shadeyinka:



You insinuate that I wrongfully use science to postulate two wrong conclusions.
Since you know more science as a "learned man", would you please contradict the following scientifically based statements of mine
1. The universe has a beginning!
2. The universe will have an end!

Well, for a start, the Big Bang theory is not 100% proven as at this date. Therefore, your statements are scientifically inconceivable/laughable at the least.

The fact that you are propagating it as a certainty shows exactly the flaw in your logical reasoning, which is only seen in religious indoctrinated adherents.
You always have the habit of saying thing's as certainty yet provide no tangible fact/evidence to prove your assertions.

Your English language comprehension should be better than mine. The fact that you ignored the parentheses where I qualified the definition of Creator-God suggest that you have a sinister bias that abhors logical correctness. If not, would you then logically or scientifically answer the following
1. Was there "something" existing before the big-bang that initiated the sudden inflation/expansion of the universe?
2. Do you think "that something" will be subject to the natural (physical, chemical) laws?

My answer to both questions is "No, i don't know."
My question to you:
How did you come to the conclusion that there was something existing before the Big bang that/which initiated the expansion of the universe?

I told you a filling of gaps with God/gods can only be said to be true if there is no basis (subjective or objective experience of God) to come to such a conclusion. If you don't have such experience, look for it!

Lol, seriously? Objective experience of God? This is a new one.
Obviously, you still don't understand what God of the Gap's is all about still.
God of the Gap's operate on area's of our life/universe where science has not yet debunked/understand.
In other words, religion leans heavily on area's we do not yet understand. God is used to explain away things man do not yet understand.
However, with every new discovery, the religious god's are relegated further back to irrelevance. In other words, as the previously unexplained gaps in our knowledge of the universe is filled with proven facts, Gap's filled with religious superstitions and Goddidit are eradicated along the way, losing relevance.
Before the law of planetary motions, people believed angels moved the planets, alongside whatever superstitious belief's that pervaded then.

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand.
Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out."
—Richard Feynman

shadeyinka:

1. I never ever said nor insinuated that God came out of nothing. God had always existed.

Lol... Please try and show someone else this thing you posted.
This is called speaking from both sides of your mouth bro.
Logic 101, Something cannot be and not be!!!
How can you say that "God has always existed" and yet say "i never ever said nor insinuated that God came out of nothing?"
Does this make sense to you? cuz it doesn't make sense to me except you care to clarify what you meant.

shadeyinka:

2. Every physical thing (matter) has an origin. This is an infallible statement.
If God was physical, He aught to be bound by this and also have an origin. But God is NOT physical hence He doesn't have to have an origin. Has any one described God as being made of matter?

I know that there is no scientist in this world that will proceed on a journey of discovery by making definite assertions.
You can't start a hypothesis by making definite assertion and then end it with an illogical conclusion.
Science doesn't go about making illogical conclusion from logical assertions, neither does science start/end theories with God did or God didn't do lines.
Now, you said God is not physical, hence he doesn't have to have an origin. Your statement will then also mean that because Love, hate, Rudeness, Proudness, Respect, Pride, Angry, Loyalty and Stupidity. sound, etc are not physical concept's, they also have no origin.
Does this make sense to you?

shadeyinka:

A simple YES or NO question assumes that the Postulate is VALID as it is Reasonable AND has only two outcomes. What if the question is NOT reasonable, then the "student" may need to lecture the "lecturer".

Nobody asked you if the postulate is Valid or not my friend. You are the one confusing yourself like i have been saying.
When someone walks up to you and ask you if the shirt they are wearing matched their trouser, the logical answer is to tell them Yes/No. You don't start telling them the shirt would have matched better with XYZ trouser as that was not the question.
However, this is what you are always doing, and continuously surprised that it's like a trait for you seeing as you do it repeatedly over and over again.
For example, look at This below:

shadeyinka:

We know that only the four colours of Red, Green, Yellow and White exist in the universe. Do you agree that houses can only be painted with any of these four colours?

The question above is like your question. Saying YES is an agreement that the postulate is correct. Saying NO is not a complete answer except with explanation that there are more than four colours of red,free, yellow and white exist.

That is what I have done.

In your words!!!


Then, you proceeded into repeating same trait I talked about earlier... See below:

shadeyinka:

Your so called question again:

If God is an Uncreated First Cause as you say, if that notion is hypothetically believed to be true,
then
The Universe itself existing as an Uncreated First Cause is also a totally logical reasoning to concede too.

The second highlight in YELLOW IS WRONG and INVALID!
Why!?
1. The big bang occured about 14.8billion years ago
2. The universe will dissipate into nothing showing that it isn't eternal.

Based on the scientific reasons above
Your answer is a BIG FAT NO!

You see exactly what I'm talking about. You create questions for yourself, then you answer them... Questions not asked.
How can the second highlight in yellow be false when it is not independent of the first highlight in yellow?
Don't you understand that my so-called question is just one sentence, not two different sentences?
Did i ask you questions about the big bang or any big bang related ish?

How can you bring in big bang theory to justify a theological thesis seeing as Uncreated First Cause is not a scientific position/fact or theory? Does Big bang concern itself with Goddidit?

aadoiza:

They will not look for it, but rather wasting away their lifes on a faceless forum demanding for the coordinates of God's location, or even more foolishly for a visit from him in their homes.
I don't think I can ever have enough of atheists' foolishness on this forum. Their foolishness sometimes fills my day with laughter. May God forgive me.

God has always been merciful. He allowed everyone to choose to consciously accept or reject Him.

Atheists need a physical God they can weigh on a laboratory scale. A god that can be confined inside a test tube. Unfortunately, they will turn around to say "that can't be a god it is our servant."

Unfortunately, God isn't physical: God is a SPIRIT!

shadeyinka:

God has always been merciful. He allowed everyone to
choose to consciously accept or reject Him.

If God were human he would be regretting ever given us freewill. And if he hadn't blessed us with freewill, this ungrateful lot would still be the ones complaining of being made robotic

Atheists need a physical God they can weigh on a laboratory scale. A god that can be confined inside a test tube. Unfortunately, they will turn around to say "that can't be a god it is our servant."

Unfortunately, God isn't physical: God is a SPIRIT!

Of course if He could be quatiified, they'd Him a joke.

aadoiza:

They will not look for it, but rather wasting away their lifes on a faceless forum demanding for the coordinates of God's location, or even more foolishly for a visit from him in their homes.
I don't think I can ever have enough of atheists' foolishness on this forum. Their foolishness sometimes fills my day with laughter. May God forgive me.

1) - Have you found God?
- Have you seen God?
- Have you heard from God before in your
entire life?
- Have you felt God before in your entire life?
- If you have felt God, what exactly did you feel?

2) - How did you find God?
- What did he look like when you saw him?
- What did he sound like when you heard him?
- How did you realise what you are feeling was
God?

3) - In what ways does God manifest himself in
your life?
- What is the most visible thing that is a direct
resultant of your meeting with God?

I'm sure as a wise man, you don't need the bible to answer the above questions sincerely as someone who has found God.

IamMichael:

1) - Have you found God?
- Have you seen God?
- Have you heard from God before in your
entire life?
- Have you felt God before in your entire life?
- If you have felt God, what exactly did you feel?

2) - How did you find God?
- What did he look like when you saw him?
- What did he sound like when you heard him?
- How did you realise what you are feeling was
God?

3) - In what ways does God manifest himself in
your life?
- What is the most visible thing that is a direct
resultant of your meeting with God?

I'm sure as a wise man, you don't need the bible to answer the above questions sincerely as someone who has found God.

Honestly Mike, I couldn't answer these questions to your satisfaction, as you're a materialist. This will only descend into the usual back-and-forth between God and no-god believers.
However, I can tell you this: you're never gonna find God on the Internet. You will have to dedicate most of your life to His course to find Him, and when you do, You will never see Him in the flesh.
Furthermore, God will never come to you to make a material impact. He will do so only through agency.
I would have shared some stories but since God was not physically present in any of them , atheists would always find silly excuses to dismiss them. So what's the point?

IamMichael:

Well, for a start, the Big Bang theory is not 100% proven as at this date. Therefore, your statements are scientifically inconceivable/laughable at the least.

The fact that you are propagating it as a certainty shows exactly the flaw in your logical reasoning, which is only seen in religious indoctrinated adherents.
You always have the habit of saying thing's as certainty yet provide no tangible fact/evidence to prove your assertions.

Big bang theory!? When there is the Inflation theory!? You are outdated!

A theory is used to attempt explaining observations of natural events.

The observation from the universe are real and valid. The Universe is expanding. Entropy of the universe is increasing. Which means that the universe both has a beginning and will end. Theories may not the perfect but the observations are!

So, it's not about the big bang theory: it's about the observations!
The Universe has a beginning AND will have an end!

IamMichael:

My answer to both questions is "No, i don't know."
My question to you:
How did you come to the conclusion that there was something existing before the Big bang that/which initiated the expansion of the universe?

You don't know!? And you argue as if you did know for certain?

The universe scientifically started from an infinitesimally dense "pin point" singularity.

NOW,

If the singularity was a constant, it could exist for trillions of years without changing state. If it was a constant, it would require an external force to get it to change state.

If the singularity was unstable, it would have required an exceedingly large external force to get it to converge to a singleton state. The removal of such force will allow it's expansion.

So, you can see why an external change initiating force is a necessity!

IamMichael:

Lol, seriously? Objective experience of God? This is a new one.
Obviously, you still don't understand what God of the Gap's is all about still.

I said "Subjective and Objective experience of God"!

IamMichael:


God of the Gap's operate on area's of our life/universe where science has not yet debunked/understand.
In other words, religion leans heavily on area's we do not yet understand. God is used to explain away things man do not yet understand.
However, with every new discovery, the religious god's are relegated further back to irrelevance. In other words, as the previously unexplained gaps in our knowledge of the universe is filled with proven facts, Gap's filled with religious superstitions and Goddidit are eradicated along the way, losing relevance.
Before the law of planetary motions, people believed angels moved the planets, alongside whatever superstitious belief's that pervaded then.

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand.
Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out."
—Richard Feynman

Your theory!
You're free to believe whatever you like: BUT is that the truth?

IamMichael:

Lol... Please try and show someone else this thing you posted.
This is called speaking from both sides of your mouth bro.
Logic 101, Something cannot be and not be!!!
How can you say that "God has always existed" and yet say "i never ever said nor insinuated that God came out of nothing?"
Does this make sense to you? cuz it doesn't make sense to me except you care to clarify what you meant.

You want me to accent to your wrong doctrine.

God had always existed. QED.

Nothing mean Complete Emptiness (of energy, matter, life).

Nothing is a CONSTANT!
A constant cannot change state unless something from outside space acts on it.

It simply means that if Nothing (noun) preceded God, God wouldn't even exist and the universe would be Nothing.

Therefore: God had always existed. QED.

Too easy a logic.

IamMichael:

I know that there is no scientist in this world that will proceed on a journey of discovery by making definite assertions.
You can't start a hypothesis by making definite assertion and then end it with an illogical conclusion.
Science doesn't go about making illogical conclusion from logical assertions, neither does science start/end theories with God did or God didn't do lines.
Now, you said God is not physical, hence he doesn't have to have an origin. Your statement will then also mean that because Love, hate, Rudeness, Proudness, Respect, Pride, Angry, Loyalty and Stupidity. sound, etc are not physical concept's, they also have no origin.
Does this make sense to you?

And the best examples you can use are emotional attributes of living beings to replace God!? SMH!

Try again.

God is a SPIRIT!
Even, spirits have emotions!
And every spirit apart from God has an origin.

IamMichael:

Nobody asked you if the postulate is Valid or not my friend. You are the one confusing yourself like i have been saying.
When someone walks up to you and ask you if the shirt they are wearing matched their trouser, the logical answer is to tell them Yes/No. You don't start telling them the shirt would have matched better with XYZ trouser as that was not the question.
However, this is what you are always doing, and continuously surprised that it's like a trait for you seeing as you do it repeatedly over and over again.
For example, look at This below:

In your words!!!


Then, you proceeded into repeating same trait I talked about earlier... See below:

You see exactly what I'm talking about. You create questions for yourself, then you answer them... Questions not asked.
How can the second highlight in yellow be false when it is not independent of the first highlight in yellow?
Don't you understand that my so-called question is just one sentence, not two different sentences?
Did i ask you questions about the big bang or any big bang related ish?

How can you bring in big bang theory to justify a theological thesis seeing as Uncreated First Cause is not a scientific position/fact or theory? Does Big bang concern itself with Goddidit?

Your comprehension of basic scientific statements are exceedingly weak. That's the weakness of our educational system in Nigeria: I can understand your position!

Your second statement is scientifically FALSE! There is nothing anyone can do about that!

aadoiza:

If God were human he would be regretting ever given us freewill. And if he hadn't blessed us with freewill, this ungrateful lot would still be the ones complaining of being made robotic


Of course if He could be quatiified, they'd Him a joke.

The only weakness of God is His gift of freewill to man. With freewill a man can defy God his maker, man can rail against God, man can even rain curses on his Creator and the Merciful God will forbid His angels from striking such men dead and instantly put in the middle of the hottest part of hell fire.

Interestingly the scriptures say that ALL things (good or bad) work for God's good purpose.

The earth is an exam Field. It is a place of selection of men who will by their own WILL and VOLITION, submit themselves to God's rulership. For such is God's desire.

aadoiza:

Honestly Mike, I couldn't answer these questions to your satisfaction, as you're a materialist. This will only descend into the usual back-and-forth between God and no-god believers.
However, I can tell you this: you're never gonna find God on the Internet. You will have to dedicate most of your life to His course to find Him, and when you do, You will never see Him in the flesh.
Furthermore, God will never come to you to make a material impact. He will do so only through agency.
I would have shared some stories but since God was not physically present in any of them , atheists would always find silly excuses to dismiss them. So what's the point?

You are answering questions I didn't ask you bro. You don't know what the outcome of your reply will elicit from me, so why are you speaking for me?
I

IamMichael:

You are answering questions I didn't ask you bro. You don't know what the outcome of your reply will elicit from me, so why are you speaking for me?
I

I didn't answer your questions because I know where this is going.
I could never convince a materialist of the reality of spiritism, for spiritism do not have material proofs. And this is me being honest, except you don't like honesty.

aadoiza:

I didn't answer your questions because I know where this is going.
I could never convince a materialist of the reality of spiritism, for spiritism do not have material proofs. And this is me being honest, except you don't like honesty.

I really don't understand you people honestly.

Does it mean anytime someone asks you question, you automatically assume things ? Because I'm very sure that there was no where in the question I asked you to convince me

I asked you very simple questions bro, and I'm sure the questions should easily be answered by someone who made the claim you made earlier. You said you have found God as is insinuated in your reply I first quoted which necessited the questions I asked you.

The only thing I'm seeing here is you dodging the questions. You are just deflecting, that's all, and it has nothing to do with me.
In all my interactions with religious peeps:
- those who have nothing to say always defer to this your dodging pattern!
- Those who know zero about their religious beliefs defer to this dodging pattern.
- Those who have something to say but know that it can't convince a fly always defer to this dodging pattern.

IamMichael:

I really don't understand you people honestly.

Does it mean anytime someone asks you question, you automatically assume things ?

I asked you very simple question bro, and I'm sure the questions should easily be answered by someone who made the claim you made earlier.

The only thing I'm seeing here is you dodging the questions. You are just deflecting, that's all, and it has nothing to do with me.
In all my interactions with religious peeps, those who have nothing to say always defer to this your dodging pattern!

Okay, I'm dodging. Is that better?

aadoiza:

Okay, I'm dodging. Is that better?

Isn't obvious?
Good thing you have owned up to it... A good trait by the way!

shadeyinka:





I said "Subjective and Objective experience of God"!

What do you mean by Objective Experience of God?

shadeyinka:



God had always existed. QED.

Can you prove your assertion with verifiable data accepted/acceptable in the science community?
or
What scientifically proven method of understanding phenomenon helped you arrive at the above conclusion?

IamMichael:

What do you mean by Objective Experience of God?

When your knowledge of God comes with a physical and spectacular experience.

Example:
Saul had a spectacular experience that resulted in his blindness and later sightedness.
Acts 9:3-9:
"As he journeyed to Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven shined around him. He fell to the earth and heard a voice saying:»Saul, Saul! Why do you persecute me?«»Who are you Lord?«He asked. The Lord said:»I am Jesus whom you persecute.»Get up and go into the city, and it will be told to you what you must do .«The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Saul got up from the ground. Even though he opened his eyes, he saw nothing. They led him by the hand into Damascus. He went for three days without sight. He did not eat or drink."

IamMichael:


Can you prove your assertion with verifiable data accepted/acceptable in the science community?
or
What scientifically proven method of understanding phenomenon helped you arrive at the above conclusion?

If God existed before the laws of science came into existence, which of these laws will you apply on God so as to measure, quantify or detect Him?

Your answer:
It is impossible to objectively prove the existence of God with science!

Science helps with understanding the created not the Creator.

shadeyinka:



Your answer:
It is impossible to objectively prove the existence of God with science!

Good!!!

shadeyinka:

When your knowledge of God comes with a physical and spectacular experience.

Example:
Saul had a spectacular experience that resulted in his blindness and later sightedness.
Acts 9:3-9:
"As he journeyed to Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven shined around him. He fell to the earth and heard a voice saying:»Saul, Saul! Why do you persecute me?«»Who are you Lord?«He asked. The Lord said:»I am Jesus whom you persecute.»Get up and go into the city, and it will be told to you what you must do .«The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Saul got up from the ground. Even though he opened his eyes, he saw nothing. They led him by the hand into Damascus. He went for three days without sight. He did not eat or drink."

By this quotation, do you believe you have given a definitive answer to the objective experience of God?

IamMichael:

By this quotation, do you believe you have given a definitive answer to the objective experience of God?

You don't have to accept my "definition". I have only given you an example of how what I call objective experience of God could be.

shadeyinka:

You don't have to accept my "definition". I have only given you an example of how what I call objective experience of God could be.

That's not my question...
Can you at least try and always stick to questions asked please?

IamMichael:

That's not my question...
Can you at least try and always stick to questions asked please?

As if I am in your chambers for interrogation! You are too full of yourself!

shadeyinka:

As if I am in your chambers for interrogation! You are too full of yourself!

It's not about me bro. You are now diverting, and deflecting just like i have been pointing out since. Don't make it about me bro. What you are doing now it's an old and retarded tactics used by people who don't know how to answer direct straight to the point questions.
In Logic, it's called ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

The time it took you to make the two post's avoiding the question and attacking my personality would have been used to answer the question.
It's a Yes or No question, and i just repeated what you already stated. So, i don't understand why it is now hard for you to confirm your own statement.

IamMichael:

It's not about me bro. You are now diverting, and deflecting just like i have been pointing out since. Don't make it about me bro. What you are doing now it's an old and retarded tactics used by people who don't know how to answer direct straight to the point questions.
In Logic, it's called ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

The time it took you to make the two post's avoiding the question and attacking my personality would have been used to answer the question.
It's a Yes or No question, and i just repeated what you already stated. So, i don't understand why it is now hard for you to confirm your own statement.

Your question has been answered. If you don't like it too bad!

shadeyinka:

Your question has been answered. If you don't like it too bad!

Okay.

IamMichael:

Okay.

Even in the courts of law, not every question is allowed to proceed in a YES or NO fashion.
That's why the prosecutor/defence attorney will raise objections to some questions whose YES or NO answer would be damning without an explanation.

By the way, I did not and will not attack your personality!

shadeyinka:

Even in the courts of law, not every question is allowed to proceed in a YES or NO fashion.
That's why the prosecutor/defence attorney will raise objections to some questions whose YES or NO answer would be damning without an explanation.

By the way, I did not and will not attack your personality!

1) Courts have Examination of Witness procedures.
Our interaction is not an Examination-in-Chief, Cross-examination or Re-examination; and neither are you a witness.

2) Irrelevant Objections get overruled.

3) When a question demand's a Yes or No answer in Court, a Yes or No reply must be given. It is up to the court to decide to grant you permission to say any other thing you think you must say.

I hope you do keep that in mind.

IamMichael:



1) Courts have Examination of Witness procedures.
Our interaction is not an Examination-in-Chief, Cross-examination or Re-examination; and neither are you a witness.

2) Irrelevant Objections get overruled.

3) When a question demand's a Yes or No answer in Court, a Yes or No reply must be given. It is up to the court to decide to grant you permission to say any other thing you think you must say.

I hope you do keep that in mind.

All these I agree with except that
1. Here is no court: there is no rules, you take what you are given and give what you can
2. There is no umpire (judge) to overrule or not to overrule any question

shadeyinka:

All these I agree with except that
1. Here is no court: there is no rules, you take what you are given and give what you can
2. There is no umpire (judge) to overrule or not to overrule any question

Simple etiquette also envisages that when asked a question, you answer based on what is asked of you.
It is only after answering the question you were asked that you can now put any other addendum (If necessary/required.)

IamMichael:

Simple etiquette also envisages that when asked a question, you answer based on what is asked of you.
It is only after answering the question you were asked that you can now put any other addendum (If necessary/required.)

You needn't get angry on a faceless medium that someone didn't answer a question exactly as you want. Some answers are already apparent from the response.
Example:

Question:
Did you eat Mama Sule's Pounded Yam?
Answer:
The food wasn't even delicious: it tasted of kerosine.

You would have expected a YES or NO as an answer. But the response has given you what you need plus other information.