shadeyinka:

[s]Not surprised at your stereotyped atheistic response. Typical pretence and Hyena-like scorn to that which you've not processed is your logo.

A rebuttal is what is needed not a meaningless emotional response!
[/s]

E pain am . Projections and generalizations won't achieve anything for you. You know what to do,

XxSabrinaxX:

Incidentally, can you link any peer reviewed work in genetics published in a worthy scientific journal, that agrees with your assumption that it requires a supernatural cause? (Perhaps, if you can accomplish this, i will return to the debate)

Cheers.

Ihedinobi3:

First, self-existent is what any true God is. That is just a definition, not a technical proof. In other words, a true God is anything that is self-existent.

Second, I said that the Bible claims that the God that Christians worship is the true God, that is, that He is self-existent. The proof that it offers for this claim is the universe around us.

Third, is it your opinion that the universe around us is not empirical enough proof of the Trinity? Why is it not?

Fourth, is it your opinion that we cannot know if the universe changes from one qualitative state to another unless we know every last thing there is to know about it?

Fifth, what is the point of your reference to the law of conservation of energy?

Sixth, I said both that a true God is invulnerable to external influence and thus does not change and that the Bible claims that the Trinity does not change. Which of those statements are you challenging with your question? And what precisely is your challenge? Why do you seem incredulous about it?

I asked for empirical evidence not fantasies, good you admit there are no technical proof to your claim.

- In logic there is a say "something cannot exist from nothing or without a cause" the idea of a self-existing entity will be violating this logic.

- How does the universe proves your God, what are the evidence that connect it to your God?

- We don't know what exactly happened at the early stage of the universe, we can't possibly conclude the universe was created by your God without any empirical evidence to support it, there might be a cause for the universe but saying it's your God is same as making any claim of a fairy being to fill the gaps. This is a fallacy.

- How does the universe changes proves your God created the universe?

- Since energy cannot be created nor destroy can we make the claim it's self-existence?

- How is possible for a personal God like the Bible God not to change? A God that's said to move, talk, reason, emotional etc does not change? Even reading the Bible we read how the Jewish God in the OT changes in NT.

tintingz:
What again is our argument?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

.... U were saying the universe started out as a gravitational singularity, at which point it becomes infinite (with respect to time I believe u presume).... Please read the wiki page u posted again and see if that squares up with ur assumption...
Other than some wrong presumptions on ur part about the universe,I think you're mistaking the concept of infinite density with infinite time to the past.. Either way my brother, it is well.

But whichever side of the divide we are, at the end of the day ,we both can agree we don't have infinite time to live on this Earth, so I think it's probably better we send that time trying to be better humans to one another ,rather than spending it on a topic like this.

Enjoy ur day boss.

XxSabrinaxX:


E pain am . Projections and generalizations won't achieve anything for you. You know what to do,

Cheers.

I laugh in Chinese!
I believe you know a field of science that studies God and the supernatural.

Can you see how sensible your your question is?
Like I said:
A rebuttal is what is needed not a meaningless emotional response!

tintingz:
I asked for empirical evidence not fantasies, good you admit there are no technical proof to your claim.

- In logic there is a say "something cannot exist from nothing or without a cause" the idea of a self-existing entity will be violating this logic.

- How does the universe proves your God, what are the evidence that connect it to your God?

- We don't know what exactly happened at the early stage of the universe, we can't possibly conclude the universe was created by your God without any empirical evidence to support it, there might be a cause for the universe but saying it's your God is same as making any claim of a fairy being to fill the gaps. This is a fallacy.

- How does the universe changes proves your God created the universe?

- Since energy cannot be created nor destroy can we make the claim it's self-existence?

- How is possible for a personal God like the Bible God not to change? A God that's said to move, talk, reason, emotional etc does not change? Even reading the Bible we read how the Jewish God in the OT changes in NT.

This is an astonishing lie:

"...you admit there are no technical proof to your claim."

Or I would have been astonished except for my experience with people like you. I expect such lies now as a matter of course.

As for your arguments,

1. "In logic there is a say "something cannot exist from nothing or without a cause" the idea of a self-existing entity will be violating this logic."

I have never seen this in logic. Where did you get it from?

2. "How does the universe proves your God, what are the evidence that connect it to your God?"

Since I have already answered this question before, I expect you to answer mine now with a counterargument. My questions in the post that you are responding to were:

Third, is it your opinion that the universe around us is not empirical enough proof of the Trinity? Why is it not?

3. "We don't know what exactly happened at the early stage of the universe, we can't possibly conclude the universe was created by your God without any empirical evidence to support it, there might be a cause for the universe but saying it's your God is same as making any claim of a fairy being to fill the gaps. This is a fallacy."

My question was:

Fourth, is it your opinion that we cannot know if the universe changes from one qualitative state to another unless we know every last thing there is to know about it?

I was not asking anything about the early stages of the universe. Since you countered me earlier with the possibility that the universe is self-existing, I was asking you if you really think that the universe does not ever change in state. That has nothing to do with the early stage of the universe. Do you have an answer to my question?

4. "How does the universe changes proves your God created the universe?"

I did not offer that as proof that my God created the universe. I offered it as proof that the universe was created by something outside of it.

5. "Since energy cannot be created nor destroy can we make the claim it's self-existence? "

I believe that you made that up out of whole cloth. The law of conservation of energy is an observation and a logical conclusion that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system.

Obviously, my argument has been that the universe is not an isolated system.

However, the statement is not absolute. It does not say that energy can never be created or destroyed, only that it cannot be created or destroyed within a very particular type of system. Can energy be created or destroyed as a thing in itself? The law does not say. The Bible does say though. It claims that all things including matter, energy, and time were created by the Trinity. That is an axiom of Christianity. You can believe it or reject it entirely as you please.

6. "How is possible for a personal God like the Bible God not to change? A God that's said to move, talk, reason, emotional etc does not change? Even reading the Bible we read how the Jewish God in the OT changes in NT."

What makes it impossible for such a God to remain the same?

What does moving or talking have to do with never changing? As for reasoning and emotion, obviously the Lord is not a material entity, so those things do not apply to Him. In the Bible they are anthropopathisms used to make Him understandable to us. Nor does He actually have to move or talk as we do. In fact, we are said to live and move and have our being in Him. All such descriptions of Him are used for the benefit of His Creatures. He does not have to move since He is everywhere. He does not have to talk since His Word is also everywhere.

How exactly did God change in the New Testament? I'd like to know if you actually know what you're talking about, or if you are just mindlessly repeating what you have heard elsewhere.

TheArranger:

Wtf is this? What is the accusation here? Can you listen to yourself?

I stated that theists use advanced science to assault theists and claim that their favourite god exists. I stated the reasons why this was amusing and pointed out the fact that some theists dismiss science as a way of proving god.

You know what? I give up with you. Go and enjoy your god.

Your are certainly amusing.
An excuse to cheaply chicken out!!

You, XxSabrinaxX and LordReed haven failed to logically or scientifically rebut my submissions are now throwing tantrums about the screen. Continue! It doesn't change the truth.
You (plural) have accused me of arguing unjustly because i use Deists arguments. SMH!

Now, I leave you alone without jabbing any of you with any scientific facts you've come back to your base state. SMH

You in particular said your atheism isn't based on any scientific reasons and I understand. Hence you should have stayed out of the discussion for there would be nothing meaningful you could have contributed. And FYI, I havent used any other arguments apart from scientific and logical deductions for which you all do not have an answer.

@ SHADEYINKA
Holy hell, dude, you do realize you are on a religion forum, right? This is not a physics or cosmology site. Granted i know "religion" and astrophysics" sound and look alike, so honest mistake on ur part if you accidentally clicked wrong. I'm sure we've all done it before *turning to XxSabrinaxX & LordReed & shaking head discretely*. So with that in mind, i'll say again dat I think its great dat u have all this advanced knowledge about physics & such. And it is awfully kind of u to take time out of your scholarly studies to grace us with your presence in a valiant effort to expand our puny atheist minds. But it just seems a waste. It breaks my heart dat ur vast stores of knowledge are drained to near depletion on us godless dummies, as u clearly have d intellect to achieve greatness in d scientific community. The Nobel Prize is yours for the taking! Unshackle the bonds of dis site & cut loose the dead-weight anchor of those parasites who seek to hold you from greatness! WE ARE NOT WORTHY!

jamesid29:

.... U were saying the universe started out as a gravitational singularity, at which point it becomes infinite (with respect to time I believe u presume).... Please read the wiki page u posted again and see if that squares up with ur assumption...
Other than some wrong presumptions on ur part about the universe,I think you're mistaking the concept of infinite density with infinite time to the past.. Either way my brother, it is well.

But whichever side of the divide we are, at the end of the day ,we both can agree we don't have infinite time to live on this Earth, so I think it's probably better we send that time trying to be better humans to one another ,rather than spending it on a topic like this.

Enjoy ur day boss.

We assume our time from the big bang, before the big bang there was a gravitational singularity(initial singularity) where the universe becomes infinite.

My argument here is that the universe can be infinite.

Enjoy yours too.

TheArranger:
@ SHADEYINKA
Holy hell, dude, you do realize you are on a religion forum, right? This is not a physics or cosmology site. Granted i know "religion" and astrophysics" sound and look alike, so honest mistake on ur part if you accidentally clicked wrong. I'm sure we've all done it before *turning to XxSabrinaxX & LordReed & shaking head discretely*. So with that in mind, i'll say again dat I think its great dat u have all this advanced knowledge about physics & such. And it is awfully kind of u to take time out of your scholarly studies to grace us with your presence in a valiant effort to expand our puny atheist minds. But it just seems a waste. It breaks my heart dat ur vast stores of knowledge are drained to near depletion on us godless dummies, as u clearly have d intellect to achieve greatness in d scientific community. The Nobel Prize is yours for the taking! Unshackle the bonds of dis site & cut loose the dead-weight anchor of those parasites who seek to hold you from greatness! WE ARE NOT WORTHY!

Signal received. LMFAO!

Shadeyinka is about to unleash and win a Nobel while we are here helping Seun to buy private jet.

LordReed:


Signal received. LMFAO!

Shadeyinka is about to unleash and win a Nobel while we are here helping Seun to buy private jet.

LWKMD

Ihedinobi3:

This is an astonishing lie:

"...you admit there are no technical proof to your claim."

Or I would have been astonished except for my experience with people like you. I expect such lies now as a matter of course.

Do you want me to quote out your word where you said that?

As for your arguments,

1. "In logic there is a say "something cannot exist from nothing or without a cause" the idea of a self-existing entity will be violating this logic."

I have never seen this in logic. Where did you get it from?

You have never heard the logic "something must come from something" or "something must have a cause"?

2. "How does the universe proves your God, what are the evidence that connect it to your God?"

Since I have already answered this question before, I expect you to answer mine now with a counterargument. My questions in the post that you are responding to were:

Third, is it your opinion that the universe around us is not empirical enough proof of the Trinity? Why is it not?

What do you mean by Trinity? Are you referring to the Christian God?

If it's so, you're the one to proof how the universe connect to the Trinity (whatever that mean) with evidence.

It's logical and a fact that the universe is not enough proof of your Trinity.

3. "We don't know what exactly happened at the early stage of the universe, we can't possibly conclude the universe was created by your God without any empirical evidence to support it, there might be a cause for the universe but saying it's your God is same as making any claim of a fairy being to fill the gaps. This is a fallacy."

My question was:

Fourth, is it your opinion that we cannot know if the universe changes from one qualitative state to another unless we know every last thing there is to know about it?

I was not asking anything about the early stages of the universe. Since you countered me earlier with the possibility that the universe is self-existing, I was asking you if you really think that the universe does not ever change in state. That has nothing to do with the early stage of the universe. Do you have an answer to my question?

I replied you with a question, "how does the universe changes proves your God created the universe?"

4. "How does the universe changes proves your God created the universe?"

I did not offer that as proof that my God created the universe. I offered it as proof that the universe was created by something outside of it.

So what exactly is your argument?

5. "Since energy cannot be created nor destroy can we make the claim it's self-existence? "

I believe that you made that up out of whole cloth. The law of conservation of energy is an observation and a logical conclusion that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system.

Obviously, my argument has been that the universe is not an isolated system.

However, the statement is not absolute. It does not say that energy can never be created or destroyed, only that it cannot be created or destroyed within a very particular type of system. Can energy be created or destroyed as a thing in itself? The law does not say. The Bible does say though. It claims that all things including matter, energy, and time were created by the Trinity. That is an axiom of Christianity. You can believe it or reject it entirely as you please.

Did you agree to the law of conservation that said energy cannot be created nor destroyed?

What makes it impossible for such a God to remain the same?

What does moving or talking have to do with never changing? As for reasoning and emotion, obviously the Lord is not a material entity, so those things do not apply to Him. In the Bible they are anthropopathisms used to make Him understandable to us. Nor does He actually have to move or talk as we do. In fact, we are said to live and move and have our being in Him. All such descriptions of Him are used for the benefit of His Creatures. He does not have to move since He is everywhere. He does not have to talk since His Word is also everywhere.

Are you saying your God is frozen somewhere if he doesn't change? For God to start creating he made a move, reason, work with a time those are properties of "change". For God to talk he made a change or is he mute, who was talking in the Bible to the people?

Your God is anthropomorphic, if this is how you can understand your God he's anthropomorphic.

How exactly did God change in the New Testament? I'd like to know if you actually know what you're talking about, or if you are just mindlessly repeating what you have heard elsewhere.

The characters of God in OT changes in NT.

God made some promises of some things he won't do again.

At a point in the Bible it said your God repented.

tintingz:
I asked for empirical evidence not fantasies, good you admit there are no technical proof to your claim.

- In logic there is a say "something cannot exist from nothing or without a cause" the idea of a self-existing entity will be violating this logic.

- How does the universe proves your God, what are the evidence that connect it to your God?

- We don't know what exactly happened at the early stage of the universe, we can't possibly conclude the universe was created by your God without any empirical evidence to support it, there might be a cause for the universe but saying it's your God is same as making any claim of a fairy being to fill the gaps. This is a fallacy.

- How does the universe changes proves your God created the universe?

- Since energy cannot be created nor destroy can we make the claim it's self-existence?

- How is possible for a personal God like the Bible God not to change? A God that's said to move, talk, reason, emotional etc does not change? Even reading the Bible we read how the Jewish God in the OT changes in NT.

If you have read the earlier posts, you wouldnt have spilled out this garbage.
Lets pick up your proposition one by one.
1."something cannot exist from nothing or without a cause" the idea of a self-existing entity will be violating this logic.
[/quote]

Implication: The universe must have existed before the Big Bang ( as a point dense gravitational singleton) i.e the universe had always existed.
Would you therefore agree that
i. The gravitational singleton changed state at the Big bang because something external to it caused the change?
ii. If the gravitational singleton changed its state because it is unstable, then it contradict the proposition that the universe existed before the big bang.
iii. The laws of physics and chemistry does not hold on or before the Big bang: therefore whatever initiated the change of state of the gravitational singleton is NOT subject to the laws of Physics and chemistry.
iv. A complete new dimension order than the 3D and time we know must be an explanation for the external force causing the singleton to change state.
v. Whatever caused the singleton to change cannot be a static force/energy else it wouldnt be able to cause a change of state of the singleton.

The postulates here need a YES (for agreement) and NO (for a disagreement) with an explanation/rebutal to back it up

tintingz:

2. Since energy cannot be created nor destroy can we make the claim it's self-existence?

The fact that the universe exists and is tangible actually show that something can exist from nothing except if the Universe had always existed.

Has the universe always existed?

tintingz:


We assume our time from the big bang, before the big bang there was a gravitational singularity(initial singularity) where the universe becomes infinite.

My argument here is that the universe can be infinite.

Enjoy yours too.

Like I said boss,I think u have a slight misunderstanding of what the concept of a singularity means... But again, it's really not that important in the grand scheme of things...

TheArranger:
@ SHADEYINKA
Holy hell, dude, you do realize you are on a religion forum, right? This is not a physics or cosmology site. Granted i know "religion" and astrophysics" sound and look alike, so honest mistake on ur part if you accidentally clicked wrong. I'm sure we've all done it before *turning to XxSabrinaxX & LordReed & shaking head discretely*. So with that in mind, i'll say again dat I think its great dat u have all this advanced knowledge about physics & such. And it is awfully kind of u to take time out of your scholarly studies to grace us with your presence in a valiant effort to expand our puny atheist minds. But it just seems a waste. It breaks my heart dat ur vast stores of knowledge are drained to near depletion on us godless dummies, as u clearly have d intellect to achieve greatness in d scientific community. The Nobel Prize is yours for the taking! Unshackle the bonds of dis site & cut loose the dead-weight anchor of those parasites who seek to hold you from greatness! WE ARE NOT WORTHY!

LordReed:


Signal received. LMFAO!

Shadeyinka is about to unleash and win a Nobel while we are here helping Seun to buy private jet.

When you don't have an answer and yet want to say something completely meaningless in the name of taking up the available space!

Nothing special about any of my submission: they don't require a diploma in science (all you need is ability to comprehend simple English).
SMH!

TheArranger:
@ SHADEYINKA
This is not a physics or cosmology site. Granted i know "religion" and astrophysics" sound and look alike, so honest mistake on ur part if you accidentally clicked wrong. I'm sure we've all done it before. So with that in mind, i'll say again dat I think its great dat u have all this advanced knowledge about physics & such. And it is awfully kind of u to take time out of your scholarly studies to grace us with your presence in a valiant effort to expand our puny atheist minds. But it just seems a waste. It breaks my heart dat ur vast stores of knowledge are drained to near depletion on us godless dummies, as u clearly have d intellect to achieve greatness in d scientific community. The Nobel Prize is yours for the taking! Unshackle the bonds of dis site & cut loose the dead-weight anchor of those parasites who seek to hold you from greatness. WE ARE NOT WORTHY!

[img]https://media1./images/c4f32241d3eb7ea767713b81ef915ce2/tenor.gif[/img]

shadeyinka:


When you don't have an answer and yet want to say something completely meaningless in the name of taking up the available space!

Nothing special about any of my submission: they don't require a diploma in science (all you need is ability to comprehend simple English).
SMH!

@bolded
*sounds of loud sparks accompanied by large clouds of smoke*
Well, sh!t *fanning away the smoke* There goes another Irony Meter headed to the scrapyard.

shadeyinka:

If you have read the earlier posts, you wouldnt have spilled out this garbage.
Lets pick up your proposition one by one.
1."something cannot exist from nothing or without a cause" the idea of a self-existing entity will be violating this logic.


Implication: The universe must have existed before the Big Bang ( as a point dense gravitational singleton) i.e the universe had always existed.
Would you therefore agree that
i. The gravitational singleton changed state at the Big bang because something external to it caused the change?
ii. If the gravitational singleton changed its state because it is unstable, then it contradict the proposition that the universe existed before the big bang.
iii. The laws of physics and chemistry does not hold on or before the Big bang: therefore whatever initiated the change of state of the gravitational singleton is NOT subject to the laws of Physics and chemistry.
iv. A complete new dimension order than the 3D and time we know must be an explanation for the external force causing the singleton to change state.
v. Whatever caused the singleton to change cannot be a static force/energy else it wouldnt be able to cause a change of state of the singleton.

The postulates here need a YES (for agreement) and NO (for a disagreement) with an explanation/rebutal to back it up

Like I've said we don't know what happened before the big bang, what we have are hypothesis and assumptions.

I'm in for the two possibilities,

- Something must come from something, we have not experienced nothing or something coming out of nothing so something must come from something, in this case the universe must have an initial cause and that initial cause must have a cause and it goes infinite regress.

- The second possibility is the universe being infinite.

There are no strong evidences to back up this claims yet since we can't travel back time. I'm agnostic in this matter.

2. Since energy cannot be created nor destroy can we make the claim it's self-existence?

The fact that the universe exists and is tangible actually show that something can exist from nothing except if the Universe had always existed.

The idea the universe can exist from nothing is very weak to me, for something to exist there must be pre-existing materials.

Has the universe always existed?

I dont know.

tintingz:
Do you want me to quote out your word where you said that?



You have never heard the logic "something must come from something" or "something must have a cause"?

What do you mean by Trinity? Are you referring to the Christian God?

If it's so, you're the one to proof how the universe connect to the Trinity (whatever that mean) with evidence.

It's logical and a fact that the universe is not enough proof of your Trinity.



I replied you with a question, "how does the universe changes proves your God created the universe?"



So what exactly is your argument?



Did you agree to the law of conservation that said energy cannot be created nor destroy?



Are you saying your God is frozen somewhere if he doesn't change? For God to start creating he made a move, reason, work with a time those are properties of "change". For God to talk he made a change or is he mute, who was talking in the Bible to the people?

Your God is anthropomorphic, if this is how you can understand your God he's anthropomorphic.



The character of God in OT changes in NT.

God made promises he won't do some things again.

At a point in the Bible it said your God repented.

The above leads me to conclude that

1. You have a problem reading my arguments.

2. You have a problem understanding my arguments.

3. You have no idea what you're doing here.

For whatever it may be worth, let me explain that I don't come on Nairaland either to entertain myself or to entertain other people. I pick and choose what discussions I get into on the basis of their seriousness and usefulness for my own purposes.

This conversation with you has stretched the limits of usefulness for me. When you begin to ask me to repeat exactly what I just wrote, and when you begin to make undefended pronouncements and declarations, you are wasting my time.

I understand that you think that Christianity is foolish and illogical. You are welcome to your own views about that. It's of little consequence to me. But if you want to discuss such views with me, you have to do a lot better than you have done here. My time and energy are really not yours to waste here.

clearly the christian scientist is frustrated at his inability to objectively prove god and is now throwing temper tantrums...

LordReed:


Signal received. LMFAO!

Shadeyinka is about to unleash and win a Nobel while we are here helping Seun to buy private jet.

Hahahahahahahahahah

tintingz:


Like I've said we don't know what happened before the big bang, what we have are hypothesis and assumptions.

I'm in for the two possibilities,

- Something must come from something, we have not experienced nothing or something coming out of nothing so something must come from something, in this case the universe must have an initial cause and that initial cause must have a cause and it goes infinite regress.

- The second possibility is the universe being infinite.

There are no strong evidences to back up this claims yet since we can't travel back time. I'm agnostic in this matter.




The idea the universe can exist from nothing is very weak to me, for something to exist there must be pre-existing materials.

I dont know.

You know what!
You just used the laws of physics and logic to show how Ihedinobi3 and jamesid29 err AND I want to apply the same rule. Do NOT say, I don't know and yet you wouldn't take I don't know as an answer for a theist.

Let me slow you down and lets reason it out one by one.. Pls use the hypothesis, logic and laws freely

The universe must have existed before the Big Bang ( as a point dense gravitational singleton) i.e the universe had always existed.
Would you therefore agree that
i. The gravitational singleton changed state at the Big bang because something external to it caused the change?

These a logical questions based on the laws of nature. YES or NO (With a NO answer, an explanation is required)

TheArranger:

@bolded
*sounds of loud sparks accompanied by large clouds of smoke*
Well, sh!t *fanning away the smoke* There goes another Irony Meter headed to the scrapyard.

Another example of:

shadeyinka:

When you don't have an answer and yet want to say something completely meaningless in the name of taking up the available space!

shadeyinka:

Another example of:

If my posts are irrelevant and a waste of space, why does it bother you so much that you keep replying? What does your reply to an empty message from a dumbo like me do for you exactly?

Lmao... this man

shadeyinka:

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.

The Grace in knowing God is in the fact that God made some people make huge sacrifices to ensure you know God. If they hadn't, you'd have no Scripture today.

'Science', which is the use of your God given senses, is very necessary for understanding God, for one of those senses is your mind, which if not used would find satan and mistake it for God. Do note how many times Christ healed the sense of seeing to understand how important their use is.

A person who does not use their senses cannot truly speak about their experiences as they neither have the senses to fully comprehend their experience, nor the mind to process it and put it into meaningful words that properly reflect what actually happened which might be very different to what they experienced.

Besides, without Science you cannot possibly perform the very first duty God assigned to humans which is: "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

shadeyinka:


The universe must have existed before the Big Bang ( as a point dense gravitational singleton) i.e the universe had always existed.

It must have? How do you know this?

budaatum:

It must have? How do you know this?

Ok. The universe started at the big bang!

Dou you agree with this

shadeyinka:

You know what!
You just used the laws of physics and logic to show how Ihedinobi3 and jamesid29 err AND I want to apply the same rule. Do NOT say, I don't know and yet you wouldn't take I don't know as an answer for a theist.

Let me slow you down and lets reason it out one by one.. Pls use the hypothesis, logic and laws freely

The universe must have existed before the Big Bang ( as a point dense gravitational singleton) i.e the universe had always existed.
Would you therefore agree that
i. The gravitational singleton changed state at the Big bang because something external to it caused the change?

These a logical questions based on the laws of nature. YES or NO (With a NO answer, an explanation is required)

I don't know but according scientific theory what it theorize is that the density state was very hot that it had to pour out the particles inside causing an expansion we know as the big bang and our current universe.

Whether there was some external cause or causes to it, we don't know, no one knows, even we assume there was an external cause or causes, we don't still know what it is.

If you don't know something admit you don't know instead of filling your Ignorance with fantasies and say it's the truth or fact, that's fallacy and nonsensical. That is the problem with theists.

budaatum:

The Grace in knowing God is in the fact that God made some people make huge sacrifices to ensure you know God. If they hadn't, you'd have no Scripture today.

'Science', which is the use of your God given senses, is very necessary for understanding God, for one of those senses is your mind, which if not used would find satan and mistake it for God. Do note how many times Christ healed the sense of seeing to understand how important their use is.

A person who does not use their senses cannot truly speak about their experiences as they neither have the senses to fully comprehend their experience, nor the mind to process it and put it into meaningful words that properly reflect what actually happened which might be very different to what they experienced.

Besides, without Science you cannot possibly perform the very first duty God assigned to humans which is: "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

I perfectly agree with you.
Science is the intelligence God gave man with which to subdue the earth.
Unfortunately, sometimes a man replaces God with science (knowingly or unknowingly)

Ive asked people on this thread several times:
"If we live in a 1D world, would we be able to comprehend/describe living in 2D world?"
"If we cant, can we use our result as a proof that a 2D world is impossible?"

No one has dared answer the question.
Shalom

Ihedinobi3:

The above leads me to conclude that

1. You have a problem reading my arguments.

2. You have a problem understanding my arguments.

3. You have no idea what you're doing here.

For whatever it may be worth, let me explain that I don't come on Nairaland either to entertain myself or to entertain other people. I pick and choose what discussions I get into on the basis of their seriousness and usefulness for my own purposes.

This conversation with you has stretched the limits of usefulness for me. When you begin to ask me to repeat exactly what I just wrote, and when you begin to make undefended pronouncements and declarations, you are wasting my time.

I understand that you think that Christianity is foolish and illogical. You are welcome to your own views about that. It's of little consequence to me. But if you want to discuss such views with me, you have to do a lot better than you have done here. My time and energy are really not yours to waste here.

Ok.

tintingz:


I don't know but according scientific theory what it theorize is that the density state was very hot that it had to pour out the particles inside causing an expansion we know as the big bang and our current universe.

Whether there's some external cause or causes to it, we don't know, no one knows, even we assume there's an external cause or causes, we don't still know what it is.

If you don't know something admit you don't know instead of filling your Ignorance with fantasies and say it's the truth or fact, that's fallacy and nonsensical. That is the problem with theists.

Oh no!
I am trying to make you think logically and deeply.

So, (quoting you): the density state was very hot that it had to pour out the particles inside causing an expansion we know as the big bang and our current universe.

You start with something of high density AND this thing "poured out particles" causing an expansion.

In other words, there was a sudden change of state for this "something of high density" to form our universe.

Now, this expansion occurred almost 14 Billion years ago. So the question is, do you think this "something of high density" had existed thousands of Billions of years before the big bang (stable) OR it existed momentarily just before the Big Bang (unstable)

shadeyinka:

I perfectly agree with you.
Science is the intelligence God gave man with which to subdue the earth.
Unfortunately, sometimes a man replaces God with science (knowingly or unknowingly)

Ive asked people on this thread several times:
"If we live in a 1D world, would we be able to comprehend/describe living in 2D world?"
"If we cant, can we use our result as a proof that a 2D world is impossible?"

No one has dared answer the question.
Shalom

One may very well comprehend, or at least, form some sort of idea about the 2D world, we humans being so imaginative. But you'd need evidence for a 2D world before forming rules by which to live in it. It might de rather detrimental after all, trying to live by 2D world rules in a 1D world.

I think it is the theist who knowingly or unknowingly think some replace God with science. Science is simply the use of the senses, and not just believing, and might be the issue here as the mere fact one believes means they have not used their senses.

Surely you need evidence before you can consider a thing to be valid. Just imagine someone preaching, "believe" to you and you might get the point.

budaatum:

It must have? How do you know this?

That is the only saving grace for atheists for they can claim that the universe was just an extension of the gravitational singleton.

If it occurred spontaneously, we have to account for the force that gathered/forged it into a gravitational singleton.
If it had always existed, we have to account for the force that changed the state of the gravitational singleton into expanding.