shadeyinka:

And he has!
And responding to it!

LMAO!

budaatum:


I am afraid non-comprehende. But I expect you'd blame me instead of the meaninglessness of your random use of words.

shadeyinka:

The subject was GOD!
Who CREATED/MADE/FORMED the Universe.

Depends how honest you wish to be. Fact is you don't know if the universe was created or just is. It's like you look at a river and cannot imagine its course was determined by the natural forces that carved it into being, which is what you should call a creator, if anything, if you must athromorphise.

Basically, the poverty of human thought makes one create a creator because it can not reason otherwise.

Ihedinobi3:


My point is that as long as there is a mechanism by which outcomes result, the notion that there is no intelligent, personal creator is demonstrably false.

You assume what that mechanism is, Ihe. You do not actually know what it is.

LordReed:


What has this got to do with the subject matter?



LMFAO!

I know that the only thing insane in the atheist's worldview is the notion that there is such a thing as objective truth, so insanity is only anything that claims to be objectively true.

Suffice to say that the very definition of the word "mechanism" has logic in it. A mechanism is only one because there is a principle by which it works.

Where there is a principle, there is intelligence.

But let us not go any further. You and I don't speak the same language, so there will be no resolution to this discussion.

budaatum:


You assume what that mechanism is, Ihe. You do not actually know what it is.

You assume that I don't know what that mechanism is, buda. You do not actually know that I don't.

LordReed:


I think he just harvested some straw and was eager to make something of it.

We must remember the lessons we learnt. Trump will be President on March 4.

budaatum:


We must remember the lessons we learnt. Trump will be President on March 4.

[img]https://media./images/97ab8b7caac8bab9aa4ad7f991b77c1d/tenor.gif[/img]

budaatum:

I have the feeling that you think randomly peppering with big words gives meaning to what you write even though it does not. Take Entropy. You claim it seems to be reducing but I bet you can not provide evidence for its reduction.

I am afraid non-comprehende. But I expect you'd blame me instead of the meaninglessness of your random use of words.

You get me wrong.

I didn't say entropy (measure of disorderliness of a system) is reducing: It is actually increasing. (All stars are dying, the Universe is expanding etc)
However just immediately after the big bang/inflation entropy somehow miraculously began to reduce and order began to form from disorder.

In layman's term, an EXPLOSION created all the order we are seeing in the Universe. I ask how?

Ihedinobi3:


You assume that I don't know what that mechanism is, buda. You do not actually know that I don't.

But I do know that you do not know, ihe. Simply reading what you believe shows that you do not know even though you would claim your beliefs are knowledge which they are not.

Fact is, no one knows how the universe came into being billions of years ago.

budaatum:


But I do know that you do not know, ihe. Simply reading what you believe shows that you do not know even though you would claim your beliefs are knowledge which they are not.

Fact is, no one knows how the universe came into being billions of years ago.

But I do know what the mechanism is, buda. Simply reading the Bible shows me what the mechanism is.

Fact is, no one knows what I know or don't know.

shadeyinka:

You get me wrong.

I didn't say entropy (measure of disorderliness of a system) is reducing: It is actually increasing. (All stars are dying, the Universe is expanding etc)
However just immediately after the big bang/inflation entropy somehow miraculously began to reduce and order began to form from disorder.

In layman's term, an EXPLOSION created all the order we are seeing in the Universe. I ask how?

Who told you an explosion created all the order we are seeing in the universe? On the flip side, is it impossible to conceive that when God is written to have said, "Let there be Light", there was a big bang of light?

Fact is, you want to argue your beliefs against the beliefs of others without recognising both sides are ignorant and neither of you actually know.

shadeyinka:

The answer is obvious now. How high can I jump to attempt touching the moon?

I don't follow.

Ihedinobi3:


I know that the only thing insane in the atheist's worldview is the notion that there is such a thing as objective truth, so insanity is only anything that claims to be objectively true.

Suffice to say that the very definition of the word "mechanism" has logic in it. A mechanism is only one because there is a principle by which it works.

Where there is a principle, there is intelligence.

But let us not go any further. You and I don't speak the same language, so there will be no resolution to this discussion.

[img]https://media1./images/f9fe30edcd2a8e8a0eab816a6166471d/tenor.gif?itemid=5133885[/img]

Ihedinobi3:


But I do know what the mechanism is, buda. Simply reading the Bible shows me what the mechanism is.

Fact is, no one knows what I know or don't know.

Humans who live by one book alone will become malnourished. Matthew 4:4

Its probably why the Bible does not waste much time on the mechanism of universe formation but on what one must do about one's enemies and neighbours. Matthew 25:40

shadeyinka:

. (All stars are dying,

Not quite correct, some stars are being born.

budaatum:


Depends how honest you wish to be. Fact is you don't know if the universe was created or just is. It's like you look at a river and cannot imagine its course was determined by the natural forces that carved it into being, which is what you should call a creator, if anything, if you must athromorphise.

Basically, the poverty of human thought makes one create a creator because it can not reason otherwise.

Honestly, scientifically and logically I have concluded that
1. The universe had a beginning
2. The universe will end
3. If the Universe had always existed,then it will always be (a constant)
4. But since the Universe will not exist indefinitely, The universe must therefore be initiated by Something/Someone outside the universe.

I call that Something/Someone the UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of everything: aka God.

From the Spiritual Perspective,
1. I was taught of the idea of the existence of God
2. As I grew up, I got to logically comprehend the Christian faith and have God a trial in my life
3. This resulted in my own subjective experiences of God in my life so that I can say truely that "I know Him and relate with Him".
4. This knowledge and experience of God gave meaning to life and existence. Everything visible and invisible was created not because of man but because of Himself(like a garden)


Everybody (at adulthood) must come to a point of either logically and emotionally accepting or rejecting the possibility of a higher force in charge of man. This is why many will manufacture how they think the supreme being should look like.

This is my honest opinion.

LordReed:


Not quite correct, some stars are being born.

..to die isn't it.
Is there a star that will exist indefinitely?

Kobojunkie:
I don't follow.

There are some research with obvious result that wouldn't need some special verification

budaatum:


Humans who live by one book alone will become malnourished. Matthew 4:4

Its probably why the Bible does not waste much time on the mechanism of universe formation but on what one must do about one's enemies and neighbours. Matthew 25:40

LOL. It did not waste time on the mechanism of universe formation? Who do you think you are talking to, buda?

budaatum:


Who told you an explosion created all the order we are seeing in the universe? On the flip side, is it impossible to conceive that when God is written to have said, "Let there be Light", there was a big bang of light?

Fact is, you want to argue your beliefs against the beliefs of others without recognising both sides are ignorant and neither of you actually know.

Science did tell us that everything in the universe used to be a singleton (infinitesimally small but infinity dense) which suddenly expanded/inflated 14.6billion years ago. Interestingly, it is consistent with Genesis. " In the beginning (from nothing) appeared through God the universe. The bible isn't a scientific book hence, it didn't explain how.

Unfortunately, I am speaking from a gnostic position based on my subjective experience of God and the little scientific knowledge I have.

An atheist have no basis of gnosticism except through an outright rejection of God. We have probably the same physical and logical data but different conclusions: the difference is this subjective experience!!

LordReed:


LMAO!

But, he is mainly bothered by my gnostic state of mind

budaatum:

Fact is, you want to argue your beliefs against the beliefs of others without recognising both sides are ignorant and neither of you actually know.

shadeyinka:

Honestly, scientifically and logically I have concluded that
1. The universe had a beginning
2. The universe will end
3. If the Universe had always existed,then it will always be (a constant)
4. But since the Universe will not exist indefinitely, The universe must therefore be initiated by Something/Someone outside the universe.

I call that Something/Someone the UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of everything: aka God.

From the Spiritual Perspective,
1. I was taught of the idea of the existence of God
2. As I grew up, I got to logically comprehend the Christian faith and have God a trial in my life
3. This resulted in my own subjective experiences of God in my life so that I can say truely that "I know Him and relate with Him".
4. This knowledge and experience of God gave meaning to life and existence. Everything visible and invisible was created not because of man but because of Himself(like a garden)


Everybody (at adulthood) must come to a point of either logically and emotionally accepting or rejecting the possibility of a higher force in charge of man. This is why many will manufacture how they think the supreme being should look like.

This is my honest opinion.

And to be honest, you are free to have an opinion, and as long as you do no harm with your opinion, as in, to the Glory of God, why should I or anyone be overly concerned? However, things get murky when one starts claiming one's opinion must be everyone else's opinion especially when no evidence is provided for such opinions.

Anyway, my opinion is, no one knows if and when the universe began or whether it will end. In fact, just thinking about its supposed end should make one wonder if that means the entire universe would disappear in a puff of smoke or something and all the planets and stars and mountains and seas and living things will just not exist anymore. If there's a God doing that its a silly God, creating all that exists for billions of years just to annihilate it one day. Sensible beings should endeavour to oppose such a God with all their might and being, while stupid evil people would be working day and night for such a destructive God.

As to your spiritual perspective, I would suggest you continue to learn instead of manufactur[ing] how you think the supreme being should look like, because the Christian Supreme Being you were taught about does not exactly like you manufacturing graven images for a very good reason.

shadeyinka:

Science did tell us that everything in the universe used to be a singleton (infinitesimally small but infinity dense) which suddenly expanded/inflated 14.6billion years ago. Interestingly, it is consistent with Genesis. " In the beginning (from nothing) appeared through God the universe. The bible isn't a scientific book hence, it didn't explain how.

Unfortunately, I am speaking from a gnostic position based on my subjective experience of God and the little scientific knowledge I have.

An atheist have no basis of gnosticism except through an outright rejection of God. We have probably the same physical and logical data but different conclusions: the difference is this subjective experience!!

I think your knowledge of atheism is the same as your knowledge of the existence of the universe, but that is beside the point because you are showing that your knowledge, or rather, understanding of your Bible is equally deficient.

To start with, Science did not tell you "that everything in the universe used to be a singleton (infinitesimally small but infinity dense) which suddenly expanded/inflated 14.6billion years ago". Scientists merely speculated just as the authors of the book you believe also did, and intelligence should make you ask what they both mean.

Secondly, Bible reading, or rather, understanding, should make one evolve from committing the error of "thank you Lord that one is not like that atheist over there", but I guess evolution is difficult for believers.

shadeyinka:

But, he is mainly bothered by my gnostic state of mind

You cannot have a gnostic state of mind and believe at the same time, Shade. What is bothering is you think you can.

budaatum:


You cannot have a gnostic state of mind and believe at the same time, Shade. What is bothering is you think you can.

I have not used the word "believe" . I have used the word/phrase "know Him". Knowledge is gnostic, believe isnt

shadeyinka:

I have not used the word "believe" . I have used the word/phrase "know Him". Knowledge is gnostic, believe isnt

You may have claimed to know, but just like Ihe, you merely believe what you've read in one single book. If you know, you would not have used the word "Him", especially if you were a gnostic.

budaatum:


I think your knowledge of atheism is the same as your knowledge of the existence of the universe, but that is beside the point because you are showing that your knowledge, or rather, understanding of your Bible is equally deficient.

You need to be an authority of scripture knowledge to come to this conclusion. And I don't think you are!

budaatum:

To start with, Science did not tell you "that everything in the universe used to be a singleton (infinitesimally small but infinity dense) which suddenly expanded/inflated 14.6billion years ago". Scientists merely speculated just as the authors of the book you believe also did, and intelligence should make you ask what they both mean.

This is just a play of words as science will not use the word "speculation". A proper word to use would be "scientific theory" of the origin. Let's not go to differences/similarity between speculation and theory.

You have no evidence for the authors of the bible making a speculation about the events they write about. No one ever accuses Shakespeare or Plato or any of the Greek philosophers and writers of speculation: why pick out the authors of the bible.

budaatum:


Secondly, Bible reading, or rather, understanding, should make one evolve from committing the error of "thank you Lord that one is not like that atheist over there", but I guess evolution is difficult for believers.

It's certainly not about rejoicing or boasting of superiority to atheists.
Eph 2:8-9:
"For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

For people who reject God on the basis of KNOWLEDGE (science, logic, philosophy etc), the only way you can get to them is through knowledge.
1Cor 1:23:
"But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness;"

budaatum:

You may have claimed to know, but just like Ihe, you merely believe what you've read in one single book. If you know, you would not have used the word "Him", especially if you were a gnostic.

Why not Him?
Should I have used Her?

God isn't biologically male, but because He relates to us as a Father, we use the masculine pronoun for Him.

I know not just because of the Bible which of cause is a guide. I know because I have my subjective experiences of Him. This knowledge produces Faith (active trust in a personality).

I know Him. It will be untrue for me to say anything contrary to this!

shadeyinka:

..to die isn't it.
Is there a star that will exist indefinitely?

You can argue all the semantics you want, fact remains some stars are being born as we speak.

shadeyinka:


You have no evidence for the authors of the bible making a speculation about the events they write about. No one ever accuses Shakespeare or Plato or any of the Greek philosophers and writers of speculation: why pick out the authors of the bible.

Really? So the authors of Genesis 1 were witnesses to what they wrote about, in your own opinion? I wonder if you believe everything you read or if it just applies to what you read in this one book.

For your information, those who reason and know their Shakespeare and Plato and all of the Greek philosophers know they were were speculating, and that understanding has empowered us to speculate too instead of making out our opinions are facts and the truth. If you read enough you too will know this.

shadeyinka:

But, he is mainly bothered by my gnostic state of mind

He can't be since he doesn’t see you as being gnostic at all. LoLz

shadeyinka:

Why not Him?
Should I have used Her?

God isn't biologically male, but because He relates to us as a Father, we use the masculine pronoun for Him.

I know not just because of the Bible which of cause is a guide. I know because I have my subjective experiences of Him. This knowledge produces Faith (active trust in a personality).

I know Him. It will be untrue for me to say anything contrary to this!

You make it sound like God appeared to you as a man when the truth is you are simply parroting what you've been told to believe.

You would be advised to stop telling lies to yourself and seek knowledge instead.