Ogaga4Luv:

[size=13pt]^{YES , we need to know ---- some people lack knowledge because they refuse to ask to know the truth instead , ignorant life style have almost ruined their brain ---}
[/size]

[size=15pt]What's your area of specialization ? [/size]

Ogaga4Luv:

[size=13pt]<sup>If you consult the dictionary, here is the first definition of God that you will find:

"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." [ref]

Most believers would agree with this definition because they share a remarkably clear and consistent view of God. Yes, there are thousands of minor quibbles about religion. Believers express those quibbles in dozens of denominations -- Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists and such. But at the heart of it all, the belief in God aligns on a set of core ideas that everyone accepts.  

What if you were to simply think about what it would mean if there were a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe? Is it possible for such a being to exist? Epicures thought about it in 300 BCE, and he came up with this:

"The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, than they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, then they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, how does it exist?"

In other words, if you sit and think about who God is supposed to be, you realize that such a being is impossible. Ridiculous, in fact.</sup>   [/size]

^{Just imagine that no-sense my dear. . . at least everything got beginning lol}

Fhemmmy:

God is the creator and yet was not created . . . . .

Ogaga4Luv:

[size=13pt]<sup>If you consult the dictionary, here is the first definition of God that you will find:

"A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." [ref]

Most believers would agree with this definition because they share a remarkably clear and consistent view of God. Yes, there are thousands of minor quibbles about religion. Believers express those quibbles in dozens of denominations -- Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists and such. But at the heart of it all, the belief in God aligns on a set of core ideas that everyone accepts.  

What if you were to simply think about what it would mean if there were a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe? Is it possible for such a being to exist? Epicures thought about it in 300 BCE, and he came up with this:

"The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so, cannot; or they neither can nor will, or lastly, they are both able and willing. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can, but will not, than they are not benevolent. If they are neither able nor willing, then they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent. Lastly, if they are both able and willing to annihilate evil, how does it exist?"

In other words, if you sit and think about who God is supposed to be, you realize that such a being is impossible. Ridiculous, in fact.</sup>   [/size]

tbaba1234 :

Quote from:  on Today at 09:23:52 AM
This seems to be major hurdle for many atheists, So i decided to help them out.

And please no emotional arguments,

The absurdity of an infinite history of past events

Some philosophers such as Bertrand Russell argued that the universe is eternal, meaning it has no beginning and it will never end. However if we think about this we will conclude that this position is irrational. If the universe never had a beginning it means there must be an infinite history of past events. Yet does an actual infinite exist in the real world? Is it possible?

The concept of the actual infinite cannot be exported into the real world, because it leads to contradictions and doesn’t make sense. Let’s take the following examples to illustrate this point:

1. Say you have an infinite number of balls, if I take 2 balls away, how many do you have left? Infinity. Does that make sense? Well, there should be two less than infinity, and if there is, then we should be able to count how many balls you have. But this is impossible, because the infinite is just an idea and doesn’t exist in the real world. In light of this fact the famous German mathematician David Hilbert said,

“The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”[2]

2. Imagine you are a soldier ready to fire a gun, but before you shoot you have to ask permission for the soldier behind you, but he has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever shoot? No you wouldn’t. This highlights, the absurdity of an infinite regress and this applies to events to. Therefore, there cannot be an infinite history of past events.

3. Take the distance between two points, one may argue that you can subdivide the distance into infinite parts, but you will always be subdividing and never actually reach the ‘infinitieth’ part! So in reality the infinite is potential and can never be actualised. Similarly the ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle explained,

“…the infinite is potential, never actual: the number of parts that can be taken always surpasses any assigned number.”[3]

So if we refer back to an infinite history of past events we can conclude, since events are not just ideas they are real, the number of past events cannot be infinite. Therefore the universe must be finite, in other words the cosmos had a beginning.

Now that we have proved the absurdity of an infinite regress of causes, let's apply it to God

If you ask the question who created the creator?
What stops you from asking: Who created the creator that created that creator?
Let's continue : Who created that creator that created that creator that created that creator?

If this continued forever, will there be a universe?
The absurdity of an infinite regress of causes means that the universe was caused by an uncaused cause,

<sup>Thank u clown ! i have seen so many Christians like u --- .  Now, u just bang in here insulting your own head right?  my friend this place is serious zone no KID or dabbler allowed in here okay -- i huge if u have nothing important to share on this thread get out and seek for the play ground of kids @ the jokes or games section of the forum.

Try what and see ke?    Regarde-moi ca!</sup>  

Xervia46:

You guys are all silly and insane. God exits. If you doubt it, cause him and shall die. Try it and see. Their is power in my words. he directed me to speak. Try it and see.

Ogaga4Luv:

[size=13pt]<sup>Now people i come again ^^  

Take this quote from the Bible. In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:

Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

The impossibility of God is visible here as well. Based on Jesus' statement, let's assume that you are a child and you are starving in Ethiopia . You pray for food. What would you expect to happen based on Jesus' statement? If God exists as an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful parent -- a "father in heaven" -- you would expect God to deliver food to you . In fact, the child should not have to pray .

Normal parents provide food to their children without their children having to beg for it. Yet, strangely, on planet Earth today we find tens of millions of people dying of starvation every year.</sup>   [/size]

^{Well dude i dunno know the direction of this your comment but i think you should have known I'm specialized in so many helpful and important tips of life most especially  to expose every so- called lies of the Christians against the innocent Satan .}  

life_style:

[size=15pt]What's your area of specialization ?  [/size]

^{Point of correction this is not an argument dude. . .   we're only sharing together what we know concerning this thread to bring out the truth --- i mean , nothing but the truth !  , okay waiting to read your reply}  

ifarajimi:

I
I love this argument, am waiting for the reply to this.

ekt_bear:

Why are we assuming anyone created God?

Maybe he has always existed, I dunno. Or maybe he came into being w/o any other "being" making him.

<sup>Yeah , like i have clearly wrote that this isn't for argument --- we're to find out the truth about this thread soon  

hehehehe-- i feel like laughing reading your write up though most especially the part that say you're a Muslim-- u see? this place is open for every one your religion doesn't really matter okay .

1. Where is the Prove (S) that a good God that is omnipotent exist? You can't just say that God exist without giving PROOF .

2. Evil Exist i know very well but who is the source of evil?

3. Your number three on the list Contradict  the number one on the list

Another way to approach the impossibility of God is to think about the concept of omniscience which you've been talking about ever since . If God is omniscient, then it means that he knows every single thing that happens in the universe, both now and infinitely into the future. Do you have free will in such a universe? Clearly not. God knows everything that will happen to you. Therefore, the instant you were created, God knows whether you are going to heaven or hell. To create someone knowing that that person will be damned to hell for eternity is the epitome of evil.

Here is another way to understand the impossibility of God. If you look at the definition of God, you can see that he is defined as the "originator and ruler of the universe". Why does the universe need an originator -- a creator? Because, according to religious logic, the universe cannot exist unless it has a creator. A believer will say, "nothing can exist unless it is created." However, that satement immediately constructs a contradiction, because we must then wonder who created God--- Yeah , who created God? like our topic clearly said . For a believer the answer to that is simple -- "God is the one thing that does not need a creator   . God is timeless and has always existed." How can it be that the everything MUST have a creator, while God must NOT. . . huh  The contradiction in the definition of God is palpable.  

As soon as your think about the concept of a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient being, you realize the impossibility of the concept. That impossibility is yet another way to see that God is imaginary.</sup>  

tbaba1234:

I am muslim, the problem of evil is not a valid argument against the existence of God.

The internal problem of evil presents its premises as follows:

1. A good God that is omnipotent exist

2. Evil exists

3. Therefore a good God that is omnipotent doesn’t exist

H. J. McCloskey in his article ‘God and Evil’ summarises the problem well,

“Evil is a problem for the theist in that a contradiction is involved in the fact of evil, on the one hand, and the belief in the omnipotence and perfection of God on the other.”

Responding to the Internal Problem of Evil

The first point that needs to be made is that statements (1) and (2) are not logically inconsistent as there is no apparent contradiction. For the atheist to jump to the conclusion that a good God that is omnipotent doesn’t exist is an unwarranted, unless he has assumed, in the words of Philosopher William Craig, “some hidden premises”[4].

These hidden premises seem to be the following,

4. If God is omnipotent, then he can create any world he wants

5. If God is good, then he prefers a world without evil

Statement (4) suggests that since God can create and do anything, then he can create free human beings who always decide to do the right thing and do not fall into evil or suffering. Statement (5) suggests that God is all good so much so that if he could create a world without evil and suffering he would. Otherwise he would himself be evil to prefer that humans experience evil and suffering.

The proponent of this version of the problem of evil has made some unjustified assumptions. These hidden premises make some daring assumptions; firstly it assumes a Christian type of God, one that is just good and omnipotent. Secondly it assumes that God doesn’t have any reasons to permit evil and suffering in the world.

Responding to the first assumption

Muslims do not only believe that God is just good and omnipotent. Muslims believe that part of God’s names and attributes include ‘the Just’, ‘the Severe in Punishment’, ‘the Wise’, ‘the Avenger’, and ‘the Compassionate’, amongst many others. So statements (1, 4 and 5) are inaccurate as the Muslim does not reduce God to parts, rather God is seen as one and unique in context of all his names and attributes. So if God was just good and omnipotent, then there may be problem in reconciling suffering and evil in the world. However if you include attributes such as ‘the Severe in Punishment’ and ‘the Wise’, these problems would not exist. Because perceived evil and suffering in the world can be due to,

• God’s punishment as a result of our sins and bad actions.

• God’s wisdom, as there may be divine wisdom in permitting evil and suffering. Even if we can’t evaluate what the wisdom is, it doesn’t mean it is not there. To argue such a thing would be a logical fallacy, known as the argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). The story of Khidr which can be found in the 18th chapter of Qur’an from verses 60 to 82 is an eloquent account of how God’s wisdom, whether understood or not, has positive results and benefits for humanity.

In addition to this the Muslim can argue that the problem of evil is logically posterior to the existence of God. You need to establish that God exists first before attempting to reconcile who God is with our perception of reality, in this case, evil and suffering.

Lastly the meaning of the word ‘good’ attributed to God needs to be understood in a divine context. In general terms the word ‘good’ has a meaning that relates to human experience, whereas in Islamic theology ‘good’ as an attribute of God is primarily viewed as a unique attribute that can be appreciated but not fully comprehended due to his uniqueness and transcendental nature. Therefore the underlying assumption that evil and a good God cannot coexist may be true with a Christian view of God. However it doesn’t apply to the Islamic concept of God as the atheist will have to reconcile evil and suffering with something that he cannot fully comprehend. So his premises are false due to his incorrect assumption that ‘good’ in the context of God is related to a human understanding of good.

tbaba1234:

First valid Question:

For an answer to your question: please see my post where i make an argument for God, https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-791245.0.html Thanks

babalo1:

Funny as it may sound, to Christians God created Man but to Atheist, it seems the other way around.

tbaba1234:

The external problem of evil

The internal problem of evil fails to convince, however the external problem of evil seems more persuasive because it seems to acknowledge the co-existence of God and evil in the world, but denies God’s existence due to the level of the evil in the world. The external problem of evil argues the following:

1. A good God that is omnipotent exists

2. Gratuitous evil exists

3. Therefore, God does not exist

For the Muslim statement (2) is subjective and not entirely true. The Muslim will believe that evil exists, but not that gratuitous evil exists, and since this is based upon human subjectivity then the external problem of evil carries no weight. The proponent of this argument will have to show that gratuitous evil or evil itself are objective without reference to human subjectivity.

The essential problem with this argument is shown in the following questions:

• What makes our value judgments objectively true?

• What are our definitions of gratuitous evil?

The proponent of the problem of evil  faces a problem because God is required a rational basis for objective good and evil (whether gratuitous or not). Without God these terms are relative as there is no conceptual anchor, apart from God himself, which transcends human subjectivity. So the terms evil and good make no sense or are just ephemeral without God. Therefore in order for the atheist’s premise to make objective sense, God’s existence is necessary. In this light the Muslim or theist may argue:

1. If God did not exist, then objective moral values would not exist

2. Evil exists

3. Therefore objective moral values exists (from premise 2)

4. Therefore, God exists

Explaining the key premise: Premise (1)

The question about objective good or bad, in other words objective morality, has been discussed by many theists and non-theists alike. Many have concluded that there is no objective morality without God. Humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz aptly puts it,

“The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”

Rgp92:

Everything as a beginning and an ending.

thehomer:

Wow. You're really ripping off the works of a Christian apologist.
Will you be able to defend these views?