₦airaland Forum

Na wa, and this isn't even the last vote

Reyginus: An atheist and satanist wannabee.

He's also logic mind, so I doubt if he really wants to being a satanist. Or was he interested in being satanist when he was logic mind? I didn't read too much from him, I just remember the humor for the most part.

Logicboy03: me too. Anony got his email or contacts?

Errm, who do y'all think advocate666 is? Or is there some inside joke I'm unaware of?

obadiah777: BROTHER WIEGRAF, SCRIPTURE DO SAY, LOVE THY NEIGHBOR. I THINK WE ARE GETTING A BREAKTHROUGH WITH YOU SOMEBODY HELP ME PRAISE THE LORD FOR BROTHER WIEGRAF

Hmm, what is this about, lol. I have no issues with religious who let others live as they wish.

Bigots though... I do love me attacking some bigots, it's delicious. I can't deny that...

Reyginus: Bringing 'em fighter jets.
1. Oh I forget, google was your thinking cap.

Again, I ask you show me how. Baseless, even anony doesn't make gaffes this silly. This is embarrassing.

You can't even tell the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, yet you think yourself an expert on thinking?

Even ignoring the above, what exactly are you saying, that my arguments come from google? Or is it from reading books about the universe? In essence, are you saying I don't need to learn anything but just figure everything out on my own? Do you know how stoopid that sounds? I see, einstein et al, geniuses as they are, figured everything out from the scratch on their own too. Wow. This is what religion causes, baseless conclusions and hubris.

Let's explore your professional 'thinking' now.

Reyginus: 2. Expansion? Lol. Their was an explosion before the expansion. Cause and effect my friend. You are trying to twist the claim of the theory. Why this universe?

Great thinking here. What exploded? Into what space? Space and time came into existence at the big ban.g's inception. Energy of some sort may have existed, but not necessarily what we know of as energy in this universe nor need said energy be part of this universe (except of course that which may have mutated to form this universe).

You say an explosion occurred, explain how and provide your evidence. This is science please, don't make stuff up. All we know for sure is that our space and time as we know it were created and began expanding at some point in the past, and are in fact still expanding.

Where did this event take place? Everywhere. And it's still happening, the universe is still expanding and cooling down. The early stages of this expansion are what we call the big ba.ng.

Reyginus: 3. This is even more laughable. Can a thing be only existing in union with gravity? What does it mean to exist alone?

This is even better thinking. Where do I say the bolded? I said the forces, gravity and the rest (3 other basic forces, google, I'm tired of doing it for you) are there responsible for the expansion. Gravity is pulling us together yes? Mysterious dark energy pulling us apart, no? Various electromagnetic forces dictate the laws of physics.

Reyginus: 4. It's high time you explained the phrase 'this universe'.

This universe means this universe... Everything we can access, even theoretically, would constitute as this universe. Dictionary definition

https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=universe+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

"All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos."

Or

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/universe

"All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole."

Reyginus: 5. Ah! Even scientists fall for this. Vacuum flunctuation. The problem with vacuum flunctuation is that it neglects the fact that it can only occur in an empty space. If it can't happen everywhere it shows that it only becomes effective in a vacuum. That said, the casaul agent exists only in a vaccuum. Some scientists are too dumb, to think so.

Where in the world did you come across this dross? There is no such thing as a true vacuum in this universe. Quantum fluctuations require a vacuum to be present before they manifest? *smh*. The issue here is with the nature of energy. Rather than remain a steady point, it fluctuates, unpredictably (wave/particle). What determines these fluctuations, how does it have this value and then that value the next moment is completely arbitrarily. So, where does the extra energy causing the fluctuations come from? Nothing. It all tallies up at the end of the day (thankfully), but it doesn't change the fact that energy was created from seemingly nothing, even if for only a very short amount of time. This potential, which is used by 'real' energy to get around, exists everywhere in this universe*.

And note, this energy, seemingly from nowhere, can be measured

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Reyginus: 6. I hate to read when I'm supposed to think.

Yes, because Reyginus the genius already knows all without even looking at the evidence. That is the evidence, draw up your conclusions from there, but don't make $hit up. I imagine your conclusions would involve some old dude who was willing to wait 14 billion years just to watch big brother.

Reyginus: 7. What about a multiverse now?

Hypotheses, not theories, like your old man in the sky one, except they make a hell of a lot more sense.


So, try that thinking you assume you're actually capable of.


*random: since you are made up of energy, yes, you are fluctuating, obviously not noticably. and this mechanism, which energy uses to move around, could actually result in a particle here showing up at the other side of the galaxy immediately, but of course the odds of that happening are astronomically low. science is a lot weirder than the hocus pocus nonsense that is religion, and better yet, it can be tested.

*edited

Reyginus: Lol. Now that you've decided to think, can we move on? Oh yes, we can.

*smh*, you were clearly wrong.. you now want to claim I am not thinking, in what language? did anony bite you? actually this is even worse than his shenanigans. anyways...

Reyginus: I'm starting from the root of the matter, the big bang.
Our theory suggests there was a massive explosion of a singularity. This stirred up the universe as we know it. It went further to posit the big b.ang was the beginning.

No it claims there was an expansion. Explode into what space? There wasn't even any. Anyways, it posits the big b.ang is the beginning of THIS UNIVERSE

Reyginus: That claim is too much to be swallowed. I know all there is, cannot be made to explode. This thing that carried it out surely cannot be part of the singularity, neglecting the fact the theory acknowledged the action of a beginner.

Again, of this universe, nothing hard to swallow about that. As for expanding, it still is. The forces are there, gravity et al, responsible for that.

Reyginus: The options leading us to this path are, it is either the big bang is not the beginning or it is. Our theory holds it is.

It undoubtedly is the beginning of this universe, time and space began then.

Reyginus: The self-contradiction is clear to any unbiased mind. It is not possible for a thing which was caused to begin, to be the beginning.

Have you ever heard of the uncertainty principle? Guess what, it's happening right now to the quarks that make up your body. Something can come from nothing in this universe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

Reyginus: I wonder how anybody could take such theory as the truth.

These are facts. You can choose to ignore the evidence, though I wonder how anybody could ignore the evidence to create his own 'truth'.

Read brah, rather than display ignorance. Or do you require diagrams and maybe a hawt primary school teacher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Observational_evidence

Reyginus: I don't know if there is a way the beginning of all things will be made to begin. Maybe you tell me.

Science doesn't claim to know, it knows the beginning of this universe, not all things. But supposing this universe was birthed by another, do you understand what another universe implies? Even if another universe exists, it is by definition another universe. Another existence, completely separate from this one, so how are we going to get there? This is why some people think it's a waste of time and focus on what we can observe, this universe. But there are lots of hypotheses (hypotheses like string theory) flying around, most of them having to do with a multi-verse (my personal favorites).

obadiah777: EXACTLYYYY. THEY ARE LIKE A SHIP WITH NO COMPASS. THEY ARE LIKE GARRI WITH NO GROUNDNUT. THEY ARE LIKE BREAD WITH NO BUTTER. THEY ARE LIKE IPHONE WITH NO BATTERY. JUST USELESS

*smh*

You make it hard to dislike you. Someday I'll not like you, then I'll show you that double edged is only good for buttering those cabin biscuits, and even at that barely so

mygirrl: I simply asked because of some of the comments you made earlier on, and I don't know you so why should I insult you. You might think I was trying to insult u but these things happen and I know of someone who went through this ordeal and its only by the special grace of God that she is getting better. Initially when it first started nobody attached anything to it

Even if I asked more or else the same questions to him, who says I was expecting a polite reply? If I ask a silly question, I expect to be replied in kind, and then we can take it from there. It's nothing personal, but since you're about love etc I can see why it may bother you. People like me could care less though. I replied you in kind

And they weren't silly questions, even if a bit facetious or ostensibly be so. Word salad is a symptom of schizophrenia, as are all the other things I asked about in my post. He claims he rambles incoherently and uncontrollably, obviously something is wrong here, I'm just trying to find out what. I don't claim to ramble incoherently for no reason, so it would be rude to ask me out of the blue

Of course it"s more likely hysteria, but schizophrenia is funnier . Your friend as well, placebo. I'm very sure lots of other people went through problems similar to whatever problems she had and came through in an exemplary fashion without the holy ghost. Most likely the solution involving hard work or action rather than sitting and staring into space.

Reyginus: You know what. I see no reason in arguing with anybody that don't want to think. Your views are as changing as you google search. If you want to think, we can continue. If you want to copy and paste, then claim you have no perfect understanding of what you are pasting, I can never understand what you think. That said, are you ready to think?

Eh, bros, you have no understanding at all, non. My views are changing where and how? Show me. Another baseless accusation. I've already told you all that's needed to be known without quotes, several times, so all this talk about quoting is well The quoting is even followed by explanations, WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?

If you have a problem with quoting definitions, then you are not going anywhere. You want to redefine terms as you see fit? Seriously? Theories are not hypothesis.

Theories of everything are called theories but they are not so, at all. They're not testable yet, even if they've gotten the word 'theory' attached to them. They are scientific, but not yet scientific theories. And this is not my opinion, even the wiki article makes this explicitly clear, some hypothesis are called theory but they are obviously not. If I called string theory a real theory you'd be the first here to say I was making unfounded claims, and you'd be justified. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Now, THIS HAS BEEN MY VIEW FROM THE VERY BEGGINNING HENCE MY USE OF THE WORD 'TRUE'. It's to set the distinction. There are TOE, but they're all hypothesis even if they have the word 'theory' in their names, like string theory. These are in no way true theories like gr, evolution or the standard model. Actually these aren't my views, they are the facts. I expected you to know all this, seems not, else I suppose I might have done more hand holding. But this is getting excessive.

That said ask questions, I'll be happy to oblige. Do you still have problems with why I use the word 'true'? I hope at least that's been settled.

mygirrl: I only asked a question which requires a yes or no answer. I don't understand why you have to start throwing insults.

Because they are insulting, silly questions. What do you expect?

honeychild: well to be quite honest, I also understood 'incomprehensible' to mean difficult to understand completely.

Kay was very clear and stated several times; not comprehensible ever. Anony understood this definition and even agreed with. For some reason later on he pretended not to get it. Probably
to save face

Reyginus: lol. Dude, you have no point. You even need to understand what it means to by the mechanisms of science before you even understand what an unfounded claim is to science. For now we are not communicating. While I'm thinking, you are googling.

If you wanted to dodge you should just have ignored the post rather than bringing it to my attention. This post doesn't even make sense mostly because the grammar is a bit off. But from what I can tell, baseless assumptions everywhere. The weirdest one being the assumption that you're thinking.

You asked me to explain why I say current TOE are not true theories, I do so clearly by pointing out they're hypothesis, not theories. You try to define theory with this sorry definition,

Reyginus: That a theory is untrue doesn't mean it won't work. It only shows that the principle behind the workings is independent of the theories we establish. You can compose a thesis giving reasons while the sun is white. So long your reasons are logically in accordance with the already established facts, you will be scored an A. The thesis might be wrong, but your explanations work.
The theory in most cases is meant to explain to us why it thinks a particular thing operates. Though it might be untrue, but once it sounds rational to us, we accept it to be.

I point out you are wrong, mostly because, again

wiki: Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still have to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.

So, in your own description above, where is testing? Predictions? Nothing in there except conjecture
? How the hell is that a scientific theory? Guess what, by accepting string theory etc as proper theories science will be doing exactly what you accuse it of doing; making unfounded claims. You don't seem to know the scientific method, scientific theories etc are. You are arguing blindly it would seem

Then you tell me I don't have a point? You, ser, are now boldly trolling...

frosbel: I don't think on Nairaland because I don't have to

Is this wit? Well played, good ser, well played... However, I could argue that you just did (finally) in this post)

mygirrl: Do you hear voices wiegraf? Do you receive messages from these voices?

What flavor of stoopid is this? Explain to me why these questions oh deluded one?

Mr_Anony: SMH

Heh heh

On a serious note you'll do whatever you can to not admit clearly that he was correct from the get go?

You practice your moves on vidya games like 'dance dance revolution', or maybe a wii?

Lemme go find someone more worthy of a beat down

Mr_Anony: Which voices?

Voices, all sorts. Of imaginary people.
Explain your word-salad. Do you become incomprehensible?
Delusions of grandeur, do you have any? Like do you assert that bill gates washes your car?
When did all this begin, young adulthood?

tidytim: hmm

What makes this thread even more awesome is the context. Our hero didn't want to be accused of hypocrisy so he bumped this thread, using a little known account: tidytim. Incidentally, I just happened to be one of those who knew.

Dohohohoho

Nerds would recognize a lot of naruto in frosbel. All passion, think later

Mr_Anony: What you failed to notice is when Kay uses the word he means "impossible to know" but I read the word to mean "complex".

So let us look at it substituting the word "incomprehensible":

Kay starts by defining God as:
What I read is: "Supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, all good, perfect and "complex".

So when Kay asks how can God have all these attributes and still be "impossible to know"?

I don't see it as logically incoherent because God having those properties does not contradict His complexity. Therefore I point out the nature of our knowledge of God. I even use the analogy of calculus and a baby to show clearly that I am pointing at a complex phenomenon and not an impossible one.

We argue along for a while and it appears that we agree that God cannot be "incomprehensible" but because I see incomprehensible as something very complex rather than impossible I restate in my own words exactly what I have agreed to so that someone doesn't play a fast one on me in the future by forcing a word into my mouth in a way I didn't use. If Kay 17 agreed to the meaning I have provided, it shouldn't be a big deal for him to simply agree but he doesn't.

in fact he continues by asking: (this read to me like so we don't know God at all until one day will know Him?)

to which I reply: (once again I am making it clear that we know God in part and one day He will grant us full knowledge)

It is either you didn't understand what was going on here or you are also merely looking for words and statements to twist. I have made my position very clear. We can either choose to represent each other's positions accurately or to dishonestly twist them and add baseless insults on top. I am not bothered either way. I will still state what I have said the way I have stated it and make my points clear as possible as I always have and then whenever you grow up you can join the discussion.

Quit your silly nonsense, talking about childish, hypocrite. Here you doing the best you can to not own up to your folly. I don't know what's going on here? Ha ha, oh wow.

Again, it was conspicuous to anyone with a functioning brain what was meant by 'incomprehensible', even you seem to have gotten it from the way you posted. He states it very clearly early on. So, what was wrong with admitting he was right? It would make xtian doctrine look silly? It would make you look silly? Dog is watching and he might send you to hell? What?

You were NOT in disagreement with his assertion despite all your story. So, unambiguously, he was right, yes?

God cannot be incomprehensible, are we clear on that?


And knowing part of god != knowing god. This looks like another silly play on words to me. There's the possibility knowing parts of a concept and yet the system as a whole would be incomprehensible. I'm no mathematician, but I think that's one of consequences of godel's incompleteness theorm, yes? I'll grant that I'll have to think on it and this could be wrong.

And if this is wrong, and it could be as knowing part of the system implies the part is built around logic, thus the whole which produced it should be built around logic as well (except in anonyland), it reinforces kay's assertion brilliantly; god cannot be incomprehensible.

Meh

Mr_Anony: Actually I know of an old illiterate woman in a church I attended when I was back in Enugu who only speaks Igbo and cannot speak a word of English but whenever she prays in tongues, she prophesies in English.

I have also heard the testimony of a muslim who came to Enugu for a conference and while the church was praying, a particular brother was praying in tongues and speaking in Hausa and this muslim (now ex-muslim) was listening to him and asking questions in his heart while the brother who was speaking in tongues was giving him direct answers to the thoughts in his heart. That is how the guy got saved from Islam and came to Christ. Mind you, the guy that was praying did not know how to speak Hausa at all.

I can tell you about the first day I spoke in tongues. I remember consciously trying not to speak but whenever I opened my mouth, the words came bubbling out. I remember going down on my knees and crying because I was a skeptic and it had only been about a few weeks since I came to the knowledge of Christ but the Holy Spirit chose to give me an experience that cleared all doubt for me.

Do you hear voices as well?

Logical mastah

Mr_Anony: 1.
a. Difficult or impossible to understand or comprehend; unintelligible: incomprehensible jargon.
b. Impossible to know or fathom: incomprehensible mysteries.
2. Archaic Having no limits; boundless.

- thefreedictionary.com

Yes, I know, we aren't fussing over definitions here, abi?

Kay 17: Incomprehensible means he is unKNowable.

not able to be understood

I don't think he could be more clearer about what his definition of incomprehensible is, yes? And note, this is the default meaning, the meaning you will find in ALL dictionaries, unlike the one you want to use. The 'in-' in 'incomprehensible' should give you a clue, yes? See for yourself

https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=incomprehensible+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Either ways...

Kay 17: Mr anony, my argument is very simple. God being incomprehensive means he is by his Nature impossible to understand. As a result can not come within human knowledge at any time. That's not the same with a subject that is not fully grasped. There is partial understanding at least.

Just as calculus is to the baby, God is to us. Simple.

So, god cannot be incomprehensible then. Or do you need someone to hold your hand and show you how?

*(He even states...

Kay 17: Ok, at least everyone including mr anony agrees God can't be incomprehensive.

...just a bit later, as anyone with a thinking brain would deduce, to which you reply

Mr_Anony: Just so we don't misrepresent what I have agreed to, I hold that God is not incomprehensible but He is beyond our human knowledge and on the last day, He will make Himself known to us.

...continuing that convo though)*

Mr_Anony: I am saying that we know God partially.

musKeeto: So KAY was right.. GOD cannot be INCOMPREHENSIBLE..

Mr_Anony: Is that what Kay said? Please quote

On the same page, no less.

And you continue to drop jewels like

Mr_Anony: Lol, What are you on about? Kay used the word "incomprehensible" to mean unknowable. I did not agree with him but made my point clear that that we know God in part but one day He will reveal all to us.

Besides, "incomprehensible" is not always used as impossible to understand. It is also used in speech to denote something complex or difficult to understand. Kay was using it strictly as "unknowable" and I didn't agree with him.

So when muskeeto was trying to make it seem like we were in agreement even when it was clear that we weren't, I asked him to quote. He hasn't.

I can sense you are getting a bit frustrated judging from your tone so if you like call me "i[color=#000000]di[/color]ot" and "mo[color=#000000]ro[/color]n" from now until tomorrow and if you like get really mad and strangle your keyboard.

So, my bumbling genius, when did kay say dog is incomprehensible?
And what was muskeeto doing? Insidiously implying you were lying by pointing out you were in agreement?

If you are a bumbling m.oron, I will tell you you are a bumbiling mo.ron. Especially if smug while whoring for dog, nothing wrong there.

Reyginus: Lol. You don't understand it, do you? Let me help you out. That a theory is untrue doesn't mean it won't work. It only shows that the principle behind the workings is independent of the theories we establish. You can compose a thesis giving reasons while the sun is white. So long your reasons are logically in accordance with the already established facts, you will be scored an A. The thesis might be wrong, but your explanations work.
The theory in most cases is meant to explain to us why it thinks a particular thing operates. Though it might be untrue, but once it sounds rational to us, we accept it to be.
Now that I've solved the puzzle for you, is it clear?

You don't understand what a scientific theory is, do you? What you describe here is a hypothesis. Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

wiki: A hypothesis (from Ancient Greek ὑπόθεσις, from Greek ὑποτιθέναι – hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose," plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still have to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.

Now that I've solved the puzzle for you, is it clear?

Mr_Anony: lolololol...........someone is getting really frustrated

ok

Reyginus: Mr man, their is a difference between 'complete' and 'truth'. That a thing is not complete does not make it untrue. A thing can be complete but not true. To posit that we have to wait for a true theory only tells that the present theories are false.
So, you are still not making sense.

The hell??

String theory, theories of everything are not TRUE, they are not incomplete, they are not even THEORIES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

They have zero empirical evidence, they have not supplied any testable predictions (that cannot be attributed to something else). If science went about calling string theory a proper theory you would be among the first people who would (rightly) come here shouting how is this science? ALL TOE ARE NOT 'TRUE' THEORIES, THEY ARE MERE HYPOTHESIS regardless of how they may seem, that is what I used the word 'true' to indicate

GR, EVOLUTION AND STANDARD MODEL ON THE OTHER HAND ARE PROPER, 'TRUE' OR GENUINE THEORIES. THESE ONES HOWEVER, ARE NOT FULLY COMPLETE UNTIL A TRUE TOE IS FOUND. They represent part of the bigger picture, which is what we are looking for.

Is that clear?

Mr_Anony: Lol, interesting, as I always say, personal insults and name calling never made your point any more or less valid. Similarly the fact that something is beyond your understanding doesn't make it silly. Feel free to strangle your keyboard if if it helps you let off steam my friend.

Wouldn't the logical thing to do be to shut up if you can't address the points, your great coherentness?

Beyond my understanding. That's some lovely brain washing you got there. Eediot

Reyginus: What effective theory?
You're trying to bend the blunder you made. Before anything, I would like you to admit the error you made. Or explain to me what you mean by: 'until a true theory shows up'.

Erm, what blunder?

Not until a 'a true theory of everything'? Is that what you were on about when you said FALSE?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

Quantum mechanics/the standard model is not a theory of everything. Neither is general relativity.

String theory is a theory of everything, incomplete and unproven. There are others, all incomplete, not yet falsifiable. So string theory for instance is not a 'true' theory, it's more a very grand hypothesis. When it is confirmed and proven 'true' then it will become a 'true theory of everything', in my speak.

And after all of that, you still don't know what effective theories are? Gr and quantum mechanics, nay, the standard model are 'true' theories, tested and confirmed...

I state you should wait for a true theory of everything before settling determinism because gr and quantum mechanics are not linked yet, so we don't have the full picture. There might still be a deterministic foundation which qm builds on (though I personally doubt that)

*smh*

Mr_Anony: Lol, What are you on about? Kay used the word "incomprehensible" to mean unknowable. I did not agree with him but made my point clear that that we know God in part but one day He will reveal all to us.

Besides, "incomprehensible" is not always used as impossible to understand. It is also used in speech to denote something complex or difficult to understand. Kay was using it strictly as "unknowable" and I didn't agree with him.

So when muskeeto was trying to make it seem like we were in agreement even when it was clear that we weren't, I asked him to quote. He hasn't.

Perhaps if you lot were willing to start arguing properly instead of looking for words to twist we might actually have a fun discussion.


I can sense you are getting a bit frustrated judging from your tone so if you like call me "i[color=#000000]di[/color]ot" and "mo[color=#000000]ro[/color]n" from now until tomorrow and if you like get really mad and strangle your keyboard.

Heh heh, no, you are a m.oron. I tone down a bit while discussing with you because of a soft spot, doesn't mean you aren't a m.oron, or that I'm frustrated. I usually post like this when addressing m.orons, especially the b.igoted ones. Check my history if you doubt that, so it's nothing special. In your case, your silly claims to being logical are why you interest me atm.

This post, like the others, continues the trend. You spout pure nonsense and top that up with being dishonest. So you are not in contention with kay, but you aren't in agreement? Wtf is wrong with you you mo.ron? Do you even understand the basics?

muskeeto2: When students get an 'F' in examinations, do you call the school wicked?
When motorists die while speeding, do you blame the Car companies?

God has given you rules to obey. It's your choice to obey or face the consequences for not obeying.
Satan is a mini god (Angel). He always had freewill but chose to use his to soil God's creation. God has to filter the 'chaff' from the 'wheat'..

will you be the chaff or the wheat?
The choice, like always, is yours...

Quoted for truth

Most people do not understand that god loves us, but because he wants us to have free will, he let's us do as we please. Of course he does that while hardening hearts, killing first sons, sending plagues and tsunamis's to kill teh gheys, and anyone else who isn't in your religion, and letting little children starve for weeks, till they're so hungry they can't swap flies on their eyes, and of course die.

It's for a greater purpose. His ways are not our ways, who are we to question when we are his flock?

Mr_Anony: Lol, Interesting exercise at semantics there.

We were not arguing over words and meanings. We were arguing over whether God can be known or whether He is completely unknowable. I believe my stance is quite clear on that however it has been interesting watching y'all try to force words into my mouth.

You're not arguing semantics? Don't be an eediot. Your position is clear and well thought out then? So why this m.oronic question?

Mr_Anony: Is that what Kay said? Please quote

Reyginus: Lololol. Extremely offended? SMH.
I like how you put it: ...NOT UNTIL A TRUE THEORY OF EVERYTHING SHOWS UP.
I will take that to mean that every theory, the big bang inclusive, on ground now is FALSE.
Confusion!!!

You're blatantly ignoring effective theories. Is it beyond your comprehension? Also note, unlike religion, science is very content with saying it does not know. However, every time science and religion have clashed, religion has received some good bu.tt ra.pe. So, the bold is probably wrong, or since it's a matter of degree on the grand scale of things, at the very least science is a hell of a lot more accurate than religion. Then again you're careful enough to say "I will take that", implying you realize that it's just your subjective opinion, even if just subconsciously. Nice save...

Mr_Anony: Lololol, I laugh in Swahili............of course brainwashing/anonyism = anything y'all don't agree with. Why not?

Don't group us together, unlike you we're not sheeple. In this particular case though, anyone with free will capable of simple reason would consider you wrong. And as always, dishonest.

Well, opinion has little to do with it, fact is you're conspicuously wrong, in any language including swahili. Except maybe in anony. You make this $hit up as you go, shoot yourself in the foot, then backtrack fairly comically. Observe this buffoonry for instance

Mr_Anony: Interesting, would you mind defining God as you know Him to be and what exactly makes God a logically incoherent concept

Kay 17: Supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, incomprehensible, all good, perfect.

Mr_Anony: Now which of the above makes Him logically incoherent?

Kay 17: All the attributes taken together make him incoherent. For example, for an incomprehensible being has all those attributes?!

You know this translates to god cannot be comprehensible, yes?

Mr_Anony: Incomprehensible simply means He cannot be completely known because our human senses are ill-equipped to comprehend Him fully. There is nothing logically incoherent with that.

That's not what incomprehensible means.
You already agree with kay, so you set about redefining the word, blindly, and in a very honest way. (Spot the sarcasm)

Kay 17: Incomprehensible means he is unKNowable.

not able to be understood

This is correct

Mr_Anony: To be more precise, it means that He is so great that we as humans can't fully grasp Him with our limited knowledge.

Incomprehensible? In what language? In anony?

......

So then after the mix up is cleared, you've redefined the term to mean something that the opposite of the word (we'll get to that), we proceed to

Mr_Anony: My friend, remember that "incomprehensible" was not a word I used but one you chose.

My friend, you didn't give any word that describes what you are talking about. You yourself had no problem using the word incomprehensible, then of course duly set about redefining it. So, considering he was not wrong unlike you, why make it sound like he was in the wrong?

Mr_Anony: I pointed out that a more accurate description of knowing God is that we have partial knowledge of Him as human beings. I have also shown you from the bible that God will make everything clear to us in the end.

This description amounts to comprehensible, just difficult to understand. Comprehensible is the very opposite of incomprehensible, you know that, yes?

And I doubt most xtians agree with your definition as it relates to your god, but we can ignore that, for now....

Mr_Anony: So I really don't see your contention here.

So, you agree god is not incomprehensible, perfect. You guys aren't in contention, yes? In essence all the above, as kay was stating his points, you agreed with him yet never explicitly said so?


And then this:

musKeeto: So KAY was right.. GOD cannot be INCOMPREHENSIBLE..

Mr_Anony: Is that what Kay said? Please quote

What the 4k are you not in contention over then?
I mean WTF
4k
Do you even understand what your position is?

Kay is misrepresenting you, do you know the meaning of the word? You continued to use the word yourself..

This is nice. Others experiencing the kind brain washing and anonysm I've been dealing with

Total nonsense

Mr_Anony: I don't see the difference


Not really, it is more like how a 1-year-old baby can't solve calculus. It doesn't mean that the baby knows nothing, it's just that the baby's knowledge is not enough.
The time will come when all will be revealed and we will know as we are known.

"......But when perfection comes, the things that are not complete will end.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, and I made plans like a child. When I became a man, I stopped those childish ways.
It is the same with us. Now we see God as if we are looking at a reflection in a mirror. But then, in the future, we will see him right before our eyes. Now I know only a part, but at that time I will know fully, as God has known me." 1Corinthians 13:10-12

Bravo! Take a bow sir!!!