₦airaland Forum

chemystery:
You cannot assert that it is impossible for nothing to result to something yet concluded something called god came out from nothing. That is a sincere insincerity in argument.

Something exists, our universe. We do not know how it has come to exist. Something seems sure though, that nothing does not produce something. I'm not being absolute on this but I'm just writing based on what we have seen and observed in real life. If there is a theory worth looking at, which proves that something can come from nothing, please submit it here.

chemystery:
Time and space are human constructs. Since we can't determine when the universe was created, which must have been possibly created before the time construct was created, we can therefore conclude the universe existed independent of time and space!

You sound so absolute on the issue of time and space. It's the same thing you accuse religious people of. Absolutism.

Now you have also brought space into the picture. Are you saying there must have been a space within which the universe was not created? Space is something you know, not nothing. What makes you so sure that space is also a human construct. You sound so sure too, I'm willing to learn.
And I'm not concluding anything, I'm simply sharing my views on why I think a question is invalid.

chemystery:
You mentioned that "Prior to the universe, there was nothing, NO TIME, no space, nothing at all". But you have use the word prior to distinguish between a TIME the universe existed, and a TIME it never existed, thereby defeating that argument.

You're correct, and it's because I'm human. I've pointed that out earlier. I, like many other people cannot seem to come to terms with the fact that "there was a time in which time never existed". Hell I don't even know the correct grammatical expression to explain a "time in which time never existed".
Just like you my thoughts are within the confines of time and space no matter how wild.
Timelessness is something we've never experienced. It's okay if it makes no sense to us. The Creator did not seem to leave us the ability of grasping the idea of timelessness or even nothing. The human idea of nothing is still something.

chemystery:
Lastly, looking at all these things you have said about god, tell me, why can't we say same of the universe? What made it invalid for the latter and not so to the former?

We might not be able to say the same for the universe simply because of reasons I've put forth earlier.
1. The universe (something) began to exist
2. In our own capacity so far, we haven't been able to observe or demonstrate that nothing can bring forth something.
3. Something or Someone must have always existed that brought forth the universe that now exists
4. This Something or Someone is most likely independent of the features we have observed in the universe
5. Our thoughts (and opinions on time and space) no matter how wild exists within the confines of what we have observed in the universe
6. If our thoughts exists only within the confines of a created universe, then It might be safe to say that the idea of no time, no space is impossible for a human to entirely grasp since he is within the confines of time and space.
7. The Something or Someone who brought forth or created the universe exists independently of what we know or have ever seen. This Creator exists outside the logic of His creation.
8. Something exists and we know this for sure at least. Something can't come from nothing except we modify our idea of nothing. This is what we know. However you must admit that what we know is within the confines of this created universe.
9. If Something can't come from nothing then we must agree that Something or Someone powerful existed before this universe where we have found ourselves.
10. We can also agree that the origin and existence of this Powerful Something or Someone is beyond our knowledge, since our knowledge cannot run beyond the confines of creation
11. I propose however that this powerful Something or Someone did not leave this area open to us, the fact that we are debating this is enough proof. Hence the question on the origin of such Powerful Something or Someone is invalid.

uzoclinton:
A really valid question

Okay.


Many Atheists seem to lack understanding about the meaning of the words "eternal" or "infinite."

Who created God? No one. The Creator had no need of a creator. He is "the uncaused cause" that logic proves must exist as the cause of the cosmos. God is eternal and infinite. He has always existed.

This idea is even explained in his name: I AM THAT I AM. (Exodus 3:14)

God — I AM — had no beginning, and will have no end. He exists infinitely. His power is also infinite. His intelligence is infinite.

How is it possible? God is immaterial and therefore, not limited by laws that apply to the material world. God is a spirit. (John 4:24) A spirit is immaterial.

If you can't comprehend what "infinite" means, simply try to accept it as something beyond your understanding. To assume you can potentially understand everything would be an example of excessive pride anyway. There are some things we will never understand as finite beings with finite capabilities. To fully comprehend the eternal and infinite are prime examples of our limitations.

obinna58:
What else can be the importance of time if not for measurement only, I think you are going all round to backup your claims

I do not understand. You sound so absolute about time. Do you know something I don't. Please enlighten me.

Who Is supposed to put them to death?

obinna58:
you think time exist only because you believe in God?

Not at all. You recognized the importance of time when you alledged that humans created time as some kind of measurement. And measurement is important to ascribe value to matter. Humans are valuable beings and we do believe ourselves to be valuable beings even though some think Otherwise.

You're right. Specific units have no meaning if they are not measured. Values are made meaningful by quantifying into individual units. Measurement is made meaningful only with the existence of time.

obinna58:
Everything that has beginning also has ending, Human created time as some kind of measurement, that kind of time you have in mind has no beginning or ending thereby real time does not exist

How about those things that have no beginning for instance, nothing we have ever seen

Well, nice theory. We should still agree that there was a time point when all these began and there was something already in existence independent of creation or points of existence.

I think real time does exist, I disagree with those who say it doesn't.

Immorttal:
My question still is: if everything was created including varied life forms and the universe itself, and was supposedly created by God, then Who created God

A timeless/eternal Being has no beginning and no end.

Timelessness excuses a being from being created.

Something that has been existing since forever has no beginning

No beginning

No beginning

No beginning

No beginning

No beginning

If something has no beginning, it simply means it was not created.

That you ask who created God means you propose that God has a beginning. Eternity has no beginning. You can see the definition of eternal which I posted above.

It's difficult to grasp because we have never seen anything like this. Our thoughts are within the confines of time and space no matter how hard we try. It's always okay to try though.

If something comes into being, it must have been prompted by something else. A book has an author. Music has a music artist. A party has a party-thrower! All things that begin, that have a start, have a cause to their beginning.


"If a creator God needs to have been made by a creator, that creator would also need a creator who needs a creator … like an infinite chain of toppling dominos, which is an impossibility." - Bertrand Russel (1872-1970)


Today’s atheists repeat the objection, including Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion) and Philip Adams, who said,

“The great argument for God was that there had to be a Creation, a beginning. … But my objection was simple. If God was the beginning who began God?”



So who created God? Many religious people, especially Christians including myself consider this question the ultimate blasphemy. In times of inquisition, 800 years ago in Europe, this question alone could easily have gotten one killed or at least sent to the torture chambers by the powers that be of the time – the Catholic Church.

Yet today, it seems to be a legitimate and a profound question. This question must be best answered to help grow the faith of genuine enquirers and tick the conscience of honest unbelievers.
Even if one doesn't believe in God or any kind of divine being, the question remains: Why does anything exist? Why not just nothingness?

These are the ultimate existential questions and it may concern every human on earth.



Everything we observe in nature has a beginning. Theists, more specifically Christians however often object by making the claim below:

"God is in a different category, God is different from all nature and humanity and everything that exists, in that he has always existed, independent from anything he created. God is not a dependent being, but self-sufficient, self-existent.
Psalms 90:2, 1 chronicles 29:11-12, John 4:24.

Christians admit that everything has a cause with just one exception, GOD. Christians submit this because this is exactly how the Bible describes God, and how God has revealed himself to be.


While I will not be using scriptures to make my point.
It is important to note that the Bible says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Here God created time itself. Only One who is outside of time, that is, timeless, or eternal, could do this.

Let's leave this for a while. Almost everyone agrees that the world has a beginning. Science seems to have proven that time and space had a beginning. This fact amongst others have made some change their opinion on reality.
https://www.nairaland.com/3314364/christian-family-atheism-jesus-christ

Three scientific evidences seems to prove that the universe has a beginning. They are briefly explained in the thread above.

1. The second law of thermodynamics
2. An expanding universe
3. The cosmic background radiation

So basically.
- The universe has not always existed (the universe has a beginning)
- Time and space began with the universe (Time and space began when the universe began)


Prior to the universe, there was nothing, NO TIME, no space, nothing at all.
This implication of this is that whatever brought the universe into existence is independent of the universe, independent of time (timeless or eternal) and independent of space.


This is a serious implication. It means that :
1. Either the universe came from nothing
2. or the universe came from something
3. or we don't know what brought forth the universe.


In reality. It is impossible for nothing to produce something. At least majority of people agree with this. And if it is impossible for nothing to give rise to something, then the existence of life should make no sense.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/5909250_img8162_jpega449fdec5674e7900a8abc4d01b71616

To me, life is even less complex than the universe. This truth (that nothing cannot produce something) is uncomfortable for those who propose that there is no Creator (of the universe).

This has led major scientists like Stephen hawkings, Lawrence krauss and others to theorize that something can come from nothing.

1. The M-Theory (which requires nothing something called gravity)
2. The multiverse theory (to which there exists no observable evidence)
3. Quantum vacuums (which infact has the properties of nothing something as Dr. Alexander Vilenkin points out
in this video.)


And maybe any other theory I don't know of. One thing is sure however, to validate any of the above theories, one must modify the definition of nothing.

Let's see the real definition of nothing.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/5909217_img8861_jpeg68ae4eccdc827e5cef36e4d5950fa853

Having said that. I'll go straight to my point.
Whatever was in existence prior to the universe, exists outside of time and space.

Whatever exists outside of time is timeless or eternal. The words "Timeless and eternal" seems to have a connection.

Lets see the definition of Timeless
www.nairaland.com/attachments/5909218_img8863_jpeg46c538e89180c8b5c8c7a3069cc08ddb


and eternal
www.nairaland.com/attachments/5909219_img8864_jpeg085949e1f8b8b358aefce3722518bc50

The major connection I see between these two words may be clear for everyone else to see.

"No beginning and no end".

This phenomenon is alien to humans. Majority of people can't seem to imagine an object with no beginning and no end (an object that was not created or an object that has been existing since forever).
It is natural though, afterall even our great planet will come to its end.
My point is, it is difficult for anyone to imagine something without a beginning or end.


The Bible describes God as:
1. ETERNAL in the following verses: Isaiah 40:28, Romans 16:26, 1 Timothy 1:17, Psalm 90:2
2. and SELF EXISTING: Exodus 3:14

The word YAHWEH itself is believed to be a form of the verb hayah, which signifies “to be,” ultimately meaning “the eternal One” or “self-existing One.”



So I have been able to make 2 points so far.
1. Timeless or eternal means no beginning and no end (UNCREATED OR SELF EXISTING)
2. The Bible describes God as timeless and eternal.



When atheists ask the question, "Who created God?". This question can be analyzed critically.

If something was created, it simply means it has a beginning. This negates the proposition of Christians as regards YAHWEH. Therefore such a question might either be born out of ignorance or dishonesty.
One can't ask who created something has no beginning and no end. Since the question itself proposes that this something has a beginning, It is an invalid question.


An eternal being or object has no beginning, no end. It is uncreated and timeless. It is self existent.
This is the what we mean when we say God is eternal.

I do not write to offend anyone's beliefs, but you can read this with an unbiased mind, I'm positive that you will come to an honest conclusion and admit that the question "Who created God" is an invalid question.


God bless you.

Seun:
Jesus did not beat up witches, but he is said to have whipped merchants in the temple, so he was not totally against whipping people.

Are you against whipping those who use the church a sword an excuse to loot "gullible worshippers"?

superhumanist:
Sir, witch killing was done in Europe and America in the past by christians. Blaming such evil actions on African traditional religion is not fair. Be honest and admit that christians can do evil as well.

You can't just dismiss the old testament when you like it. The verses are there. I blame christianity for some backwards mentality we Nigerians have.

Atheists have been more evil. Read my threads for facts.

Point is Christ is our standard and Christ was not evil. And so we can judge anyone who claimed to want to be like Christ if really he is acting Christ-like.

No one is dismissing the Old Testament. It's an important part of the scriptures. Christ-ian's are bounded by a law. I referred you to Romans 8:2.

Paul excercised this law in Acts 19:19.
Seems your bias has gotten the better part of you is there is any.

edicied:
Oh so those killing in the OT was by who? who asked them to do it for a promise of Milk and honey?

Was it done by Christ-ians?

LightandDarkness:
So why are the teachings of the old testament not valid, was it not jesus who said he didn't come to change the laws

The Old Testament is necessary to understand the coming of Jesus Christ. I'm not a Hebrew neither am I a Jew. I am a Christ-ian. Christ-like? How difficult is this for you or do you just not want to accept the fact that CHRIST WAS perfect? .

has anyone here bothered to read up romans 8:2.
Only then will you understand why Jesus stood in the way of religious zealots who were ready to stone an adulterous woman. I think the Christians of today can be judged with the life of Christ.

edicied:
Lol this is not the first time i have had argument with you on NL so i know your ideal i don't need to read that crap

Okay so you only created a new moniker? I guess you must have like 5 other monikers to team up and like each other's posts
Don't worry, the universe will reward you for your efforts

edicied:
Abi o They are the one That believes Jesus was Yahweh in The OT the blood thirst Bastard then one day the guy just start preaching about LOVE? if we tell them their religion is stupid they would be taking it as an offense all they know how to do is LIE LIE and LIE

Okay my religion is stupid. Do you want me to leave it?

edicied:
I asked you a simple question who made the Law suffer not the witch to live in Exodus and i think you are the one that actually needs to use ur Brain all this beating around the Bush ain't gonna Fly

Read up my previous post over and over again. You'll understand eventually.

stephenmorris:
how do u explain this. cc:loj,

He ordered his disciples to kill and so please show me where they killed. He also said he did not bring peace to the world but a sword. Was a sword ever found with Jesus.

I guess that answers your question

LightandDarkness:
So we should just forget the old testament?

no. History is very important in the build up to the present.
The historical background of the Israelites is very important in our understanding of the build up to grace.

NPComplete:
There u go shooting yourself in the foot. Something very characteristic of thoughtless people. Even you Christians don't have an exact set of stands you all subscribe to. That's why there are so many denominations that believe in so many different things. By your logic you Christians are equally confused.
Take your own advice.

Am I under any natural universal obligation to be thoughtful? If so, why should I give a damn in an inconsequential universe?.

Make meaning of that.

LightandDarkness:
Exodus 22:18King James Version (KJV)

18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Christ. Jesus Christ. Christ Jesus. That "man" stands against every single thing you have on Christ-ianity. Christ-ians are people that want to be like Christ, that strive to be like Christ. Christ is our standard.

I don't want to speak about the mosaic law because ive done so severally.
There are things called laws and dispensations in scriptures. To know what dispensation we are not, you can refer to Romans 8:2.

But show me where Christ rejected or killed people. We can tell who really is a christ-ian.

superhumanist:
Okay. I know there are horrible punishments in the old testament for witches. Let us not kid ourselves because we all know what goes on in village churches. Their version of christianity is extreme. There have been many cases of "child witch" killings or beatings.

What goes on in village churches is not as important as what Christ stood for. Most traditional converts still hold tight their native beliefs and they still engage in heinous acts. I know many so called Christians who still engage in traditional rituals till date. Thanks to Mary slessor, the killing of twins for instance was normal in some parts of traditional religion. Twins were considered evil. I am against several unbiblical acts by Christians. Many of the foreign countries that have more number of religious persons than Nigeria do not engage in these acts. What do we say to that.

edicied:
Sharap jare or who said suffer not the witches to live?

Ive forgotten, please who said so?
And why did Paul do otherwise in Acts 19:19.

If you must talk, please put your brains to use.

superhumanist:
I must first state that I am not an atheist but I am a deist. I was enlightened by an atheist when I was a christian and I left the religion.

Having grown up in a religious village, I was exposed to a lot of superstitious beliefs which were sometimes harmful to innocent people. It was an atheist roommate in the city who helped me to understand that life is not kind to ignorant superstitions. I will never forget this roommate of mine who fought with me tirelessly in order to get me to stop doing ignorant things in the name of religion. I hated him in the beginning and now I really respect him.

I still believe in a god but not the christian god or personal god.


I believe that atheists have a role to play in Nigeria even if it only begins on the internet. Atheists could save many people from superstitious rubbish. What if I told you that I regret beating up a child who I thought was a witch? An innocent child. That was who I was when I was deeply religious. My point is that atheists should keep up the arguments and debates. You never know who you could change.

I know some people will disagree with me and that is fine. It is a free world. Peace.

Is there any where in the Bible where Christ beat up a witch or censored the beating or rejection of witches or other people who do not share the same views with you?

johnydon22:
Hahahahahahahahaha i hope you have been alright, it's being a while you know?

how are you fairing?

Doing great. Just wish I could spend more time here.

johnydon22:
On a human scale, it would mean something to someone with naturalistic view but on a more cosmic scale, it wouldn't. It depends on what angle it is judged from and from scale of importance is.
.

Lol. Why in Gods name would i care about what's happens on a cosmic scale when I can use my abilities to the fullest in the only chance I got got.

many atheists believe that the universe care should nothing about us, wouldn't it be fair enough to reciprocate the gesture? Tit for tat

johnydon22:
Well yes i agree you believe so and that is quite profound, though being accidental doesn't really reduce the value.

Penicillin was accidental but still one of the most valuable and important leap in human medical science.

So are x-ray images, stainless steel, plastic and many other things we enjoy.
Ultimate meaning is what these don't have. Why should I want to hold on to ultimate meaninglessness?

johnydon22:
I like this reply, you see this reply. You divided your reply into two perspective, the heavenly perspective and the earthly perspective
.

Which one is earthly perspective and heavenly perspective?
Have you ever gone through the following scriptures?

Philippians 2:4
Act 20:24
Romans 12:9-10
Amongst others.

johnydon22:
From a human perspective, let me give a reply as Carl Sagan would " The evolutionary lesson is clear, humans are rare and they are young and vulnerable, if a human disagrees with you let him live because if you transverse the entirety of the cosmos, you will never find another.

Still does not matter. I have a right as much as you or carl Sagan did not to give a damn about what you care for the universe or what the universe cares for you.

johnydon22:
with this type of assumption at the back of your head, how do you then understand a post before replying?

I have noticed here on Nairaland, everyone is in a box, they don't read the post to really understand the underlying points of the matter but just to reply and argue based on their preconceived assumption of the point you must have.

it is sad because i don't see any growth in that, it's an intellectual landlock, DoctorAlien replied without making such assumptions.



Well it makes me wonder what exactly your first reply here was about since you already made a mistake by assuming the premise of the thread which turned out to be wrong.

Anyway forgive me brother for not replying it, it's much too bulky plus the pictures and all.

Have a good one and assume less

Boo""

johnydon22:
Do you think we are going to use our Phd in heaven ?

Mind if i ask what you are studying or studied in school?

not really but it arguably should make no difference to someone with a naturalistic worldview if I have a PHD or want to be an armed robber.

As a Christian, I believe life is meaningful and valueable and not some cosmic incident. I do the best I can to help humanity and flow the life of God to others.

Over to you. What does it matter to you if I'm a highly paid assasin?

johnydon22:
Great assumption there but i am quite sure no where on this thread did i conclude therefore God did not exist, this thread wasn't about the existence of God it only questioned the feasibility of heaven/paradise/eternal bliss and sinless existence.

Maybe you should not have assumed to know the premise of the thread without really understanding the premise of the thread - again this thread does not argue that God does not exist as a matter of fact the whole argument is centered on the assumption that God actually exist.

Or maybe you should point pit where the article states God doesn't exist or concludes thus, i'd like to see that.

oh my bad. Pardon me. It's usually the end game of all atheist gimmicks.

If someone told me the following "If a teacher existed, with the ability to teach us all subjects effectively without the exception of any subject, we would have heard of such teacher".
I wouldn't have much to conclude either

Martinez19:
Why christians skip faith shaking thread is something I don't understand. Atheists don't run from challenges or contests.

To what end?
I mean, why should they bother?
We're all supposed to die, never to have any significant meaning in this meaningless accidental inconsequential world.
Why should it matter if some religious persons, skip a thread on the internet or masturbate on it?
What real meaning would it give?

Live your worldview man, you're demonstrating it to be unacheivable.

johnydon22:
A permanent character in freewill, that is highly unlikely. If us as beings in heaven can be sinless then it means that perfection of beings is attainable therefore creatable - God could have easily made man in that innate state of holiness that is permanent.

But if man goes up to heaven as man fully with freewill, how so can man not still sin/disobey/fall as Adam or Lucifer did

And because God did not make man in the state in which we feel man should be made, then it makes God non-existent. Great logic.

Martinez19:
Convincing people while being open minded is allowed but convincing while being close minded to dogma is unacceptable. Christians and Muslims are never open minded.

is this what you believe?

johnydon22:
At a point here on nairaland i had a signature on which states; If a perfect God with the ability to create a perfect world exists and wants you to be in a perfect world, you would have been in a perfect world, there wouldn't be a need for such bizarre cruel test results determined by virtue of all knowledge

I find faulty the very basics of your whole argument.

The argument seems to be built on the following premises;

1. A perfect God intends to create a perfect world (To humans, perfect would mean all things Good)
2. A perfect God wants to create you (His creation) to be in a perfect good world.
3. A perfect God and a perfect good world can contain no evil (No place for “bizzare cruel tests” in a perfect good world)
4. Therefore a perfect God does not exist

It’s interesting we get to pick what our Creator can/should or can not/should not do. Makes me wonder who the creator is here.

While I will not be making my points with the Bible, it is important to note the following objections:

1. Genesis 1:2 runs contrary to premise 1 above.
2. Isaiah 45:7 argues against premise 2
3. The chapter of Job in its entirety, argues against premise 3

According to the Christian worldview, God created a perfect world (earth), but did not create man in a perfect world (earth). The space between genesis 1:1 and 1:2 explains this clearly. The earlier verse speaks of God creating a perfect earth, the latter verse speaks of “tohu” which means wasteness and “bohu” which means emptiness. Today, it is generally referred to as “formless” and “void”. What would make the Almighty God’s perfect creation this way, we are not told but thankfully it is briefly mentioned in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28:12-19.

johnydon22:
In very many religions of the world there are concepts of paradise, heaven, valhalla. A supposedly perfect world of eternal bliss, sinless and without any atom of corruption where you may end up to live an infinite life of joy, happiness and plenty.

A place called paradise seems to be unique to almost every generation of humanity, and why wouldn’t it be? Every soul seems to longs for eternity even if a few deny it. Here’s what the ex-atheist writer C. S. Lewis had to say on this topic. It’s popularly called “the argument from joy”.
www.nairaland.com/attachments/5777292_img7054_jpegfbb49b0f3da99592ae42ab0a4a00026bwww.nairaland.com/attachments/5777293_img7053_jpegf5c998b3ce120689f66a6eb53adcdebe


Seems to me like a rational decision.

johnydon22:
But there is a bizarre twist to this idea, this is where it gets strange.

"You must live and die first before it can be determined if you are qualified to gain this eternal bliss"

The only strange I see here is the assertion above, especially with respect to the Christian worldview.

"I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have complete boldness, so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. So what shall I choose? I do not know..." - Apostle Paul

It seems to me that every Christian hopes to live and die in Christ. This is why death is usually referred to by Christians as a transition into glory. We do not have to wait till death to qualify. Elijah didn’t have to wait for instance.

johnydon22:
If we run our thoughts backwards in time, try to picture the state we were before birth then one can be exposed the bizarreness and cruelty of such unnecessary tests.

We didn't exist -?

There were two choices before God, create these beings into a perfect world or create them into an imperfect world to test them over nothing.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/5777298_img7032_jpeg27fd8e3d9196a592e5b40908f0eeff03

According to the Christian worldview, this is inaccurate.

1. The preexistence of the human soul is well argued in many christian circles
2. As earlier explained, God created a perfect world but humans were not created into a world that still retained this initially perfect state(to humans, perfect would mean all good).
A dictionary defines per·fect-ˈpərfikt/
having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.

3. God could easily create robotic beings that would obey His every command, completely unaware of his environment. But God chose to create beings that could freely choose to obey, disobey or even question his command. This is regarded as the single most basic God-given right of every human. Freewill. It would eventually lead to the fall of man.
Note: Man could never be affected or “infected” any contrary force, except through this freedom to choose. Amos 3:3
4. The fall of man spelt destruction but God would later find a way to redeem man.

As far as I know, in the things of God, rules are meant to be obeyed. Failure to do so comes with its consequences. Humans have also been striving to imitate this basic model especially in a bid to sustain a sane community.

johnydon22:
You didn't exist, so what exactly was the need for the test when you could be created exactly where God wills?

A test of loyality seems to be the only proof that a being has the ability to freely live. It’s the only proof of free will. In Yoruba land for instance, those who pass the test of loyalty in apprenticeship are celebrated in a function popularly called “FREEDOM”. Loyalty seems to be a very important determinant in the topic of freedom.

johnydon22:
So if heaven is perfect at last, and everyone in heaven will turn out perfect then this means God is fully capable of creating a perfect world with perfect beings in it, which now begs the question "Why didn't God create that perfect world in the first place?"

Of course God did. You claim to be ex-christian c’mon. it’s in Genesis 1:1. God created the heavens and the earth.
Even by human standards, you can’t curb the creative power of man. How much more mans Creator.

johnydon22:
Some persons that i know and talked about this issue with gave the answer that God initially created this world to be perfect but man's action ruined God's perfect plan.

It is amazing how the perfect plan of an all knowing and all powerful being can be thwarted by tiny man.

Man’s action did not ruin God’s perfect world, but rather God’s will for man.
Man is not tiny to God. That little spec of dust has a special place in God a while we are told in Psalm 8:4-8.
Regrettably, man can choose to accept or reject God’s love.

johnydon22:
This answer calls into question the very purity of heaven, if man could ruin God's perfect world, what would change when man is now in heaven?

won't man also be able to ruin that too?
If you say that man cannot ruin heaven, the next question becomes - Why was man able to ruin this world but will be unable to ruin the next?

What will God do differently in paradise to avoid the whole saga repeating itself all over again and thus it keeps going

As earlier explained, Man could not ruin a perfect world.
As far as I know, a few things will change in heaven.

1. Revelation 21:4 reveals that there is unlikely to be evil in heaven. Man will live as robots, knowing only good.
2. Revelation 12:8 concedes that is no place for evil in heaven.
3. There will be neither freewill nor the abuse of it.






"I think it will be appropriate for those who intend to criticize the beliefs of others, to take some time to get more knowledge on what they wish to criticize. Majority of believers especially in this part of the world are neither well groomed in Christian apologetics nor the rational defense of the gospel. It's laughable when's non-believers criticize a belief based on the ideas they once had about their former beliefs without realizing that they sound exactly like the people they wish to criticize."

I believe the video below will give us an insight on the fall of man.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo1qvXY7S8M

Bless you.

A dictionary describes a church as "a building used for public Christian worship".

Encyclopædia Britannica defines what a church is:
"A church building, often simply called a church, is a building used for Christian religious activities, particularly worship services. The term in its architectural sense is most often used by Christians to refer to their religious buildings, but it is sometimes used (by analogy) for buildings of other religions"

Definition of Church by Merriam-Webster a building for public and especially Christian worship.
We can get other definitions of the word Church and one thing seems to be certain of worldly definitions. To them, CHURCH IS A BUILDING

A lady joked "A church can be likened to a hospital where you find the sick, the healthy, those responding to treatment etc
Interesting comparison from the lady (A hospital for sinners, not a club for saints). When I was younger, I used to get angry when I see drunk guys shouting, booing and doing all sorts of nonsense during drama nights, praise nights and other worship nights where they think they can just come to have fun. I always felt like driving them out of the church, but someone once told me, "Never drive any one out of the church, it's not up to you".

To me, I saw the church as a sacred PLACE of worship. A SACRED BUILDING.
Today, this is no longer what I understand a church to be and I think it should be the same for those who really do care about research. Honest research and not researches that supports only their worldview


The word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklesia which is defined as “an assembly” or “called-out ones.” The root meaning of “church” is not that of a building, but of people. It is ironic that when you ask people what church they attend, they usually identify a building.
Source ).

Rightfully, the church is neither a place nor a building. Christians are the church.

This has some implications. Several Christians have been killed terribly and seemingly helplessly, including those disciples who had "first hand physical contact" with the So of God, JESUS CHRIST. Would it be rational to say people have been killing the church for a long time?

Romans 16:5 says “… greet the church that is in their house.” Paul refers to the church in their house—not a church building, but a body of believers.
If somehow, God gave these people up to be matyred, would it be rational to say the church was killed by some people?
Point is, the Church is not what most people think it is and the real church has been persecuted right from the time of Jesus's Christ.
Well, I won't be digging further on this today as this is not the point of this thread...


While I understand that some people (ex-Christians inclusive) have come to hate anything that has to do with Christianity because they feel it's irrational or brainwashing, I've discovered that those who allow reason to prevail in their judgment and have an in depth knowledge on religious matters do not discredit the place of religion in humanity, neither do they fail to acknowledge that a belief in God is rational.

I won't dig further on this either, at least not today.


In regards to a thread on the murder on some Catholics, my heart skipped on seeing the gruesome uncensored pictures of victims of an act of madness from a set of unknown persons.

https://www.nairaland.com/3970380/gunmen-kill-worshippers-catholic-church

www.nairaland.com/attachments/5772231_img6892_jpeg250be0274280f39353ba45afcbfb42b5
www.nairaland.com/attachments/5772232_img6893_jpege5c650169545905252d37c6716e1de1f

May God rest their souls.

It reminded me of some other related acts of terror.

The Oregon shooter animal who was asking people one by one what their religion was. ‘Are you a Christian?’ he would ask them, and if you’re a Christian, stand up. And they would stand up and he said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you are going to see God in just about one second.’ And then he shot and killed them,” - CNN.
www.nairaland.com/attachments/5772316_img6899_jpegf607c0ffd8665aff9584780051026df1


The massacre at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church

Where the animal who committed this crime showed no remorse and laughed on confession.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/5772317_img6907_jpege58e0c9769a9a021a00a866cb1d896ea

as well as several other church massacres by Islamic terror groups in Northern Nigeria and of course all over the world.

These devilish acts have been met with criticisms from moral minds all over the world including those who claim not to guided by any universal moral principles but personal subjective ever-evolving moral principles.
Contrarily, murders, massacres seem morally wrong to almost every human everywhere in the world. This is the fundamental basis for the rational claims made by majority of the worlds population on the subject of morality.

I have a whole lot of threads on
1. atheist hatred for God, religion and religious people
2. Proof that atheistic terrorism and inhumanity can never be compared to all religious atrocities combined
3. Proof that atheists will do anything to see religion disappear forever
4. and other threads that prove that atheists have no real reason to be good nor do they have any basis to condemn the evils metted out by animals who believe they were acting according to their best interests in the only life they have to leave. It has been widely said that "you only live once". So why not do those things that make you happy right?


Well I've come under heavy criticism for backing my threads with solid facts and yet again today I've come with more facts that pride and hatred sometimes cloud the natural emphatic thought process of man.
The screenshots below do not seem to me like products of minds which are any different from the animals earlier mentioned.
www.nairaland.com/attachments/5772598_img6896_jpeg6cb1a51c7b4e4a1972a1a3a7b4c45990

Another
www.nairaland.com/attachments/5772599_img6897_jpegbaa0fc7d1445e810bac66408c27ac63c

Another
www.nairaland.com/attachments/5772611_img6932_jpegd0d7a6a1e68f02e78350206b3ca309b8

Another
www.nairaland.com/attachments/5772612_img6933_jpege1ecb145e5076e517b6aa8f3b7b72dad


While I do not agree with Catholics on their doctrines or their official Roman Catholic documents or their atrocities committed to several Christian scientists in the past. I will never criticize their beliefs or person ON THE BASIS OF THIS AWFUL TRAGEDY. And I don't think any right thinking emphatic person would too.

It's so sad some animals are so engrossed in hate that they have ignorantly crossed the line dividing rational criticism and mockery/ridicule.

I think by now, people can see that I was not crossing the line when I created these threads: https://www.nairaland.com/3148752/atheists-express-rage-against-god

https://www.nairaland.com/3176513/atheist-murderers-past-present-murderous

Big shoutout to @coolusername and @johnydon22 for this: https://www.nairaland.com/3970778/irreligious-people-need-stop-sh

It's great to see some non-believers still have some form of sanity, even though they might have no real basis to condemn the actions of other non-believers as the other non-believers might feel they are morally right, talk about subjective morality. I want to believe they have let humanity come first.

As for @hopefulLandlord, he is even more of an unstable extremist than I thought.

He mocks what the dead believed in, forgetting that they are dead first. And he's is making a bigger mockery of himself on the same thread, thanks to @butterflylion for pointing that out to readers.
I'd advise against going on further arguments with such mind.

Once again. May God rest the souls of the dead.
Let's live in love. It's the only thing Christ showed and commanded. Ephesians 5:2.

[i]

CoolUsername:
It's really not subject to debate. No respectable scientist in the concerned field does so. Your logic is extremely flawed, does the fact that some people debate that the earth is flat mean that there isn't a wealth of evidence that it is spherical?

Can you provide the just 1 out of the wealth of evidence supporting evolution.

And please not adaptation or variation...

You really should search the meaning of the word "wealth".

4kings:
I believe you're smart.
If you know that many scientists still support this, why not look into their reason for this.

If you read those papers like i told you to, you would not come up with silly questions like the one your meme indicated.

I've probably looked into more papers on evolution that you have and in fact than most atheists here have.

Just one question.

Give just 1 example of change of kinds.

Science is observable, pseudoscience is not.

4kings:
Winner01 i thought you're now an atheist

So you neva leave this silly matter alone abi.
I have one very simple task for you.

There are many recent peer reviewed papers on Google Scholars still talking on evolution, maybe you can do yourself a favour and educate yourself directly from a scientist rather than a creationist blog.
After you've read even if it's just one (that's recent though within 3 years), you can make it a subject of discussion and try to debunk their "absurd explanations" to prove creationism then scientist and other intelligent minds will be very willing to listen to you.

Talking about that, i hardly think you can find any recent(within 3 years) peer reviewed journal against evolution, so if you manage to debunk one, then you're proudly the scientist of the year, till then "PLEASE KEEP QUIET!!!"

lol.
Same old. Same old.

I'm not debunking their explanations. We only want people to see for themselves.

It does not really matter how many years of bullshit or how many "evolutionists" support bullshit.

We are asking obvious questions like every reasonable mind is supposed to ask.

All you could do was to tell me that several persons or journals support evolution?

SMH

If you spend the time and effort you spend here digging into evolution, and not replacing pseudoscience backed by cartoons, you would have changed your views by now.

KingEbukasBlog:
Of course , special creationism : A concept whereby God created primordial ancestors and enabled diversification/ variation through evolution .

Thumbs up bro.

Creator Involved.