4everGod:


Sire! Do not take the lad seriously. He is just eager to speak while shivering in his boots.

4everGod:

This is the law of cause and effect.[/color]

I will focus on the second law in this instance (covering all in more detail later in the expose). The second law states that the total entropy (unusable energy) of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. In ordinary words, it can be summarized by saying that when left alone, everything “burns” its usable energy, eventually reaching a point of no usable energy.

Left alone, energy always changes from usable to unusable.

This is closely related to the law of cause and effect. Scientific laws are immutable and complement one another.

merging cause and effect with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, we reach a fascinating conclusion. Every effect has a cause and, over time, all systems have less usable energy. This means that the effect always has less usable energy than the cause. let me say it in another way, every cause results in a lesser effect. The effect must have less energy, be less complicated, be less advanced than its initial cause.

The theory of evolution states that a more “evolved” life-form (the effect) stems from a simpler one (the cause)—in violation of both cause and effect and the second law of thermodynamics.

i dont see how evolution violates the First law of thermodynamics..
Its you who got it all wrong...
A cause of evolution is survival.... the survival instincts imbedded in every living thing..
Survival is where Natural selection takes its ''shelter'' from..
And not a simple life-form or something..

So begins the quagmire of evolution

This rubbish assestment of yours is based on a flawed understanding of the law of thermodynamics...
Nature constantly creates complex ''effects'' from simpler ''causes''
or as you may put it---an increase in the usuable energy...
a mature tomato plant(complex)
has more usable energy than the seed(simple) it grew from..
can you please explain to me how life itself does not violate the second law of thermodynamics if evolution does?

The universe is expanding,therefore its maximum entropy is also increasing And More order is being seen...so therefore,,how can you still expect life to be a closed isolated system?

Your claim is baseless and laughable at best

Cc 4everGod damogul Kingebukasblog Anas09 ambasssgod jonbellion 4kings Deepsight

4everGod:
Continuation...Part 2

They even say that macro evolution is just micro evolution over extremely long periods of time.

thats what it is...
The rational behind it is that
''little drops of water make a mighty ocean''

There is enough proof supporting micro evolution. For example, when a virus becomes resistant to antibiotics, it is a pointer to micro evolution. Such proof is often used to “prove” macro evolution, thereby employing the logical fallacy of hasty generalization.

[size=18pt][b]so you agree that EVOLUTION IS A FACT[/size]
what else am i doing on this thread then?

There is absolutely no solid proof for macro-evolution...... absolutely none!

this is a fat lie you know...
Speciation has been observed a number of times...
For Speciation to occur..large changes must have happened...Ergo;Macro Evolution.
speciation
Go to 5.0 in this page

speciation

Does the theory of evolution meet these two conditions? Is it the result of scientific observation, and can it be put to the test? It could be said that with no observed examples of macro evolution on record, the theory is more based on faith, hope and belief than scientific study. Going further, nearly all evolutionists declare that most major evolutionary changes occurred millions of years ago. But events in the distant past are not testable and, therefore, cannot ever be proven. True or False? [/color]

Evolution actually meets the two conditions..
E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment


Nature.com;Fruit flies

its even been currently observed in a [url=news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/]lizard[/url]
which overtime can lead to a new specie...

no real points raised...just ''talk, and talk,, and talk''

Cc 4everGod damogul Kingebukasblog Anas09 ambasssgod jonbellion 4kings Deepsight

4everGod:
[b]Continuation.....Part 3

The most common is the “Big Bang” theory.

Big Bang or Big Hoax?

At its very center, the Big Bang theory states that something caused the formation of matter, with our modern universe expanding from that initial singular event. After this first cause, another theory is now brought into play. The inflationary model. This theory attempts to explain how the universe expanded and grew from microscopic to billions of light-years across. It was created to explain how a single event caused the expansive universe that exists today.

Both the Big Bang and the inflationary model go against the basic laws of science. We have determined that energy is continually moving into a more chaotic state with less usable energy. Ths is entropy and not into larger, more complex and organized systems, such as the universe.

this is based on a wrong understanding of both the BBT and the LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS...
1)The universe is expanding...and its maximum entropy is also increasing..
2)the law of thermodynamics applies to only closed isolated systems....The universe cannot be a closed system if its entropy is increasing..ille est;expansion of the universe..
Many misconceptions in your post

For the universe to begin in that manner there would have to be a nearly infinite amount of energy that triggered the Big Bang. This simple fact is usually ignored!

Thats what a singularity is..
So i dont understand your claim...
The BBT Simply states; in the initial stages of the universe...it was more dense,hot and smaller as opposed to a present less dense,coool and ever increasing size..

An even bigger quagmire is the First Law of Thermodynamics, often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. It is a basic fundamental law of science. It clearly states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can only change form. This totally goes against the Big Bang theory!

pls can you explain to everybody here...how a singularity means Nothing...
Also the big bang doesnt say about the creation of the universe...it only says [color=blue]''how the present universe came to be''

If energy cannot be created, then an immensely mind boggling amount of it cannot appear from nothingness. Evolution pundits understand this problem. Often, focus is quickly diverted from how the universe started, to an explanation of how it inflated. By burying the initial creation of matter as an irrelevant point, scientists have created a series of twists and turns and mirages which, as we have seen before, is often the best—and only way to explain nearly every facet of evolution.[/color]

i dont know where you get your ideas from...but the big bang theory never said
''In the beginning Nothing expanded into something''...
Please get facts right before criticism..
Cc 4everGod damogul Kingebukasblog Anas09 ambasssgod jonbellion 4kings Deepsight

4everGod:
Continuation...... Part 5

Conclusively, regarding the formation of incipient forms of life, British physicist Dr. Alan Hayward verbalized, “Genes seem to be built so as to sanction changes to occur within certain narrow limits, and to avert those inhibitions from being crossed. To oversimplify a little: Mutations very facilely engender incipient varieties within a species, and might infrequently engender an incipient (though kindred) species, but—despite cyclopean efforts by experimenters and breeders—mutations seem unable to engender entirely incipient forms of life”

conclusively your assertions are baseless...

I dont know what you're talking about Mutations being always harmful..

[b] An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10
functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al.
2007).

Many other documented cases of beneficial mutations are out there...even to [url= http://www.gate.net/ ~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html]humans..[/url]


And in all your long notes...you forgot a Major issue;Harmful Mutations do not survive as long as Beneficial Mutations

A Mutation may be harmful or helpful depending on the environment...


[quote]
The second issue is cognate to the lack of any transitional forms. World famous evolutionist and paleontologist Dr. Gaylord Simpson liberatingly verbalized, “This customary absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an virtually ecumenical phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of virtually all orders of all classes of animals…and it is ostensibly additionally true of the analogous categories of plants”.

please provide concrete evidence for his statement...nevertheless...
Your lie that they aren't any transitional fossils is alarming and shocking...

What then is the Archeopteryx? Or the Homo Neanderthals?

Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. Are you expecting to find finely detailed sequences of
fossils lasting for millions of years? Is Fossilization that simple?

[url=talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html]There are too many] transitional fossils...[/url]

The National Center For Science Education,US confirms the existence of Transitional Fossils...
https://ncse.com/book/export/html/1764

[color=#990000]Artistic Science

All the hoopla emanated from nothing more than part of a jaw bone and some skull fragments—nothing else! The ingenious minds at National Geographic engendered a CONSUMMATELY FICTIONAL rendering from virtually no evidence

I dont know where you're getting your gibberish claims and lies from...But the Evolution of Whales is one of the [url=talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#ceta]Most documented..[/url]

Later, a more consummate skeleton of this same creature was discovered. With more facts in place, it was conspicuous that this creature was solely a land animal. However, the later revelation received very little media attention and no rectification was published!

Am guessing you mean the pakicetus??
Well sorry to bust your excitement.....its full fossils were used in its re-construction...thats an outdated claim..

In summary, scientists have discovered that when cosmic rays come into contact with earth’s atmosphere, they react with nitrogen-14 and engender carbon-14. In turn, carbon-14 then reacts with oxygen, engendering carbon dioxide. Plants take in carbon dioxide. Animals in turn consume plants, ingesting the carbon dioxide. When plants and animals die, their decay changes carbon-14 back into nitrogen-14. And hence, the cycle perpetuates

1[b]Where is there the slightest bit of evidence that
cosmic rays or neutrinos do affect decay rates?[/b]




2 Radiation high enough to affect nuclear decay rates
by several orders of magnitude would
sterilize the planet.

3 In nuclear power generators,Neutrino radiation is intense...but the decay of radioactive elements are not intefered with..

Scientists have generally surmised that the ratio of these isotopes has remained constant in the atmosphere.

Multiple radiometric methods are used to [url=talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD001.html]''confirm''[/url] the dates...even non radiometric methods are used to calibrate the C-14 dating

Taking a break now. Will continue shortly[/b]

90% of your article/thread is just noise...notes upon notes with no objective points raised
all i see here are forms of appeal to emotions and appeal to ridicules..


Cc 4everGod damogul Kingebukasblog Anas09 ambasssgod jonbellion 4kings Deepsight

4everGod:


Sire! Do not take the lad seriously. He is just eager to speak while shivering in his boots.

What is so tiring is how these folk are in the habit of saying that they have "addressed" or "thrashed out" an issue (such as evolution for example) whereas in fact they have only ever provided hot air.

4everGod:


You have but i havent. So far all those you claim have addressed evolution have copped out here and some have even denied evolution. I guess some threads do give one food for thought.

I think you get something wrong.evolution isn't implying that life is becoming increasingly complex it only says that natural selection allows genes to be passed on and different characteristics hence preserved.Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics in strict energetic sense.
Stop using this second law of thermodynamics nonsense.
With this warped view and misunderstanding of thermodynamics aren't you a violation of the second law yourself
Don't you grow?
Do you realise if the law was applied to God then God would have to die??
Let us suppose that there actually were some process in nature which violated the second law of thermodynamics. Is that any reason to suppose that intelligent designers are responsible?
This is why I don't take anti evolution threads seriously.

DeepSight:


What is so tiring is how these folk are in the habit of saying that they have "addressed" or "thrashed out" an issue (such as evolution for example) whereas in fact they have only ever provided hot air.

Amazing isnt it?

jonbellion:
I think you get something wrong.evolution isn't implying that life is becoming increasingly complex it only says that natural selection allows genes to be passed on and different characteristics hence preserved.Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics in strict energetic sense.
Stop using this second law of thermodynamics nonsense.
With misunderstanding aren't you a violation of the second law yourself
Don't you grow?
Do you realise if the law was applied to God then God would have to die??
Let us suppose that there actually were some process in nature which violated the second law of thermodynamics. Is that any reason to suppose that intelligent designers are responsible?
This is why I don't take anti evolution threads seriously.

So the 2nd law of thermodynamics is nonsense? The law oc cause and effect is nonsense? The 1st law of thermodynamics is nonsense?

Do you think the laws were treated in isolation in the OP?

4everGod:


So the 2nd law of thermodynamics is nonsense? The law oc cause and effect is nonsense? The 1st law of thermodynamics is nonsense?

Do you think the laws were treated in isolation in the OP?

that's not what I said
I'm saying the creationist analogy is wrong
Heck you were even comparing evolution to social Darwinism- a warped philosophical view of evolution that Darwin never brought up and you're looking for someone to refute it
Why

jonbellion:
that's not what I said
I'm saying the creationist analogy is wrong
Heck you were even comparing evolution to social Darwinism- a warped philosophical view of evolution that Darwin never brought up and you're looking for someone to refute it
Why

lmao this dude did not read the OP.

4everGod:


lmao this dude did not read the OP.

I started I didn't finish
I already saw you making creationist assumptions all over again

jonbellion:
I started I didn't finish
I already saw you making creationist assumptions all over again

So i was right that you did not read the OP lmao

DeepSight:


Thank you for your response.



Pray tell, how do you know this?
I presume you have been to other universes and studied the laws there: for this is the only way in which you could possibly state with such conclusive and certain finality that all conservation laws only apply in this universe.



Again, how do you know this sir? Care to give me the gist of your visits outside this universe? On what premise do you use the word "definitely" in your sentence here? What facts are you aware of concerning other universes that grant you this amazing certitude of what laws may or may not obtain there?



No sir: you presume: I do not misunderstand any concept of "Nothing" - nor have I ever anywhere suggested or inferred that outer-space is nothingness - so please do not attribute that to me. If anything in the past I have argued extensively that there is no such thing as nothingness or nothing anywhere in existence. It does not exist at all.

Nothingness is just that - "no-thing" and as such by very definition there is no such thing as nothing or nothingness. All that exists are " something" or "somethings". It is for this very reason that we say that something may not arise from nothing: because there is no "nothing" in the first place. I hope you thoroughly absorb this point.

It is thus not only the causal argument that causes us to hold that something may not arise from nothing. It is this very fact which I have asserted above that is the deeper and more stark reason: namely that there is no "nothing" in the first place: and therefore the statement cannot even arise at all.



It is not nothing. Even a dot or a single dimension is something.



That is because there is no such thing as nothing. You cannot even use the phrase "in nothing" as you have done here because that suggests that there is some existence of a sort "within" what you call nothing. There cannot be anything "in" nothing because there is no such thing as nothing at all.



How do you leap to the strange conclusion that everything is possible "in nothing"? ? ?

This is a most bizarre and illogical statement from you. By definition, nothingness does not exist. It is "no thing". How do you then contradict this by stating that everything is possible in "no thing"?

Do you note the severe and inescapable contradiction between the words "everything" and "nothing"?

Does this help you recognize what an insurmountable and contradictory absurdity you have set up?



You cannot observe "nothing".
Please show me where you have ever observed nothing before.

This makes your statement here nonsensical, sorry.



Have a look at this sentence of yours again. You contradict yourself and you contradict the very word "nothing" by calling it something. You write: "because Nothing is the exact sort of thing . . . "

Stop right there. How is "no-thing" a "thing"?



You have not shown that the premise was faulty, as I have shown you above.



I have not invented any concept of self existent things. Self-existent things are a fact. No one can invent or un-invent them. I did not invent infinite time or infinite space. They self exist whether you like it or not and no matter how strenously you may deny their existence.




Can you justify this absurd statement?
Have you ever observed this happen before?

Are you aware that it is even impossible to make this statement given the points I have made on the non-existence of nothingness above?

calling my statements absurd only show that you are incapable of understanding the logic behind them. and the bolded part shows you making unsubstantiated claims. I'll give this another try. this time, let us not say nothing, but instead, a preuniversal void.

the main postulate of the multiverse hypothesis is that there abound an infinite number of universes with their own specific laws and rules. in other words, every possible thing that can exist does exist in the universe that allows it to do so.

now, there is no proof that the theory is true, it might be false. if it is false, then my earlier statement holds. since this is the only universe that exists, the so called conservation laws only apply here. if it is true, then my earlier statements equally hold. as no other universe has been observed, and since every possible combination exists, a universe without conservation laws must be included.

the point of this exercise is demonstrate that if you say that the universe couldn't have created itself because something cannot come out of nothing, you are wrong because there is no evidence that the law that prevents things from popping into existence holds in whatever place the universe came from.

I then philosophically analyzed this . . . place. the so called void that existed before the universe did. this void would have no laws. if it did, then we would need another void which produced it and so on until we got to a point where what exists is nothing.

since nothing exists, it might as well keep existing, however, why should it? it doesn't possess a conservation law to keep it going. it doesn't possess any property that prevents it from being destroyed, so why should it continue to exist?

that is the question that immediately leads to the conclusion that a true (preuniversal) void is self-prohibiting. my last statement summarized everything.

in case my arguments still don't make sense to you, try to answer the below questions logically.

"If there is nothing to prevent something from existing, why should it not begin to exist?

if there is nothing to keep something existing, why should it continue to exist?"

the answer to the above questions should clear up your confusion.

DeepSight:


This is just full of absurd and unwholesome contradictions. See my earlier revert to you above.

I have seen and have addressed the mental gymnastics you displayed there.

Don't call yourself a philosopher if you're going to commit fallacy of personal incredulity all over the place.

4everGod:


So i was right that you did not read the OP lmao

did I say you were wrong
There's a difference between
"I didn't start atall"
And
"I started but didn't finish"

jonbellion:
did I say you were wrong
There's a difference between
"I didn't start atall"
And
"I started but didn't finish"

So why make any comment when you did not finish the piece. Or did you not see this at the beginning?

This expose takes a look at this issue of evolution, showing that there is a lot more to the story than what is generally said and commonly taught everywhere. After laying a truthful foundation and building up on it, you will see that the theory of evolution falls flat o its face, and that the confusing series of explanations, definitions and suppositions supporting it are weak and lack depth. Each part builds upon the last, and the entire series should be read to understand the fullest picture and the vital implications that flow from its conclusions.

hopefulLandlord:


I thought you guys talk to the same holy spirit? is he revealing different things to different people?

Mathew 25:15
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability;

To one he gave five talents of understanding, to another he gave two, to another he gave one.

All you atheists, do you have the same level of knowledge of atheism? Some are infected with the more virulent strains of atheism that tends toward satanism. Others are just fair weather atheists. Still others are fly by night atheists. Do they all have the same level of crase?

MrPresident1:


Mathew 25:15
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability;

To one he gave five talents of understanding, to another he gave two, to another he gave one.

All you atheists, do you have the same level of knowledge of atheism? Some are infected with the more virulent strains of atheism that tends toward satanism. Others are just fair weather atheists. Still others are fly by night atheists. Do they all have the same level of madness?

DeepSight:


And that has everything to do with science.



In the first place, this was not the statement for which the issue of logic and science arose.

In the second place, I make that statement with reference to energy and power - and how these require a source. In case it missed you, the word "heartbeat" there refers not only to your physical heart beat, but more importantly to the living energy that rests within you and enables you to be alive in the first place.

That living energy has a source and that is what I referred to.

Also that was just one statement - there is a build up of many statements to form a whole in this discussion, and we have not even scratched the surface with your hero Mr. Benzilch - who is quite the daftee, sorry.



Oh no: your hero Benzic is a bonafide daftee. I repeat it. I shout it. I affirm it. I bl.oody shriek it!

@bolded

So this same logic told you that oh yes, there is an energy that makes one alive and therefore it must have been created by a God?

If I may ask, this living energy is it only possessed by humans, or both humans and animals?

So you are basically saying that this energy MUST have been created by God, and COULD NOT have come by chance?

Unless humans are wiser than the gods, here is a scientist who brought a dead, decapitated dog back to life, NOTE: not by praying, but by scientific study, and no God revealed anything to him during his study..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub7l1D7_B2I

Let me see you saying that the scientist is "god in human flesh"...

@ambassagod seriously? How could a dull person like you have ended up in this thread?

@Anas01 your case is strong though.

@4evergod so your reasons for dodging questions is that they derail the op? Even if threads were opened for those questions am still sure you'll dodge the question, just like the thread I mentioned you and your gang KingEbukasBlog, none of you answered.. And you expect us to answer?

Teempakguy:
I have seen and have addressed the mental gymnastics you displayed there.

Don't call yourself a philosopher if all you're going to commit fallacy of personal incredulity all over the place.

Everything you wrote collapses because it assumes the existence of nothingness - or a void.
And I have shown you that that is impossible: no such thing as nothing or nothingness exists, can exist or has ever existed.

Your statement is therefore dead on arrival.

There is no void in existence nor can there be.

Indeed, in the only example some have used to attempt to force the possibility of something existing from nothing - which is the case of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum - that very case fails because it has been shown that quantum vacuums are not perfect vacuums: they contain gaseous pressure. No perfect vacuum exists anywhere.

Thus all that you have written remains absurd nonsense, sorry.
You have a long way to go before you would be fit to actually discuss any philosophy.

4everGod:

Actually, I do believe in evolution, it is a very logical explanation of how life began. Adam and Eve are not the first mankind that God created, they are the first MAN that God created. Mankind was created without the law of God, but Adam is the first of mankind who received the laws of God which made him the god and king of all mankind. THE FIRST MAN. The story of Adam and Eve is only 6,000 years old, the earth is over a million years old, and there was mankind before Man (Adam).

I have no part with the mental condition called atheism however. How can you look at the beauty, order, harmony and symphony of the universe and conclude confidently and cockily that it all rather un-ordered, un-created, without motive or purpose, and therefore infinitely useless? How can you describe yourself and confidently believe same that you are a worthless piece of accidental protoplasm?

That in my honest submission, is crase

Psalm 90:2
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Isaiah 44:24
Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Isaiah 45:18
For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.

benzics:


@bolded

So this same logic told you that oh yes, there is an energy that makes one alive and therefore it must have been created by a God?

God is the sum of all primordial living energy itself and everything alive is an emanation of that primordial energy.

If I may ask, this living energy is it only possessed by humans, or both humans and animals?

I said - everything alive. This not only includes animals, it even extends to plants and entire worlds.

So you are basically saying that this energy MUST have been created by God, and COULD NOT have come by chance?

I am saying that God is the energy itself. And no, nothing arises by chance.

Unless humans are wiser than the gods, here is a scientist who brought a dead, decapitated dog back to life, NOTE: not by praying, but by scientific study, and no God revealed anything to him during his study..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub7l1D7_B2I

Let me see you saying that the scientist is "god in human flesh"...

I don't know how this is relevant, and I don't see how prayer arises in this discussion. I have not said anything about prayer. All scientific work is profitable to the world so long as it is used positively. All humans are gods in the flesh, your scientist inclusive. I don't see the relevance of your deranged rambling and epileptic foaming at the mouth.

"All humans are god in the flesh"................................Does that include autistic children and those born with down syndrome?

DeepSight:


Everything you wrote collapses because it assumes the existence of nothingness - or a void.
And I have shown you that that is impossible: no such thing as nothing or nothingness exists, can exist or has ever existed.

Your statement is therefore dead on arrival.

There is no void in existence nor can there be.

Indeed, in the only example some have used to attempt to force the possibility of something existing from nothing - which is the case of virtual particles in a quantum vacuum - that very case fails because it has been shown that quantum vacuums are not perfect vacuums: they contain gaseous pressure. No perfect vacuum exists anywhere.

Thus all that you have written remains absurd nonsense, sorry.
You have a long way to go before you would be fit to actually discuss any philosophy.

you are still making unsubstantiated claims. I can't hold a meaningful discussion in this state.

here is a list of the things you have claimed.

1. the law that something cannot come out of nothing holds true in every case.

2. it is impossible for a preuniversal void to exist.

3. eternity must exist.

4. infinite space must exist.

5. no perfect vacuum exists anywhere.


Ironically, the second claim is similar to mine. only I have a logical foundation for my version whereas you just declare that it is true, while simultaneously rejecting my arguments which actually support that claim.

You are required to back up the 5 claims you made up there with actual logic or I must declare that you are confused.

DeepSight:


God is the sum of all primordial living energy itself and everything alive is an emanation of that primordial energy.



I said - everything alive. This not only includes animals, it even extends to plants and entire worlds.



I am saying that God is the energy itself. And no, nothing arises by chance.



I don't know how this is relevant, and I don't see how prayer arises in this discussion. I have not said anything about prayer. All scientific work is profitable to the world so long as it is used positively. All humans are gods in the flesh, your scientist inclusive. I don't see the relevance of your deranged rambling and epileptic foaming at the mouth.

LOL . . . ?

Niflheim:
"All humans are god in the flesh"................................Does that include autistic children and those born with down syndrome?

Why specifically pick out autistic children and those with downs syndrome? Are you perfect in every way?

Meanwhile can we all come back to the Topic please?

jonbellion:
for the umpteenth time
A supreme being is not ruled out
The Abrahamic God is
If it were only christians that believed in God then Diests won't exist
You guys don't own the God concept
Kapeesh??

I once called you a DING-DUMB boy. Looking at what you wrote up there, you just confirmed and upgraded it. Kudos.


First of all, what is the meaning of God in a simple sentence ?

Teempakguy:
you are still making unsubstantiated claims. I can't hold a meaningful discussion in this state.

You really are quite piece of work. Unsubstantiated claims? I am not the one who claims that nothing can exist and also says that everything can happen in nothing.

I say the reverse: which is manifestly true and sound: that no such thing as nothingness exists.

Please tell me where you have observed nothingness. Interestingly in your first revert you even talked about "observing nothingness!"

Pray sire, do help us attain this wonderful state of elevation of the mind in which we can "observe" nothing!

here is a list of the things you have claimed.

1. the law that something cannot come out of nothing holds true in every case.

Of course. And the question cannot even arise about it in the first place as there is no such thing as nothing.

2. it is impossible for a preuniversal void to exist.

Of course again. And again the question cannot even arise about it in the first place as there is no such thing as nothing.

. eternity must exist.

Go ahead: stop it if you can.

4. infinite space must exist.

Go ahead: limit it if you can.

5. no perfect vacuum exists anywhere.

Of course none does. This is a fact. Contradict it logically if you can. Also show us the perfect vacuum you have been privileged to observe sir.

jonbellion:
I don't see the point of this
I was just addressing the dumb false dichtonomy that if you don't believe in the christian God that automatically
make you am athiest so therefore christians own the god concept

you see why I said you upgraded your ding dumbness??

where did I make such a claim as you as quoted?

the dumb nonsense you wrote up there is ENTIRELY OPPOSITE towards my view on God-view.

you just faked up a delusion and now trying hard to pin me to it, which is not even working.

just swerve out biko.

HardMirror:

What a shame. Little wonder you believe in the genesis account of creation.
Educate us please I honestly want to learn. Tell us how life came to be. Do that or just shut up, [b]because atheism does not mean supporting every scientific theories, [/b]but I for one see a lot of sense in evolution and I see it getting us more answers

This should earn you an Oscar in dim-wittedness