomy. And if you really think that everyone believes that the universe was created by an intelligent mind, then that's just a reflection of your own biases. It's not a logical conclusion. It's a classic case of "argumentum ad populum" -- assuming that because many people believe something, it must be true.

You are just being emotional:
All you have to do is to show me one example that can be shown from nature where
1. A an interdependent set of systems exist without an intelligent mind behind it
2. That given an unlimited set of alphanumeric characters and an infinite time to juggle them up that you can find any string of intelligent statement. (A sentence is enough)

JessicaRabbit:
This is ridiculous. The synthesis of amino acids is relatively unimpressive if you juxtapose it to the real magic which happens when these building blocks start interacting, self-organizing, and evolving into more complex structures. Yes, the DNA code is a highly specific and organized sequence that contains instructions for life, but at the end of the day, it is still merely a product of these interactions -- a natural consequence of chemical and physical processes, so I'm afraid I can't share your curious fascination with it. Using letters and numbers to talk about all the possible combinations is far from a perfect proposition. Those jumbled letters might not form a sentence like "The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain," but that's because it's a human language with set rules. DNA is a molecule that's been around for billions of years, specifically designed to store and pass on genetic information -- so your example doesn't even come close. As for the "receptor" you referred to, it is simply the cellular machinery that has co-evolved with DNA. It's a biochemical system that recognizes and interprets the chemical structure of nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA. There's no conscious understanding of English or any language involved, it's all based on chemistry.

It is easy to juxtapose several alphanumeric characters to form a string. The question is:

Is the string an Information?
What is the decoding language?
What lexicon are you using?

Without these three simultaneous answers to these, the DNA is no code but a random assembly of atoms.

You might help me translate the sentence below

[u]Yon werj kkneds hgdnsi watsh is mobbrerting wserjs do mux![/su]

AbuTwins:
Showing what again?
Your delusion!

Are these out of many untrue about your faith:

*A God who thinks women have reproductive fluids from their rib bones is not God
*The God who does not know that the sun does not set in some murky water is not God.
*A God who can only be in one location at a time is at best Iblis
* A God who tells as real stories and fables of the ancients is not God

AbuTwins:
What does he know about Allah?

Tiny brain!

Kids wey never tear eyes yet!

Many Christian kids did more than these a decade or two ago where are they now?

Am I not an example of those showing Muslims the deception of Allah and his Mohammed

AbuTwins:
You have no truth! It is clearly a Biblical error!



Jesus said : "In the Days of Abiathar the High Priest". Abiathar there is an error which is supposed to be Ahimelech! Now you agree there was a mistake! Why the strong head before!



And the violation of the law was different in the cases of David and Jesus's disciples.
Jesus' disciples were accused of breaking the Sabbath, while David was not accused but rather put Ahimelech in a difficult position regarding the consecrated bread.

All this were made up for Jesus to seem like a God which he clearly isn't!
What actually happened was the abrogation of some of Moses's law!
It wasn't even the Son of man that was committing the deed but his apostles!

Have a nice day too!

Sing like a Cuckoo till next year if you like insisting on what you are ignorant about. It doesnt cahnge a thing about you and your fate
1. Allah has destined you for hell fire and you cannot escape it Quran 19:71
2. Exactly as Allah deceived Iblis, he has deceived you Quran 15:39 and you are slamming your head on the ground daily in error
3. Of course Allah is not the God of Abraham or Moses or the prophets of Israel. Allah has 99 names and none of these name is Yahweh, the most sacred name of God the Creator.
4. Muhammad is Allah in disguise: if not, tell me why Mohammed has 99 (or 201) names which carries only the attributes of Allah. Check these names and tell me that they are not attributes of Allah
Aadil, Afoow, Ahmad, Awwal, Qarib, Hafeey, Hafiz, Hakeem, Haq, Jaami, Kaaf, Kaamil, Nur

Wake up Bro!
*A God who thinks women have reproductive fluids from their rib bones is not God
*The God who does not know that the sun does not set in some murky water is not God.
*A God who can only be in one location at a time is at best Iblis
* A God who tells as real stories and fables of the ancients is not God

How you Ignore the Messiah for this 419 of a man baffle's me.
It can only be a deep satanic deception!