plaetton:


Mathematical statements express natural laws because the universe is all about mathematical relationships, mathematical laws.

Every single thing, atom or particle in the universe has a mathematical relationship to everything else in the universe.
That is why we say that the laws of mathematics are immutable.

If you have doubts that 360 degrees makes a perfect circle, then ask for a refund of your school fees for the wasted effort.

The one who should return his school fees if he ever paid one is the certified fool who thinks mathematics has natural laws.

UyiIredia:


Wrong. Only 1 has the premise that order has intelligence behind it. 2 has the premise that codes have intelligence behind them. Your allusion to an infinite regress of intelligent causes is illogical for a reason I hope is obvious, namely an infinite regress of causes can't reach a given effect. Yes, I think the cause of consciousness was conscious.

At least you find a code to be some form of order and arrangement, that is what makes it special, isn't it? Now since there will be a regress, it means NOT all forms of order or arrangement is formed by intelligence.

Again read what you wrote. "Consciousness has a cause and its preceding cause is conscious." That does not make sense. because what you said was an existing consciousness is the cause of consciousness.

UyiIredia:


Who's bothering about it ? I'm not bothering I'm trying to convince atheists that a Creator God exists. BTW, by your logic atheists should be like Seun and keep their atheism to themselves to show they are genuinely so.




LEt's get this straight. I'm not arguing for a Christian God, not even a deistic one. I'm arguing for God as generally understood: the Creator of all reality.

That said, saying science showed us the genetic code does not rebut my argument that God caused it. You'll need to fault my premise.



It's illogical to say a universe reliably experienced is an illusion. So the science you tout becomes a futile effort, since it studies what is supposedly not real.



Good. At least you know consciousness is awareness. My point is awareness, as experienced, is not a physical thing. This doesn't rebut my argument.




It did and you haven't shown how it didn't.

First Question; If you are not arguing for the Christian God,what one are you arguing for? Kindly elaborate.

You as a conscious being who is aware of everything going on around you. Do you think if your body shuts down you will stop being aware/conscious? No you wouldn't. You will continue to be aware and always be. Whether humanoid,formless or shapeless. That is a phenomenon that cannot be created nor destroyed. I think if you believe in a God,then it is you.

Science is right about the illusion aspect of the universe. The way we used to perceive things are becoming different periodically. We are most likely projections of information,holograms from a distant reality. We have moved from a one dimensional world to two and now already in three.

As far as evidence has led us,there is no God responsible for the universe. Kindly wait till we find one,then you can continue your worship.

Kay17:


Saying God is self existent is not enough. Anything can be said to be self existent. The difficult part is substantiating it. Also why can't the Universe be self existent as well?! If that sounded absurd, similarly is what you said about God.

You are quite correct Kay17.

Although we still have the problem of self existent.

Ultimately BOTH stances require FAITH in something that cannot be substantiated.

The theory of the existence of a GOD who created everything is every bit as valid as a self existent Universe. Neither can be proven.

UyiIredia:






LEt's get this straight. I'm not arguing for a Christian God, not even a deistic one. I'm arguing for God as generally understood: the Creator of all reality.
.

I wouldn't say creator, I prefer to use the phrase initial progenitor. A creator implies a labcoat type personality and there is no basis for making that assumption. Our universe had an origin. The argument is about the nature of that origin.

Weah96:


I wouldn't say creator, I prefer to use the phrase initial progenitor. A creator implies a labcoat type personality and there is no basis for making that assumption. Our universe had an origin. The argument is about the nature of that origin.

That's fine but the phrase "Initial Progenitor" has a big disadvantage over the term 'Creator'.

'Creator' is generally understood, clear, and accepted.

"Initial Progenitor" s NOT clearly understood by many who would use social media and post here, not in general use AND opens the user to allegations (justly OR unjustly) that they are simply using complicated terms to appear clever when in fact they are not.

I'm sure you are not falling into that category but it is a distraction from any discussion you would engage in.

To be fair the term does have an advantage in that it can refer to some impersonal cause/force/effect where the term creator has connotations of being personal/an entity.

Overall I personally prefer the term 'Creator' but can accept the term 'Initial Progenitor' although with some reluctance.

KingEbukasBlog:


Hmmm ... I gave Noah's account as an example of the effect of God's power on nature . If you dont agree , sorry bro

lmao..mythology is ur example and not an obvious 21st century event.. hahahaha seems convenient enough..

Nothing is hard for God to do .If you dont agree , sorry bro

then the video then? this is funny

johnydon22:
lmao..mythology is ur example and not an obvious 21st century event.. hahahaha seems convenient

Lol.

KoloOyinbo:

I will try although I am a little busy this week preparing for my next trip to Naija. (I was in Lagos and Port Harcourt last week and the logistics were at first complicated due to the fuel shortage.)

The problem has been dealt with . The power supply and fuel issue have improved somewhat since then .

If you want to Personal Message me please feel free unless you prefer it as an open debate. The problem with open debates is that every explanation to one person brings a plethora of questions from several others and soon the original question gets lost! But its up to you. PM or open - your choice. I do hope I am explaining myself ok. [quote] I try to take care to be precise (not always successfully) as different cultures (in fact even very similar cultures) use different idioms, expressions and ways of putting things that can lead to confusion. The way we use English in Ireland is different from the English and very different from Nigerians. Someone once told me they were going to 'ease themselves' - I had NO IDEA what they were talking about! I enquired "What?" They responded "I am pressed" in even greater confusion I asked "And who is pressing you?"

Lmao ... that's Naija for you oo .There are more : 'I dey "H"' means "I'm hungry" ," why do you want to pour sand in my garri" means Dont spoil business for me or something like that. But sir, you'd be fine with me .

But I'd love to know other theistic evolutionists' and even creationists' views on the topic . Anyone that tries to derail will be ignored!

Not my finest moment I must admit! I should have deduced it from the American use of the words "Comfort Break".

Lol ... We were colonized by Britain so am sure very few Nigerians would make use of those.

Weah96:


I wouldn't say creator, I prefer to use the phrase initial progenitor. A creator implies a labcoat type personality and there is no basis for making that assumption. Our universe had an origin. The argument is about the nature of that origin.

I often argue against this premise. Why would you place an "initial progenitor" outside of the universe? If we define the universe as "Everything that has existed, exists, or will exist: The Totality of Existence", we cannot establish an initial progenitor that itself is not part of the universe and therefore there is no such thing.

johnydon22:
lmao..mythology is ur example and not an obvious 21st century event.. hahahaha seems convenient enough..

mythology? - your opinion

then the video then? this is funny

You need to witness it ... do you want to ?

Redlyn:


I often argue against this premise. The universe could be eternal for all we know.
Why would you place an "initial progenitor" outside of the universe? If we define the universe as "Everything that has existed, exists, or will exist: The Totality of Existence", we cannot establish an initial progenitor that itself is not part of the universe and therefore there is no such thing.

The universe cannot be eternal - ageless , no time-effect . Meaning there is no age of its content such as earth . Atheistic theories of life formation such as cosmic and biological evolution would then be ridiculed by your assertion.

KingEbukasBlog:


The universe cannot be eternal - ageless , no time-effect . Meaning there is no age of its content such as earth . Atheistic theories of life formation such as cosmic and biological evolution would then be ridiculed by your assertion.

What stops Earth from being finite within an infinite universe
It's not atheistic theories. It's scientific theories. I trust you are able to grasp the difference.

Redlyn:


What stops Earth from being finite within an infinite universe

The universe is not on its own. Planets , stars , matter , space etc make up the universe .

It's not atheistic theories. It's scientific theories. I trust you are able to grasp the difference.

Religion has been seen as an obstacle/barrier preventing man from having a vast knowledge of the universe . So these theories are like breaking the religion barrier. I hope you now get why I used atheistic and not scientific , not that it is wrong to use the latter.

Kay17:


Saying God is self existent is not enough. Anything can be said to be self existent.x1 The difficult part is substantiating it. Also why can't the Universe be self existent as well?! x2[b]If that sounded absurd, similarly is what you said about God[/b].

@bolded -x1
R1
Not really for someone who has experienced it because that serves an evidence .

John 20:29

29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.”

Will you believe if you
1. See Him
2.Healed instantly through prayers

@bolded -x2
R2. If x1 is proven to be true then the universe cannot be self-existent

Still boils down to this(for me)
→ Supreme Being
→ Creator
→Wonder worker
→ Highly intelligent being

When one has been proven to be true then all are true - This is me !

KingEbukasBlog:


@bolded -x1
R1
Not really for someone who has experienced it because that serves an evidence .

John 20:29



Will you believe if you
1. See Him
2.Healed instantly through prayers

@bolded -x2
R2. If x1 is proven to be true then the universe cannot be self-existent

Still boils down to this(for me)
→ Supreme Being
→ Creator
→Wonder worker
→ Highly intelligent being

When one has been proven to be true then all are true - This is me !

If I see Jesus, how would I realize him? The internet is not filled with his actual pictures to compare against. Besides, what if it is the Devil and not Jesus? What is the difference between the two's appearances?

Again how does a human being without metaphysical senses, experience a metaphysical being?! What if I pray and a miracle does not occur, wouldnt that be proof for me that there is no God?!

KingEbukasBlog:

The universe is not on its own. Planets , stars , matter , space etc make up the universe .

I agree. But how does that stop its content such as earth from having an age. That's the point you made.

KingEbukasBlog:

Religion has been seen as an obstacle/barrier preventing man from having a vast knowledge of the universe . So these theories are like breaking the religion barrier. I hope you now get why I used atheistic and not scientific , not that it is wrong to use the latter.

I would say it is wrong as you are linking to atheism what has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, but frankly i don't care.

Redlyn:


I often argue against this premise. Why would you place an "initial progenitor" outside of the universe? If we define the universe as "Everything that has existed, exists, or will exist: The Totality of Existence", we cannot establish an initial progenitor that itself is not part of the universe and therefore there is no such thing.

I have tried to make this same argument before, but the other side always to ignore it.

It is preposterous to say that god, the divine mind or whatever you call it, is outside the periphery of the observable universe, yet at the same time, claim that he exists in the universe.
This is a contradiction the theists seem to ignore.

Kay17:


If I see Jesus, how would I realize him? The internet is not filled with his actual pictures to compare against. Besides, what if it is the Devil and not Jesus? What is the difference between the two's appearances?

When Jesus appeared to Thomas :

John 20:24-29

24 But Thomas (who was called the Twin[a]), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.”

Thomas needed an evidence and @ bolded was one . Yours might be different . It could be in a different way Q

Again how does a human being without metaphysical senses, experience a metaphysical being?!

The way Jesus made it possible for Thomas and others to see him . He'll do the same to you

What if I pray and a miracle does not occur

Proverbs 15:8

8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.

Do the needful first - become a Christian ,humble yourself

wouldnt that be proof for me that there is no God?!

"Unanswered prayers" is more spiritual --- I would have elucidated the above if you were a Christian

johnydon22:
lmao..mythology is ur example and not an obvious 21st century event.. hahahaha seems convenient enough..






then the video then? this is funny

That got me cracking Pleas ask him if we could use fairies as serious examples just like the story of Noah

KingEbukasBlog:


When Jesus appeared to Thomas :

John 20:24-29


Thomas needed an evidence and @ bolded was one . Yours might be different . It could be in a different way Q




The way Jesus made it possible for Thomas and others to see him . He'll do the same to you


Proverbs 15:8



Do the needful first - become a Christian ,humble yourself


"Unanswered prayers" is more spiritual --- I would have elucidated the above if you were a Christian

I doubt if you know the meaning of 'metaphysical'.

So I have to assume and have faith in the Bible and that whoever appears to me, is not the Devil but Jesus?!

So God does not answer the wicked farmers' prayers?

Redlyn:

I agree. But how does that stop its content such as earth from having an age. That's the point you made.

Wow ! .Errmmm... The contents are what make up the universe .So one of its contents should be ageless or have no effect of time on it.

And many theories would change because the age of the universe was ascertained from the BB's time of expansion .

There should be youtube videos that have dealt this theory , I think.

I would say it is wrong as you are linking to atheism what has absolutely nothing to do with atheism, but frankly i don't care.

True , science is simply the study of nature . Nature - life . As a Christian , I know God made life and science is just man understanding His creation.

Kay17:


I doubt if you know the meaning of 'metaphysical'.

I doubt you understood my explanation

You asked :
"Again how does a human being without metaphysical senses, experience a metaphysical being?!"

My response:
"The way Jesus made it possible for Thomas and others to see him . He'll do the same to you"

I think this is not difficult to understand though

So I have to assume and have faith in the Bible and that whoever appears to me, is not the Devil but Jesus?!

First things first

So God does not answer the wicked farmers' prayers?

Lol ... God is merciful . He is wise enough to intervene in any situation if need be.

Redlyn:


I often argue against this premise. Why would you place an "initial progenitor" outside of the universe? If we define the universe as "Everything that has existed, exists, or will exist: The Totality of Existence", we cannot establish an initial progenitor that itself is not part of the universe and therefore there is no such thing.

An initial progenitor doesn't have to be remote. It could have been a powerful palm tree, for all I know. Maybe it was a much smaller universe. But to say that the universe has always existed is wrong. There is no precedence for it unless you're coming with solid evidence.

[code][/code]

ifeness:


That got me cracking Pleas ask him if we could use fairies as serious examples just like the story of Noah

You guys feel the bible is a book of fairytales ... so why continue the argument with him if he insists the story of Noah is an eg of a myth . Simple ... I dont care if you see it as one , that's my example .

KingEbukasBlog:


I doubt you understood my explanation

You asked :
"Again how does a human being without metaphysical senses, experience a metaphysical being?!"

My response:
"The way Jesus made it possible for Thomas and others to see him . He'll do the same to you"

I think this is not difficult to understand though



First things first



Lol ... God is merciful . He is wise enough to intervene in any situation if need be.

And how do we differentiate the devil from Jesus?

Redlyn:


I often argue against this premise. Why would you place an "initial progenitor" outside of the universe? If we define the universe as "Everything that has existed, exists, or will exist: The Totality of Existence", we cannot establish an initial progenitor that itself is not part of the universe and therefore there is no such thing.

Please realise that your have put in a definition yourself and then used it to provide a 'THEREFORE'! All theists consider a God to be 'beyond' the Universe (not precisely put, but I am sure you understand the point I am making) so that invalidates any use of 'THEREFORE' and also invalidates any attempt to treat this play on words as either a logical progression or indeed any kind of proof.

Kay17:


And how do we differentiate the devil from Jesus?

I am quite sure you know the answer to this yourself and are just being facetious.

Kay17:


And how do we differentiate the devil from Jesus?

If this will change you ,i'd be willing to explain . My mission here has always been to

1.Deal with challenging topics in Christianity with believers
2.Defend my belief/faith in God
3.Mock the atheist who makes fun of God

This would have been a great topic to discuss about but you know ... it might be a waste of time . Am I wrong ?

KingEbukasBlog:



As a Christian , I know God made life and science is just man understanding His creation.

This is the problem. In fact, the root of all conflicts that the religious mind has inflicted on humankind.

Pls read your statement again, and see if a correction is necessary.

plaetton:


This is the problem. In fact, the root of all conflicts that the religious mind has inflicted on humankind.

Pls read your statement again, and see if a correction is necessary.

@ bolded --- Your opinion ?

Pls read your statement again, and see if a correction is necessary.

Give me a reason to

Weah96:


But to say that the universe has always existed is wrong. There is no precedence for it unless you're coming with solid evidence.

My dear friend, be careful with absolute statements.
The correct thing to say would be that a self-existent universe is yet to be fully understood and scientifically articulated in a way ordinary folks can grasp it.
But meanwhile, the general idea, the proof of concept is out there in the scientific community.

https://www.nairaland.com/2140751/newsflash-forget-bigbang-forget-creationism