₦airaland Forum

plaetton:
You know, it's the Toothfairy that inspired you to advertise your educational qualifications today.

Ive never spoken of my qualifications to anyone here, even when ordinary google scientists try to employ science and think they know anything, even when atheists accuse christians of not reading from stup1d blogs on google
I only felt the need to show you why im passionate on dolts spreading ignorance.

plaetton:
You know, it's the Toothfairy that inspired you to advertise your educational qualifications today.

Now, all anyone needs to do is square your supposed educational qualifications with the incoherent, fragmented , dim-witted and shallow ramblings here, and then see that it's one of two problems.

1. It's either our educational system has been so erroded to the point where we produce loud empty vessels by the truckloads, or

2. That you are just slow, dim-witted , low IQ, special needs pupil who slipped through the cracks of our educational system.

Normally I would feel ashamed exchanging words with an intellectual midget like you, but since you claim high academic credentials, I will henceforth be stupid because of my joblessness.
Hopefully, something beneficial will come out it,. For you or for our society.

Of course, coming from a google scientist.
You are alien to my level of education, im not surprised you feel the way you do.

Lol,You should be a comedian.

plaetton:
You invoke magic, supernatural, spiri spiri mumbo jumbo.

And yes, I invoke science, the same science that made it possible for you and I to communicate unanimously over great distances.

So, can you now spot the difference between you and I?

I laff when you keep pushing science away from religion christianity.
Google scientist

You cant invoke science because science aint closemindedness. science isnt atheism.

Atheism is stup1dity, science isnt.

Stand on your own you irrelevant google scientist

Science made it possible to communicate not atheism.

whatever you meant by magic

plaetton:
Your fragmented thinking is so obvious here.

Our educational system can't be that bad.

You lie.
I doubt if you have seen the gate of a university.

First, magicians taught me
now i ddnt even go to school at all

Tell me again how how stup1d you arnt.

ifenes:
Then you need to learn

Learn from who?
You ?

plaetton:
At least I dont get my knowkedge from Sunday school.

I read modern books, you read stone age myths.

Can you spot the difference ?

Still wondering what you mean by stone age myth.

No way are you gonna read and still be this close-minded.

Except, of course stup1d blogs on google are your books

plaetton:
Huh ?

What's all this incoherent Babble ?

A Master's degree Holder?
C'mon !!

I guess they don't make those degrees as good as they used to.
Or you folks are special needs children with learning disabilities.

Pitiful.

I tell you to ask your wife if logic explains everything and you become a dunce.

Funny though

Get a book and Come up with something better.

ifenes:
A degree in PHD is no proof of knowledge. What comes out of your brain is obviously from a wine bar.

Hmmnn. And what comes out of your brain is what? google?

Maybe you should google what comes out of your brain too, since its the only thing you know how to do

plaetton:
You keep invoking Newton. Why ?
What do you know about Newton ? Very little, except the popular anecdote that he was a Christian.
Of course, he was a Christian who sought to reconcile his beliefs with the scientific discoveries of his era. That made perfect sense.
But you don't know that his hunger for knowledge extended well beyond silly stone age myths. He was also well known Rosicrucian, a master Mason and a grandmaster the Prior Of Scion, a very secret society of his era.
After his death, manuscripts were discovered in his chambers that showed that he was a great practitioner of occult science.
Again, this great man hungered and searched, in honesty, to find bridge between his prior religious upbringing and the new vistas of scientific rationalism that was rapidly sweeping his society.

I find it very laughable when half-baked blokes like you claim him as one of your own.

And, you religiotards are the ones who always seem to conflate atheism with science.

Atheism doesn't require scientific knowledge.

Atheists only acknowledge , and point out the simple glaring fact that scientific rationalism is the most reliable, time-tested and validated system to explore and understand the universe.

Religious, supernatural mumbo jumbo is for the planets idi.ots.
We have been there, tried that, done that,..for many thousands of years.
And we know better now.

Same reason you keep invoking science.
Cant you stand on your own.?

All the bull you put up here, is it from the books you read or from google?

Joshuabase:
Unfollowing, dumbos everywhere

Yh, go back to your ward, reta*d.

plaetton:
No doubts, I am a big influence in her life, as she is in mine.That's the way it's suppose to be.

For example, during a discussion one day, I reminded her that billions of humans have come gone since Jesus supposedly promised to come within a generation 2000 yrs ago.
When it hit her that this scam has been going on for 2000 solid years, we both enjoyed a big long laugh.

First convince her to accept that logic explains everything.

Secondly, ask her to give you logical reasons why you should stick to being faithful to her when you can enjoy yourself by having other sweet and more pretty girl friends before your sex drive diminishes.

Thirdly, ask her to give you logical reasons why marriage is not a scam, since it was passed down to us by older primitive generations.
Since we were indoctrinated into believing that we need to stick to one female till she grows old.
Afterall we are only meaningless higher animals who just happened to suface as a result of a chaotic explosion.

You can also post her logical replies here

ifenes:
What is a Spiritualist? Do you even have a clue what a spirit is?

No, Humor me

timonski:
11%? Let's see: 99.89%+11%=110.89%.
Olodo. Na for prison you dey learn PERCENTAGE/FRACTIONS?

Na google student na.

plaetton:
I am not surprised at whatever your paper qualifications are. After all, you're a Nigerian, where mathematics lecturers preach magic.

It's people like you that drive our passion in this religilous section.
Supposedly educated, but beholden to stoneage superstitions. Aversive to science, but beholden to magic.
You represent the tragedy of middle East sh.it religions on the African mind.

I guess Newton was also taught by magicians, Dolt.

Dont cling to science!!
Stand on your own.
Science is not atheism neither does it have anything to offer atheism.

Atheism: is disbelief/lack of belief in God or gods.
Give reasons not your shallow "scientific" knowledge gotten from google.

You are very irrelevant and your opinion dont matter to anyone, except maybe your wife. Thats why you are on the religipn section, you need relevance so much. But dont be stup1d in going about it.

plaetton:
Who says that Hawkins made a big mistake?
What mistake?

An atheist like you.
hawkins has become your god that his mistakes shock you
pathetic!

plaetton:
The real problem is that Hawkins argument cannot be understood by the pedestrian minds of homo religilous.

you mean cant be accepted by people who refuse to be willing blind.

plaetton:
The main problem , as I always emphasize , is quality education.. Someone who barely went through integrated science in junior secondary school is not expected to grasp the complex nature and properties of gravity at the quantum level, as explained by a certified genius and physicist, Steven Hawkins.

Isaac Newton and other great scientists too had a problem to have acknowledged God.
Interesting

plaetton:
It still shocks me everyday when I see kingebukasblog, winner01, etc, whose last science lesson was in junior secondary school, come out to passionately attack scientists and scientific ideas, all in defence of magic.

Who are the scientists? You

Even those wen never gain admission talkless of conducting researches go dey claim scientist. google assisted scientists

I just finished my masters this year, about to start my Phd.
so i perfectly understand if you say im passionate in attacking ignorance.

Joshuabase:
I'm serious, stop quoting me. Your stupidity is so great it's annoying. Just stop, my 8 year old brother is probably more educated than you.

Yeah, i know what kind of place you come from. I know those cricles.

Yeah, i showed you how foolish you are, and its annoying.
I get it.

The truth will set you free, but first, it will piss you off.

Joshuabase:
The ignorance prevalent in this thread is enormous, I agree theists just come here to tell other people about their delusions in order for it to be real to them.

That's why they have to go to church every week.

And you come here why?
To convince yourself?
Your memes are still stupid, you can get more reasonable ones here

https://www.nairaland.com/2609533/atheist-quotes

Joshuabase:
In order to explain quantum phenomenon, I had to use a classical analogy. I'm so sorry you're that dumb.

It exists because the universe is infinite. Google it.

Google it?
How old is this guy?

Google: Jesus is evil and see if you wont get what you seek, something convincing.

A classical analogy that involved an intelligent being?

What kind of stup1d are you ?

The universe is infinite
KingEbukaNaija, come and see chumchin oo

ifenes:
How I wish you could apply logic to the miracles the Bible claimed Jesus performed. Hawking is only apply scientific possibilities and facts. The universe is an illusion. You just wanna stick everything to the bible god which obviously doesn't exist. The universe is only the work of the mind.

You are a spiritualist, or better still a solipsist not an atheist.
Why are all of you, even satanists too who claim to worship themselves against Christianity.
Arnt y'all supposed to be against religion.

Of course, i wont expect y'all to concern yourselves with lies.

ifenes:
Firstly,there is nothing religious or christian about the Christian Old Testament. There Hijacked text copied and pasted into the Bible. Therefore,you are defending a plagiarized history book. None of the Old testament stories belonged to the Jews. They had all their names edited to fool weak minds like yours. The Jesus's story is obviously not true as he shared the same story with older historical figures and this puts a big question mark on the Bible.

Yawns!!!
All claims, no proof.
Whose words are more credible? ifeness or these great men https://www.nairaland.com/2499498/quotes-famous-men-bible

ifenes:
The Bible itself copied from ancient scientific and Sumerian books. Was it not said that Samyaza, Azazel other Extraterrestrials taught humans the art of Science,Astrology,Mathematics,Physics,the art of writing,Knowledge of the cloud,technology etc of which you are benefiting from by writing this ridiculous text. Praise be to these guys for opening humans eyes.

Just tell us what you smoke.

ifenes:
Pay attention to science and be a good student. You have no reason to defend a monstrous creature you call god whom you do not benefit a dime from.

Im a far better scientist than you and your friends.
If he dosent exist, why do you call him a monstrous creature. Its clear. You hate Him

ifenes:
It takes a curious mind to want to understand how gravity works. Something you cannot explain even with the bible,can you? Rather than fight or argue with those who are trying to understand how the universe work,make yourself useful by learning from concrete facts and not superstition.

Learning concrete facts from dolts?.
Yeah right.
The only people I argue with here are people who desperately need me not to believe in God.

Joshuabase:
Cause and effect fails.

But you used cause and effwct in your dumb analogy

Joshuabase:
Most people mis-interptete the big bang theory. Matter was created at the big bang. Space was already there.

Speaking of nothing creating something, I have a meme for that.

Space is something, not nothing.
Why did it have to be there.
Why does anything have to exist.
You are as dumb as your memes.

CoolUsername:
Secondly, your argument of who put gravity in place requires a fair amount of special pleading to work because it falls apart when you are asked who the creator of this creator is. You may say the creator is self-existing but we have evidence for this.

infinite regression
*face palm*
https://www.nairaland.com/2816262/god-created-everything-created-god

CoolUsername:
Third, I want you to consider that energy cannot be created or destroyed by any means that we know of and we know that all matter is made up of 'condensed' energy so it is possible to say that the universe expanded from a singularity (or point) of near-infinite energy.


PS: I want you to understand that gravity doesn't have to be put in place, it is merely a dent in the fabric of space-time caused by a particle that has mass.

@ bolded, just one problem, the atheist seems to know all the means, and is sure God is not one of them.

johnydon22:
Thank you bro and i know more than a billion reason to life, you do not need to hope

okay, have fun

happy birthday johnydon22.
have fun, breathe, reflect.
And i hope you find the reason to life.

Quotes from learned cosmologists, mathematicians, religious leaders and philosophers of science on stephen hawkins bulllshit quote.

Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury
“Belief in God is not about plugging a gap in explaining how one thing relates to another within the universe.  It is the belief that there is an intelligent, living agent on whose activity everything ultimately depends for its existence...

Physics on its own will not settle the question of why there is something rather than nothing.”

Rev. Dr. Ernest C Lucas
"Christians and people of other faiths argue that there is good evidence in human history and human experience that a Creator God, not just the laws of physics, is required as the answer to the question: 'Why does anything exist at all'?"

Professor John Lennox 
"Contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe," he said, adding that laws do not create anything in and of themselves.

What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.

That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own - but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent."

Rev Dr. David Wilkinson 
"[Hawking] raises a number of questions which for many opens the door to the possibility of an existence of a creator, such as cosmic purpose, the source of the laws of physics and the intelligibility of the universe."

Professor Alister McGrath
An Ulster academic at King's College in London who has an international reputation in Christian apologetics – asked: "So where do the laws of physics come from, then?" Downpatrick-born Mr McGrath, who has an extensive background in molecular biophysics and theology, said: "Hawking just moves the problem back one stage."

Professor Eric Priest,
"...to rule out a possibly important role for God is in my view unjustified. It is certainly possible that God sets up and maintains or underpins the laws of physics and allows them to work, so that being able to explain the big bang in terms of physics is not inconsistent with there being a role for God.

As a scientist, you are continually questioning, rarely coming up with a definitive answer. The limitations of your own knowledge and expertise together with the beauty and mystery of life and the universe often fill you with a sense of profound humility. Thus, unequivocal assertions are not part of a genuine scientific quest.

... many of the questions that are most crucial to us as human beings are not addressed adequately at all by science, such as the nature of beauty and love and how to live one's life – often philosophy or history or theology are better suited to help answer them.

The complementary nature of different questions and in particular of the difference between how and why are important. If M-theory does indeed turn out to enable a unified theory, Hawking may be able in future to say how the universe started, but as a physicist he cannot answer the question "why?"

Dr. Lee Rayfield.
"[Science] can never prove the non-existence of God, just as it can never prove the existence of God. Faith is a matter that's outside that.

But as I look at the universe, and as many people who are much more understanding of cosmology than I, and mathematics, as they look at it, through the eyes of faith, they see a universe which is still very coherent with what we believe about God and His nature."

Lord Jonathan Sacks
"There is more to wisdom than science. It cannot tell us why we are here or how we should live,"

Dr Denis Alexander 
"The 'god' that Stephen Hawking is trying to debunk is not the creator God of the Abrahamic faiths who really is the ultimate explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.  Hawking's god is a god-of-the-gaps used to plug present gaps in our scientific knowledge.

Science provides us with a wonderful narrative as to how [existence] may happen, but theology addresses the meaning of the narrative."

Dr. Fraser Watts
"a creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and ... it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not. That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said."

Professor George Ellis
Scientist and educator George Ellis, the president of the International Society for Science and Religion, is quoted as saying his biggest problem with Hawking's theories is that they present the public with "a choice - either science or religion."

Fr Brian Lucas
''Among scientists there has always been discussion about the origins of the universe and discussion about cause and effect..

There are still two questions for the scientists to answer. Where did the laws of physics come from that led to the spontaneous existence of the universe and the second question is why is there a universe at all?''

Professor Paul Davies
"Can the multiverse provide a complete and closed account of all physical existence? Not quite. The multiverse comes with a lot of baggage, such as an overarching space and time to host all those bangs, a universe-generating mechanism to trigger them, physical fields to populate the universes with material stuff, and a selection of forces to make things happen. Cosmologists embrace these features by envisaging sweeping “meta-laws” that pervade the multiverse and spawn specific bylaws on a universe-by-universe basis. The meta-laws themselves remain unexplained - eternal, immutable transcendent entities that just happen to exist and must simply be accepted as given. In that respect the meta-laws have a similar status to an unexplained transcendent god.

...Although cosmology has advanced enormously since the time of Laplace, the situation remains the same: there is no compelling need for a supernatural being or prime mover to start the universe off. But when it comes to the laws that explain the big bang, we are in murkier waters." 

Brother Guy Consolmagno.
Brother Consolmagno, told CNA how the preconditions for the universe's unfolding and operations were not a form of “nothing,” as Hawking considers them to be. Rather, he said, they are the conditions created by God for the ordering of the world.

“God is the reason why space and time and the laws of nature can be present for the forces to operate that Stephen Hawking is talking about,” he said.

Br Consolmagno said Hawking's dismissal of God was based not only on his incorrect designation of physical laws as “nothing,” but also on a failure to grasp the notion of God's transcendence. As such, he concluded, Hawking was really dismissing a kind of “god” in which Christians do not believe.

“The 'god' that Stephen Hawking doesn’t believe in, is one I don’t believe in either. God is not just another force in the Universe, alongside gravity or electricity. God is not a force to be invoked to . . . 'start a scene or two' and fill the momentary gaps in our knowledge.”

Br Consolmagno said: “God is the reason why existence itself exists.” 

Fr Robert Spitzer
Former president of Gongaza University Fr Robert Spitzer, said Hawking's dismissal of God reflects fundamental confusions about the Christian concept of God, as the creator of all that exists - "both the physical universe, and the laws of physics which apply to it." 

Although Hawking talks about the universe “creating itself from nothing,” he is presupposing that this “nothing” somehow involved gravity and other fundamental laws of physics, Fr Robert said.

But principles such as gravity are not irreducible or self-evident axioms. Rather, they are non-physical laws which govern the ordinary operations of the physical world. Thus, Fr Robert explained, there is no comparison between a creation which unfolds and develops according to laws followed by matter, and Hawking's proposal of “spontaneous creation” from “nothing.”

FR Robert writes: “Let’s take the law mentioned by Dr. Hawking above – the law of gravity. It has a specific constant associated with it and specific characteristics, and it has specific effects on mass-energy and even on space-time itself. This is a very curious definition of 'nothing'.”

“Now if we rephrase Dr Hawking’s statement in the above fashion, then he has clearly not explained why there is something rather than nothing. He has only explained that something comes from something,” by describing the development of a functioning universe on the basis of laws such as gravity."

He concludes: "In my view Dr Hawking has not yet shown the non-necessity of this reality. Indeed, he implies it by assuming the existence of a beginning in his assertion about the universe coming from nothing.”

Scientist John Lennox's submission;

There's no denying that Stephen Hawking is intellectually bold as well as physically heroic. And in his latest book, the renowned physicist mounts an audacious challenge to the traditional religious belief in the divine creation of the universe.

According to Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws 'because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.'

Unfortunately, while Hawking's argument is being hailed as controversial and ground-breaking, it is hardly new.

For years, other scientists have made similar claims, maintaining that the awesome, sophisticated creativity of the world around us can be interpreted solely by reference to physical laws such as gravity.

It is a simplistic approach, yet in our secular age it is one that seems to have resonance with a sceptical public.

But, as both a scientist and a Christian, I would say that Hawking's claim is misguided. He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.

But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.

That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own  -  but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent.

Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.

To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton's laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms.

Hawking's argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?

Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for 'the blue touch paper' to be lit to 'set the universe going', the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God?

Much of the rationale behind Hawking's argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. But this is not a discord I recognise.

For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation.

The very reason science flourished so vigorously in the 16th and 17th centuries was precisely because of the belief that the laws of nature which were then being discovered and defined reflected the influence of a divine law-giver.

One of the fundamental themes of Christianity is that the universe was built according to a rational , intelligent design. Far from being at odds with science, the Christian faith actually makes perfect scientific sense.

Some years ago, the scientist Joseph Needham made an epic study of technological development in China. He wanted to find out why China, for all its early gifts of innovation, had fallen so far behind Europe in the advancement of science.

He reluctantly came to the conclusion that European science had been spurred on by the widespread belief in a rational creative force, known as God, which made all scientific laws comprehensible.

Despite this, Hawking, like so many other critics of religion, wants us to believe we are nothing but a random collection of molecules, the end product of a mindless process.

This, if true, would undermine the very rationality we need to study science. If the brain were really the result of an unguided process, then there is no reason to believe in its capacity to tell us the truth.

We live in an information age. When we see a few letters of the alphabet spelling our name in the sand, our immediate response is to recognise the work of an intelligent agent. How much more likely, then, is an intelligent creator behind the human DNA, the colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion 'letters'?

It is fascinating that Hawking, in attacking religion, feels compelled to put so much emphasis on the Big Bang theory. Because, even if the non-believers don't like it, the Big Bang fits in exactly with the Christian narrative of creation.

That is why, before the Big Bang gained currency, so many scientists were keen to dismiss it, since it seemed to support the Bible story. Some clung to Aristotle's view of the 'eternal universe' without beginning or end; but this theory, and later variants of it, are now deeply discredited.

But support for the existence of God moves far beyond the realm of science. Within the Christian faith, there is also the powerful evidence that God revealed himself to mankind through Jesus Christ two millennia ago. This is well-documented not just in the scriptures and other testimony but also in a wealth of archaeological findings.

Moreover, the religious experiences of millions of believers cannot lightly be dismissed. I myself and my own family can testify to the uplifting influence faith has had on our lives, something which defies the idea we are nothing more than a random collection of molecules.

Just as strong is the obvious reality that we are moral beings, capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong. There is no scientific route to such ethics.

Physics cannot inspire our concern for others, or the spirit of altruism that has existed in human societies since the dawn of time.

The existence of a common pool of moral values points to the existence of transcendent force beyond mere scientific laws. Indeed, the message of atheism has always been a curiously depressing one, portraying us as selfish creatures bent on nothing more than survival and self-gratification.

Hawking also thinks that the potential existence of other lifeforms in the universe undermines the traditional religious conviction that we are living on a unique, God-created planet. But there is no proof that other lifeforms are out there, and Hawking certainly does not present any.

It always amuses me that atheists often argue for the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence beyond earth. Yet they are only too eager to denounce the possibility that we already have a vast, intelligent being out there: God.

Hawking's new fusillade cannot shake the foundations of a faith that is based on evidence.

Matt Slick's submission:

I must throw caution to the wind and address what I see as a serious problem of logic in what Mr. Hawking has said. From the above quote he said, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

In order for something to create, it must perform an action, but if it performs an action, it must already exist. This is a logical problem. Does Mr. Hawking know something we don't about logic and the universe? Is he privy to information about physics and the ontologically prior existence of whatever-it-was-that-created-the-universe that we don't have? I don't know, and the article doesn't tell us. It is certainly probable that he in his brilliance is able to see things the average person cannot when it comes to the origins theories. I will defer to his knowledge in this area. However, logic is not something he can violate, no matter how smart he is, and be expected to be taken seriously--at least on this issue. Therefore I, a mere mortal, must take umbrage with Mr. Hawking's statement. It just doesn't make any sense and cannot be true.

There are only two possibilities to account for the cause of the existence of the universe: personal and impersonal. This is called an antonymic pair. It is a set of opposites and encompasses all possibilities within its category. Something is either personal or impersonal in its essence. Therefore, we have two worldviews from which we can derive possible explanations for the existence of the universe. Furthermore, if there are only two possibilities and we negate one of them, by default the other is validated. This is logically necessary.

So, we must ask ourselves how an impersonal cause, the universe, can bring itself into existence. Aside from the obvious logical problem I've already cited above, how is it that an impersonal, non-existent "stuff" can spontaneously create? Again, it can't since it doesn't exist by which it would then have the ability to perform an action such as creation. 

But, let's not stop there. Let's take a look at the idea that there is a cause of the universe that is other than the universe and is itself impersonal.

In order for something to bring about an effect, it must have the necessary and sufficient conditions. Let me illustrate. Let's say I want to move a small boulder. It is too big for me to move without a lever. Therefore, I apply a lever to the rock and move it. The necessary conditions to move the rock are 1) my existence, 2) the existence of the rock, 3) a lever, and 4) a fulcrum (something the lever must press against). The sufficient condition is that I must have enough strength. Therefore, when the necessary and sufficient conditions are met, the rock can be moved. But, I am a personal being, and I must decide to apply the lever to move the rock.

In the case of an impersonal cause of the universe, there must have been necessary and sufficient conditions that brought the universe into existence. But, the question is if the pre-existence stuff that brought the universe into existence had the necessary and sufficient conditions, then it would automatically have brought the universe into existence. In the case of the lever and boulder illustration, if a "necessary rock" of "sufficient weight" were placed on the end of the lever, it would spontaneously move the boulder. When impersonal conditions that are both necessary and sufficient exist, the result is automatic.

If the necessary and sufficient conditions that brought the universe into existence were impersonal, then the universe would have been spontaneously formed an infinite amount of time ago since the necessary and sufficient conditions would have existed for eternity. If the universe was brought into existence an infinitely long time ago, there would be no usable energy left in the universe (entropy). But since there is usable energy left in the universe, the universe is not infinitely old. Because the universe is not infinitely old, the theory that an impersonal cause that is both necessary and sufficient brought the universe into existence cannot work.

It would seem more logical to say that since the universe is not infinitely old, that there must have been a personal cause that brought it into existence. Furthermore, Hawking's statement that "the universe can and will create itself from nothing" is incoherent. It is illogical and not possible.

I keep wondering why atheists want to create a non existent bridge between science and religion christianity.
Well the reason is not far fetched. No one will listen to them if they didnt back their beliefs with science.
Not that science can prove that creation came out of nothing, but the atheist desperately clings to it cos he realises how irrelevant he and his opinion will be if he didnt talk about science.
Not only does he need science to stay relevant, he also needs religion to stay relevant. This explains why most nairaland atheists swarm the religion section day and night.

In reference to the thread joke an atheist recently created;
https://www.nairaland.com/2827519/comprehensive-break-down-stephen-hawkins
I want to quickly point out the ignorance and unintelligence of the atheist.
He emphasized stephen hawking's quote on why something can create something.

Joshuabase:
"Because such a law as gravity exists, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

The issue of the quote has already been overflogged, wonder if dude lives underground
Its funny that the atheists dont care to know why such a law as gravity exists. They prefer to build on this premise without probing it.
Why should a law exist?, why should anything even exist?.
Some atheists even go ahead to say "we are here and thats all that matters". And then they want to build every other thing on such premises.
I seriously wonder what they smoke when they pass off such stupid1ty as logic.



Then he made the most unintelligent analogy ive ever seen.

Joshuabase:
Here's an analogy - imagine a bucket of water filled to the brim whose water is not allowed to spill out, because the water isn't allowed to spill out, if I force stones into the bucket the atoms of water become tightly packed around these stones. In order to provide space for the stones. Matter is the stone, water is the space. Matter, no matter how small warps space causing space to become tightly packed around it. If a larger object warps the space around it, then any smaller object that passes through the warped space (gravity) the relative velocity is slowed and it is pulled towards the larger object.
Space would've been undisturbed just like the bucket until there were massive fluctuations in the quantum fields or in the case of the bucket till I put the stones in, and because space can't expand into anything or in the case of the bucket, the water couldn't spill out - gravity was created.

Read the bolded severally.
He says "If I would force stones into a bucket". Meaning "he" would be a cause to which an effect will follow.
Not only has this dude forgotten that "he" as used in the above is an external force, a greater force and an intelligent being.
He has forgotten that he is an intelligent being that added stone to a bucket to quicken a desired effect.
And he expected the mods to take this joke to the front page? . seriously??
To further pile up his woes, one can ask him why there is a bucket, water and stones. Did they jump into existence from nothing too

In the long joke, he further tried to explain something as nothing by talking about gravity.
I wonder what type of person does not know that gravity is something.
The big question is why existence should exist? Why gravity should even exist, and not how things can spring up into existence because of gravity.


Well, the remainder of the thread will involve some submissions from great scientists on stephen hawking's god quote.

Sensible submissions are welcome too.


cc: timonski, vooks, KingEbukaNaija, efficiencie, CoolUsername, SirWere, plaetton, Maamin

Joshuabase:
Incoherent ramblings, quote me when you grow a brain.

dont worry, i wont.
No other atheist on this forum sounds as unintelligent as you are, except maybe dalaman.
If you could be this dumb to the basics, then i dont think you're worth anyones time.

Joshuabase:
for the fact that gravity exists then it means the universe created itself from nothing.
a view that even hawking agrees with.

gravity exists from what? why do the laws have to be there? who put the laws there in the first place?.
To make it worse hes hiding under the shadow of hawking when great pioneers like newton, pascal, flemming, copernicus, charles and others laid the bedrock of mordern science and believed in an intelligent Creator.

KingEbukaNaija, i suggest you leave ds guy, hes ignorant of the basics. its why i ddnt bother to engage him.

CoolUsername:
Also, giving everybody a section will create many unhealthy circlejerk environments where differing opinions will not be entertained.

oh, you mean like your opinion is entertained on islams section?
the "religion" section is just a facade its actually an atheist section.
Oga nairaland probably knows how irrelevant the opinions of atheists will be if they had their own section.

analice107:
I don't get tired of reading her testimony.
One after the other, He will catch them.

Amen.
Cos i still dont get how someone can be blinded by the devil into believing that the universe was created by nothing.

Joshuabase:
This confirms you're a waste of my time, but i'll educate you - they were sent to jail because all evidence pointed to them, in order to prove their innocence they must provide evidence that proves that they were set up.


But in the real word there is absolutely ZERO evidence of any of the biblical claims therefore, first you provide your "evidence" then we whose stance is that there is no evidence for god's existence will disprove it

Tha dude is a waste of time jare.