KingEbukasBlog:


Then can you show or prove that it does not require a designer . God is uncaused and a designer - those are his qualities .

Is the universe uncaused ?

johnydon22:
what is wrong with you Ebuka... am sure he didn't mention you... why the insult and aggressiveness..

johnydon22:
I just did and the fact is that you didn't read it. Because if you do you would have seen it proposed a Singularity.

The site you brought up is a quite basic, i would have preferred you read more about the theory sir because misrepresenting what one doesn't really know doesn't make sense.

Big Bang doesn't propose NOTHING..

It proposes an Energy SINGULARITY.. hot, dense that underwent a rapid inflation then expansion which brought about Space/time and subatomic and atomic particles (matter)

I am not a big bang theorist but at least i do not need to misrepresent the theory in order to employ baseless ridicule based on ignorance ..

johnydon22:
[b][i]And secondly Big Bang theory has nothing to do with someone being an atheist

johnydon22:


Bull eye!!!

I will like you to answer this: How do you think the universe came to be?

Just tell me what you personally think

KingEbukasBlog:


His comment is :

[size=15pt]They are bunch of morally derailed peeps who can't objectively look at things.[/size]

I find that derogatory and insulting ... If we are morally derailed peeps who can't objectively at things , then he is an idiot . He sees us as that and I see him as idiot . Its quite simple though

So why didnt you call him to order after he described religious people as "morally derailed peeps " . Are you not been sanctimonious and hypocritical at the same time ?

johnydon22:


To me what you were doing on the thread was quite childish... If you didn't want to argue at least picking on someone should not be a resort to catch fun..

johnydon22:


Exactly .. tho the bolded is not necessary true ..

The question is " what did?"

And remember that going by this your above assertion, that thing that caused something must also have been caused by another which in turn requires another right?

ValentineMary:
Have u been following modern trends in physics I don't think so. Modern research has shown that it was not only 1 hot point but multiple dense hot points. Each dense hot point gave birth to the universe. How can u then explain red shift and blue shift which has been observed if u think big bang is a myth

johnydon22:


So God is an uncaused complex entity that do not need a designer but the universe a product of an even more complex entity requires a designer.

Thats special pleading..

Much as we know of the universe, we have seen values interacting to produce a result, chaotic events and reactions leading to new results. . . We have no clue what exactly design entails in this case..

I have no idea, i do not know neither will i claim to know.

From reactions of simpler values we get more complex results...

FOLYKAZE:


The point you are trying to shift is that, prior to this singularity, there was nothing. How does the singularity magically appear?

Atheists tend to choice it for explaining origin of our universe thereby ruling out existence of God and clamping down Goddidit theory.

Good question.
I personally embrace the Yoruba spirituality view of the universe. We see Eleduamare as the creator of the universe

menesheh:


Don't mind him. He is trying to spark his nonsensical argument with me. Am old enough to belittle my intellect to his level.

FOLYKAZE:


It could be fun when I know someone is on the floor grasping for breathe when God fellas were hitting him hard.

I should have changed my channel to WWE. All the same it was a debate and I took side with the heavyweightier.

Yes.

[b[Knowledge is limited and we can speak within the frame of our own knowledge. Making a claim on finite brain measuring infinite cause will only lead to fallacy like we have around here[/b]. This will always make me follow Yoruba spirituality. They dont know it and silent on it.

johnydon22:

Nope not at all.. there have been many cosmological models to explain that which of course are all hypothetical and so must be treated as one.

-Quantum fluctuation
-Energy as an internal value (Energy and matter are relative)
-Multiverse

etc...

But that part takes you into the field of quantum mechanics. . . .

johnydon22:

But last i checked you are an atheist too and am sure you do not buy the big bang theory or have studied much about it.

There is no relationship between the big bang and atheism.. Many Atheists as well as Theists agree with the theory.

If you apply the big bang to atheism because some atheist adopt the theory then you can also term it a theistic theory because some theists also adopts it.

In fact a catholic priest Msgnr Georges Lamitre propounded the theory.. Big bang is a scientific theory, has nothing to do with theism or atheism..

johnydon22:


Ok but Eleduamare was caused by what?

remember you said this

So what is this Eleduamare ?

Is this Eleduamare excluded from your assertion above ?

johnydon22:


This is exactly my stance.. We have limited knowledge, let us study not assume..

It's better to agree when one doesn't know than fill the gap with assumption and attendant behaviours..

KingEbukasBlog:


Random events , chaotic events . So is there a possibility that I can pour a bucket of paint on the wall and it could bring forth a painting of a man sitting on a horse with a horn in his left hand and a spoon right hand with his wife and his kid sucking her bossoms ?

lol

You have to show me first that that paint has self replicating atoms just like natural elements have self replicating atoms.

That's why you can simply drop an acon on the ground and it will germinate and turn into a giant tree..

There is a difference between a rubber flower and a biological flower..

So this means that there is a 100 percent factual certainty that a creator caused or is the cause of our universe ?

2. What scientific evidence do you wish to present that simplest forms of matter - atoms , protons and electrons - brought heavenly bodies , gases and every other content of the universe ?

johnydon22:


Lol.. Ok





This is exactly my stance.. We have limited knowledge, let us study not assume..

It's better to agree when one doesn't know than fill the gap with assumption and attendant behaviours..

FOLYKAZE:


No proof for all these.

The hypothesis is nothing different from religious accounts.

I support big bang theory but to some extent. It is observable even with the naked eye that the universe is expanding. No doubt about that. But the problem I have with this theory has to do with something magically appearing from nothing.

Secondly, I am not arguing a catholic priest didnt propound big bang theory. I stated categorically that atheists use the theory to explain the origin of the universe thereby ruling out creator God and Goddidit theory.

In Yoruba spirituality, Gods have father and son. However, they are silent on whom was the father or mother of Eledumare. So we dont know and dont care.

vooks:


I have shown you highly educated peeps who have demonstrated how Big Bang is contradicted by observations. The problem Witt you is that you are hopelessly wedded to a paradigm hat you take if for fact and react violently to discordant views.

Redshift or blueshift is an observation. It is the interpretations thereof that are affected by your EXISTING presumption. In short, these observations don't prove Big Bang. This is complex stuff and I will try and share a simplified account;

http://aoi.com.au/bcw/RIPExpanding/

johnydon22:
lol

You have to show me first that that paint has self replicating atoms just like natural elements have self replicating atoms.

That's why you can simply drop an acon on the ground and it will germinate and turn into a giant tree..

There is a difference between a rubber flower and a biological flower.. [/i][/b]

Lmao where did this one come from.. It means i don't know neither do i claim to know..

-Creator: we will be needing proof of that complex entity by the way.. ?

Now you are employing evolution? You do not really know how to argue..

-First i have not brought anything about evolution
-i have not asserted to be an evolutionist

so where did this one come from?
[/i][/b]

But these gases are actually these simplest particles.. Protons, electrons are these gases..

How do you wish to differentiate something from what it really is? Just like saying how H20 brought water together when H20 is water itself.

A simple demonstration of how simple cells can replicate into more complex cells is a process of Mitosis.

where a single cell divides into two daughter cells [/i][/b]

FOLYKAZE:


I guess the reason why vooks and winners were hitting menesheh is because menesheh like other atheists categorically termed religion account as myth while the big-bang alternative is illogical, dumb and plain silly as something cannot come from nothing.

Atheists clings on science as tag it as truth while he calls religion accounts myth.

Notice on one among the theists argued against there account been myth. They rather argued;

- your alternate explanation is fallacy. Something/nothing thang. This is hypocrisy when one myth is seen as truth and other is seen as superstition.

- Menesheh turn around to say he is not a scientist. Then he have no right to call religious account myth when he has no counter theory. Hence he should shut the hell

ValentineMary:
Are u saying these just to make urself happy or u believe that stuff Then why has it not been approved by national science bodies like NASA?

vooks:

The US told everyone that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Do I need NASA to know that an active volcano CAN NEVER spew out a Subaru in a trillion years?

You are committing the fallacy of appealing to authority to bail you out

FOLYKAZE:


I guess the reason why vooks and winners were hitting menesheh is because menesheh like other atheists categorically termed religion account as myth while the big-bang alternative is illogical, dumb and plain silly as something cannot come from nothing.

Atheists clings on science as tag it as truth while he calls religion accounts myth.

Notice on one among the theists argued against there account been myth. They rather argued;

- your alternate explanation is fallacy. Something/nothing thang. This is hypocrisy when one myth is seen as truth and other is seen as superstition.

- Menesheh turn around to say he is not a scientist. Then he have no right to call religious account myth when he has no counter theory. Hence he should shut the hell

menesheh:



All i see are hate speeches everywhere. Seems i ve touch some people where it pains.

If you're angle, so fuccking what?


Here we are, let me know how you later joined bunch of people who want to sell invisible commodity to us


My advice is that you should not take it personal. Am addressing some sets of believes propagating falsehood as if it is true. Am not attacking anybody but rather attacking the ideology itself that's why i desist from using words directly to anybody.

johnydon22:


I have never seen a scientist come out to insist these hypothesis are true until proven to be..

No one need believe and insist a hypothesis is true, that is the difference between a scientific hypothetical postulation and a religious dogma.

One insists it is true and must be held as immutable while the other agrees to be a speculation that may be wrong until supported by facts.

Neptune was once a hypothetical prediction by observing a little distortion of Uranus orbit.. until it was observed in actuality to be a planet.

People should not hold hypothesis as truths but just a speculation of enquiry, to hold a hypothesis as truth is absurd..

johnydon22:


Quantum fluctuation is an actual phenomenon though the issue here is that no scientist is asserting it was the case in the big bang.

I think you need to read the theory to grasp what it really propose.. i have never seen magically appear from no where

johnydon22:


And by so doing you stereotyped every atheist. . i only showed you SOME theists agree with it just like SOME atheists.

i believe it should have been better if you used SOME

johnydon22:


Ok so it progresses into an infinite regression?

menesheh:



All i see are hate speeches everywhere. Seems i ve touch some people where it pains.

If you're angle, so fuccking what?


Here we are, let me know how you later joined bunch of people who want to sell invisible commodity to us


My advice is that you should not take it personal. Am addressing some sets of believes propagating falsehood as if it is true. Am not attacking anybody but rather attacking the ideology itself that's why i desist from using words directly to anybody.

KingEbukasBlog:


You brought up random events given a desired result . I gave an example of a random event and asked if a desired result - my description - will be made .

Let me ask you . How did living things derive the propensity to reproduce ? Because the above example is one .

So why a flower decide to be a flower (seeing that you are of the view that a mind did not make that a possibility

A creator's qualities is out of the question here . Because you can't explain the creators qualities does not mean that you should question the fact he created the creation .

So then can you give a better explanation for the species of life forms ?

Are you insinuating that these gases are a product of random chaotic events . What proof do you have to substantiate your supposed claim?

In summary , what makes a gas what it is .

How did it derive the propensity to replicate itself if the proposition that it is designed to do so has been denied by you?

menesheh:



All i see are hate speeches everywhere. Seems i ve touch some people where it pains.

If you're angle, so fuccking what?


Here we are, let me know how you later joined bunch of people who want to sell invisible commodity to us


My advice is that you should not take it personal. Am addressing some sets of believes propagating falsehood as if it is true. Am not attacking anybody but rather attacking the ideology itself that's why i desist from using words directly to anybody.

FOLYKAZE:


Mr pls tone down. No one is fighting you. This is all fun. . . .for free sundays.

Big bang theory you are hanging on is mythical, unfounded and unrealistic just like religious account.

The fact is, believing in the theory of something coming out of nothing is myopic and plain silly just like religious folks who believe Goddidit

KingEbukasBlog:


God is an uncaused cause . Any rebuttals ?

menesheh:



I will repeat this, i don't know the meaning of big bang.

All i care is that no body should worship anything wether big bang or come from nothing or designerr.

FOLYKAZE:


Oh but you were using an hypothesis which does not have proof and cannot be authenticated as fact to explain origin of a provable and existing universe.

I think you confuse yourself between two distinct positions..

Me last i checked i have shown my stance on causality is "I don't know" until it is established empirically

The theists tend to explain the universe with God. . .an unproveable character.

While atheists are employing non-factual hypothesis to explain the origin of our universe.

Isnt this the same hypocrisy vook was arguing about? Y'all tend to rule theists claim as myth while your own claim as fact.

The point remains that atheists, science society is no different from religious folks who tend to explain things with unprovable substance.

I hope you once agreed with me that there is no prove to this quatum fluntuation.

However, you keep throwing it here and there, forcing it on me like it is a fatual proposition and provable evidence to origin of the universe. The point is that you are not different from the religionist who you accuse of spreading myths.

M string, multiverse and the other hypothesis are not facts and are relatively myths just like God.

FOLYKAZE:


Good question.

I personally embrace the Yoruba spirituality view of the universe. We see Eleduamare as the creator of the universe