TheArranger:

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:

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.

shadeyinka:

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)

tintingz:


It's said to be infinite.

budaatum:

I do not understand this. Is it not the truth that no one really knows anything preceding the big bang, and that even the big bang itself is as mythical as "God said"?

shadeyinka:


The claim of science is that the universe started expanding from an infinitely dense gravitational singleton almost 14 billion years away.
At least we have a starting point (Gravitational singleton)

budaatum:

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:

I am certain scientists state this as an hypothesis, and not as a theory, since they usually qualify it with, "as far as we can tell". Theists might hear this as the equivalent of their belief in creationism, which it is not.

No one knows what happened 14billion years ago Shade, and even the 14billion is a work in progress, as in humans using our God given senses to do science to acquire better understandings.

shadeyinka:

Not quite:
If we live in a 1D world, a number of inferences can be obtained
i. Each person will think he is alone in this world
ii. Each person can move ONLY in a straight line
iii. When another "line crosses" our line (from their own 1D space), we will see such as a "dot" on our line and well still think we are alone
Because of these:
i. 2D will sound illogical because, wel not be alone in the world
ii. 2D will sound illogical because it assumes we can move in every complex directions in the 2D world
iii. 2D will sound illogical because we cant imagine that other 1D spaces can exist other than our own.

(Please take a peace of paper and check this out)

However, we in 3D can perfectly comprehend this.

The Implication:
Science had assumed that there exist only Energy/Mass, Space and Time. If just one more dimension other than defined by these three exist, it would be impossible to use our knowledge o science to unravel it. The fact that we cant prove it does not mean another dimension doesn't exist.

The bible had always spoken about the Spiritual Dimension: thus the understandable problem of those who reject its possibility as a valid conclusion from their observation.

So the question is, what would be a sufficient evidence for a person who lives in a 1D world to believe that a 2D world exist.
Now if he concludes that his judgemt is correct based on his observation ,would that make his judgement correct?

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)

TheArranger:

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 just decided to go with the prevailing theory : my other option would have been to say
"In the Begining, God created the Heavens and the Earth..."

This your people will then ask for my evidence (of which the Bible is out of it) and then accuse me of being unscientific, illogical and nonsesical in believing what science has not proven. Don't forget that many atheist take theories to be scientific facts (Evolution, Big bang, NDE etc)
And you know your people, they want SCIENCE and LOGIC and DEDUCTIONS etc. So, I am only dancing according to their kind of music.

budaatum:

My own position is that Biblical Creationism is ancient science and anyone who accepts it as a literally true today is very unscientific indeed by todays standard, for they completely disregard with their senses, all discoveries made since "In the beginning" was written.

It is not sensible to argue against science (the use of the senses) with "beliefs". People who use their god given senses will find it impossible to believe unless evidence for the belief is provided.

shadeyinka:

Evidence for believe is by grace. Not everyone is privileged to have it.

shadeyinka:
There had been Atheists who converted because they had a compelling NDE experience. Some experienced a miracle while for others, they had the Holy Spirit convince them directly through their conscience.

And sometimes, God leaves the man who had shut his eyes to the truth to his own folly.

I'm the world where knowledge has increased, it's natural for the love of many (even believers) to go cold!

Ihedinobi3:

Hello.

I'm afraid I'm aware of this error that you allude to here. Could you explain to me what it is that you believe that tintingz demonstrated me to be in error about?

budaatum:
I think you are simply imagining living in a 1D world and inferring what a 2D world might seem like, and which you yourself said might be difficult, and which I said might not be believed unless evidence were provided.

How for instance does a 1D world imply "thinking one is alone", or "move in a straight line"? Do you not think this because of your own assumptions about what a 1D world might seem like?

Others might assume different, is my point.

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)

shadeyinka:

Please don't mind him.
They go to web pages they don't have a full comprehension of the science and they come here to exhibit a false superiority over those who cannot use the same science to defend themselves.

I have just simply slowed him down so as to know the meaning of what weapon he is using against another person. These laws actually show that something beyond the universe must have activated the making of the universe.

shadeyinka:

You mean infinitely dense?
I am not disagreeing with you: we are just taking a logical walk through this together.

Back to my question:
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:

Please don't mind him.
They go to web pages they don't have a full comprehension of the science and they come here to exhibit a false superiority over those who cannot use the same science to defend themselves.

I have just simply slowed him down so as to know the meaning of what weapon he is using against another person. These laws actually show that something beyond the universe must have activated the making of the universe.

Ihedinobi3:

Hello.

I'm afraid I'm aware of this error that you allude to here. Could you explain to me what it is that you believe that tintingz demonstrated me to be in error about?

budaatum:

Well, this is completely contradictory to the use of the senses. Why, for instances would those who have not been given the grace, believe it?


You left out atheist converts like me. The increase in my knowledge is what makes me a theist, and not the lack of it as you suggest.

Ignorance, cannot be the evidence for an Almighty God, and if ignorance ever does become the evidence for God, then those worshipping it need to read their Bible and reconsider.

Ihedinobi3:

I see.

Well, the law of conservation of energy holds that in an isolated system, the total amount of energy is always constant. He tried to leverage this for the self-existence of energy. The law does not hold at all that energy can never be created or destroyed, only that in a hypothetical isolated system, it cannot be. That makes sense. But in both open and closed systems, energy can be "created" and "destroyed," since the total amount of energy in such systems is not constant at all: it could be increasing or reducing. And the universe is not an isolated system, as the change within it proves.

As for his appeal to the law of logic, that law actually states that something cannot arise out of nothing and nothing can begin to exist without cause. The keywords are "arise" and "begin." These statements are truisms. They are not false at all. However, God did not ever arise into existence or begin to exist. He has always existed without beginning and end. His existence then does not violate logic, it just supercedes it because while logic cannot fault such a mode of existence, it simply cannot comprehend it.

The alternative to self-existence is infinite regress, but that is a nonsense concept, because if there is a chain, then it must have a beginning and an end. Whatever is at the beginning of the chain of infinite regress must therefore be self-existent. If we claim that the chain terminates in itself, then we create a logical absurdity where a child births its own parent. In other words, there is no true logical alternative to self-existence to explain existence at all. A God does exist because everything else does exist. The real debate is who the true God is, and even that is a no-brainer.

In other words, his appeal to those laws falls flat on its face. He did not succeed at all at demonstrating any error in my arguments. I just don't enjoy wasting my time and energy on meaningless arguments. It is enough for me to answer questions about the Christian Hope, but I don't owe anyone a change of heart, whether of theirs or of mine.

Vic2Ree:

He's dying to have the last word just so he can give people the (false) impression that he is making sense. People like him full NL. They believe they are right no matter what and will argue with you to the bitter end, even if it is a petty argument with no value.

shadeyinka:

In your case, it may be your conscience touched by God as you studied more. After all people like Hawkins, Dawkins and Spielberg studied too but arrived at a different conclusion.

I of course wasn't suggesting that knowledge moves one away from God: but it a convenient excuse to replace God with the "God" that can be touched and felt (Science).

Knowledge should actually lead one to God (if one is sincere and humble). At a point, we note that there are several gaps in our theories, postulates and results. One must also know that it is impossible to use Science to prove God.

It is also easy for comfortable living to lead one away from God. That is the problem of the western world today. Satan introduces distractions through fun and time wasters etc

Unfortunately, we Christians aren't showing a bright enough light; Coupled with false shepherds and false disciples. We actually give the uncommitted an excuse to choose other alternatives

jamesid29:

Mr shadeyinka, there are points in life a man should know he is going too far. One of those points is when you are willing to do whatever it takes to win regardless of the cost. As far as I can tell , the only reason u dragged I and mr Ihedinobi3 is to put us down so u can lift urself up.

That's fine , but like I told tingz, I believe u also have a bit of misunderstanding of what a singularity is and how it relates to the inflationary big bang model.

It is well sir...I could be wrong but I believe u need to relax and don't loose urself. even if u don't win the argument, God will still remain God and His resurrection for man's sins will still be valid.

shadeyinka:

In your case, it may be your conscience touched by God as you studied more.

Ihedinobi3:

I see.

Well, the law of conservation of energy holds that in an isolated system, the total amount of energy is always constant. He tried to leverage this for the self-existence of energy. The law does not hold at all that energy can never be created or destroyed, only that in a hypothetical isolated system, it cannot be. That makes sense. But in both open and closed systems, energy can be "created" and "destroyed," since the total amount of energy in such systems is not constant at all: it could be increasing or reducing. And the universe is not an isolated system, as the change within it proves.

As for his appeal to the law of logic, that law actually states that something cannot arise out of nothing and nothing can begin to exist without cause. The keywords are "arise" and "begin." These statements are truisms. They are not false at all. However, God did not ever arise into existence or begin to exist. He has always existed without beginning and end. His existence then does not violate logic, it just supercedes it because while logic cannot fault such a mode of existence, it simply cannot comprehend it.

The alternative to self-existence is infinite regress, but that is a nonsense concept, because if there is a chain, then it must have a beginning and an end. Whatever is at the beginning of the chain of infinite regress must therefore be self-existent. If we claim that the chain terminates in itself, then we create a logical absurdity where a child births its own parent. In other words, there is no true logical alternative to self-existence to explain existence at all. A God does exist because everything else does exist. The real debate is who the true God is, and even that is a no-brainer.

In other words, his appeal to those laws falls flat on its face. He did not succeed at all at demonstrating any error in my arguments. I just don't enjoy wasting my time and energy on meaningless arguments. It is enough for me to answer questions about the Christian Hope, but I don't owe anyone a change of heart, whether of theirs or of mine.

tintingz:


I have answered this before, you keep asking same question.

I said the density is said to be infinite.

I still don't get where you're heading to.

tintingz:


Red herring.

budaatum:

God touched my intellectual understanding.