Ihedinobi3:

Hi there.

Your question is exactly the same as "who created existence?"

Whatever is truly God is by definition self-existent, that is, it cannot have ever been created. It exists purely by its own will. In fact, it is existence itself.

So your question is actually nonsense. And I don't mean that offensively, just literally. That is, your question actually lacks meaning.

As there ever been a demonstration of something that exist itself?

Because we can as well claim some other things existed themselves like the universe, energy.

Gracealone:
Thank you for this question. I pray that your hunger transcends the knowledge about God, but may it become a burning desire to encounter His person and power, in the mighty name of Jesus.

When God revealed His name “I AM” to Moses at the burning bush, He was revealing something very important about Himself, namely, that He is self-existent; He has the power of being in and of Himself. He depends on nothing and no one for His existence.

This is the idea of self-existence, or what is called in theology the concept of aseity. This attribute captures all of the glory of the perfection of God’s being. What makes God different from people, from the stars, from earthquakes, and from any other creaturely thing is that God—and God alone—has aseity; He alone exists by His own power. No one made Him or caused Him. He exists in and of Himself. This is a quality that no creature shares. People are not self-existent; neither are cars or stars. Only God has the concept of self-existence.

God bless you, in the mighty name of Jesus.

Do you have evidence for this or you read it in a book?

freshaboki:


If you have had a near death or out of body experience, you will understand that there are forces higher than Us.
God is God, He is the Alpha and Omega. Asking who created God is like asking the name of that singular sperm that fertilized the egg that brought you to life.

My Brother, life is connected to energy and all energy has a source. God is the origin. Shikina!

This is non-sequitur fallacy, you didn't address the op premise.

Even if we for assumption sake agree near death proves a higher being, does this answer the op question?

@shadeyinka

1) Do you believe that werewolves, vampires, and unicorns exist?
2) Do you believe that there is a rainbow coloured indestructible and immortal elephant forever sleeping in the centre of planet neptune?

Please, give answers to these two questions.

XxSabrinaxX:


So shadeyinka, how about, stop wasting our f*cking time and offer your best piece of evidence to support and/or verify the notion that YOUR god exists? Please do NOT bother quoting me on this thread unless you have some interest in honest cogent discourse, and are prepared to present your VERY UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE that YOUR god exists. At this stage, I REALLY can't afford to keep beating a dead horse.

Right on the money.

The human mind is meant to understand and believe anything that he can see,feel,hear,touch. So the belief in God does not fall in any of these categories but wants humans to take a leap of faith and that leap of faith is the problem. How can I fall when i don't know if i'll fall on something/someone or i'll just fall flat on my ass. As for me i believe that Dinosaurs existed,that the Big Bang happened,that aliens exist and that the mental can affect the physical and i also believe in evolution.

XxSabrinaxX:

It isn't authoritative. However, it is a PHYSICS forum. That was the whole point. Anyone can go there and express what he/she likes, but shouldn't act like his claims are the objective fact when the results haven't been verified yet.

Also, you do know what the word "probably" implies, right? Yep. It implies a percentage of uncertainty. Arguments have flown both ways for decades and no one has yet reached an agreed upon conclusion. Some theories require an Open universe and others a Closed universe. Choose your poison but do not pretend you have the only right answer.

As for my approach in debates, i usually prefer calm discussions but i've realized that most theists (especially on NL), when engaged in arguments, employ annoying tactics such as evasion, distortion, projection, goal-post shifting, and the one that alarms me the most: committing glaring logical fallacies and waving them off like it's nothing! Thus, forgive me if I may seem under-handed in my approach but it has been my main policy since my first day on this website that I do NOT suffer fools. Call me harsh but "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" as the saying goes.

Oh, and a wonderful day to you too

Hmmm, everything you just wrote is either wrong or missed the point, but it is well.

Enjoy the rest of your week...

jamesid29:

Hmmm, everything you just wrote is either wrong or missed the point,

True. Except I didn't answer your question in this post. Should probably look through your mentions or see my response to your buddy

Enjoy the rest of your week...

I will. Thanks

TheArranger:
SHADEYINKA

I am a layman, so let me clarify this for you in my own way.

There is no denial from any Atheists here. No atheist here is making a positive claim about anything. It's all in your head. What we're trying to tell you is very simple: If there is a source or initiator (and that's a big IF because we cannot be a 100% sure), you cannot just conclude that it is "a god". How do you know it isn't a race of intelligent cosmic entities we have no way of verifying? You have to accept that we cannot know everything. Your failure to provide objective proof of this "god" you keep inserting after a whooping six pages is evidence of that. You are displaying a bias towards one option and ruling out the rest based on nothing really. All your arguments use physics, which is still pure natural science. I'm not ready to engage in any pointless back and forth because it appears to me that you are just repeating the same thing over and over. It's of no use.

Edit: There is a section for atheists actually.

There is no section for Atheists. Check the attached screenshot. The division is this:
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion
Under Religion, there is Islam for Muslims.

No section for Christians
No section for Atheists

All religions apart from Islam is bundled up under Religion. (Specifically, seun says: "Share your faith and belief in God or higher powers here"

BACK to the main thrust of discuss:

1. All I have shown with my arguments is that "an intelligent SOURCE" of the universe seem to exist.
2. You can give this SOURCE any name you like (a name is just a NOUN). I call the SOURCE God, because it fits the description of God.
3. None here had been able to show the fallacy of my postulates nor advance a counter argument against my thrust of view.
4. If by postulates and reasoning I presented my points, it would take far more than mere assertions to present a different position (this seem to be your position) on this thread.

Let's forget the name (God: as a noun) and ask the logical/Scientific questions:
1. Is there a real possibility of a non-material SOURCE for the universe?
2. If there is a source/sources, would it be a mere Force/Substance or a Personality?

My arguments has been to help you reason out the answers to these two questions using readily available Scientific information.

JhayJoe:
The human mind is meant to understand and believe anything that he can see,feel,hear,touch . So the belief in God does not fall in any of these categories but wants humans to take a leap of faith and that leap of faith is the problem. How can I fall when i don't know if i'll fall on something/someone or i'll just fall flat on my ass. As for me i believe that Dinosaurs existed,that the Big Bang happened,that aliens exist and that the mental can affect the physical and i also believe in evolution .

You have not seen, feel, heard or touched the Big Bang, Evolution, Aliens. Could this not be faith?

Can you prove that everything not Scientifically verified is a fallacy?

SHADEYINKA

As you can see i'm not bothering to quote you cause i don't have time for trolls. If you think the fallacies of your postulations haven't been exposed over and over again, you must be the most deluded or dishonest human on this planet. Like i said, there is no use arguing with you. It's very clear you want to be right by any means necessary.

I have one question though, if there is no section on NL for atheists / christians to gather, then what goes on in the Non-Christian / Christian chatbox threads that can be seen when you click Religion from the main page?

shadeyinka:


Let's forget the name (God: as a noun) and ask the logical/Scientific questions:
1. Is there a real possibility of a non-material SOURCE for the universe?

If there was a source or not, we can not know since it happened way long before we came into existence and became able to write down what we thought at the time. But those who have studied the evolution of human thought would know that everything we come up with is a myth; no one heard a big bang or God say "Let there be", and thankfully, that is not the concern of God but the concern of 'believers', both the theist type and the "unbelievers", while those in Christ are off doing His Will.

XxSabrinaxX:

Why must I do this 25 times for you? Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is not a position on the non-existence of god(s). Atheism does not hold the position, "god does not exist". Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? I am not aware of taking the position that a god does not exist. The position is, your claims of a first cause are unfounded!

Agnostic
noun
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of god(s)

Atheism
noun
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods

The two are not mutually exclusive. For some reason, many of your brethren make the same erroneous claim you have. Perhaps you're just too lazy to Google the two words, to learn the definition, huh?

It's possible to be an agnostic and either believe or disbelieve in a deity. Though why anyone would believe a claim they admit they can know nothing about is puzzling. Agnosticism would be an epistemological necessity for me, on all unfalsifiable claims. As would withholding belief of course. It's worth noting here that most claims made about deities and religious beliefs are unfalsifiable, thus an apologist would have to properly and accurately define what they mean by a deity before I could know whether their position is an unfalsifiable one. However, at its broadest definition, it appears to be an unfalsifiable claim, thus I am both an agnostic and an atheist.

If you have logical proof for the existence of a deity, you've managed to keep it very well hidden. I can find nothing on any news network about this paradigm shifting revelation. Probably because you've been talking nonsense if I'm being brutally honest. Thanks for the belly laughs anyway

Thanks for the lecture on the definition of Atheism. Unfortunately, I wish you had checked what you wrote as per your belief and your know
A reference is attached in attachment 1
Compare with what I wrote in attachment 2

You have no basis (Yee I got the spelling right this time) for your lecture. I only used your own description of what makes you an agnostic Atheist.

XxSabrinaxX:

A.K.A The Argument from Personal Experience

"YoU cAn'T pRoOf ThAt My ExPeRiEnCe IsN't ReAl To Me!"
No one denies your experience, genius. Just your interpretation of the experience without facts or evidence. If you presented this argument in a syllogistic form, it would look like this:
1> My personal experience is infallible.
2> I have personally experienced a creator god.
3> Therefore, the creator god exists.

You know what the beauty of science is, shadeyinka? The beauty is that it takes such inane assertion out of the realm of pure thought and puts them to the test. Without facts and/or evidence, there is never a reason for another human on the planet to believe you. No one argues that you did not have an experience. How do you know it is God, though? Why can't it be Satan convincing you it is God? How do you rule out insanity? You have literally nothing to base your supposition on but for the assertion "I think it was real". No one is calling you a liar. Have all the personal experiences you want. There is no reason for me to believe any of it. How do you know you are not being fooled?

Your desire to respond is clouding your judgement of facts and comprehension.

I didn't propose the argument of "my experience is real to me therefore it is a proof!"
Rather, I told you that even if my experiences are real to me, it doesn't hold any waters (and I used the example of Big Foot to buttress it).

That's why Science, Reason and Logic is my way of dealing with Atheists.

See attachment 3.

XxSabrinaxX:

I don't know how well you can speak your native language, but I doubt you make much more sense in it than you do in English.

You attempt to redefine words, mix up concepts and serve a magnificent word salad with no substance.

In short, Tommyrot, Piffle, Waffle, Bilge.



Universe refers to local matter and time while cosmos to everything beyond. The two words being used as synonyms helps to clarify terms. Not that your assertion here is wrong. Some theories use Universe for Cosmos and others seperate them as in the many dimensions model or the multiple Big Bang hypothesis
Cc. Jamesid29

Herein lies the problem. If the universe is the cosmos and there is nothing more, the universe is everything. There is no outside. There is no cosmos. You have eliminated the possibility of your ultimate first cause!

How does infinity have a creation? By its nature, infinity has no starting point. You understand infinity is a description and not a finite number, right? There is the infinity of all positive numbers. There is the infinity of all negative numbers. There is the infinity of all numbers positive and negative. All these infinities are the same size. In an infinite universe, there is no place for a god. Unless perhaps,.... you want to be a Hindu. Then, god is the universe playing hide and seek with himself.

You are still stuck in a bipolar dualistic, this or that, phenomenology. This is a FALLACY! You are, quite simply, not including all possible options. Why can't the stuff of the universe always exist but the universe itself come into existence? In a closed universe, gravity eventually stops the expansion of the universe, after which it starts to contract until all matter in the universe collapses to a point, a final singularity termed the "Big Crunch", the opposite of the Big Bang. So the universe is in a state of constant birth and death over and over and over ad infinitum! You are limiting the possibilities by pretending you know something. Stop pretending and go do some research.

You speak good English, so I don't know why you deliberately ignore the fact that cosmos is a synonym for universe.

If the universe is a subset of the cosmos, what is the size of the cosmos?
What else is contained in the cosmos apart from our universe?

Please check out Webster's Dictionary definition of cosmos:
1cosmos
nouncos·mos\ˈkäz-məs, senses 1 & 2 also -ˌmōs, -ˌmäs\


: the universe especially when it is understood as an ordered system
: a tall plant that has usually white, pink, or red flowers
Full Definition
1 a : universe
b (1) : an orderly harmonious systematic universe — compare chaos (2) : order, harmony
2 : a complex orderly self-inclusive system
3 plural cosmos\ˈkäz-məs, -məz\ also cos·mos·es\ˈkäz-mə-səz\ [New Latin, genus name, from Greek kosmos] : any of a genus (Cosmos) of tropical American composite herbs; especially : a widely cultivated tall annual (C. bipinnatus) with yellow or red disks and showy ray flowers

XxSabrinaxX:

Aaaand herein lies your problem. Again! We are not talking about computer programmers. It is an analogy! Biologists are attempting to demonstrate what they are talking about through analogy: a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. "An analogy between the workings of nature and those of human science".

They are not the same thing but are analogous in some ways. READ THE ARTICLE: "First of all, argument by analogy always fails. Analogies are a teaching tool. They are used for describing a difficult concept to someone who has no experience with that concept. By relating that concept to something that they already understand, then they can begin to see how that concept works."

"To a 5th grade student, I would make the analogy that DNA is like a blueprint. It tells the cells how to make proteins. I would never use that "DNA is like a blueprint" analogy in a discussion with anyone who had the least idea about what DNA actually is."
https://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretreat/2014/09/10/dna-is-not-like-a-computer/
Do yourself a favor and actually READ the article. You will not sound so ignorant afterwards


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XmhoLINJt0
And here's a Youtube video if you have trouble with the article.

OR if you're still in doubt, try looking for a biology forum online and post this offal you call an argument. Then watch yourself get gang raped with HARD facts and evidence.

Nuff said!

---

SIDE NOTE: We all may have different ideas to the condition of the cosmos prior to the Big Bang or t=0, but that's NOT the damn point. The point is, you and your fellow clowns have to wedge your beliefs in where knowledge is limited by current understanding. But everytime we hit a tough spot, science answers it accurately, as opposed to religion, which has offered precisely..... f*ck all! You're the ones trying to invoke some pan dimensional cosmic overlord when we are perplexed by something, whereas most atheists will simply say, "let's look at the evidence!" and follow the causal links.

The real reason you theists struggle on this site is because we play the game! You can only make useless inductive or abductive logical arguments and appeals to authority... no deductive arguments, no empirical or objective evidence. You try to get us to take the bait, but no! You WILL maintain the burden of proof, given the epic and gargantuan size of your nonsensical claims.

So shadeyinka, how about, stop wasting our f*cking time and offer your best piece of evidence to support and/or verify the notion that YOUR god exists? Please do NOT bother quoting me on this thread unless you have some interest in honest cogent discourse, and are prepared to present your VERY UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE that YOUR god exists. At this stage, I REALLY can't afford to keep beating a dead horse.
Cc. LordReed, TheArranger, Vic2Ree, Martinez39

Your argument is like saying that the Computer CPU is not a good synonym for the Brain!

I have not even attempted to prove Gods existence. That is impossible!
What I have done is this:


1. All I have shown with my arguments is that "an intelligent SOURCE" of the universe seem to exist.
2. You can give this SOURCE any name you like (a name is just a NOUN). I call the SOURCE God, because it fits the description of God.
3. None here had been able to show the fallacy of my postulates nor advance a counter argument against my thrust of view.
4. If by postulates and reasoning I presented my points, it would take far more than mere assertions to present a different position (this seem to be your position) on this thread.

Let's forget the name (God: as a noun) and ask the logical/Scientific questions:
1. Is there a real possibility of a non-material SOURCE for the universe?
2. If there is a source/sources, would it be a mere Force/Substance or a Personality?

My arguments has been to help you Atheists reason out the answers to these two questions using readily available Scientific information.

Martinez39:
@shadeyinka

1) Do you believe that werewolves, vampires, and unicorns exist?
2) Do you believe that there is a rainbow coloured indestructible and immortal elephant forever sleeping in the centre of planet neptune?

Please, give answers to these two questions.

I don't believe just everything unless it's either a product of my experience, logics or Scientific deductions.

For both, I have neither their experience nor logical justification nor deductions based on Science to believe.

As per the same of God, I have my experiences (subjective), it seems logical (systems need a designer) and I have used Science (the combination of computer programming, electronics and laws of physics) to justify by belief in God.

I don't believe in Bigfoot either and unicorns.

Finally, let me give you a thought question.
Suppose all humans live in a 1D world, would we be able comprehend how life is in a 2 D world?
If we can't, would this be sufficient to conclude that a 2D world cannot exist?

TheArranger:
SHADEYINKA

As you can see i'm not bothering to quote you cause i don't have time for trolls. If you think the fallacies of your postulations haven't been exposed over and over again, you must be the most deluded or dishonest human on this planet. Like i said, there is no use arguing with you. It's very clear you want to be right by any means necessary.

I have one question though, if there is no section on NL for atheists / christians to gather, then what goes on in the Non-Christian / Christian chatbox threads that can be seen when you click Religion from the main page?

1. The non-christian sticky thread is not a section but a persistent thread.
This mean a single thread that persists irrespective of time or ranking of activities
2. Non-christian imply anyone with a different religious beliefs other than Christianity or Islam can chat. Buddhist, ATR, Religious cults etc

However, Atheists have been found to populate every religious section and thread.

budaatum:

If there was a source or not, we can not know since it happened way long before we came into existence and became able to write down what we thought at the time. But those who have studied the evolution of human thought would know that everything we come up with is a myth; no one heard a big bang or God say "Let there be", and thankfully, that is not the concern of God but the concern of 'believers', both the theist type and the "unbelievers", while those in Christ are off doing His Will.

No one can Empirically prove the Source. For Even the Physical laws of nature breaks down at the big bang. By the current rules of science, Change normally is initiated by either an unstable equilibrium or an external force.

For those who see science as a final authority, it is good to show how the current science lead to the possibility of the SOURCE!

shadeyinka:

No one can Empirically prove the Source. For Even the Physical laws of nature breaks down at the big bang. By the current rules of science, Change normally is initiated by either an unstable equilibrium or an external force.

For those who see science as a final authority, it is good to show how the current science lead to the possibility of the SOURCE!

Their is one problem, which is that both sides claim their own 'science' (way of seeing and looking at things) is an authority.

"in the beginning" was written by humans who existed when it was written, and either way you look at it long before they came into existence. They used their senses to observe what they saw and wrote about it according to their understanding at the time.

We are not in the beginning no more but we too write our own big bang as an understanding of what we perceive now with our senses. And the mere fact we use telescopes is an indication of how far we've come.

The problem is "believing". It blinds the understanding and the learning acquired through understanding the supreme powers of the Word. Believers are like those who have heard there is treasure in a field but ask another to have faith and purchase it so they can share the reward with them.

Oh, poor people of this world.

shadeyinka:

You have not seen, feel, heard or touched the Big Bang, Evolution, Aliens. Could this not be faith?

Can you prove that everything not Scientifically verified is a fallacy?

For Evolution we have fossils, but the rest you can watch "UFO'S Unknown Evidence" on Discovery Channel/Family or you can browse about Area 51.The evidence is over welhming. Just check online.

tintingz:


As there ever been a demonstration of something that exist itself?

Because we can as well claim some other things existed themselves like the universe, energy.

Hello.

Self-existence is the property of a thing to exist without cause and to be absolutely invulnerable to external influence. So, proof of the possession of this quality would be in its absolute lack of change, that is, if it never changes either to improve in its intrinsic quality or to deteriorate, then it is self-existent. That is why self-existence is the true definition of a true God.

How do we determine if anything self-exists? By checking to see if it experiences change in quality. The universe changes. Energy is part of the universe, so it is not a separate contender. The universe is the full set of all material (including invisible spiritual) things, quantities, and phenomena that exist. Given that this whole is in an observable state of deterioration - and limited revitalization - over time, it is clear that it does not self-exist. It must therefore be created.

The God of the Bible is not available for any kind of experimenting, but we do know the claims that the Bible makes about Him. Even if we doubt the claims to be true, they are absolutely consistent with self-existence. The question is whether we believe what the Bible says or whether we do not. That is a free will choice.

Has the God of the Bible offered any proof at all of the Truth of His Claim to be the true God? Yes, in fact, He has. The entire universe around us with all of its creatures, energies, and phenomena is the proof that He offers. The very nature of the universe makes it clear that it had a Maker. The way it functions points to the Character of that Maker, so that we have some idea what kind of Person He is.

As long as we live in this physical body, however, the proof that God offers in creation all around us is deniable. We are not forced to accept it any more than we are forced to believe the Bible. It is up to us to decide what to believe on the basis of our preferred attitude to God.

JhayJoe:
For Evolution we have fossils, but the rest you can watch "UFO'S Unknown Evidence" on Discovery Channel/Family or you can browse about Area 51.The evidence is over welhming. Just check online.

The bolded just betrayed the fact that you do not understand evolution. Evolution is a theory and it has neither been verified no proven in any way but inferences could be made to support it.

You also mentioned Big Bang and Aliens.

None of us was around when big bang occured billion years ago. The only observation that precipitated the BB theory is that the universe seem to be expanding from a source at a certain speed. Projecting backwards suggest that it must have been from a point source.

Aliens?
Many Atheists will laugh you to scorn of you say you believe in aliens for none has been verified Scientifically. I believe in there is likely possiblity of aliens but not as in science fiction.

A law is an established Scientific fact.
A theory is an attempt to explain Physical realities using models.

Theories could be right or wrong and are always subject to fine-tuning until it completely models reality.

There are many things that have no Physical evidence yet real. Stating otherwise is like concluding that we know EVERYTHING there is to know about the Universe

Faith isn't a Blind Believe but a TRUST in the integrity of a personality

shadeyinka:

For both, I have neither their experience nor logical justification nor deductions based on Science to believe.

I don't believe in Bigfoot either and unicorns.

See, I asked for direct answers. I didn't ask you about your belief in god.

Now, based on this answer we can say that :

1) You don't believe in them because they have no basis in reality or logical basis, yes or no?

shadeyinka:

1. The non-christian sticky thread is not a section but a persistent thread.
This mean a single thread that persists irrespective of time or ranking of activities
2. Non-christian imply anyone with a different religious beliefs other than Christianity or Islam can chat. Buddhist, ATR, Religious cults etc

However, Atheists have been found to populate every religious section and thread.

At the end of the day, there is a seperate place set out to accomodate atheists, christians, muslims etc. The definitions of section and thread are uncalled for.

Atheists' occupation of multiple areas of the forum is only proof that atheism is not a belief or religion as most would like to believe. Don't really understand why you deemed it fit to bring that up.

This is a petty argument anyway so let's drop it.

shadeyinka:


Faith isn't a Blind Believe but a TRUST in the integrity of a personality

See. Trust according to the person having the faith in the integrity of an entity.

Oftentimes it is "blind believe". The lazy do not work hard like the diligent. But that's where personal integrity comes in. Everyone knows how much or how little they have considered in the evidence before arriving at a belief.

budaatum:

Their is one problem, which is that both sides claim their own 'science' (way of seeing and looking at things) is an authority.

"in the beginning" was written by humans who existed when it was written, and either way you look at it long before they came into existence. They used their senses to observe what they saw and wrote about it according to their understanding at the time.

We are not in the beginning no more but we too write our own big bang as an understanding of what we perceive now with our senses. And the mere fact we use telescopes is an indication of how far we've come.

The problem is "believing". It blinds the understanding and the learning acquired through understanding the supreme powers of the Word. Believers are like those who have heard there is treasure in a field but ask another to have faith and purchase it so they can share the reward with them.

Oh, poor people of this world.

I understand you very well. Each one can only really speak truly from his/her experiences with respect to the Divine. Science isn't necessarily nor expedient for finding God (intact not a requirement). We know God by grace and the fact that we choose to know the Truth and stand by it wherever it leads us.

I only have problems with those who scorn believers in God as Intellectually weak and inferior. I agree, most Christians aren't "readers" and seekers of knowledge but it doesn't mean that Atheists are intellectually superior.

I usually don't quarrel with gnostic Atheists. It could simply be their choice or the fact that science is their god. I have issues with the agnostics who claim not to know yet argue like they know everything to be known. An agnostics should at best be a seeker of the truth.

In the beginning, man created Yahweh and in the image of man created he him

budaatum:

See. Trust according to the person having the faith in the integrity of an entity.

Oftentimes it is "blind believe". The lazy do not work hard like the diligent. But that's where personal integrity comes in. Everyone knows how much or how little they have considered in the evidence before arriving at a belief.

Yes, Faith is trust in the integrity of a personality producing an appropriate response.

Unfortunately, faith isn't always easy especially when the reality of the storm is staring at us in HD 3D. Also because having faith doesn't guarantee an immediate comfortable result. The result of faith is often well after our existence here on earth.

Our faith is in categories: great faith, little faith, waivering faith,...
Faith is a Spiritual currency: every Christian has faith (currency) but can our reserve purchase that which we urgently desire?

e.g. I may have N5600 in my purse, but can I purchase that 126" OLED flat screen TV that I want? Or, can I bail myself from the courts with N2100 in my pocket? Such is faith.

TheArranger:

At the end of the day, there is a seperate place set out to accomodate atheists, christians, muslims etc. The definitions of section and thread are uncalled for.

Atheists' occupation of multiple areas of the forum is only proof that atheism is not a belief or religion as most would like to believe. Don't really understand why you deemed it fit to bring that up.

This is a petty argument anyway so let's drop it.

I think you raised the point in defence of Atheism. Atheists are not as sweet as you think on Nairaland. You need to experience some of them to understand. But I've also met great and friendly Atheist.

But no one can prove God. It's impossible. You can only know Him.

Martinez39:
See, I asked for direct answers. I didn't ask you about your belief in god.

Now, based on this answer we can say that :

1) You don't believe in them because they have no basis in reality or logical basis, yes or no?

I have answered your question even beyond this. You shouldn't put your own words into my mouth.

I also asked you a question: no response?

hopefulLandlord:
In the beginning, man created Yahweh and in the image of man created he him

and the atheists Will want to rewrite Genesis 1:1 like this " in the beginning IT JUST HAPPENED. how did it happened ? by chance ? How can blind chance result in intelligence? I admire this Faith, this Faith is Even stronger than the Christian Faith.

Ihedinobi3:

Hello.

Self-existence is the property of a thing to exist without cause and to be absolutely invulnerable to external influence. So, proof of the possession of this quality would be in its absolute lack of change, that is, if it never changes either to improve in its intrinsic quality or to deteriorate, then it is self-existent. That is why self-existence is the true definition of a true God.

How do we determine if anything self-exists? By checking to see if it experiences change in quality. The universe changes. Energy is part of the universe, so it is not a separate contender. The universe is the full set of all material (including invisible spiritual) things, quantities, and phenomena that exist. Given that this whole is in an observable state of deterioration - and limited revitalization - over time, it is clear that it does not self-exist. It must therefore be created.

The God of the Bible is not available for any kind of experimenting, but we do know the claims that the Bible makes about Him. Even if we doubt the claims to be true, they are absolutely consistent with self-existence. The question is whether we believe what the Bible says or whether we do not. That is a free will choice.

Has the God of the Bible offered any proof at all of the Truth of His Claim to be the true God? Yes, in fact, He has. The entire universe around us with all of its creatures, energies, and phenomena is the proof that He offers. The very nature of the universe makes it clear that it had a Maker. The way it functions points to the Character of that Maker, so that we have some idea what kind of Person He is.

As long as we live in this physical body, however, the proof that God offers in creation all around us is deniable. We are not forced to accept it any more than we are forced to believe the Bible. It is up to us to decide what to believe on the basis of our preferred attitude to God.

So in your argument, the proof of a self-existing God is from the Bible? Please provide an empirical evidence of a self-existing entity.

We have not fully understood the universe, how did you conclude it must be created?

According to law of conservation, energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

And God don't change?

tintingz:


We have not fully understood the universe, how did you conclude it must be created?

That's the thing, we actually do know this particular universe we inhabit does have a creation event ,thus was created.

jamesid29:

That's the thing, we actually do know this particular universe we inhabit does have a
creation event ,thus was created.

What creation event?