tosyne2much:
You don't mean it

tosyne2much:
You don't mean it

JackBizzle:


Tosyne, no need to be sarcastic.

Those miracles are staged.

Why is it that no one has healed an amputee? Such a healing cannot be staged. You cant fake a hand growing back.

Martinez19:
it might come to you as a shocker. I can sense that you are quite sincere in your beliefs. You just need to dig deep. Church is great business, pastors and christians make up testimonies and stage miracles to fool people so as to keep the business running. Research about benny hinn on YouTube, then you will know how faith healers and prosperity teachers run their business. Also look into td jakes, Joyce Meyer, pauler white, Joel osteen, creflo dollar, Kenneth hagin, Kenneth copeland, jesse duplantis, etc. You will be shocked at how they all turn out to be dubious business men masquerading as clergymen. Even our indigenous preachers are not left out.

If miracles and healing were real, doctors would prescribe it. Do you think doctors don't want to save lives? Do you think medical science would deny you miracles if they existed? Hell no. Sit down, think your beliefs through logically, and search investigatively. Miracles don't exist.

tosyne2much:
All you people talk about is growing back of an amputee but always debunk the realness of other miracles

tosyne2much:
All you people talk about is growing back of an amputee but always debunk the realness of other miracles

tosyne2much:
You have a point tho. Bro, miracles do exist just that many are exaggerated

tosyne2much:
You have a point tho. Bro, miracles do exist just that many are exaggerated

Martinez19:
As I have said, research for yourself. Investigate the ministers I listed on my post. Go to YouTube and type "benny hinn exposed." do the same for other preachers.

JackBizzle:


The only miracles that occur are medical miracles due to the weird mutation of certain patient's bodies.


Some few people have immunity to aids as a redult of their make up.

A guy survived a nail being hamnered into his skull that would have killed 99 percent of people.

tosyne2much:
Hmmmmm

tosyne2much:
Okay I will check that of Benny Hinn

LordAdam16:
@KingEbukasBlog

I think the biggest issue with this thread is that you failed to give a holistic definition of what god is. If you believe in god, it shouldn't be difficult for you to define "god."

@AgentOfAllah

Riddle me this. It's entirely hypothetical. Assuming

1. there's only one universe (not a multiverse)
2. we currently have an estimate of its diameter (or at least the observable universe)
3. we know it is expanding

What could possibly exist beyond the universe? And if nothing exists beyond the universe, is the universe expanding into nothingness?

I'm quite familiar with the astronomical conjecture that if you travel far enough, you'll return to the same point. If you look far enough, you'll see the back of your head. Aka the edgeless universe. But an edgeless universe is not necessarily an infinite universe. It's like traveling around the world in an aircraft. If you travel far enough on a transverse plane in one direction, you'll return to the same starting point. If you started walking away from your house in one direction, you'll eventually return to your house.

The concept of infinity in nature is near non-existent. Theoretically, it exists. In nature though, its not a foregone conclusion. If the universe is in fact infinite, then it by no means has a beginning. Just like 0 is not the start of positive infinity. Negative infinity is. And negative infinity itself is an abstract concept that cannot technically be called a "beginning." In which case, it'd be technically false to say the universe was birthed with the big bang, if it is infinite. The big bang would be one of an infinite number of cataclysmic events that ushered in a new reality. A reality of stars, planets, dark matter, and the whole shebang.

The initial singularity that caused it would in fact be the preceding reality before ours. And since no one can estimate how long the initial singularity lasted, it could very well be a reality of its own or mark a transition period between two different realities. And there'd be no way to know how far back it goes. Because quite frankly, there'd be no beginning. It also means this present reality will end. Because earth will die. The sun will die. Around the universe planets and stars are going kaboom. But it also means that if the universe is infinite, then only this reality will end and a new reality would pop in its place.

-Lord

Martinez19:
Very good. If there are two hundred members in my church and they each give offerings of #100 and 50 of them pay #5000 as tithe every month, then my total monthly earning as a pastor is 20000 + 250000 = #270000 (not minding seed offerings, building offerings, donations to church projects and mid-week services offerings). Now imagine that for mega churches like mfm, redeem, winners, trem, deeper life etc. here we will be talking of millions of naira and tell me why these pastors won't go to any length to deceive you. Their techniques of making up prophecies, staging miracles, false supernatural manifestations and fake testimonies are already known by we the smart ones.

May God have mercy on you bro

tosyne2much:
May God have mercy on you bro

johnydon22:


Very good question but then one look at the problem raised one can deduce it is just a argument of definition, a pinch of a precise definition is enough to put everything at rest for such an argument.

I can even explain such argument with same analogy that can be used to explain the true scotsman fallacy.

Pay attention: Every man from Scotland is a scotsman

the statement above is the definition of a scotsman, once you are from scotland you are a scotsman by definition.

I may come along and say a true scotsman is any man that can close one eye and leave the other open for a minute. this redefinition automaticlly changes what a scotsman is to my audience if they employ my later definition.

By employing my definition any man in the world, even a man from Nigeria can be a scotsman as long as he can close one eye for a minute.

So what exactly is a scotsman?

That is the argument of definition that you have just raised. I can call anything God by my definition, so if an atheist says there is no God does he also say my Shoe that i call a God does not exist or is not a God?

Well my shoe can be God but also cannot be God.

It depends on your employment of a certain definition, A man from Nigeria can be a scotsman by a certain definition and will not by another definition.

So the question is: What is God?

what makes something God?
is there an essence that makes someone or something God?
are there characters that you must exhibit then you become a God?


What is God?

Once we establish this definition i think we can then use it as a sieve to answer the question, if we on this thread are going to have a precise definition of God we are going to work with then we can comfortably define what we believe or what we dont, we can devise a category of how we place the validity of what God is or not on this thread based on our coined definition.

I have once asked on a thread on creation and God: Is God God because it created the universe or is it God whether or not it created the universe?

another way of asking, is God still god even if it didnt create the universe?

what makes God, God?

Cc. PastorAIO being a while brother

Intelligent discussion, followed.


I don't think there is sufficient knowledge or understanding of whatever the "first cause" is to state that:
-It is a being
-It is supreme
-It sustains everything in our universe
-and that it can even create different realities.

This for me means that by your definition of a god, you yourself cannot possibly know enough to call the first cause a god.

"I asked if it was the rejection of the deification of an entity or the denial in the existence of an entity because its a deity"

Also to your original question, I reject the deification of any entity as I do not believe in the existence of an entity that can be termed a deity. A deity defined as a god or a supreme being or creator.

Your question I think already implies the existence of an entity that is a deity or that can be called a deity, however if you don't believe in the existence of such an entity (that is a deity) then you cannot be in denial of it's existence and you are automatically against the deification of any entity because you don't believe such an entity, an entity that warrants deification, exists.

To help explain my point. Let's say I don't believe in ghosts and someone covers you in white robes and says-"look, this is a ghost!". I say no it's not, and then they ask "do you reject labelling anything a ghost or are you just denying the existence of this white robed thing because it is a ghost".

Because I do not believe in the existence of ghosts I obviously reject labelling anything a ghost. Also because I don't believe in ghosts I deny the assertion that you in white robes is a ghost, not that you do not exist because you obviously do, but I disagree with the idea that you in white robes is a ghost whose existence I am denying rather than an entity in white robes whose existence I acknowledging but whose status as a ghost I am denying because I do not believe in ghosts.

So thinking about this again-the core of the issue, which johnydon already figured out, is: What can you call a deity or a god, without a definition anything can be called a god. I don't think the burden of proof is on the atheist to define what a god is as we didn't claim the god exists, that would be the theists. Now taking the definition of atheism as the lack of belief in the existence of gods. Without a clear definition of what a god is then atheism is automatically restricted to rejecting the deification of any entity (albeit ignorantly as the lack of a definition of a god makes it difficult to logically reject the deification of anything). But at the same time this presents an issue for you as a Christian theist because everything and anything is and can be a god and yet nothing is because there is no clear idea of what a god is. However if the qualities and properties of a god are clearly defined then atheism can move on to the second issue "the denial in the existence of an entity because its a deity" once the idea of a deity is clearly defined, the atheist can than argue that the entity you have described lacks the qualities and properties of an entity that can be termed a deity.

LordAdam16:
@KingEbukasBlog

I think the biggest issue with this thread is that you failed to give a holistic definition of what god is. If you believe in god, it shouldn't be difficult for you to define "god."

@AgentOfAllah

Riddle me this. It's entirely hypothetical. Assuming

1. there's only one universe (not a multiverse)
2. we currently have an estimate of its diameter (or at least the observable universe)
3. we know it is expanding

What could possibly exist beyond the universe? And if nothing exists beyond the universe, is the universe expanding into nothingness?

I'm quite familiar with the astronomical conjecture that if you travel far enough, you'll return to the same point. If you look far enough, you'll see the back of your head. Aka the edgeless universe. But an edgeless universe is not necessarily an infinite universe. It's like traveling around the world in an aircraft. If you travel far enough on a transverse plane in one direction, you'll return to the same starting point. If you started walking away from your house in one direction, you'll eventually return to your house.

The concept of infinity in nature is near non-existent. Theoretically, it exists. In nature though, its not a foregone conclusion. If the universe is in fact infinite, then it by no means has a beginning. Just like 0 is not the start of positive infinity. Negative infinity is. And negative infinity itself is an abstract concept that cannot technically be called a "beginning." In which case, it'd be technically false to say the universe was birthed with the big bang, if it is infinite. The big bang would be one of an infinite number of cataclysmic events that ushered in a new reality. A reality of stars, planets, dark matter, and the whole shebang.

The initial singularity that caused it would in fact be the preceding reality before ours. And since no one can estimate how long the initial singularity lasted, it could very well be a reality of its own or mark a transition period between two different realities. And there'd be no way to know how far back it goes. Because quite frankly, there'd be no beginning. It also means this present reality will end. Because earth will die. The sun will die. Around the universe planets and stars are going kaboom. But it also means that if the universe is infinite, then only this reality will end and a new reality would pop in its place.

-Lord

tosyne2much:
If God is a mirage, how then do you explain the miracles that happen in churches when people call his name?

Please don't tell me you're not aware of it. I want you to realistic

Olumaeme:


Humans has learn to relate with that environment to the extent that they can get anything out of it depending on how much they can relate.
Pastors do miracles, babalawos and even magicians do miracles too, not all pastors can do miracles which means they have not related with their environment or something is missing.

Scientists do somethings and they look like miracles too, depending on how much you can think and bring your thinking to reality....

One thing I know is that, religious stories are not adding up

AgentOfAllah:

I can't say what, if anything, exists beyond the universe; or, for that matter, if 'nothing' is conceptually perceptible. However,
I have speculated in the past, but my proposition is just that: a speculation!


It is true that the concept of infinity is not known to have any natural equivalence. But again, the operative word here is "know". To be blunt, there's not a lot about nature that we presently know in the first place. From what we know though, the conventional scientific approach is to foist determinism upon the universe and all its governing phenomena. This is done by presupposing a closed, self-contained system. As such, every question about it is either answered by observations or through the use of theoretically satisfactory solutions in the case of astronomical scale probes that approach the boundaries of this closed system, and far exceed the limits of observational science. It is because of this disposition that we are able to reconcile the puzzling observation of the expanding universe with concepts which are theoretically sound, but conceptually bizarre, like dark energy (a type of anti-gravitational force which eludes practical demonstration but is said to be uniformly distributed across that universe)!

While a self-contained, closed universe, is a useful assumption for our approximate model of the known universe, such a universe has not yet been satisfactorily justified. To understand my meaning, picture a non-linear 2D curve like the one below. While the model that describes it is a little complicated, any two adjacent points can satisfactorily be described by a linear model. This works for predictions within the local vicinity of the three points in question, but it is a dilemma when making predictions about the behaviour of the extended curve, especially when you merely occupy a tiny spot on a tiny pixel on one of the plot points.


In short, all I'm trying to say is this: We've only been able to model the universe as far as we can see, and I have no doubt that we haven't seen very far at all to definitively say eternal processes exist or don't, as it were!