₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight:
Lol. Easy. Olumba Olumba Obu, Guru Maharaji, and many other quacks have claimed to be God, the alpha and omega. Are they God?

I don't know if they have so claimed to be Alpha and Omega. That there are many people who have claimed to be 'God', I am not ignorant of - and such things do not take me by surprise, in as much as the Bible makes clear that many would even claim to be Jesus Christ: does that make them Jesus Christ as well?

So Viaro, for you and Noetic, a mere assertion by that first century nomadic carpenter amounts to proof that he is the primordial and divine first cause and creator of all existence?

I think you let your hatred for Jesus Christ quite simply shows up many times and you can't contain or resist the urge to show it. For me, it was not a mere assertion that Jesus made, if one looks carefully at the references to His being the Alpha and Omega. That is found in the Revelation and no other bookof the NT. For which I had asked: how any being could claim to be the Alpha and Omega. It is not so much that viaro has no clue that any one has claimed to be 'God'; and it helps to read what people are saying and not what they are not saying.

I'm sorry, but i have no words to describe how pedestrian that is. Psycotic, actually.

This is where I sometimes wonder about you and quite agree with reviewers who have concluded that you're dogmatic. If anything does not square with your deism, it is psychotic, inane, etc. No worries. . a time will come for you to dress your deism in a hotwater bottle.

Muslims can go to the democratic West and do as they please without harrassments. Talk about Westerners going to the Middle East and peacefully living their lives and preaching their religion - do we have to look far and wide for examples of the results? Even in many places of the East, some Muslims do not even grant their own muslim brethren the freedom to live without the attendant harrassments. Examples? Afghanistan? Pakistan? And what would happen to a Christian who goes to Saudi Arabia to peacefully preach any other religion there?

Lady 234:
@ viaro
Shalom Shalom viaro. I get your point but if you say Christians are not called to celebrate or obey the Jewish shabbat do you also mean that Christians are not called to obey the Ten commandments because keeping the shabbat is part of the ten commandments.
Shalom!

Well, Christians (both believing Jews and Gentiles) are not called to the Judaic covenant - and that is why one should first look at the basis of any covenant first, and the people to whom it is applied, before drawing any conclusions.

The Decalogue (Ten Commandments) was specifically given to Israel, the Jews according to the flesh. As such, they are contained in the Judaic covenant - that same covenant called 'the covenant of Levi'. This is why in Deuteronomy 5 where we find the Decalogue again, Moses made clear that that same covenant was given to no other people than the Jewish nation (see again verse 2).

The question now is this: are we as Christians to disobey the Ten Commandment? My answer: No. Even so, are we to go back to the covenent of Levi upon which the Decalogue was given? Again my answer: No. In as much as the Levitical covenant is no longer operative in God's testament (new covenant), we are not called to apply ourselves to the legal code of Judaism. God promised that the function and operation of the new covenant in Christ would spring from the heart where He would write His laws and commandments (Hebrews 8:10).

What's the difference? Well, in carefully considering the stipulations of the Decalogue, one finds that it is nigh impossible to even obey them today anywhere outside of Jerusalem. For example, take the Shabbat: there are quite a whole lot of stipulations given for its observance in Judaism:

  1.  no work of any kind to be done on the shabbat (Exo. 20:10)

  2.  he who does any work must be put to death (Exo. 20:11; 34:14-15)

  3.  there shall be a holy convocation/assembly on that day (Lev. 23:3)

  4.  an offering made by fire was to be made on shabbat (Lev. 23:8 )

  5.  no domestic fires to be kindled on that day - not even fore food (Exo. 35:3)

  6.  sometimes in a shabbat, Jews were to afflict their souls (Lev. 23:32 & 16:31)

  7. the shabbat was to be kept in the land of Israel which God gave them (Lev. 25:2)

  8. Burnt offerings accompany every shabbat (Numbers 28:10)

Even if we ordinarily take time to just speak about the shabbat, where is the place where we shall offer burnt offerings or offerings made by fire? Israel was warned that such could not take place anyhow and any place where they chose, but rather at the precise place where God chose to put His Name there - for which reason they were to have a holy convocation, a assembly where they gathered.

How is this the case today if Christians are to return to the covenant of Levi, and be first circumcised before they could come under the Judaistic covenant? Even so, is it not clear that believing Gentiles would not be called 'saints' but sojourners?

Please consider these issues carefully and let's read your comments.

Kol Tuv.

Good afternoon, Deep Sight. You have added very good substance to this thread - a good place to start, as I supposed, which was at the back of my mind when opening this thread.

Not to stretch things, let me just focus on spacetime and then come back to show the missing link in your doubts. Suffice to say that the doubts arise when we take both the mathematics and the physics out of the postulations and let things run in our local ideas.

So: spacetime (the two references below are harvested from various sources):

            The theory of relativity says that time cannot be treated absolutely separately
            from space, only in one observer's relative view. So space and time together
            describe a four dimensional universe.¹

            In physics, spacetime (or space–time; or space/time) is any mathematical model
            that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually
            interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a
            fourth dimension that is of a different sort than the spatial dimensions.²

In our common experiences, we know of time as 'time' (ie., the 'when' of events), and we often think of the 3-dimensions as the only dimensions of our reality. However, in physics and mathematics dealing with the theory of relativity, there are other dimensions - and the combination of space and time in a single continuum to form the 4th dimension is what has been referred to as spacetime.

The 4th dimension is something very different in nature from our common understanding of 3-dimensions. We are becoming increasingly aware now that gravity, for instance, is not a force (as was initially supposed by Isaac Newton), but rather is "a consequence of the distortion of space and time"³. This is why gravity is not constant in all points of the universe, but is relative - in that, one would find gravity behaving differently in various locations(?) of the Universe in which we live.

Gravity - 'a consequence of the distortion of space and time', one wonders: any examples? Yes, indeed. Since we know that gravity is not constant throughout the Universe, we find that what someone weighs on earth will be different on another planet. An example: consider a man who weighs just 82kg on Earth, that same man would weigh about 11,480,000,000,000kg on a Neutron Star (140 billion times more!!). What has happened here is that the 'gravity' we all think about in common ideas on Earth is relative and will produce very differently elsewhere in the Universe. The same with time - and space: and that is where the 4th dimension comes in.

Quoting an article that essentially captures this in the Guardian online:

         'According to the theory, matter and energy distort space-time, curving it
          around themselves. 'Frame dragging' theoretically occurs when the rotation
          of a large body 'twists' nearby space and time. It is this second
          part of Einstein's theory that the Nasa mission has yet to corroborate'³

This 'bending' and 'twisting' of space and time produce phenomena that astound the human mind - such phenomena as in the example you gave of Wormhole (a theoretical structure in spacetime that forms a tube-like connection between two separate regions of the universe), Blackholes (a region of space from which nothing, including light, can escape), as well as Whiteholes (the hypothetical time reversal of a blackhole)⁴, etc.


So, in brief, time and space can be combined into a single continuum to become spacetime, and from these are resulting phenomena in the Universe that we ordinarily imagine impossible. Which is why I need to comment on this part of yours:

Deep Sight:
It surprised me that any scientist would miss the fact that such a folding must perforce result, if it were possible at all, in the total dismemberment of the universe as it is known.

No. Such a folding is theoretically possible without affecting the Universe as a whole. The examples above (Wormholes, Blackholes, Whiteholes) should be helpful.







______________

Notes and References:

1 Contemporary Physics Education Propject, CPEP
source: [url=http://www.cpepweb.org/main_universe/glossary.html#spacetime[/color]]http://www.cpepweb.org/main_universe/glossary.html#spacetime[/url]

2 Wikipedia: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime[/color]]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime[/url]

3  The Guardian: 'Einstein was right: space and time bend'
source: [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe[/color]]http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe[/url]

4  'While a blackhole acts as an attractor, drawing in any matter that crosses the event horizon, a whitehole acts as a source that ejects matter from its event horizon. The sign of the acceleration is invariant (unchanged) under time reversal, so both black and white holes attract matter. The only potential difference between them is in the behavior at the horizon.' ~ Wikipedia.

Roger that! You're too correct, my guy!

KunleOshob:
@Noetic
I don't think i am interested in pursuing this argument, it has been debated too often on NL and i don't think there is anymore to add.

That's true, and a very wise choice. Truth be told, I don't even think I have half the intelligence to pursue that argument and I'm quite content to contain it as one of the mysteries of our Faith.

But this one got my sides bursting with a good laugh:

KunleOshob:
Alpha and Omega on earth and NOT in heaven. Jesus sits at the right hand of God in heaven remember

Hawhahaha!! You, Kunle, will not kill us with laughter! Where was Jesus when He called Himself the Alpha and Omega?

Pastor AIO:
It is the word 'god' that needs defining. Then we can move on to whether we are talking about 'a god', 'the god', or just plain simple 'God', or even 'God almighty'.

I heed, and that is what KunleOshob should betake himself to sorting out, hehe. Afterall, we first heard this 'a God' tutorial from his super-highness!

Anyways, thanks for that link:

Pastor AIO:
http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/prometheus/socvsjes.htm

Krayola:
I tire o. This one that FBI and Interpol and EFCC are on to us. Na to go seek asylum for Cuba.

Aaarrrggghhhh! Baddest guy! You just revealed our hideout!
What's wrong with you this afternoon?
Right, let's re-arrange another relocation _{(and this time keep it under classified and privileged info).} When are we meeting up again?

Lol, I'm amazed that many people do not know how to talk the language of science. When we say 'evidence', what exactly do we mean? The idea of 'evidence' of this and that - what are they pointing to?

~ evidence of physics and cosmology

~ evidence of biological information

~ evidence of information


. . . etc., etc., etc. - what are these 'evidences' pointing to? Deity? Puhleease!! How does anyone study anything scientifically to adduce 'evidence' of a supernatural kind? Information, cosmology, physics, biology. . even mathematics - are best regarded as tools to ILLUSTRATE our own theories of 'God', they are not the 'evidence' for 'God'.

Bur before anyone assumes that I might be stretching things too far, let me ask: what is a 'scientific' evidence? Just what does it mean, what does it do, and what are its limitations? If these questions cannot be first dealt with, I'm afraid that as religious people we're contributing to the problem and not the solution.

^^^Yes, I mentioned geosciences as providing evidence of an age older than 6,000 years for the earth. Although I would not like to get bogged down with either paradigms of geoscientific studies (reductionist or holistic), it is well to note that one cannot possibly ignore the role of planetary science in the geosciences. This would mean that the proper geoscientific study of the Earth cannot stand alone as if the Earth is excluded from the universe in which it is contained; but rather that one needs to look at this study in a manner that involves the properties of any such given system - physical, biological, chemical, chronological, etc.

In due course, I shall share the very little in my understand as regards this; but I still do not see the Earth as young as 6,000 years old.

Lady 234:
@ viaro
What do you mean by Christians are not called to observe the Jewish shabbat. Is God like a constitution that you guys can change whenever you like. Didn't Elohim make Saturday Shabbat and not sunday, what about the 4th commandment. Anyone that goes to church on sunday is constantly breaking the 4th commandment because the Shabbat is Saturday and not Sunday.

Lady 234, thank you. Now allow me to explain what viaro meant by "Christians are not called to celebrating any Shabbat on any day - not Saturday, not Sunday, not any day.".

(1)  First, the Jewish sabbath/shabbat was given specifically under a covenant - Judaism. Without that covenant, everything in Judaism is meaningless - nothing in the Law would make any sense at all unless it was ratified in a special way. This is the first premise in the Biblical faiths, which is well attested in Hebrews 9:17 -

            For a *will takes effect only at death,
            since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.
            _{(a *will here also means a testament/covenant)}

(2)  Indeed, we find that the covenant under Judaism was ratified in a special way - by the blood of bovines (calves and goats). Here are the references:

            For when every commandment of the law had been declared
            by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats,
            with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both
            the book itself and all the people, saying,
            "This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you."
             [Hebrews 9:19-20; compare with Exodus 24:8]

(3)  Judaism was given to just one group of people: the Jews. This was why Moses declared in Exodus 24:8 - "Behold the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."  Moses (as well the elders of the Jews) understood and were consistent to maintain that this covenant was specifically committed to them and to no other nation, not even the patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac or Jacob:

            'The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
            Not with our fathers did the LORD make this covenant,
            but with us, who are all of us here alive today.' - Deut. 5:2-3

            'He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.
             He hath not dealt so with any nation - Psalm 147:19-20

             'Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel;
             I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them forth
             out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondmen' [Jer. 34:13]

(4)  The fact that Judaism was exclusive to the Jews is everywhere testified in Scripture; which is why you should not be mixing up Judaism and Christianity. One thing is for sure: the covenant of Judaism was not given Gentiles; and you cannot make Jews out of Gentiles on the basis of Judaism, for that very covenant under the Jews forbade such a thing. The one basis upon which a non-Jew could live in Judaism is as sojourners (Exo. 12:48) - and they must needs be circumcised in order to partake of any of the Mosaic Laws. That is not what Christianity was cut out to be.

(5) Even more so, God had declared numerous times that He would set aside the covenant of Judiasm - making it no longer operative. This covenant was called the covenant of Levi (Malachi 2:; and Christians are not called under the covenant of Levi. When God declares that He would make a new covenant in Jeremiah 31, He specifically said it would not be according to the covenant He made with the Jews when He brought them out of Egypt (Jer. 31:31-32) - in other words, the covenant of Judaism (the covenant of Levi) which was ratified by the blood of bovines has been set aside and is no longer operative!

(6) By asking Christians who are under the NEW covenant in Christ to again come under the old covenant of Levi is to call people back to a system that has no effect at all upon those who confess Christ.


Now, these are just the few background pointers I have for you as regards why I said that Christians are not called to celebrate or obey the Jewsih sabbath/shabbat. We are not living under a covenant ratified by the blood of bulls and goats. .  a covenant that is no longer operative. . a covenant known as the covenant of Levi. .  a covenant which could never take away sin. .  and a covenant bound to one place: the Old Jerusalem.

If you want more, viaro will be pleased to give you. Shavua Tov.

mazaje:
I think i will have to schedule a debate between you and Ken Ham since (Kent Hovind is in prison) So that you can explain to them why they are wrong and why you are right. You said that seven days creation of the universe is not taught in the scripture? I say it is clearly taught in the scriptures. The YEC have EVERY reason to believe that their position about the 7 day creation account of the universe is talked about in the scriptures(I am not talking about the age of the universe here). . . . .

@mazaje, bros. . howdy?
Look, no need for long talk. I respect Ken Ham and co; but I don't give two scoobies what they're yapping about. I look forward to any such debate(s) between their camp and viaro, if you may.

mavenbox:
I still hold on to my belief, unless proven otherwise, that Viaro = Krayola. I never met pilgrim so I dont know about him/her.

Good lawd! Krayo, we're are in deep trouble this week!

^^^Well, I thought about the general board as well, but decided that this board might interest some of us who think about the universe in these things. I apologise if my OP sounded like I was holding the admin (or mods) to ransom on the proposed board, but good observation - thanks.

That's great, I'm looking forward to it. And no, I'm not Roman Catholic, but a Baptist.

Hehe. . asoderock, I was hoping you would concentrate on the simple question of the meaning of 'design'. But since you don't seem to be going there, I shall only deal on your concerns about a 7 day creation.

asoderock:
The Genesis account is not convincing at all:

That the universe, and life were created, within 7 days.

The Genesis account is both consistent and convincing - it is Christians who have followed a traditional mode of interpretation to make up the myth of the '7 days creation of the universe'. Even though I'm a Christian, I don't read anywhere in Genesis where He intended us to give that interpretation to the creation account. God did not tell us that He created the Universe (ie., the cosmos) in 7 days; and you might be interested in seeing just a bit of my discussion on this subject in the thread: Why Christians Ignorantly Oppose The Theory Of Evolution, start from post #24, then fast forward to post #113 to #116 where I asked questions to dispell the notion of a YUC (young universe creationism). The point is that the '7 days creation of the UNIVERSE' is not taught in Scripture and does not apply to viaro. As Christians we need to think a little deeper and rid our mentality of this traditional ideology that just doesn't make sense in light of what Scripture teaches.

^^^that's anyone's guesses.

Let's see:

noetic15:
I get your point quite rightly.
What I attempted to illustrate by highlighting the "alien invasion" hypothesis is to draw a line, in stating clearly that many of these theories are IMO products of confusionists whose sole aim is to present the "truth" in a watered down version for the sole intent of deceiving.

It all eventually bugs down to "belief" . . . .as none of the hypothesis is provable scientifically.

Lol, okay then.

I jumped the gun. . . . . cos I actually meant to refer to the big bang, but chose to describe evolution (evolution IMO is an aftermath of the big bang thats why I used the word "Conducive environment" in my last post). cos I had certain people in mind 
I was expecting them to jump on me and start a chain of never-ending debates 

Guessed as much.

That aside,  . . . .
The big bang analogy which is the atheistic credence to the begining of life (if assumed to be true) does not complete the story. IF it explains the begining of the universe and calls it a "random and accidental" occurrence . . . .then one can infer that the demise of the universe would also be a "random and accidental" demise.

Aside the atheistic thingy, what I was looking forward to is a discussion where worldviews are kept at the back seat and do not form the basis of the answers to the topic. That was why I had tried to present it as what is being discussed in science and philosophy currently. Indeed, between these paradigms, people would throw in their own slants of the '-isms' of their worldviews: atheism, theism, deism, paganism, etc. . that's humanity for you: we can't just help ourselves sometimes, lol.

However, as to this line in yours:

IF it explains the begining of the universe and calls it a "random and accidental" occurrence . . . .then one can infer that the demise of the universe would also be a "random and accidental" demise.

. . it does not necessary follow that the same pattern be observed or posited between the beginning and the end. It does not follow in religion, for if we take Christianity as an example, would we say that the beginning must also be like the end? Hardly. For one, the basic testimony is that God created all things by simply speaking them into existence; but not so with how the universe ends, for it will come to an end by a fiery cataclysm. It just does not follow that the end must follow the same configuration as its origin.

My point is that for a theory (on the end of the universe)to hold water it must be able to scientifically explain the front and back end of the universe i.e how the universe began before it explains how it would end. but of course our scientific theories cannot explain this mysterious fact. . . .that leaves us to the BELIEF party pertinent with religion.

That may be true. .  only a probability ratio in that. yet, we understand that even though science cannot explain the 'how' of the mystery, it has made very plausible attempts at explaining the 'what' of the mystery itself. Which is why in the same enterprise of science and philosophy, man is able to now begin to look at how the Universe might possibly end. .  with the interesting subscript that humanity will live for eternity!

iorhenter:
@VIARO

Encarta dictionary defines Desing as:

de·sign [di zn]
verb (past and past participle de·signed, present participle de·sign·ing, 3rd person present singular de·signs)
1. transitive and intransitive verb create detailed plan of something: to make a detailed plan of the form or structure of something, emphasizing features such as its appearance, convenience, and efficient functioning
a well-designed car interior

2. transitive and intransitive verb plan and make something: to plan and make something in a skillful or artistic way
3. transitive verb intend something for particular use: to intend something for a particular purpose
The scholarship was designed to aid foreign students.

4. transitive verb invent something: to contrive, devise, or plan something

Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

What were you saying again about a design and designer?

Thank you, iorhenter. This was what I said about a design and designer:

While it is true that design may point to a designer, not everything observable
necessarily needs to point to a designer, even though some may have the
appearance of 'design'.

That statement was made from the backdrop of this question I offered asoderock:

viaro:
Not necessarily. What is a design?

Which one of those definitions do you want to apply in your own meaning of 'design'?

One thing that amazes me is the way some people make recommendations that are only half measures. Who is recommended to take Yar'Adua's place as President should he quit on grounds of poor health? Not that nobody could; but my worry is that a message (termed 'prophetic') as such that makes no pointer to a solution does not seem quite helpful. Rather than 'prophetic', I see 'politics' at play.

@MCLOVIN, when I asked why it was a sin to worship on Sunday, you replied that I cliked on the link in your post to find out. I was familiar with that argument before I read through Jim Searcy's poorly crafted exegesis on that page.

Now, if that was your own idea or the one that you so cherish from Searcy, we might help relieve you of the wrong-footed argument on that page. A good place to start would be this: just outline what you think makes any good point in that article that makes you suppose that any Christian who worships on Sunday is going to hell. Do that, and I shall be here to discuss those points with you.

Thanks, noetic15. As I already hinted, there are several (or many?) hypothesis about how the Universe would end, which was implied in my 4th paragraph by: 'Among other hypotheses', but picked out just those two that are commonly debated in science currently. You've added one more with the twist of Alien Invasion conspiracy theory, which is not discussed as other scientific theories about cosmology and apocalypse.

Even so, it might be that your second point does not quite square with the whole subject:

noetic15:
2. To arrive at a well thought out answer, perhaps we need to ask that how did the universe start in the first place. If the universe kicked off by virtue of an inorganic evolution of species and a random assemblage of a conducive environment for evolution. . . . . . then we can sit back and conclude that the universe would end by another sort of a random "de-evolution" at a time no man can tell. Not only is this "de-evolution" not scientific, its predecessor (evolution) was also more un-scientific.

No, I don't think it's about evolution, that argument is new to me entirely. Evolution of species is quite a different thing from origin of the Universe - they are not confused, especially because I don't quite know of anyone who assumes the Universe might have "kicked off" by inorganic evolution of species. What?!? On the contrary, cosmological theories are different in nature, where we look at such things like the Big Bang, Milne universe (or Milne model), the Ambiplasma of Plasma cosmology, Oscillating universe, etc., etc. Species come late in the cosmological timetable, and could not be used to argue the idea of how the Universe might have kicked off.

Thank you, sir t, for this:

sir t:
What is my point? My point is that Biblical doctrine tells us that when people die, they don't get sent anywhere just yet.

__________

Honestly, I think this thread should be locked up, or the topic changed. It is disgraceful for people to be alleging that someone IS in Hell when they themselves do not even know whether or not they will escape it! A word to the wise: 'Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.' - Rom. 2:1.

Hehe. . I like this part of your reply:

noetic15:
I still need u to explain how any being can be greater than the Alpha and Omega . . . .

I don't think it was a matter of 'greater than' - unless I missed where anyone was arguing so. Rather, I would like to know how any being could claim to be the Alpha and Omega when he is not so, especially as in the case of Jesus in Revelation.

KunleOshob:
@Viaro
I think pastor's comment i more applicable to your shallow understanding of the God/god concept.

Thank you. At least, there are questions he left to be addressed by those speaking about 'a God' as distinct from 'God'. Dig?

asoderock:
@Aftertech

Well I agree with you in so many points: Looking around, there a lot one can see that are marvelous, and will suggest the hand of a designer. But some questions still remain, for instance:

"Who/what designed God" - since from the foregoing logic, 'every design has a designer'


If God is the ultimate designer, himself being undesigned(It contradicts the logic), and if God is all loving why has evil persisted? -You may answer by explaining he is not responsible, that it is because of the "free will" he gave to man. But like someone, had asked earlier,
Why couldn't he remove the "free will"

The truth is that no one has offered a conclusive explanation, about this question of God's existence.

We are often afraid to deny God's existence. We all we be happy to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, that he really exist.

Could I make some observations, asoderock?

While it is true that design may point to a designer, not everything observable necessarily needs to point to a designer, even though some may have the appearance of 'design'. The logic you posit does not have universality in its application, for you will first need to define what you mean by 'design' before coming to any conclusions as to make applications of that logic.

Therefore, if that logic cannot stand universality in its application, you cannot use it as the prism to narrow all things about the Creator (the 'Ultimate Designer') to a point. As you pointed out, God Himself being undesigned would contradict your logic, and quite well so, because your logic contradicts reality as to its universality. Not everything that appears to be designed is actually pointing to a 'designer'.

To the question of whether anyone is often afraid to deny God's existence: that one still does not stand logic. Denying the existence of God (howsoever termed, whether 'Ultimate Designer', Creator, or Uncaused Causer) leaves the denier with more questions than answers.

Let us even grant, for the sake of argument, the denial of God's existence - no Ultimate Designer, no Creator, no Uncaused Causer. .and thus, no 'free will'. . nothing, nada, zilch. Right? Now, the denier has some work to do: he would have to tell us how the Universe sprang into existence on its own. At least, no one has blamed the Universe for 'free will' or the fact of evil in our world and experiences; so start from this basic question to fathom any mathematical or philosophical deductions for a cosmos that just sprang into existence on its own. That would indeed take away your own fear and help you to be less concerned about what theists think.

What is this topic doing in the Religious Board? Well, maybe it should be here until there's enough to open a motherboard for Philosophical and Science discussions.

Some of us have noticed that it is not only in Religion that people think about beginnings and origins of Life and our Universe. Many questions have been asked, answers have been proffered, and yet the debate rages on, fuelled by more questions and politics than answers. Out of this scenario, new religions, philosophies and worldviews are born as varying expressions of the same questions that plague man.

However, at the other end of the pendulum sits a complementary question: How will the Universe End? It is not so much now a matter of 'when' the universe will end, but how that would occur - and what would follow. This is not some religious apocalyptic drama being rehearsed in the corridors of science and philosophy; but a question that has become even more dramatic as to challenge the way we all think, regardless our worldview or religion.

Among other hypotheses, there are two basic theories about how the universe will end. One predicts an inward-rushing, squashing-together of all things; and the other foresees an explosion of sorts where everything (matter, energy, spacetime) would fly apart and then dissipate into nothingness.

Do these sound scary? Hang on: there might be some 'gospel' tucked in the equations as well. Scientists who make these predictions theories also believe that when the universe ends, it is not really the end, but just a prelude to what is known as 'eternity' - that is, man will live forever in eternity and there would be no more death.

Now, viaro is not making things up - just do some research and find out for yourself. More to follow, but for now: any comments from readers?

asoderock:
"For every design, there is a designer"

Not necessarily. What is a design?

Krayola:
hehehehehe. Multiple personality syndrome epidemic on Nairaland.

Ok. . .I'm goin to come clean. Krayola = Davidylan = Abuzola.

You are unbelievable.

Pastor AIO:
In short, I think that the word God is one of those words that people just bandy about without any real grasp of what they are talking about when they say God.

Very true.

What is a God? What makes a being a God? Please I need some definitions.

Good questions for those speaking about 'a God'.

KunleOshob:
As usual pilgrim.1 you try to confuse issues,

You know, I used to get put off when Nairalanders confused me for pilgrim.1, but these days I just allow the joke to flow. Others have also confused me for Krayola, or someone else; and I'm just wondering about the verse you might be familiar with: 'who do men say that I am?' So no big matter there.

i am sure i was clear enough in my submissions so stop trying to create loopholes were there are none.

No, Kunle, you were not clear at all but just spinning yarns and lazily running from the question people are asking. If you make Jesus 'a God' distinct from God, that is preaching more than one God in your theology - and the Muslims would be absolutely correct in damning your version of Christianity as idolatry. There's no need to pretend you're smarter than you sound on this subject if you can't be man enough to face up to the simple questions we've been asking.

Just imagine how this spinning shows up in your posts:

KunleOshob:
I am not ignoring your post it is just that it lacks substance, the fact that Jesus called himself the Alpha and Omega does not make him God neither does it make him equal to God.

. . and then you, KunleOshob, tried to make Him what you supposed He was not:

KunleOshob:
For the purpose of clarity i would restate my positon. Jesus being the son of God is also a God, however God almighty who is his father is greater than him and he is also answerable to God.

Why is it a sin to worship on Sunday (or any other day for that matter)?