₦airaland Forum

flourishG: You do err brother. It's not about weather a Christian brother should win or not. It is irrelevant. Anybody could emerge a winner. Logicboy in many times had been known to derail many threads. Check his records. It's not about tribalism or whatever. It's more to that. I could have voted Anony if he is on head-to-head with logicboy or goshen. What I'm saying is clear, Anony by his vote can't catch up with Goshen or logicboy considering both logicboy and Goshen will still get more votes. Why waste the vote for Anony since his votes are far behind. Why not Christians unite and give the vote to another brother who has more vote afterall both Anony n Goshen are Christian.

peace

You see the part I bold, that's all. You're voting a brother regardless of whether he deserves it or not. Simple. What matters is that a christian wins, anyone. Since goshen is in the lead, you now put your weight behind him regardless of if he actually deserves it or not. That is tribalism, or whatever one would call it. You can't mask that, and stop trying to.

cheers

flourishG: Tell yourself the truth. I have made my points clear. If Anony had been leading head-to-head with logicboy or Goshen360, Christians can as well unite to vote whoever they want. In this case, Anony' vote is way behind. Wisdom demands the vote should not be wasted. That's my point.

Mmm, tell myself what truth? And again, you're simply blindly voting your xtian brother, regardless of whether you think he deserves it or not. You've stated so yourself, so why the problem? Just make that very clear, I AM VOTING GOSHEN BECAUSE I WANT A FELLOW CHRISTIAN TO WIN. ALL ELSE IS NOT AS IMPORTANT, shikena. It's tribalism in another guise. Nothing too wrong there, but don't try to take some moral high ground or pretend it's something else.

Have you considered Pikkiwokki? Members of our church can be fairly awesome.

This is a bit long, but it displays the sort of knowledge you gain by believing in him

http://www.27bslash6.com/easter.html






From: David Thorne
Date: Wednesday 10 March 2010 7.12pm
To: Darryl Robinson
Subject: Permission Slip

Dear Darryl,
I have received your permission slip featuring what I can only assume is a levitating rabbit about to drop an egg on Jesus.
Thank you for pre-ticking the permission box as this has saved me not only from having to make a choice, but also from having to make my own forty five degree downward stroke followed by a twenty percent longer forty five degree upward stroke. Without your guidance, I may have drawn a picture of a cactus wearing a hat by mistake.
As I trust my offspring's ability to separate fact from fantasy, I am happy for him to participate in your indoctrination process on the proviso that all references to 'Jesus' are replaced with the term 'Purportedly Magic Jew.'
Regards, David.
From: Darryl Robinson
Date: Thursday 11 March 2010 9.18am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Permission Slip

Hello David
The tick in the box already was a mistake I noticed after printing them all. I've seen the play and it's not indoctrinating anyone. It's a fun play performed by a great bunch of kids. You do not have to be religious to enjoy it. You are welcome to attend if you have any concerns.
Darryl Robinson, School Chaplain
From: David Thorne
Date: Thursday 11 March 2010 11.02am
To: Darryl Robinson
Subject: Re: Re: Permission Slip

Dear Darryl,
Thank you for the kind offer, being unable to think of anything more exciting than attending your entertaining and fun filled afternoon, I tried harder and thought of about four hundred things.
I was actually in a Bible based play once and played the role of 'Annoyed about having to do this.' My scene involved offering a potplant, as nobody knew what Myrrh was, to a plastic baby Jesus then standing between 'I forgot my costume so am wearing the teachers poncho' and 'I don't feel very well'. Highlights of the play included a nervous donkey with diarrhoea causing 'I don't feel very well' to vomit onto the back of Mary's head, and the lighting system, designed to provide a halo effect around the manger, overheating and setting it alight. The teacher, later criticised for dousing an electrical fire with a bucket of water and endangering the lives of children, left the building in tears and the audience in silence. We only saw her again briefly when she came to the school to collect her poncho.
Also, your inference that I am without religion is incorrect and I am actually torn between two faiths; while your god's promise of eternal life is very persuasive, the Papua New Guinean mud god, Pikkiwoki, is promising a pig and as many coconuts as you can carry.
Regards, David.
From: Darryl Robinson
Date: Thursday 11 March 2010 2.52pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Permission Slip

Hello David
While it would be a pity for Seb to miss out on the important message of hope that the story of the resurrection gives, if you don't want him to attend the presentation on Monday then just tick the box that says I do not give my child permission to attend.
Darryl Robinson, School Chaplain
From: David Thorne
Date: Thursday 11 March 2010 5.09pm
To: Darryl Robinson
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Permission Slip

Dear Darryl,
I understand the importance the resurrection story holds in your particular religion. If I too knew some guy that had been killed and placed inside a cave with a rock in front of it and I visited the cave to find the rock moved and his body gone, the only logical assumption would be that he had risen from the dead and is the son of God. Once, my friend Simon was rushed to hospital to have his appendix removed and I visited him the next day to find his bed empty. I immediately sacrificed a goat and burnt a witch in his name but it turned out that he had not had appendicitis, just needed a good poo, and was at home playing Playstation.
Someone probably should have asked "So the rock has been moved and he's gone... has anyone checked his house?" I realise Playstation was not around in those days but they probably had the equivalent. A muddy stick or something. I would have said "Can someone please check if Jesus is at home playing with his muddy stick, if not, then and only then should we all assume, logically, that he has risen from the dead and is the son of God."
If we accept though, that Jesus was the son of an Infinite Being capable of anything, he probably did have a Playstation. Probably a Playstation 7. I know I have to get my offspring all the latest gadgets. God would probably have said to him, "I was going to wait another two thousand years to give you this but seeing as you have been good... just don't tell your mother about Grand Theft Auto."
Also, is it true that Jesus can be stabbed during a sword fight and be ok due to the fact that he can only die if he gets his head chopped off?
Regards, David.
From: Darryl Robinson
Date: Friday 12 March 2010 10.13am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Permission Slip

Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus have a sword fight. Learning the teachings of the Bible is not just about religion. It teaches a set of ethics that are sadly not taught by parents nowadays.
Darryl Robinson, School Chaplain
From: David Thorne
Date: Friday 12 March 2010 2.23pm
To: Darryl Robinson
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Permission Slip

Dear Darryl,
You raise a valid point and I appreciate you pointing out my failings as a parent. Practising a system of ethics based on the promise of a reward, in your case an afterlife, is certainly preferable to practising a system of ethics based on it simply being the right thing to do.
Many years ago, I lived next door to a Christian named Mr Stevens. You could tell he was a Christian because he had a fish sticker on his Datsun. He used to wave at us kids from his bathroom window on hot summer days as we played in the sprinkler. I learnt a lot from Mr Stevens. Mainly about wrestling holds. The trick is to oil up really well making it hard for the other person to hold you down. I would often lie on his living room rug looking up at the pictures of sunsets behind quotes from Psalms while waiting for him to unwrap his legs from around my torso.
Your job would be made much easier if, after making the school children sit through an hour of church youth group teens dancing, singing and re-enacting Jewish magic tricks, you simply told them that it was just a small taste of what hell is like and if they didn't believe in Jesus they would have to sit through it again.
When I was at school, we were forced to attend a similar presentation. Herded into the gym under the pretence of free chips, we were assaulted with an hour of hippies playing guitars and a dance routine featuring some kind of colourful coat and a lot of looking upwards. Due to the air-conditioning in the packed gym not working and it being a hot day, the hippie wearing the colourful coat blacked out mid performance and struck his head against the front edge of the stage spraying the first row of cross-legged children with blood. Unconscious, he also urinated. There was a bit of screaming and an ambulance involved and everyone agreed it was the best play they had ever seen.
Regards, David.
From: Darryl Robinson
Date: Friday 12 March 2010 2.47pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Permission Slip

Hello David
I don't see what any of that has to do with this play. It's important for children to have balance in their life and spirituality is as important in a childs life as everything else. There's an old saying that life without religion is life without beauty.
Darryl Robinson, School Chaplain
From: David Thorne
Date: Friday 12 March 2010 3.36pm
To: Darryl Robinson
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Permission Slip

Dear Darryl,
I agree completely that balance is an important component of a child's education. I will assume then that you will also be organising a class excursion to a play depicting the fifteen billion year expansion of the universe from its initial particle soup moments following the big bang through to molecule coalescion, galaxy and planetary formation and eventually life?
Perhaps your church youth group could put together an interpretive dance routine representing the behaviour of Saturn's moon Hyperion, shattered by an ancient collision and falling randomly back together, tugged to and fro by the gravitational pull of Titan, sixteen sister moons, the multi-billionfold moonlets of Saturn’s rings, Saturn’s gravitational field, companion planets, the variability’s of Sol, stars, galaxy, neighbouring galaxies... or possibly not, according to an old saying, there is no beauty in this.
Also, while I understand that the play is to be held outside school grounds, due to the fact that it is illegal to present medieval metaphysic propaganda in public schools, it is also my understanding that you are now required by law, as of last year, to go by the title Christian Volunteer rather than School Chaplain. A memo you may have missed or filed in your overflowing 'facts that cease to exist when they are ignored' tray.
Regards, David.
From: Darryl Robinson
Date: Monday 15 March 2010 9.22am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Permission Slip

I'm not going to waste any more precious time replying to your stupid emails. If you don't want your child to attend the play just indicate that on the permission slip.
From: David Thorne
Date: Monday 15 March 2010 11.04am
To: Darryl Robinson
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Permission Slip


From: Darryl Robinson
Date: Monday 15 March 2010 2.11pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: No Subject

I will pray for you.
From: David Thorne
Date: Monday 15 March 2010 2.19pm
To: Darryl Robinson
Subject: Re: No Subject

Thanks. Mention that I want a Toyota Prado if you get the chance. A white one. With dark grey leather interior and sat nav.
Regards, David.
From: Darryl Robinson
Date: Tuesday 16 March 2010 9.20am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: No Subject

I've had enough of your nonsense. Dont email me again.
From: GOD
Date: Tuesday 16 March 2010 10.18am
To: Darryl Robinson
Subject: Word of God

DARYL, THIS IS GOD. BUY DAVID A TOYOTA PRADO. A WHITE ONE. WITH DARK GREY LEATHER INTERIOR AND SAT NAV.
From: Darryl Robinson
Date: Tuesday 16 March 2010 2.35pm
To: GOD Cc: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Word of God

I'm serious.
From: GOD
Date: Tuesday 16 March 2010 2.48pm
To: Darryl Robinson
Subject: Re: Re: Word of God

OK.

flourishG: @logicboy03 and wiegraf, you maybe right in your analysis. The fact that Anony tackles atheist doesn't mean atheists are won to Christ. It's the holy spirit that convict. Christians are not like that especially when they can unite and vote whoever is getting more votes. Your statements are misleading. If it is Anony that is getting more votes, we Christians can unite and give all our vote to him. Your statement will encourage votes to be split among the duos and increase vote to another. It is wisdom at this time to give vote to Goshen at this time. If Anony had been leading Goshen in his vote, it wisdom for Christians to unite and vote for him but in this case, Anony is not leading.

Christians unite and vote Goshen360.

Heh, so you're just voting for your xtian brother irregardless?
We might as well start rigging and bribing the mods to make this a fully nigerian affair

And in case it hasn't been stated before, many misconstrue his 'aggression'. Of course those that look behind lines notice how silly notions of some personal vendetta or whatever are.

Anyways, it's fairly simple, someone mocking him led him to questioning his beliefs, so he's personally aware of how effective that approach is and is simply trying it out on others he fears might be unwittingly harming themselves or others. His intention is to get them to question their beliefs, it's never personal. Unlike me for instance, while never personal personal, at times I attack just out of pure disgust at the sheepleness I see. Or shall I say, I just want to spank some for one folly or the other. Sometime just boredom sef. Not so with lb, he actually cares.

Highyou, you high?

Anony deserves more votes and recognition. Don't just vote for your brother blindly. You have to consider overall value to your community.

Anony's not afraid to step into the pit and duly receive his spanking. His single mindedness in his mission is impressive (even if that's the only impressive thing about his endeavors). Not that that is a requirement, or necessarily the most important thing to consider, as I'm sure goshen provides some good soul food judging by this election and that is important too. But I've never come across goshen before, indicating he's happy sticking to xtian only threads. Again, it's not the only thing to consider, but Anony's (blind and misguided) desire to spread the word to heathens should count for something, no? He's willing to do the much needed dirty work most of y'all wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole, or even the double edged sword of 'justice'.

So, in essence, anony's got it all, he feeds the flock as well as takes on the preying lions. He goes on the offensive, he's not just reactive, sign of a good leader. The david to our goliath. He's got international recognition, having taking on foo.ls of all shapes and sizes; atheists, deists, pantheists, muslims, even (infamously) satanists. Reward the man with some (much needed) xtian love so he can keep up the good fight!!! Heathens need to be educated else they will spread cancer to your flock and eventually rot in hell!!! Just think, it might be you or a loved one that's contaminated next!!!

VOTE ANONY 2012!!! THE FULL PACKAGE!!!

musKeeto: What is the pattern?

1, 11, 21, 1211, 111221, 312211

Which kind style be dis now??
I've not given up, just letting in you know I will settle down and deal with this....eventually

Oahray: Lol. Trust the battered atheist to throw tantrums and insults without making a bit of point. Wiegraph, you obviously know nothing about the theory you tried defending.

Energy is required if matter is to be formed. I bet you never knew that.
Evolution asserts the organic springs from the inorganic, but does nothing to explain the origin of the inorganic. For your info, many scientists believe in pre-existing energy as the source of the universe.
You seriously need to get updated.

Crap, you've never heard of abiogenesis as well...
That very formula you copy/pasted earlier on indicates energy and matter are the same thing. Stop getting your science from xtian mags, it obviously causes cancer.

Oahray: Does not your power of reasoning tell you that an absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence? Absence of evidence of God's existence is not an evidence of God's inexistence.

If you say 'there is no God, you are not only refuting a claim that there is God, you are making a fresh claim independent of the former. This claim needs proof. So quit throwing tantrums over the op's post.

You want proof regarding the bolded, here it is. Science itself proves me right.
(1) The law of conservation of energy: Energy is neither created nor destroyed. The idea of something coming from nothing (a vacuum, or space devoid of matter) has no place in science...or common sense.
(2) Vacuums do not occur in nature. Nature abhors it. It can only be artificially created.

You still need more scientific proof?

Smarter evolutionists have long embraced the idea of 'pre-existing energy' as the source of the universe, you are here supporting the 'something from nothing' trash. Even science has left you behind.

Hehehehe, you m.oron. You could have at least googled to get even elementary knowledge about the topic. Do you know anything at all about quantum mechanics you t.wat? lol. Look up virtual particles and the casimir effect. Sheer ignorance of the best kind on display here, the proudly so variety you find in local champions. Of course, it matches your knowledge of evolution. And what does evolution have to do with initial energy? Seems to me like you get your science 'facts' from xtian magazines.

But that's not the issue here, I'm not here to school your ignorant a$$. Looking at your bolded, if you're making the claim, then HELL YES. Regardless of whether you are actually right or wrong. If you can't provide even logical arguments don't expect me, or anyone else, to indulge you. You answered my questions (and failed miserably) at your discretion, but you certainly weren't obligated to. Because I made an ostensibly nonsense claim without any back up. You only indulged to try to make a flawed point anyhow, ie that you were somehow obligated to. Have you forgotten that earlier on, when you weren't trying to eke out a point, you invoked the burden of proof? Fail. You fond of lying for christ as well? Not sure why you guys do that. Isn't it a sin?


Ps: and indignation after calling people f.ools? Seriously, what do you expect? You real stoopid, but of course it would be hard for you to figure that out

@reyg

I need go step out. We'll continue this later
Kudos brah

Reyginus: Lololololol. What if the link is from google or wikipedia?

Errm, if not from internet, where the f*ck from? Can you stop this unadulterated nonsense? Or are you some sort of omnixx.x that has solved it all and has all the evidence in his cellar? Ah, your bible has the answers, yes? I believe that's on the internet as well, use google to find it

You're wasting time, show the link or own up to your folly. Or are you gathering tnt at the moment? You want me to accept a claim blindly? One that makes no sense no less? Do I look an xtian to you? Talking fires and snakes, living inside a whale, omnixx.x etc etc

I wish I could power my rocket ship with nonsense

Oahray: ok, you agree atheists made an assertion? Good progress bro!
Regardless of the reason for your assertion, it is never a fact without proof.
The op simply said no one should say there definitely is no God.

Atheists have asked theists for proof severally. Is it wrong to turn the tide on you guys once in a while and watch you guys fumble?

Quit your silly nonsense. The issue here is who makes the claim. Don't mask rebuttals as assertions. You ask me to disprove god, you show the god first you imb.ecile. If after listening to your nonsense I tell you it is nonsense, well, deal with it. The fact is it is nonsense.

So now, considering my claim that something can come from nothing, unproven as it is, do you think it's nonsense or not? Or from the beginning, prove to me that something cannot come from nothing.

Reyginus: No? Why?

Because your link would feature someone making unfounded claims, thereby violating the scientific method. There is no reason to assume an explosion, at all, so why add one? Science should stick to the facts, nothing more. And it should stick to simplest explanation that explains all observations, or ockam's razor. So again, no need to assume an explosion, and it complicates things. If there was one, how? In what space or time? Matter was involved? Where from? etc. If he provides evidence, then sure, why not? But as is, I know of non

This is why science doesn't give any clear answers as to the very beginning of the big b.ang, it simply doesn't know enough at the moment to make claims. And it's not afraid to say so. The challenge is finding out what happened, objectively.

musKeeto: iThoughts..

Luckily steve jobs never met anony. Imagine what they could have achieved together?

Reyginus: I'm using a phone.
It's like we are coming close.
As it stands now, you posit that any claim on an explosion is not true, and hence unfounded.
I hold their is a claim on an explosion, and that's why it's unfounded.
My question to you now is, would you agree science make unfounded claims, if I show you where it claims an explosion occured? Yes or No.

No, and don't waste my time. Show me this explosion.

Mr_Anony: Not so, A computer/robot/machine can have thoughts but it's thoughts have no meaning. To have meaning, the computer will need to have a soul.

I believe that man unlike a robot has a soul/spirit/inner man (or perhaps what you may choose refer to as a man's consciousness) and that is who the man really is i.e his essence. This inner man has thoughts and ideas. As long as he is connected to a body, the man is alive. As soon as that connection is broken, the man is dead.

I don't think you would describe your "consciousness" as a ideology. I wouldn't.

Hahahahahahahaha

Oahray: *face palm* mehn, logical reasoning and atheists... Are you guys sworn enemies?

When you say: "There is no God", you are asserting or making a claim. It is different from saying "I have not seen proof that there is God, so I do not believe".

The op's post is quite clear and there is nothing wrong with it. I wonder why you guys find it hard to grasp aomething as simple as that.

Erm, bros. He's bitc.hing about people telling him there is no god. Now, don't be an eediot and tell me what led to their assertions?

Reyginus: Dude, thank you for selecting what to post and not.
You are not in the right position to discuss this topic. Not at all.
Anyone who don't know the big b.ang as claimed, is as a result of an explosion is either dumb or deliberately misfiring. Maybe kay can help you.

Please find one scientific source which claims an explosion took place. I'm waiting

Also, find another which shows how an explosion could take place without spacetime

You've now clearly crossed into unadulterated stoopid territory. Because you see b.ang in the title you assume there was an explosion, yet you claim science makes unfounded claims?

Oahray: The op said no one should say there is no God.

Many atheists do not only doubt the existence of God, they actively assert that God does not exist. That requires proof too. That was the point the op raised.

So how did the op seem exempt huh? Tell me.

Heh heh, no. You seem confused, you don't seem to know who's doing the asserting here. God is not the default mode, or have met him before, yes or no? Do you have evidence of the encounter, yes or no? Before I stood up and said there is no dog, someone must have asserted there was a dog, yes? Or I dreamed up the concept myself then rebuked it? Curious, yes?

You folk are the ones doing the claiming here, not us. For instance, taking your own words, the bolded, why does the op say no one should say there's no god? Because there is a god? He proved this when?

Bros, answer me...

Oahray: The burden of proof lies with he who asserts. You said "in this universe, something can come out of nothing".
So why should I be the one to bring proof?

Hahahaha, so, you get how the burden of proof works?

So, tell me how the op is exempt from that rule?

Oahray: lol. This long post with little meaningful info. You believe everything science tells you, ryt? See who isnt gullible.

Its either you do not understand evolution yourself and are just blindly believing it, or you are just acting d.umb. The former looks to be the the case tho.

As regards the bolded, please give me an example of one thing that comes from nothing. Then tell me how in your example energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Can you not read you c.lout? I said I don't feel the need to teach you. If you paying I may reconsider though.

Anyhow, you now want me to clarify, yes? You won't accept my claims without any evidence, yes? You now miraculously understand the situation when it's you who is being asked to believe something just because?

So, prove to me that something cannot come nothing.

Oahray: Atheists assert there is no God. Have you guys been able to prove it yet?

Why is it you believe evolution? Because many scientists believe it? No?

Have you witnessed any creature evolve before?
Is it not hearsay?
Why is it you believe scientists who tell you they know the origin of life some billions of years ago just with little pieces of bones and other fossil?
Why is it you guys think nothing of the Piltdown man scam by evolutionists in an attempt to cement their baseless theory?

If a person comes out today to say rats are generated spontaneously from garbage, wouldnt you guys call him a f.o.o.l? Yet many years ago, it was held as scientific truth.

Just like the Theory of Spontaneous Generation and other thrash once held as truth by scientists, the theory of Evolution is baseless and requires alot of gullibility and blind faith in fallible science.

It is foolish to believe that from nothing, the right electronic components can somehow be assembled together under the right conditions by chance, and a blackberry phone would be produced.

So yes, atheists are fools!

Erm, bros, all this long story just to show you don't know what evolution is? You're clearly ignorant. It's very common in these parts though, people proud of their ignorance ie. Usually you display the kind of knowledge about these things I would expect a person born blind would display while discussing the mona lisa.

But that's not the issue here for now, and I don't feel the need to school you for free. So, back to my initial question. I should just accept your claims because you say so? If the best you can come up with translates to 'yes', may I just tell you "4k you, you moro.nic and deluded ignoramus" ahead of time? Before you ask me to accept your god, prove it to me. It's the same I would ask of you.

And guess what your ignorance, in this universe something can come from nothing, if indeed you can call it nothing. That's another story though.

Gullibility... Heh heh heh

bamto: No human being should reasonably say with all certainty that there is no God. While the most intelligent professor in a little field of study gives room for skepticism, you hear some young chaps with a little learning talk in absolute term on a complex subject as God. What was 'fact' in scientific circles some decades back have been debunked based on superior facts.
For me to say there is no three-legged human being, I must have crisscrossed the entire world to ascertain it. So it is with saying there is no God.
God is said to be omniscient and omnipotent. Have you been beneath the seas and above the heavens? Have you gone to all forests and deserts in the world? What do you know? Have you finished knowing about the physical not to talk of the supernatural? To know is to admit you know not.
Please, quit saying there is no God. Only a fool does that!

Op, wtf is this $hit. It has nothing to do with the title. I came here with the intention of berating you for something else.

As to saying there is no god, you, like many of the dol.ts around here, do not understand how the burden of proof works. For instance with this post, note the word that is bolded. So you want me to accept your fairy tales because somebody says so? Where is the evidence? Then you call me a f.ool. You 4king m.ororn, being a sheeple that blindly accept claims without any evidence, just because someone said so, would fit the definition of a f.ool much more don't you think?

4king re.tards everywhere this morning in these last 2 days or so.

Mr_Anony: Nope. it denotes greatness and supremacy over time and everything else.
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. Rev 22:13

“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” Rev 1:8

"This is what the LORD says--Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. Isaiah 44:6

To see more of God transcending time, see 2Peter 3:8, Psalm 90:4, Isaiah 46:10, Deuteronomy 33:27 etc etc. God is Eternal.




This is inaccurate because the bible starts by telling us that in the beginning God created heaven and earth. Where was God at that time?

The bible tells us also that God is everywhere:

Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?
If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.
If I take the wings of the morning, And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
Even there Your hand shall lead me, And Your right hand shall hold me.
If I say, “Surely the darkness shall fall on me,” Even the night shall be light about me;
Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You, But the night shines as the day; The darkness and the light are both alike to You.
Psalm 139:7-12.

God by nature of His being omnipresent, transcends space.

To see more about God transcending space, see 1Kings 8:27, Acts 17:24, Jeremiah 23:24 etc etc




Here is the passage you were referring to:

Now the whole earth had one language and one speech.
And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there.
Then they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar.
And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”
But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built.
And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.
Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”
So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city.
Therefore its name is called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.
Genesis11:1-8

All you have to do now is show us where in the passage above,
1. The intention of the people was to reach God's abode
2. God became scared that people will reach His abode



I have just shown you from scripture that God transcends space and time. God is eternal.

So god is omnipresent?

Nothing to see here, hypocrites avoiding threads that expose them...
Wait, what?

Where to reyg? We're not done here...

Shame about my earlier post, too lazy to redo all that. So I'll focus all the rage on this only, your claim that science makes unfounded claims. (there's a lot more to rant about in your post, dohohoho (and I did...like how you missed the obvious "...")

Let's take wiki's definition and pull out some bits since you seem uninterested in actually looking up what the big b.ang actually is

wiki: The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to the most recent measurements and observations, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the Universe. After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. While protons and neutrons combined to form the first atomic nuclei only a few minutes after the Big Bang, it would take thousands of years for electrons to combine with them and create electrically neutral atoms. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements would coalesce through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.

The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory and is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram for Type Ia supernovae. The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, and the formation of galaxies—are derived from these and other observations that are independent of any cosmological model. As the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, it can be inferred that everything was closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment in such conditions, resulting in further development of the model. On the other hand, these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on."

"While the scientific community was once divided between supporters of the Big Bang and those of the Steady State theory, most scientists became convinced that some version of the Big Bang scenario best fit observations after the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body.

Looking at this here, I don't see the word explosion anywhere, nor do I see the need to add it. Anyways, look at the bolded, experiments and observed data, testable prediction (background radiation) and NO ASSUMPTIONS ACCEPTED AS FACT WHERE THERE IS LITTLE EVIDENCE, highlighted here for instance:

"There is little evidence regarding the absolute earliest instant of the expansion. Thus, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on."

So things like your insistence the very beginnings of the universe are metaphysical and an explosion taking place = assumptions. You can have them around if you wish, as hypothesis. Don't mix them up with theories, which are more or else fact.

Now, like I've said over and over, even proper theories themselves need not be 100% accurate, they may have fuzzy details. But they still work as effective theories, and hopefully with time we will perfect these theories and produce more accurate versions, just like einstein improved on newtons work with gravity. In fact, like I said earlier, since a theory of everything would affect "everything", you could say all scientific theories are incomplete, until the true theory of everything is found (lemme guess, you're still going to take the word 'true' and run around?).

How you can say science makes unfounded claims is beyond me. Theories are validated after meticulously examining the evidence and various tests and criteria, with a clear emphasis on the objective, not on baseless assumptions.

Touché muskeeto

Complete with apologizing to god... We should form a religion, where we seize all those earthly things created by man he thinks little of (and share them of course) including stuff like medical care and internet access. He didn't create himself? Troll

Reyginus: Lololol. Exactly why the theory is unfounded.
Now search 'big bang' with your thinking cap to know whose claim is unfounded.

Bros, how many xx do i have to tell you that if you cannot discern a theory from a hypthesis, then you really dont know what thinking is about. And you're still on about the google thing, blindly fumbling on

This is real simple, where the fúck did the explosion take place? Put on your thinking cap now and consider that. Like kay said earlier, what physical law is there that states there must be an eplosion before an expansion? Because a scientist, or google, calls it big b.ang that does not neccesarily mean there was a b.ang.

Reyg dmmit you claiming there was an explosion is an unfounded claim, where from? And in what space or time even? You don't have any proof there was any before big b.ang

I wrote that post on bb, was so sleepy, and sometimes you have to hit the submit button twice. Crap. And my battery died. But yes, quickly (as usual) kay is on point, you dont understand the nature of spacetime

Of course my post was more colorful, for instnce 5, wtf? You see evidence and then shout lalalalalaalala. What do you want to do, wish it away? And i'm not mad, this is how i am naturally, a natral aśśhole, i can't even see why you'd think i'm mad.

Hmm, i have no idea as to wtf is happening here. I posted a reply, somehow it's not here....