Ihedinobi:

I don't see how God needs to operate within time to produce effects in history. How does acting from outside time fail to producw effects in history? Do I have to be inside a football to alter its properties? I don't think so. In fact, being outside the leather ball is more guaranteed to facilitate any operation upon it.



And my question to you has remained invariably "what is this logical contradiction?" Insisting that it is a fact or that nine billion people agree that it is a logical contradiction is still not gonna tell me what the contradiction is.

God being outside or within time is only an excuse. whatever time is for him, what he knows about the future must come to pass if he is to remain perfect and omniscient, and this negates freewill.

The argument of God being outside time is irrelevant to this discussion.

striktlymi:

After the dance with wieg, I believe I have earned the right to go play somewhere else

I will be back though with a response...don't miss me too much

the sexuality section is so interesting, you wont believe what people are posting there. reading posts there is enough to make you want to masturba

ooman:

the sexuality section is so interesting, you wont believe what people are posting there. reading posts there is enough to make you want to masturba

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat!!! Thou shalth not speaketh nor posteth any thing that the hearers or lookers need not heareth nor readeth

ooman:

two versions of the same book self contradicts each other so much and you still think that such book is credible enough to teach you history of the world. You are quite disappointing intellectually!

So, what's this contradiction you speak of?

being curious about it means reading and researching about it, never denying facts and holding on to ancient myths

I think you have difficulty understanding questions. What does the part of your post quoted above have to do with my question? I asked if inability to comprehend, [i](I add this part now, but it agrees with the spirit of my question) without help or guidance, prevents one from being curious?

Being curious simply means to have a desire to know things yet unknown.

you need someone to tell you that depth means the distance from top or surface to the bottom of something?

Well, why do you then regard the bottom in this case to mean the center or the core?

because Strong's expose the stup.id.ity of the bible in its original language

So you choose Strong's because it agrees with your preconceived fallacious arguments. Nice

striktlymi:

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat!!! Thou shalth not speaketh nor posteth any thing that the hearers or lookers need not heareth nor readeth

sorry, couldnt help myself. imagine this

Spicybooty: topic: Guys How Does It Feel When Your joystick Is Inside The womanliness?: does it feel warm, soft, how does the di*ck feel inside the womanliness that makes it so sweet for you? just rying 2 imagine being the one with a joystick

Ihedinobi:

I don't see how God needs to operate within time to produce effects in history. How does acting from outside time fail to producw effects in history? Do I have to be inside a football to alter its properties? I don't think so. In fact, being outside the leather ball is more guaranteed to facilitate any operation upon it.



And my question to you has remained invariably "what is this logical contradiction?" Insisting that it is a fact or that nine billion people agree that it is a logical contradiction is still not gonna tell me what the contradiction is.

Your analogy with a football is quite foolish. ONE CAN NOT CHANGE WHAT IS WITHIN A TIME FILLED UNIVERSE WITHOUT GETTING INVOLVED WITH TIME. IT WOULD BE LIKE CHANGING THE INSIDE OF YOUR LEATHER BALL WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE PRESSURIZED AIR INSIDE IT.



As for your denial of the logical contradiction between omniscience and freewill. The question you will have to answer is if Judas had any freewill in betraying Jesus. Could he have avoided betraying jesus? No, because god would have been wrong hence not omniscient.

ooman:

sorry, couldnt help myself. imagine this

Logicboy03: Ooman, you try!

Ihedinobi is th worst person to have a debate with. At least, striklymi has the decency to run away when he knows that he has been thoroughly debunked. Ihedinobi will start switching topics, throwing useless analogies and denying obbvious truths so much that it ends up being a merry go round

Example


Atheist: there is a logical contradiction between omniscience and freewill. There is even a whole topuc on it in philosophy. Even somechristians recognoze the problem.
Ihedinobi: lol you belive that there is a contradiction between omniscience and freewillbecause some christians belive so?

Ooman: the bible is wrong because it says that no onebknows the depth of the earth while we know whats at the core of the earth
Ihedinobi: lol....what does the depth of the earth have to do with its core?

(note that the core of the earth is the deepest part of the planet)

Oh my! What have we here? An admirer!

So what about "under the earth", another way the Bible says 'depth of the earth'? What is that? How do you define it?

Ihedinobi:

So, what's this contradiction you speak of?

isnt that obvious?

Ihedinobi: I think you have difficulty understanding questions. What does the part of your post quoted above have to do with my question? I asked if inability to comprehend, [i](I add this part now, but it agrees with the spirit of my question) without help or guidance, prevents one from being curious?

prevents? nope

Ihedinobi: Being curious simply means to have a desire to know things yet unknown.

not just having desires, taking actions too, which is not a property of the religious because you would rather pray to god to show you by revelation

Ihedinobi: Well, why do you then regard the bottom in this case to mean the center or the core?

do some reading

Ihedinobi: So you choose Strong's because it agrees with your preconceived fallacious arguments. Nice

nope, because it exposes the bible in its original language. i dont speak greek or hebrew, Strong's helps in translation. the bible is rubbish in its original language but modern translators have tried to give their meaning to the original rubbish, so strong's is useful in understanding the word of god in its original language.

so you dont even know what Strong's is used for? na wa oo

All the unnecessary obfuscations... Well, it was to be expected.


let's assume we have 5 points

A B C D E

God being God, knows that given an option to pick 3, a man might decide to pick any in whatever permutation. But this isn't omniscient.

Being omniscient means God knows exactly what options he will pick, and in what order. e.g B A C or D B A.

Like I said on an earlier thread, omnisicient isn't just about probabilities. God knows FOR CERTAIN WHAT will happen else, he fails to be OMNISCIENT.


The problem is this knowledge isn't limited to the now. GOD, BEING OMNISCIENT KNOWS WHAT MY UNBORN DESCENDANT 3 GENERATIONS AWAY WOULD DO.

They've not been born, yet their actions have already been known. By knowing, God has made them set. If they deviate from what God already knows, then God seizes to be omniscient. Else, their 'freewill' is just an illusion. They're only acting according to God's foreknowledge, just like the characters in a story must bend to the will of the writer.


And with this, I end my case...
May the verbal gymnastics continue...

striktlymi:

Ihedinobi:





Well, why do you then regard the bottom in this case to mean the center or the core?



So you choose Strong's because it agrees with your preconceived fallacious arguments. Nice

Ignorance is a disease. The earth is a sphere that we ate standing on. Its bottom would be uder our feet till its core at the centre. Otherwise, every country is a potential bottom. At the bottom of our nigerian feet wouldb bexsomewhere in asia if we go past the core. At the bottom of the north pole would be the south pole.


You lack sense

musKeeto: All the unnecessary obfuscations... Well, it was to be expected.


let's assume we have 5 points

A B C D E

God being God, knows that given an option to pick 3, a man might decide to pick any in whatever permutation. But this isn't omniscient.

Being omniscient means God knows exactly what options he will pick, and in what order. e.g B A C or D B A.

Like I said on an earlier thread, omnisicient isn't just about probabilities. God knows FOR CERTAIN WHAT will happen else, he fails to be OMNISCIENT.


The problem is this knowledge isn't limited to the now. GOD, BEING OMNISCIENT KNOWS WHAT MY UNBORN DESCENDANT 3 GENERATIONS AWAY WOULD DO.

They've not been born, yet their actions have already been known. By knowing, God has made them set. If they deviate from what God already knows, then God seizes to be omnipotent. Else, their 'freewill' is just an illusion. They're only acting according to God's foreknowledge, just like the characters in a story must bend to the will of the writer.


And with this, I end my case...
May the verbal gymnastics continue...

thank you for your illumination.

this is exactly what we have been saying, which Striky and Ihe deliberately ignore just to favor their mute god.

ooman:

thank you for your illumination.

this is exactly what we have been saying, which Striky and Ihe deliberately ignore just to favor their mute god.

When next you summon me without refuting my points na kain I go take flog ya yansh

striktlymi:

When next you summon me without refuting my points na kain I go take flog ya yansh

Is this some escape tactic? Address muskeetos point

Logicboy03:

Is this some escape tactic? Address muskeetos point

no mind am

striktlymi:

When next you summon me without refuting my points na kain I go take flog ya yansh

why not read through your comments so far!

Logicboy03:

Is this some escape tactic? Address muskeetos point

Uncle Musky didn't direct his post at me

ooman:

no mind am

you better mind me or...

ooman:

why not read through your comments so far!

My comments are still up there awaiting some rebuttal of some sought...

ooman:

your response betray your level of understanding of what you continue to argue. to begin with, what is the primary structure of proteins and how many structures do we have? feel free to google, your responses will betray you later.
proper understanding of protein folding will tell you that it occurs spontaneously without ID'ner's interference. Its misfolding also proves absence of an IDner at each folding.

because mutations that hurts life forms and children occur, an intelligent designer couldn't be present and still allow for T21 and other genetic diseases except this IDner is really evil. You know, if the devil is your god, there is a great evidence for him but there is no single evidence for a good god.

why would i mean in the lab? why take the easy way out? Provide me with a single species in nature, among the recently documented ones for verification, whose genome is known to be built from scratch, then creation will become science.

hope your low intellect can grasp these now.

I'm actually barely able to give as much as half my attention to this post because there's a sweet documentary about Nature on TV right now. But, just seeing the beginning of this post bowled me over.

Do you have a Toyota (or whatever brand you prefer) engineer ride with you everytime you operate your car? I'm sure you don't. We're discussing Design, dude, not operation.

A designer could build proteins to fold spontaneously and to fold properly provided certain requirements were met. Spontaneity does not disprove design. At all.

About operation, we Christians will very gladly tell you that a great deal changed in the overall dynamics of life when man broke with God. That would account for your "mistakes with grievous consequences".

This "genome built from scratch" thing needs explaining from you. What are you insisting on here? That all known species have genomes that were not built from scratch? What does that mean? What were they built from?

Impress me this time, if you can.

striktlymi:

My comments are still up there awaiting some rebuttal of some sought...

your comments are irrelevant to this discussion, as i have said, they are prevarications.

what is germane is Muskeetos points, address them without prevarication this time

striktlymi:

you better mind me or...

empty threats abi you be boko haram ni?

ooman:

your comments are irrelevant to this discussion, as i have said, they are prevarications.

what is germane is Muskeetos points, address them without prevarication this time

Strikllymi cant. He must avoid muskis comment by all means

ooman:

your comments are irrelevant to this discussion, as i have said, they are prevarications.

what is germane is Muskeetos points, address them without prevarication this time

Your sentiments are understandable...

How do you say it again?...aah yes!..."I Don't expect you and your kind" to see the points I raised.

victor-NR-ceo:
On this thread:

The incessantly stubborn striklymi

The persistently enlightening ooman

The brilliant-feeling schizophrenia infected ihedinobi

The respectfully enlightening wiegraf
.......................................................
With the imparting impact of ma fellow atheists,I don't c a complementing veracious analysis to the OP convincing the two christians ^^.
I will rather help to c receptive religious folks get rid of the mentally maniacal confinement of the God concept. Motivational n Enlightening atheist thread like this one,should make NL front-page.

@bolded: another fan. Nice to know you too, buddy.

Ihedinobi:

I'm actually barely able to give as much as half my attention to this post because there's a sweet documentary about Nature on TV right now. But, just seeing the beginning of this post bowled me over.

Do you have a Toyota (or whatever brand you prefer) engineer ride with you everytime you operate your car? I'm sure you don't. We're discussing Design, dude, not operation.

A designer could build proteins to fold spontaneously and to fold properly provided certain requirements were met. Spontaneity does not disprove design. At all.

where your analogy failed is that a toyota car or whatever tech does not replicate itself or change into another form.

new forms of organisms evolves over time in nature which stems two questions

1. if god completed his creation, why then do new forms of life evolve.
2. if spontaneity does not disprove design - why does it "create" as in bring about new forms of life.

dont forget that god, the designer already finished his work ooo

Ihedinobi: About operation, we Christians will very gladly tell you that a great deal changed in the overall dynamics of life when man broke with God. That would account for your "mistakes with grievous consequences".

what tha f4k does this mean?

Ihedinobi: This "genome built from scratch" thing needs explaining from you. What are you insisting on here? That all known species have genomes that were not built from scratch? What does that mean? What were they built from?
Impress me this time, if you can.

show me an organism, just one that did not come from a previous ancestor but was created anew as the bible claims. simple!! na wa ooo

Logicboy03:


Strikllymi cant. He must avoid muskis comment by all means

...if I didn't know better, I'd say you are trying your hands on reverse psychology

striktlymi:

Your sentiments are understandable...

How do you say it again?...aah yes!..."I Don't expect you and your kind" to see the points I raised.

my what [size=15pt]SENTIMENTS??[/size].

Am not an emotional person. Ask Muskeeto in his suicide thread. I dont use sentiments pls, maybe you are sentimental but not me!!

Logicboy03:


Strikllymi cant. He must avoid muskis comment by all means

i know his type. now he is accusing me of being sentimental.

ooman:

empty threats abi you be boko haram ni?

...when I carry out my threat of pecking your girl na then you go know

ooman:

my what [size=15pt]SENTIMENTS??[/size].

Am not an emotional person. Ask Muskeeto in his suicide thread. I dont use sentiments pls, maybe you are sentimental but not me!!

Whatever you say man...