₦airaland Forum

orisa37:
Holy Books are your Conversations with God.

How exactly is a book the same as a conversation?

How can a collection of written text about other people's experiences with a God equate to having a one on one conversation with said God?

MaxInDHouse:
OP wasn't talking about Jehovah, Awake or Watchtower so defend your beliefs if you have one instead of calling out those having faith!

As the OP, I can confirm that I was talking about all gods, which also includes Jehovah. So now, you can go ahead and tell us why you need the bible or any other book to have a relationship with your God

elated177:
I did not imply anything.

Seek him first. Hear, listen and obey and he will show you whatever he wants you to know about yourself and why he sent you into the world. How do you hear, listen, and obey him? This time, study his Scriptures for yourself. Abstain from sin. Abstain from all forms of sexual immorality. Pray to him for the Spirit of understanding. Do not depend on any individual in this regard.

But, then, you people have an ulterior motive for all these threads that you're opening here and there.

How am I supposed to seek this God? Why do I need to read the Bible, and not the Quran or Vedas to find him? Why do I need any book at all to find him? Why is he hidden in the first place?

If he's omnipresent and omnipotent, and indeed wants to know me, then why can't he show himself like he allegedly did in the times of old?

You don't care about his Scriptures? You are not ready. Can one build a castle in the air? Is it possible to erect any building without foundation?
Without the Scriptures of YHVH Almighty, you cannot seek him. Every that one needs to know about him is written in his Scriptures.

No one can separate YHVH Almighty from his Word.

Hebrews 1: 3 The Son is the radiance of YHVH's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
You are welcome.

You are right about one thing. I don't care about the biblical scriptures, just the same way I don't care about the Islamic scriptures, or the hindu or Egyptian ones.

It's not because I'm trying to be nonchalant or anything. It's because I don't consider any sort of third parties, as a basis for forming a relationship with anyone.

If I met someone for the first time, I would probably know nothing about them, and they would probably know nothing about me too. And that's fine. As we begin to stay in contact, and hang out, I would begin to know them more, and vice versa. That is how relationships work.

If you read a book about me, or vice versa, that would not be a relationship. That would just be information about me from a book. Information that could very well be wrong. And even if the info is correct, that still doesn't equate to a relationship.

You've been talking about scriptures and prophets and whatnot. The best those provide is information. Not a relationship.

And I will ask you again for the third time.

Without these any knowledge of these books, and these prophets and messengers, would your relationship with this God be the same?
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses didn't have these things. Their knowledge of this God came from personal experience. Why does my case have to be different?

elated177:
You slyly ignored everything I wrote there and still repeated all those things. Sorry o! Ndo o!

I answered everything you brought up point by point. If you feel there's something I missed, feel free to specifically point it out, and I'll be happy to address it.

Bia, wilgrea7, do you think you could put words into my mouth? I didn't say Abraham, Isaac and Jacob didn't need the Scriptures. I said they didn't have the Scriptures like we do today and still they experienced they greatness and awesomeness of YHVH.

Abraham heard the voice of YHVH Almighty and he obeyed him. Abraham heard, listened and obeyed. So did Isaac and Jacob. Isaac and Jacob also had to work with what Abraham, Isaac's Father and Jacob's grandfather, had to teach them about YHVH Almighty, their God. They listened and obeyed.

You seem to be the one trying to beat around the bush here. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses didn't have the scriptures. Granted.

And yet, they still had an experience of this "God". Meaning the scriptures were not a necessary element for having a relationship with God back then.

(That's what the word “need" implies. It's weird I have to explain it at this point)

So why is it no longer the case today? Why do i suddenly need a book to have a relationship with a God, when the very people in the book never had such scripture, and yet still had said better "relationships"?

Today, the Father has spoken us:

Hebrews 1: In the past YHVH spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

So, everything that a seeker of YHVH Almighty needs to know is written in his Word and it capped with:

Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, YHVH will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, YHVH will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Quoting any scripture is irrelevant in this situation. I don't need a book to tell me what kind of experience I'm expected to have. Abraham didn't rely on a book to tell him what experience he would have. So why should I?

And on that ground, I will say again. If you need a messenger, prophet, servant, book or any third party medium to communicate with this God, or any God at all, then that is NOT direct communication, and that relationship is NOT personal.

If a God cannot talk to me directly in a way that concerns me, independent of any sort of generic book or third party, then that connection is certainly not direct, and certainly not personal.

What we, his saints, priests, servants, followers and messengers, pray for is his understanding and the strength to obey, which he pours on us abundantly.

Without the Scriptures of YHVH Almighty, anyone that seeks him would be lost.

Why does your God appear to be hiding himself? What was Moses doing when he revealed himself to him via the burning bush? What scripture was he reading? What scripture did Abraham read? Why do i need a book to tell me about this God? Why can't he reveal himself to me independent of a book?

What kind of a personal relationship depends on a collection of stories about other people's relationship?

I noticed this got a bit too long, so I'll break it into 2 parts

In addition to that, I also wanted to talk about people who use their "experiences" as proof for their relationship with God. This applies both to natural everyday experiences, as well as the ones people deem "supernatural"

For example, if you're really in need, and a good person comes in from nowhere and helps you, you'll claim God sent the person. If you get a job after months of trying, or get a promotion, or acquire some big win in life, you'll most likely attribute it to a God.

It doesn't just stop at the natural things. Even people with "supernatural"experiences make the same claim. A person could "die" and just when they're about to cross into the light, they see a bright light and hear a voice telling them it's not yet your time, and then they wake back up.

But which God exactly do these experiences prove? If you had these experiences, which God would you attribute these things to, in order to form a basis for a relationship?

Why would you attribute a good thing, or a supernatural miracle to the christian God instead of the muslim, or hindu, or egyptian one?

Without any religious books to make reference to, how would you interpret these experiences?

Hello again everyone.

So I've been having a discussion about personal relationships with God recently, and I decided to open a new thread about this to get more opinions on the issue.

The idea of having a "personal relationship with God" is something that exists abundantly not only in Christianity, but in a couple of other religions as well. And a lot of people claim to have such relationship with a God of some sort.

So my question is really simple. If you indeed have a personal relationship with a God, then why do you need religious books? Why do you need the bible, Quran, Vedas, or any other religious book to know what God says, or what God wants?

In the personal relationships we have in our everyday lives, we talk to, and interact with these people personally. We know things about them, not because we read them somewhere, but because we've shared similar experiences with these people to know these things.

When we hear from our loved ones, or the people in our lives, we don't rely on third parties, or old novels they wrote to someone else. We converse with them directly.

Without any independent direct conversation, free from influence by religious scripture, how can you call your relationship with any God "personal"?

elated177:
You didn't have a relationship with him. Mention some of the "generalized vague experiences"?

We all know the generalized vague experiences. Things we attribute to a God. Getting a job we applied for. Winning a grant or award. Surviving a dangerous situation. Getting important help when in need.

Generally, when good things happen, we tend to attribute them to a God answering our prayers or something of the sort.

Although I'm not against the mindset, the same thing literally happens across every other religion. It proves no specific God.

Even the experiences we would deem "supernatural".
Let's say i woke up today, and found a glowing floating cloud in the middle of my room, or I survive getting shot or stabbed miraculously, with no injuries.

What God in particular would this prove? Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, Horus? Which one? Without turning to any dusty old religious book, how would I know which God was involved?

The Creator of heaven and earth still interacts with his saints, servants, followers and messengers to this day.

The Christians can speak for themselves.

Please define interact... On a personal level.

Thousands of Christians literally flock in churches each Sunday, waiting for a prophet to tell them something about their lives. Prophecy is a big thing in Christianity.

Have you ever watched a crusade or convention? The man of “God" stands there and says “God told me to tell you.." and the crowd goes wild. It's not just in Africa. Even in other Christian countries, we see things like this.

In a truly personal relationship, i wouldn't need third parties to convey the message from this God. And i most certainly wouldn't need books either. I would just talk to the God directly.

And i ask you again, without any knowledge of the bible, how would your relationship with this “God" be?

You didn't seek a relationship with him.

The things written in the Scriptures of YHVH Almighty, the one and only true God, the Creator of the heavens, the earth, the seas and everything in them, are true and real.

I didn't ask if they were true or real. Even if they were (which I doubt), it wouldn't change anything.

Relationships are not built on stories about other people.

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob didn't have the Scriptures that we have today. Didn't they experience his greatness?

Exactly. If they didn't need the scriptures to have a relationship with this God, then neither do you, or I.

And I'll say it again. I see no burning bushes. I don't wrestle with angels at night. I don't hear voices telling me “I am the Lord". I don't experience any of that.

I cannot use someone else's story as the basis of my relationship.

My God didn't tell me to seek him in vain. The proofs of his existence abound. Whether you call his Scripture a book or not doesn't change the importance. The Scriptures of YHVH Almighty contain his Word and his Word is life. His Scriptures are powerful. Even Satan and the demons know this.

Congratulations, but this is pretty irrelevant to what I was talking about.

No one has to be. Those great servants had their own experiences according to the will of YHVH Almighty, their God and Father, my God and Father. Today, each saint, priest, servant, follower or messenger of YHVH Almighty, of Yahushua the Messiah, will have his own experience according to the will of the Father.

Are you implying it is his will I don't have any independent experiences that could build a relationship with him? In that case, how is it my fault?

You never sought any relationship with the Owner of the Scripture that you were quoting back then.

I do not care about scripture, because relationships aren't built on letters written about other people's experiences.

So, the verification won't even be enough sef! No be today the wind expose una wicked agenda. Lol! Mtcheeeeew! You see what I have been saying? You guys aren't looking for proof or evidence. You are looking for whose life and faith you will destroy and, by doing so, add more ranks and boost your ego. Agents of Satan and the demons.

Thank you.

Dtruthspeaker:
Deviation from post!

Now you are trying to change the argument from Rule "Authority over land" to "control" whatever it means which is not the issue.

So, the point you prove is that you can not find any land/house which is ruled by 2 landlords. That's All.

What are you even saying at this point?

Do you just shout “deviation from post" when you have no logical counterargument?

Do you control what you have no authority over? Doesn't authority imply control?

You're not even making any sense right now. And now you're running back to your already debunked landlord argument.

We were talking about councils.... and now you're shifting it to landlords. And you accuse me of deviation.

HisSplendor:
You bursted no bubble because there's none to burst.

The topic of the thread is taken word for word from Science Daily. All other sources referenced above were also captioned in similar terms.

You can keep deceiving yourself. Since the topic isn't my creation, you'll do well to go and argue with the researchers.

1. You're lying. The topic of the thread was taken from Fox news, a well known right-wing conservative news station

The only 2 scientific sources there are science daily and Harvard. And none imply that the findings "echo" the biblical creation story.

I've attached screenshots below for reference.


2. Both scientific sources clearly make reference to probability, and also clearly state that the findings do NOT prove any creation myth.

Once again. You're lying. I'm beginning to doubt how much of the article you really read.

HisSplendor:
A new study suggests clay may have been the birthplace of life on Earth.

Cornell University researchers found that clay may have served as the first breeding ground for the complex biochemicals that make life possible, a finding that may reverberate with anyone familiar with the Biblical creation story.

“We propose that in early geological history, clay hydrogel provided a confinement function for biomolecules and biochemical reactions,” said Dan Luo, professor of biological and environmental engineering and a member of the Kavli Institute at Cornell for Nanoscale Science, according to Science Daily
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131105132027.htm).

The clay absorbs liquids like a sponge and acts as the perfect place for chemicals to react with one another to form proteins, DNA and eventually living cells.

According to the Old Testament, God made the first man Adam from earth or clay. Adam comes from the Hebrew word adamah, which means earth. The Quaran, Greek mythology and other creation stories also say God molded man from clay.

Scientists found that the clay hydrogel could have protected the chemical processes until the membrane that surrounds living cells fully developed.

The study cites further evidence, noting that geological history shows the first appearance of clay to be at the same time biomolecules began to form into cell-like structures.

How the biological machines evolved remains to be explained, Luo said. Luo and his fellow researchers are still trying to figure out why clay hydrogel is such a successful material in cell-free protein production.

Source:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/science/study-suggests-life-began-with-clay-echoing-bible-creation-story.amp

Another study from Harvard University also confirms this:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2003/11/did-life-originally-spring-from-clay/

Additional Reports from New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/1985/04/03/us/new-finding-backs-idea-that-life-started-in-clay-rather-than-sea.html

Now.. on to the claims made here.

I actually read through these journals, and I'm sorry to say, that they don't prove your biblical narrative. In fact, they do your belief more harm than good.

Let me try to break it down for you.

1. The reports don't just support evolution. They imply it.

Reading through this thread, I've observed your anti-evolution stance. Unfortunately for you, the research papers don't help you.

The research paper from "science daily", talks about the origin of life, from non-life. It implies that clay hydrogel, due to it's nature, could act as a possible medium to allow the first cells to form, away from the harsh environment that would have prevented such formation.

The first simple cells would still very much need to evolve into more complex cells, and eventually complex organisms.

The process of evolution is still very much intact here. And as much as you'd hate to hear it, even with this story, humans will still end up evolving from ape-like ancestors.


2. The reports so far are still speculative.

The origin of life is still widely unknown. If you read through the papers, you would know that the writers are referring to probability, and not certainty.

There are many probable ways life could have emerged. The clay hydrogel thing just happens to be one of them. We're still yet to prove any with certainty.

I'll say again. Probability does NOT equal certainty.


3. The research directly contradicts the biblical narrative.

The idea that "clay" is used in both narratives doesn't mean that one proves the other. If you read the article and read your bible again, you'll see the blatantly clear contradiction.

The bible says man was made from dust, or clay. The article said clay acted as a safe place for the potential life-creating chemicals to react.

Nowhere in the reports does it say that the first cells were formed directly from the clay. Those are 2 very, very different claims.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the reports so far are nowhere near confirming anything in the biblical narrative.

If sometime in the future, some scientific data does so, I'd be more than happy to engage with it. But until then, let's call a spade a spade.

HisSplendor:
r

Several things here.

First of all, you need to understand that no one is against your God. If we find credible evidence for biblical claims, we are more than happy to accept it.

The idea that evolution somehow opposes or tried to oppose “God" is a laughable one. Evolutionary scientists simply report data as they find them.

If it contradicts your belief, then that's between you and your belief. Stop looking for enemies where there are none. No one is against you, or your God.

Secondly, there seems to be this incredibly childish attitude I've noticed among some theists.

And that is, when you find the slightest, and i mean the slightest piece of scientific data that suggests an idea vaguely similar to something in your bible, you jump on it as absolute proof for every single claim made by your book.

That's not how proof works, and that's not how science works.

Every individual claim made by any religious book must stand and fall on its own merit. For example, proving the jews were once in egypt won't automatically prove the plagues happened.. or that the sun stood for 3 days.

Every claim stands and falls on its own merit. In the next post, I'll address the claims you've made about clay

KnownUnknown:
When you say you lack belief in God. What do you mean? I’m not talking about your unbelief in other people’s gods but what you mean by god.

What is God and why does it require belief?

Like I said earlier, when i say i don't believe in God, it's usually a response to someone, usually a theist. And what i mean by that is I don't believe in their concept of God

The word God is a title, and could mean different things for different people. To me, it's simply a loose title used by people with different ideologies to describe the reason for the universe.

As to why “God" requires belief, i think the people who believe in such a thing would be able to answer. Because I don't think any concept should necessarily require belief.

If a concept is proven, then it is a fact. Belief is unnecessary in the presence of evidence. If the concept is not proven, belief is also unnecessary.

Why tell anyone you don’t “believe in” their concept of god. If it’s just a concept, why treat it differently from other fictional things.

I wouldn’t say I don’t believe in someone’s god because it doesn’t make sense. If a child tells you about his imaginary friend you don’t consider the character to be a subject of belief or non belief. You just consider it rightly to be nonsense. Why is it different when it’s an adult and the adult calls the imaginary being “God”?

Good point. But the thing is, the declaration of non-belief in said God only happens when I'm asked about it.

For example, if a child comes up to me and tells me about Santa, other than the context of the conversation, I wouldn't consider santa to be a thing.

It's only when asked questions relating to santa, or another imaginary friend of theirs, that I would then say "sorry I don't believe in Santa"

If it’s a god they got from their religion, then it’s just a mythological character. I mean do you have belief or non belief in Jupiter Pluvius or do you consider it to be fiction?

Of course. I lack beliefs in these other gods. But i alao don't engage in discussionsns regarding these other gods, mainly because I don't live in a society where everyone talks about them.

Ignoring the threat of death, if i lived in Saudi Arabia, or ancient Egypt, and i were asked about the respective gods, my response would typically be the same.

elated177:
What kind of relationship did you have with the God whose Scriptures you were quoting in the past?

A relationship based on preconceived notions, generalized vague experiences and a few written hearsay stories where this said God interacted with others, thousands of years ago.

And I'd say that's the case with most, if not all Christians today.

The relationship i have with my parents, siblings and friends is not based on one where I read a letter they wrote to someone else thousands of years ago and pretend like it applies to me.

I talk to my loved ones. They talk to me as well. Not in a vague way, through hidden messages or outdated texts from thousands of years ago. But through direct, and very personal conversation.

I know their favorite color, the things they like and dislike, not because I've read it in some book. But because I've spent actual time with them, and shared mutual experiences with them to know these things about them.

In the case of a God, the story is quite the opposite.

Without any knowledge of the book you call the bible, your "relationship with God" would be a lot different. Probably non-existent even.

If you need to make reference to a book, written by people thousands of years ago about their alleged experiences with a God, then you do not have a relationship with that God.

I'm not Moses, or Joseph, or Abraham. I don't see any talking burning bushes. I don't wrestle with angels. I don't see any seas get split in 2, or suns standing still for 3 days, or frogs dropping from the sky.

I don't have these experiences. And i have no obligation to base my relationship with any deity on hearsay stories which cannot be verified.

And even if these stories were verified.. I'd just be reading about someone else's relationship with said God.

elated177:
You weren't always of these views? What made you do a 360° anticlockwise?

Several things actually. But I'd say engaging with different concepts of what "God" means was a crucial one.

I think this charade has gone on for far too long.

This is directed at Dtruthspeaker, MaxinDhouse, Aemmyjah, and any other person who has a disagreement with common logic.

When you jump into threads shouting "Atheists are apes" or "atheists say we evolved from apes" as a means to slander the group, you're only making yourself look really ignorant. No offense.

Several people here, including Workch, triplechoice, Lordreed and a couple others have tried to explain to you what the word means in this context, but you insist on still pushing the same false narrative.

It would be like saying you're not "homo sapiens" because the word has "homo" in it, and you're not gay, so therefore you're not homosapiens. That's primary school logic, and it baffles me to encounter such reasoning process here on nairaland.

You're not even arguing from evidence, or logic at this point. You're arguing from pride, and ego. You cannot bring yourself to accept that you share a common ancestor with creatures you deem beneath you. But real eyeity as Dtruthspeaker would say, does not care about your emotions, pride, or ego.

Let's assume for a second here, that the evidence says we evolved directly from rats. (this is an assumption to prove a point). So let's assume so. What difference would it make?

You can't argue with credible evidence no matter how much you disagree with it. If Hitler's son grew up and realized his father was a monster, no amount of hatred he had would change the fact that he was indeed, the biological descendant of the man.

As humans, we once thought we were somehow the center of the universe, and that everything revolved around us. We later found out how wrong we were.

Being the center of attention, especially from that of a "God" can be a nice thing to imagine. Doesn't make it true.

When you begin to hold on to stories about a God or creator that contradicts reality, then you're the one creating gods in your image. Not the other way around.

This is getting too long. So I'll end it here. And considering the kind of persons you are, I'm not expecting any sort of intelligent response either. But I'm fine with that also.

Adios mi amigos.

KnownUnknown:
When it comes to having or lacking a belief in God, I understand the theists perspective when they criticize atheists.
You say you lack a belief in God but this implies that there is an extant entity called God and you just happen to lack belief in it.
The Christian you replied has a belief in God and their perspective is that their God is real and they acknowledge this “fact” by belief or faith. That’s why they say things like “atheists reject god”’or “atheists deny god” and it does seem to be true. To the Christian, it seems you are denying the existence of El or YHVH or whatever idea(s) in the Bible they consider to be their deity.

It’s either that or atheists themselves make up a deity and then claim they don’t believe in it.

When you say you lack belief in God. What do you mean?
What is God and why does it require belief?

I understand. Perhaps the confusion comes from how I word my responses.

Having engaged with different concepts of "God", I'm not seen any evidence that would make me lean towards any particular position as opposed to another.

For example, I don't believe in the concept of a single creator God, like in Christianity and Islam, any more than I believe in a polytheistic pantheon, or a pantheistic God, or any other concept of God.

When the Christian asks me "Do you believe in God?", I automatically know they're referring to the concept of a single creator deity, like Yahweh, or Allah, for which I have no special inclination towards.

Perhaps saying "I don't believe in your God", or "your concept of God" would be a more accurate way to word my answer. Because the word "God" tends to mean different things for different people.

My lack of belief doesn't come from knowing only one concept of God and rejecting it. It comes from knowing several concepts of God, and not believing in one above the rest, simply because I've not encountered any evidence that proves one above the others.

Aemmyjah:
Confused agnostic
We have not seen the Creator God
But from the things made, we can conclude that he exists

Why he? Why not she? Why not "It" (genderless). Why not they (plural)?

For example, at a time, people never knew about what causes diseases but the use of lens and microscope helped them to see that microorganisms are the causes of some diseases
There are also tools or instruments that helped us know we have clusters, galaxies, atoms, we are still discovering things

Humans want to see God in order to believe he exists. Let them go and invent such instruments na.

They are awed by his creative works but instead of acknowledging God, they acknowledge 'mother nature's.
Let them first come to convince that there is no Creator God.
They themselves know it is foolish to believe that something does not exist simply because we can't see it, hear it or measure it. God is not wind, air, temperature or gravity or time or space.
They can't measure the beginning of time or space. The concept is too wonderful to contemplate. How much more the Creator?

No one ever said we want to "see" your God in order to believe he exists. Just as we don't ask to see air or UV rays to know they exist. Creation, in and of itself, tells us very little about the creator/creators.

Saying there is a cause is one thing. Saying the cause has X, or Y attributes is another topic entirely. For you to say that a cause has certain attributes, you need to show some sort of evidence. So far, you've shown none.

I'll say again. Creation can attest to a cause. But nothing so far, points to the alleged attributes you've assigned to said cause.

Is life and the universe the work of a Creator or they came by Chance?

Once again, very, very few people claim the universe arose by chance. You're pulling at straws here.

Dtruthspeaker:
And the real eyeity shows rulership is singular. Even in the councils we see "A single person still presides (rules) over the council.

The real eyeity shows 2 kings can never rule a land. That is what it is.

You seem to be making a false equivocation here. Being the ruler or "president" of a council doesn't imply complete control over the council like that of a king would imply.

A king has sole authority over every aspect of his kingdom. Whatever he says, stands. He can fire, hire, and change anyone. He calls the final shots on what goes on in every aspect of the kingdom.

I'll give a simple example. The EU parliament. Even though the parliament has a president, this president cannot decide by themselves, what goes on in each of the individual member states. Neither can they single-handedly make decisions without the agreement of all individual member states.

Another example is the house of congress (US), or similarly the senate here in Nigeria. By virtue of the system in place, not even the president of the country can fire the individuals in these councils. And also, the president of these councils cannot make independent decisions, without the approval of other council members.

I gave you two examples to (hopefully and clearly) illustrate my point. That rulership is NOT always singular. There are different systems of power distribution that exist in our world today. It is not always a king-kingdom situation.

Apologies for not seeing this earlier

Dtruthspeaker:
Always changing the argument.

Create is not Rule.

And God is about Rule. A King is about Rule.

I've told you before that rulership is not always singular. Even today, we have situations that are presided over by councils, rather than a single person.

Rulership can of course be singular. But it doesn't always have to be.

Aemmyjah:
Lol
Why not throw more light in the issue of the universe and intelligence since you know better

Are you no longer an atheist? They say atheist question things
I asked a simple question earlier

The universe cannot be God
If the universe is God, how could it create consciousness and intelligence?!

I'm not your personal encyclopedia. If you want to know something, the internet is there for you to make use of.

I see no reason why you'd want to put that duty on me. But for the sake of this discussion. I'll oblige.

The pantheistic view, as far as I know, states that the universe is God. That includes humans, since we are also part of the universe. If humans are seen as "intelligent" or "conscious", then those words cannot be excluded when describing the qualities of said universe.

Also, the idea that the universe is not "intelligent" comes from a somewhat human-based understanding of what it means to be such a thing.

As an example, you right now, consider yourself an intelligent and conscious being. You're made up of billions of cells. While none of these cells can be considered "intelligent" in the way you'd refer to yourself, they still come together to make up an intelligent being.

Similarly, it is believed that humans, as well as every other thing in existence, together, make up a sort of "grand intelligence" or "grand consciousness" which is the universe.

Again. I'm just explaining the position to you from the best of my knowledge. This is NOT a representation of my beliefs

You're not an atheist
You're not a Theist either
You're not a pantheist

Which one are you? All weather?

I'm not a fan of labels. As far as a belief in God goes, I lack one. By that definition, I'm considered an atheist.

Once again, I feel like I should point out that lacking a belief in something and saying something doesn't exist are 2 completely different things. Because I've noticed you tend to mix them up on several occasions.

Aemmyjah:
Your questions are out of context with the main issue
You're going downtown
Focus in the issue

I was talking about morality

ok

Morality is imprinted in man
Do animals have morals?
Where does morals come from?

I won't exactly go as far as to say that morality is "imprinted" in man.

There seems to be an inseparable link between morality, and consciousness. The more conscious a being seems to be, the more defined their moral capacities are.

You asked about animals having morals. I'll say to a degree, yes. But it also depends on the level of consciousness i talked about, as well as other factors. But some animals have been seen to act "morally"

Here's a research paper that illustrates my point.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6404642/

We condemn stealing, murder, greed and the rest. These morals are in comparison to whom? To the Creator or man just adopted it

I've said it before. Our sense of morality today is highly dependent on our understanding of wellbeing, and not a God. It's the reason why you support a god that promotes love, rather than one who promotes violence and destruction.

And if you look back through history, you'll see that our sense of morality has in a way "evolved", just as our understanding of human well-being has similarly grown.

Aemmyjah:
You and the pantheist are pitiable

If the universe is God, where does intelligence comes from?
Would you say the universe gave us something it does not have?
Shame
You claim to be atheist but you claim to don't dispute the existence of God and you are listening to a pantheist

I do not believe the universe is God. And I don't understand what you mean by “listening to a pantheist"

I listen to anyone who claims to have an opinion on the existence of a God of any sort, and critique them accordingly.

Secondly, saying the universe has no “intelligence" as a way to shoot down the pantheistic view, only shows how little you understand about it.

I'm not supporting pantheism. But if you want to critique something, at least try to learn about it so you don't end up looking stupid.

Aemmyjah:
Lol, you're not making sense
Remember that the question was about morals and God's existence
So you should consider how these morals affect us in general and not your silly assumptions of 'ifs'
That's what atheists do, they'll encounter us and began to ask 'what ifs'
Before you ask your questions, consider how the community feels and how the conscience accept them
We're not animals
We're humans

Even those who claim to be religious show hatred, racism, bigotry and egotism
Many have killed and killing in the name of God.
Since you don't want to be decisive, I'll make you keep driving in a roundabout

How the morals affect us says nothing about a God. Let's assume a God exists. Why does this God's definition of right and wrong have to be something that benefits us?

What stops a God from deeming murder right, and kindness wrong? You've been dodging this question.

You're trying to make a case for morality according to human wellbeing. But a God does not need to support human wellbeing for it to be a God.

I'll say it again. Introducing a God into the equation doesn't solve anything

Aemmyjah:
If there is no God, why do we have morals in the first place?
For example, we condemn murder. Why is it condemned.? Why condemn injustices but appreciate love. Before you answer these questions, those things we condemn are in comparison to what

You're raising up an issue that has been addressed multiple times in this thread, especially in the beginning.

You're trying to imply that our morals, come from a God.

This argument falls flat on its face for several reasons mentioned in the OP. I suggest you read through the initial posts to understand why your argument is flawed.

The existence of a God doesn't solve the questions you raised above.

What if a God said murder was right? Would you go around doing it? What if a God said it was okay to hate people with a different religion or skin color. Would you go around doing these?

Bringing a God into this hardly solves anything

MytyD:
Hey atheist all of una are useless

Why don't u challenge a Christian like me to give u proofs of God's existences

Ok Mr Christian. I challenge you to give me proof for your God's existence

AuthenticKing:
In the thread by Wilgrea7, "The Existence of God does not solve the moral dilemma", I've been unable to reply to an ongoing conversation between Endtimer and I and subsequently reply to Maxin D House's comment in the thread. I keep getting banned by an antispam bot.

I don't think I did anything to warrant the ban, I haven't broken any rules. I've sent a mail to the Super mods and none has responded. What's going on?

There wasn't any notification from the mods, I just keep getting banned for 24 hours while trying to comment for the past 3 days now. What's the problem?

I hope I don't get banned after posting this too.

Seun, Lalasticala.

Random Jesus statement

AuthenticKing:
In the thread by Wilgrea7, "The Existence of God does not solve the moral dilemma", I've been unable to reply to an ongoing conversation between Endtimer and I and subsequently reply to Maxin D House's comment in the thread. I keep getting banned by an antispam bot.

I don't think I did anything to warrant the ban, I haven't broken any rules. I've sent a mail to the Super mods and none has responded. What's going on?

There wasn't any notification from the mods, I just keep getting banned for 24 hours while trying to comment for the past 3 days now. What's the problem?

I hope I don't get banned after posting this too.

Seun, Lalasticala.

I'm sorry about the problem you're experiencing. I knew something was weird when I saw your name as the last commenter, but couldn't find your posts.

I experienced something similar in a thread about blo0d transfusions. I'm not entirely sure what could be causing the issue, but what I did was to write my response in a notepad, screenshot it, and post the screenshot instead.

If i had to take a guess, I'd say numbers, and probably some special characters, and possibly some type of links could be causing the issue.

Hope you're able to get it resolved soon

Dtruthspeaker:
Told you many times, Two kings can not rule one land.

And I've given you examples of how multiple people can come together as a team to create something

SocialJustice:
Again, I said only a stupid person sees the intricacies of creation and says there's no God or source of creation. In case you missed it the first time.

If you can look at the creation and not see God, I can't help you.

Which God exactly?
Why one? Why not 2, or 10?

Aemmyjah:
Answer my question first
Does that idea disprove the existence of a creator?

No. Absolutely not.

And i never, ever for once, claimed that it did. So I really don't see your point here.

Aemmyjah:
Lol, he's dodging
Remember how we first met
You flexed your muscles
Now, what has happened to those muscles

Dodging what exactly? You're the one who has failed to answer my question from the very beginning. All you did was to insult my reasoning process without answering anything.

You, MaxinDhouse and Dtruthspeaker all failed to answer just 1 simple question. What stops a creator from having another creator?

You went off on a tangent talking about animalistic wisdom and whatnot. You're trying to establish a certainty from a probability, which proves my point even further. The other 2 devolved into throwing insults.

It's quite disappointing to be honest. But then again, I blame myself for expecting something better.

MaxInDHouse:
Are you OK?

Make i dey challenge ape pikin àbí wetin you just yan?

Ọmọ i only challenge humans who are inventors and who BELIEVE (TRUST) in the concept of a Grand Inventor not some people who BELIEVES they're from the family of APES.

Why challenge a descendant of ape nah?

Abeg mek sombodi com rescue me o!
Me (Max) challenge ape!

m