ooman:

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

Please humour me with the tale of my 'type'...

striktlymi:

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

that one na wish you go faint when you see am.

striktlymi:

Please humour me with the tale of my 'type'...

your type prevaricate when you have no answers.

ooman:

that one na wish you go faint when you see am.

Don't worry...though I have no girl friend but I have lady friends who are just what an intelligent man with an eye out for beauty, like ya sef , is looking for....so fainting would be out of the question.

ooman:

your type prevaricate when you have no answers.

Provided my defense and still waiting for that counter-attack you promised.

striktlymi:

Don't worry...though I have no girl friend but I have lady friends who are just what an intelligent man with an eye out for beauty, like ya sef , is looking for....so fainting would be out of the question.

we ll see about that

striktlymi:

Provided my defense and still waiting for that counter-attack you promised.

i have countered your "defenses". If you refer to a new thread i promise you, i will open that soon.

^^done that: https://www.nairaland.com/1258085/gods-little-test-subjects-why

ooman:

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.

Is it now. Let's see.

If God is outside time, He doesn't have a future. Therefore, He does not have foresight. He sort of exists in the present and knows no such thing as a past and a future. So what, for you, may be yet in the future, a future decision is not future to Him. It's happening for Him in the present. He's not foreseeing it, He's witnessing it.

For us though, bound by time, having to see each moment in sequence, one following the other, it's different. We can't witness moments that we are not in. The future is a prediction for us at best. Not so for Him.

When the Bible speaks of God sometimes, it has to use language that makes sense to us, so it speaks of God in a "human" way. Or else, it'll sound like a load of gibberish. That's why it has to speak of foresight as though God had to look ahead to a future.

Logicboy03:



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.

So why do you run with the foolish analogy, Don Morron?

I can deal with the pressurized air by letting it out, if I have to. I don't need to get inside the ball itself.

It's up to you now to convince me that God has to subject Himself to time to do anything to history.

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.

Nonsense. I have no question to answer because I have not denied anything, Don Morron. I have onlt demanded that you show me this contradiction that you are insisting on.

Is it possible that you really don't know how omniscience contradicts free will? Or perhaps that there is no contradiction at all, but your atheistic position needs there to be such a contradiction so you need to force me to accept the existence of one?

Ihedinobi:

Is it now. Let's see.

If God is outside time, He doesn't have a future. [size=15pt]Therefore, He does not have foresight.[/size] He sort of exists in the present and knows no such thing as a past and a future. So what, for you, may be yet in the future, a future decision is not future to Him. It's happening for Him in the present. [size=15pt]He's not foreseeing it,[/size] He's witnessing it.

if the above is true, then there is nothing like omniscience and god is not omniscient.

If you had said this earlier, we would have ended this discussion a long time ago. However, not all xtians will agree with this.

Striky wont, as his comments have always supported an omniscient god so i take it this is your own hypothesis without backing of any kind, logic or bible, so keep it to yourself.

Ihedinobi:

Is it possible that you really don't know how [size=15pt]omniscience[/size] contradicts [size=15pt]free will[/size]? Or perhaps that there is no contradiction at all, but your atheistic position needs there to be such a contradiction so you need to force me to accept the existence of one?

you just said there is nothing like omniscience here

Ihedinobi:

Is it now. Let's see.

If God is outside time, He doesn't have a future. [size=15pt]Therefore, He does not have foresight.[/size] He sort of exists in the present and knows no such thing as a past and a future. So what, for you, may be yet in the future, a future decision is not future to Him. It's happening for Him in the present. [size=15pt]He's not foreseeing it,[/size] He's witnessing it.

which one you dey now, guy??

na wa ooo

ooman:

isnt that obvious?

How is it obvious?

prevents? nope

If it doesn't, then what are you complaining about with your thread? The Bible's submission that one cannot discover a thing does not preclude one from being curious about it. Thus, your claim that God and religion stops anyone from being curious is completely destroyed by your own admission.

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

Talk about utter nonsense, that's what the above is. I ask God to show (that is, reveal) some mystery to me or teach me something I hitherto did not know, and you conclude that that singular gesture is not only not an action (wonder what it is then) but it is actually a refusal of taking action to learn things? Typical atheist nonsense!

A teacher does a lot of revealing by asking his students to take a variety of actions. It mat be to read a particular book or try some particular experiment or make certain kinds of enquiries from some particular person or people. Why should God's role as a teacher/instructor/revealer be any different?

do some reading

Right. Which of your books am I to read to know why you think such a thing?

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

Don Morron's disciple, your answer to my initial question was that you used Strong's because it "exposes the stupidity of the Bible..." Is it not your stand that the Bible is stupid? Using only a commentary that you believe helps your case does not encourage confidence in the balance in your arguments, my rather dull friend.

Ihedinobi:

How is it obvious?
If it doesn't, then what are you complaining about with your thread? The Bible's submission that one cannot discover a thing does not preclude one from being curious about it. Thus, your claim that God and religion stops anyone from being curious is completely destroyed by your own admission.

you obviously dont know what you are talking about. here is your input

Ihedinobi: I think you have difficulty understanding questions. What does the part of your post quoted above have to do with my question? [size=15pt]I asked if inability to comprehend[/size], (I add this part now, but it agrees with the spirit of my question) without help or guidance, [size=15pt]prevents one from being curious[/size]?

which is what i answered no to.

i hold on to the fact that believing in god and in creation stops you from being curious because "god made it" will be enough for your seeming curiosity.

Ihedinobi: Talk about utter nonsense, that's what the above is. I ask God to show (that is, reveal) some mystery to me or teach me something I hitherto did not know, and you conclude that that singular gesture is not only [i]not an action (wonder what it is then) but it is actually a refusal of taking action to learn things? Typical atheist nonsense!

you call prayer and other acts of being completely insane and talking to thin air an action? then you are a complete dullard. since when is talking to oneself in the name of talking to god an action.

Prayer means failure and laziness. Prayer is never one of the adjectives that qualifies curiousness.

Ihedinobi: A teacher does a lot of revealing by asking his students to take a variety of actions. It mat be to read a particular book or try some particular experiment or make certain kinds of enquiries from some particular person or people. Why should God's role as a teacher/instructor/revealer be any different?

because god does not exist and god will not ask you to read any other book except the rubbish he already wrote in the bible. besides, the teacher exists, god does not.

Ihedinobi: Right. Which of your books am I to read to know why you think such a thing?

so many books, Krauss' and Dawkin's or have you forgotten?

Ihedinobi: Don Morron's disciple, your answer to my initial question was that you used Strong's because it "exposes the stupidity of the Bible..." Is it not your stand that the Bible is stupid? Using only a commentary that you believe helps your case does not encourage confidence in the balance in your arguments, my rather dull friend.

sentiments, ad hominems and abuses are not the way out for you.

you are the dull person here. Strong's exposes the bible in its original language, how does that relate to my own beliefs.

I understand you know the bible is worthless when understood in its original language and so you rather hide under the modernized, modified english version. Hiding under shadows - good for you.

Logicboy03:



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

And with the above, thw Crown Prince of Idiocy shows exactly why his and his little brother's arguments about the depths of the earth are untenable.

Of course, my dumb friend, any country or point on the surface of the earth could be under the earth depending on where the speaker is standing.

Indeed, the core of the globe can be argued to be the "under" the Bible speaks of, but then the Bible speaks as much of spiritual realities as of material realities so if anyone will judge its words, they have to either prove that some or all of its realities are nonsense, in which case, ot cannot be used as a reliable authority or else the Bible's peculiar method of reasoning must be accounted for.

Here, the Bible talks of the heavens above and means, some of the time, the space above the earth's physical surface and the rest of the time, the spiritual place where God "dwells"; the earth, where we live; and "beneath the earth", generally a sort of the headquarters of the powers of darkness.

So until you can find such a place scientifically, you cannot measure the distance to it scientifically. And if you dismiss the existence of such places, you cannot at the same time talk of having proved the Bible wrong about the distance to it. That would be having your cake and eating it too, Prince Idiocy, wouldn't it?

Ihedinobi:

And with the above, thw Crown Prince of Idiocy shows exactly why his and his little brother's arguments about the depths of the earth are untenable.

Of course, my dumb friend, any country or point on the surface of the earth could be under the earth depending on where the speaker is standing.

Indeed, the core of the globe can be argued to be the "under" the Bible speaks of, but then the Bible speaks as much of spiritual realities as of material realities so if anyone will judge its words, they have to either prove that some or all of its realities are nonsense, in which case, ot cannot be used as a reliable authority or else the Bible's peculiar method of reasoning must be accounted for.

Here, the Bible talks of the heavens above and means, some of the time, the space above the earth's physical surface and the rest of the time, the spiritual place where God "dwells"; the earth, where we live; and "beneath the earth", generally a sort of the headquarters of the powers of darkness.

So until you can find such a place scientifically, you cannot measure the distance to it scientifically. And if you dismiss the existence of such places, you cannot at the same time talk of having proved the Bible wrong about the distance to it. That would be having your cake and eating it too, Prince Idiocy, wouldn't it?

you must be kidding. You really think I or other rational people will spend our time looking for a mythical place.

Heck, i could also start looking for Atlantis or the talking snake.

na wa oooo

ooman:

i have countered your "defenses". If you refer to a new thread i promise you, i will open that soon.

Yea right, you countered them alright...in your mind

ooman:

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

Is that so, Don Morron's disciple? You don't realize that what you have stated is where designing ability and/or purpose varies, mm?

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.

If He designed His Creation to evolve to.produce new life forms, why shouldn't they?

2. if spontaneity does not disprove design - why does it "create" as in bring about new forms of life.

Perhaps because it was designed to - that is, if new forms of life are really coming into existence in the manner that you mean.

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

So?

what tha f4k does this mean?

Something a little beyond you, it seems, judging by the above

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

Lol. Ok, let's agree for the sake of argument that evolution is true, then a good example would be whatever triggered the whole thing. How about that?

ooman: ^^done that: https://www.nairaland.com/1258085/gods-little-test-subjects-why

oh my goodness...buddy ooman just opened another thread just for me? I am touched but unfortunately, I no get power o!

striktlymi:


Yea right, you countered them alright...in your mind

not moved. you are known to deny obvious truths

striktlymi:


oh my goodness...buddy ooman just opened another thread just for me? I am touched but unfortunately, I no get power o!

God is your strength - no be so you dey talk?

ooman:

if the above is true, then there is nothing like omniscience and god is not omniscient.

If you had said this earlier, we would have ended this discussion a long time ago. However, not all xtians will agree with this.

Striky wont, as his comments have always supported an omniscient god so i take it this is your own hypothesis without backing of any kind, logic or bible, so keep it to yourself.

You really are doing your best to surpass logicboy in stupidity, aren't you?

You couldn't possibly have read that post and made such a sttupid conclusion.

Now, I was explaining that because God is not subject to time, our conception of His omniscience in terms of what it would mean if He were subject to time is completely wrong. His omniscience does not run on time, it runs outside and independent of time. So, while an "omniscient" human being would have certain knowledge of a future that is yet to happen even for him, God has certain knowledge of the "future" because it is not future to Him at all. He's watching it happen, even though for us, we're yet to experience it.

Ooman, throw in the towel. There's too much 5hit in the ring.

ooman:

you just said there is nothing like omniscience here



which one you dey now, guy??

na wa ooo

Two words were italicized in that post, the words "have" and "foreseeing". Perhaps I should have used quotes instead. I italicized them to point out that their meaning is special within the context of that post.

Ihedinobi:

You really are doing your best to surpass logicboy in stupidity, aren't you?

You couldn't possibly have read that post and made such a sttupid conclusion.

Now, I was explaining that because God is not subject to time, our conception of His omniscience in terms of what it would mean if He were subject to time is completely wrong. His omniscience does not run on time, it runs outside and independent of time. So, while an "omniscient" human being would have certain knowledge of a future that is yet to happen even for him, [size=15pt]God has certain knowledge of the "future" because it is not future to Him at all. He's watching it happen, even though for us, we're yet to experience it.[/size]

exactly the point here.

the future god sees must happen according to how he saw it or his vision is a lie. our freewill is therefore a lie.

Ihedinobi:

Is that so, Don Morron's disciple? You don't realize that what you have stated is where designing ability and/or purpose varies, mm?

wrong. that is where nature varies from man's intelligent design

Ihedinobi: If He designed His Creation to evolve to.produce new life forms, why shouldn't they?

i thought that creation was already "completed". dont forget Gen 2v1 - So the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them was COMPLETED.

why then do we have NEW life forms, new land formations called volcanic islands among others if god's creation was actually COMPLETED AND FINISHED according Gen 2v2 NLT.??

Ihedinobi: Perhaps because it was designed to - that is, if new forms of life are really coming into existence in the manner that you mean.

you mean that god designed a manner that would cause man's extinction, death, diseases among others. your god must be really evil indeed if he truly exist.

Ihedinobi: So?

common sense should tell you that because creation was already finished, new "things" shouldnt be "created" anymore. but we have documented new life forms and understand how they came to be, that they adapted to changing environment and never because they were created from scratch.

Ihedinobi: Something a little beyond you, it seems, judging by the above

here is your gibberish!

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".

seriously, you really think that the above means something rational??

how did man "break" with god?

when man "broke" with god, what happened? what are the consequences? why should there be consequences?

Ihedinobi: Lol. Ok, let's agree for the sake of argument that evolution is true, then a good example would be whatever triggered the whole thing. How about that?

perhaps now, we are getting somewhere.

What triggers evolution is the changing environment. such evolution is called adaptive evolution, when organisms adapt to different environment, they evolve differently - called divergent evolution, find a pic below - both moths are actually offspring of same mother which developed in different environment.

when they adapt to the same environment, they evolve similarly, even when at different locations, such is called convergent evolution.

ratio of green house gases is the cause of the environmental change, no room for your god in nature, only in your head does he exist.

ooman:

you obviously dont know what you are talking about. here is your input



which is what i answered no to.

i hold on to the fact that believing in god and in creation stops you from being curious because "god made it" will be enough for your seeming curiosity.

Good. I don't need to say anymore. You finished the job. Although I should mark your grave with "knowing who's responsible for a mystery does not preclude curiosity about it".

you call prayer and other acts of being completely insane and talking to thin air an action? then you are a complete dullard. since when is talking to oneself in the name of talking to god an action.

I missed where you proved that prayer is an act of insanity and a talking to thin air.

Prayer means failure and laziness. Prayer is never one of the adjectives that qualifies curiousness.

Tell that to those kids who fire a staccato of questions at their parents at very little provocation, why don't you?

because god does not exist and god will not ask you to read any other book except the rubbish he already wrote in the bible. besides, the teacher exists, god does not.

And I'm supposed to believe that God doesn't exist because ooman says so? Yeah, how perfectly sensible

The other curious thing is how you know for sure that God would direct me to the Bible alone. How do you know this?

so many books, Krauss' and Dawkin's or have you forgotten?

So you were only repeating Krauss', Dawkin's et al's opinions on the matter, that right?

sentiments, ad hominems and abuses are not the way out for you.

Nonsense. Why are you complaining of abuse? Who started the whole "ad hominem" nonsense? Did you think you had a free pass to cast aspersions on my intelligence when I could very easily call you by your true name?

you are the dull person here. Strong's exposes the bible in its original language, how does that relate to my own beliefs.

Is Strong's the only commentary out there dealing in the original languages?

I understand you know the bible is worthless when understood in its original language and so you rather hide under the modernized, modified english version. Hiding under shadows - good for you.

My my my. Somebody's bought a tar brush So how have I evinced knowledge of such a thing?

ooman:

you must be kidding. You really think I or other rational people will spend our time looking for a mythical place.

Heck, i could also start looking for Atlantis or the talking snake.

na wa oooo

Well, it's simple logic really. Until you have proved that a place does not exist, you have no locus standi on which to declare that it doesn't.

Ihedinobi:

Good. I don't need to say anymore. You finished the job. Although I should mark your grave with "knowing who's responsible for a mystery does not preclude curiosity about it".

your opinion, your right

Ihedinobi: I missed where you proved that prayer is an act of insanity and a talking to thin air.

because it doesnt work. i missed when you pray and it works. you when we can try that out. i can bring an HIV patient to you and see how that goes.

Ihedinobi: Tell that to those kids who fire a staccato of questions at their parents at very little provocation, why don't you?

lazy evasion of the truth by the religious, typical of you. not surprised.

Ihedinobi: And I'm supposed to believe that God doesn't exist because ooman says so? Yeah, how perfectly sensible

The other curious thing is how you know for sure that God would direct me to the Bible alone. How do you know this?

ooman doesnt say so. nature says so.

because it is said in the word of god. in the NT where it says the bible is used for "reproof" and other nonsense, you can disprove that by quoting the place.

Ihedinobi: So you were only repeating Krauss', Dawkin's et al's opinions on the matter, that right?

you asked for which book i recommended for you but which you didnt read. stop prevaricating, will ya?

Ihedinobi: Is Strong's the only commentary out there dealing in the original languages?

olodo, Strong's concordance is a bible dictionary not commentary. why would i need a bible commentary in the first place. I only need a bible dictionary so that lairs like you would not get away with lies when discussing with me.

Ihedinobi: My my my. Somebody's bought a tar brush So how have I evinced knowledge of such a thing?

by denying Strong's input

ooman:

exactly the point here.

the future god sees must happen according to how he saw it or his vision is a lie. our freewill is therefore a lie.

Now, I'm very sure even logicboy in his enormous stupidity would not have made such a patently idiotic conclusion.

The future is not future to God. It is a present event for Him, and for you when you arrive at it. That means that He witnesses your decision as you make it not before you do, because there is no past or future with Him. Everything is occuring in the present for Him.

Ihedinobi:

Now, I'm very sure even logicboy in his enormous stupidity would not have made such a patently idiotic conclusion.

The future is not future to God. It is a present event for Him, and for you when you arrive at it. That means that He witnesses your decision as you make it not before you do, because there is no past or future with Him. Everything is occuring in the present for Him.

am sure you dont believe the nonsense you wrote above. you are probable joking.

someone with common sense about the bible god should help this thing out.

Ihedinobi:

Well, it's simple logic really. Until you have proved that a place does not exist, you have no locus standi on which to declare that it doesn't.

you know what i believe exists - a flying pig and until you prove that my flying pig does not exist, even though i cant show you, you have no locus standi on which to declare it doesnt exist.

how does that sound like logic to you??

na wa ooo!! am really surprised at your level of intelligence.