viaro:

I'm not that intelligent, really. The one thing I ask people who make such conjectures is that they first tell me how they intend to measure '100%' as representing all the knowledge in the world. Do we know what that is? As soon as you can answer that question with a good degree of accuracy, I shall promptly tell you where I stand in that circle.

Let's say that this circle represents all the knowledge in the entire universe, to have 100% you must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock, nothing is hidden from your eyes, that you know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napolean's great-grandmother, what amount of gold or petroleum there is in China etc. 

What % of this knowledge do you think you have?

OLAADEGBU:

Let's say that this circle represents all the knowledge in the entire universe, to have 100% you must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail of history, every atom within every rock, nothing is hidden from your eyes, that you know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napolean's great-grandmother, what amount of gold or petroleum there is in China etc.

I understand where you're going, but even so you have not defined what truly constittutes '100%' of all knowledge. Making an arbitrary list of this and that is not even close to all the knowledge of this world; and when you're done, you will still find I haven't shifted from my initial answer: I'm not that intelligent, really. Like the Psalmist, my attitude is 'Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it' (Psalm 139.6).

What % of this knowledge do you think you have?

I don't know, because to tell you what it is, I would first have to know what constitutes 100% of all the knowledge in this world. Do you know what that is? Just when you think you do, I may point you to some that you may never have considered. Want to test it out and see?

Your problem here is that you assume a Christian who does not necessarily see things the way you interpret them must have 'bedfellows' in secret cults. Having run oout of steam, you just pose these funny lines to fill pages and curve spacetime. Perhaps it might be more helpful to see that there is a limit to our understanding of the natural world, and we should not be headstrong to force-fit or impose our own interpretation into any text as if we are God's personal secretaries.

viaro:

and we should not be headstrong to force-fit or impose our own interpretation into any text as if we are God's personal secretaries.

I don't even think u understand how serious that statement is. I think it should be made into a bumper sticker and put on everything every fundamentalist owns.

Scripture is supposed to have a surplus of meaning. . . . timeless. When u lock it into one fixed interpretation and try to fit everything into that interpretation, however unreasonable, that, IMO, is not religion anymore. It is madness. Just my opinion though.

@viaro, and his bedfellows,

Let me help you out, since you are not intelligent enough to understand what all knowledge in the entire universe is all about.

It was Thomas A. Edison that said "We don’t know a millionth of one percent about anything". Albert Einstein also said something similar by saying: "We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us". What has nature revealed to us? You can find this in Rom.1:18-20 and for an atheist to make a bold statement that there is no God shows that he is either a fool or has some dubious, devious intentions.

And if any of you think you know anything start with the fear of the Lord as it is the beginning of knowledge, and when you get that knowledge you will need the beginning of wisdom to apply it. Start by answering the questions at the beginning of this thread, then humble yourself to learn from the links suggested.

Thank you, OLAADEGBU. For the wisdom part of your reply there, I would have much liked to leave off this exercise. What's the point in our poking at each other? Yet, could I take a few moments to show you something in yours:

OLAADEGBU:

@viaro, and his bedfellows,

Let me help you out, since you are not intelligent enough to understand what all knowledge in the entire universe is all about.

I don't, and repeat: I do not know or understand what all knowledge in the entire universe is all about. If you do, please show me and my indebtedness would know no bounds.

It was Thomas A. Edison that said "We don’t know a millionth of one percent about anything". Albert Einstein also said something similar by saying: "We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us". What has nature revealed to us? You can find this in Rom.1:18-20 and for an atheist to make a bold statement that there is no God shows that he is either a fool or has some dubious, devious intentions.

Again, viaro is not an atheist. I've said so quite a number of times.

Second, what has nature revealed to us in Romans 1:18-20? The first thing I saw in verse 18 is not nature, but the wrath of God. It starts out by saying: 'the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness'. Let me engage your thinking here.

Has it ever occured to you that such a verse applies to you as well? No? It says that such a revelation of God's wrath covers all unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness. In my limited understanding, I understand that unrighteousness includes the attitude of putting words in God's mouth. This is what 6,000 y.o. "[b]y[/b]oung [b]u[/b]niverse [b]c[/b]reation" people (YUC) do when they stretch truth out of shape and try to maintain that God told them so - that is simply an unrighteous thing to do, especially as He says: 'Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar' (Prov. 30:6).

To be found putting words in God's mouth when He never told us that the cosmos is 6,000 years old is not only to do unrighteously, but to stretch truth out of elasticity. Do you not see that you cannot be quoting Romans 1:18-20 on other people without taking care of your own glass house? Does not the same Romans in ch. 2:1 say that you who judge others in such a fashion are actually guilty of the same own crime ('doest the same things') and are inexcusable? Where did God tell us that the whole of creation is 6,000 years old? If He did not say so, why do we try to force that idea into His mouth?

And if any of you think you know anything start with the fear of the Lord as it is the beginning of knowledge, and when you get that knowledge you will need the beginning of wisdom to apply it. Start by answering the questions at the beginning of this thread, then humble yourself to learn from the links suggested.

That's not a problem at all, because I already covered my ground to admit that I'm not that intelligent - I do not have 100% of the knowledge of the world. But that which you have tried to assert so confidently is not even sturdy enough to stand if I were to go through them with a comb. Why? For the fact that you neither understand science nor even what you assert, one wonders what substance there is in attending to your assertions. This was why I tried to show you the little about science and teleology that you are mixing up, and up until now you have not coughed at all on what I have argued there.

Wisdom is not misquoting verses against people just because your arguments are wobbling - that is not wisdom. I don't even want to claim that I know what it is; however, I can recognize what it is not. Wisdom comes with the humility to say that we can shut our mouths in matters where people make a lot of noise, even at the risk of appearing foolish; than the attitude of being proud and haughty in trying to force ourselves to say something that sounds 'scientific' but turns out to be crass.

viaro:

Thank you, OLAADEGBU. For the wisdom part of your reply there, I would have much liked to leave off this exercise. What's the point in our poking at each other? Yet, could I take a few moments to show you something in yours:

Why should I be poking at you, am I your bedfellow? What I am against is not you as a person but the evil imaginations that Paul wrote about in 2 Cor.10:4-5 where he said "Casting down imaginations , " tha prevents modern, secularised people from recognising the authority of God's Bible and heeding His saving gospel. It is not what we see that leads us to believe that the world is billions of years old but its our assumptions.

viaro:

I don't, and repeat: I do not know or understand what all knowledge in the entire universe is all about. If you do, please show me and my indebtedness would know no bounds.

With all the boasting and bluffing that you have been displaying so far it is interesting for you now to be claiming ignorance here.

For your information Biblical creationists love science! In fact, most fields of science were developed by men who believed the Bible, such as Isaac Newton (dynamics, gravitation, calculus), Michael Faraday (electromagnetics, field theory), Robert Boyle (chemistry), Johannes Kepler (astronomy), and Louis Pasteur (bacteriology, immunization). Francis Bacon, a Bible-believing Christian who developed the scientific method.

The reason such fields of science developed was the belief that God created the universe and that He instituted laws that we could investigate. Even today, many great scientists believe the Bible and use good observational science on a daily basis.

Even logic flows naturally from a biblical worldview. Since we are created in the image of a logical God, we would expect to have logical faculties. However, logic is not a material entity, so it becomes a problem for the materialist atheist who denies the immaterial realm. From a materialistic perspective, a logical thought is the same as an illogical thought—merely a chemical reaction in the brain. From a materialistic point of view, then, the perception of logic is due to random processes and has nothing to do with absolute truth, which is also immaterial.

So in a biblical worldview, logic exists and so does truth, both of which are immaterial. But in a purely materialistic worldview, there is no basis for logic or truth to exist, since they are immaterial. And if our brains are the result of random mutations and natural selection, how do we know that our brains have evolved in a way that allows us to think and reason according to truth?

To state that logic can yield a truthful result means that absolute truth must exist, hence God. This does not mean that atheists and evolutionists cannot use logic or do science. But when they do, they must borrow from the above Christian principles, an action which is not consistent with their professed worldview.

OLAADEGBU:

Why should I be poking at you, am I your bedfellow? What I am against is not you as a person but the evil imaginations that Paul wrote about in 2 Cor.10:4-5 where he said "Casting down imaginations , " tha prevents modern, secularised people from recognising the authority of God's Bible and heeding His saving gospel. It is not what we see that leads us to believe that the world is billions of years old but its our assumptions.

You of all people can see that salvation is not dependent upon the age of the cosmos. What is important, far more important than that, is know that Jesus Christ is the Saviour whose very own Life was given that Humanity might live through Him.

With all the boasting and bluffing that you have been displaying so far it is interesting for you now to be claiming ignorance here.

You've been mistaking me for someone else. Ask those who know viaro and they will tell you I'm not one for priding myself about knowing too much. So, where's the bluffing and boasting that you mistook in my posts?

For your information Biblical creationists love science! In fact, most fields of science were developed by men who believed the Bible, such as Isaac Newton (dynamics, gravitation, calculus), Michael Faraday (electromagnetics, field theory), Robert Boyle (chemistry), Johannes Kepler (astronomy), and Louis Pasteur (bacteriology, immunization). Francis Bacon, a Bible-believing Christian who developed the scientific method.

I'm not ignorant of those names, or even the fact that most of their postulations have been superceded by recent scientific theories and laws. If you want a list, I'd be glad to oblige.

The reason such fields of science developed was the belief that God created the universe and that He instituted laws that we could investigate. Even today, many great scientists believe the Bible and use good observational science on a daily basis.

And your point is. . .?

Even logic flows naturally from a biblical worldview. Since we are created in the image of a logical God, we would expect to have logical faculties. However, logic is not a material entity, so it becomes a problem for the materialist atheist who denies the immaterial realm. From a materialistic perspective, a logical thought is the same as an illogical thought—merely a chemical reaction in the brain. From a materialistic point of view, then, the perception of logic is due to random processes and has nothing to do with absolute truth, which is also immaterial.

This is mere carping, I'm sorry. It's quite unfair that you're grossly misrepresenting the atheist's view point or atheism as a worldview. As far as I know, many atheists are far more sound than theists who try to discuss logic - and these atheists are not confused about the fact that logic is abstract and not material. Therefore, it presents no problem to them to soundly discuss logic without being bogged down with the misrepresentations in your quote. I do not know how many atheists believe that 'a logical thought is an illogical thought' - why are you spewing these crass nonsense?

So in a biblical worldview, logic exists and so does truth, both of which are immaterial. But in a purely materialistic worldview, there is no basis for logic or truth to exist, since they are immaterial. And if our brains are the result of random mutations and natural selection, how do we know that our brains have evolved in a way that allows us to think and reason according to truth?

Red herring. It's a dangerous thing to just regurgitate whatever you've sponged up from people making these sort of puerile statements. In a materialistic worldview, logic and truth exist without any problem at all. That is why in the natural sciences, logic plays a very important role in Mathematics as well as in Philosophy. Have you tried to check these things out before making these statements?

To state that logic can yield a truthful result means that absolute truth must exist, hence God.

No - that is simply destroying any argument you might make for the existence of God. Logic can yield truthful statements independent of metaphysics and supernaturalism, hence no God! You may never have heard of syllogism, have you? Have you also heard of the "iff" ('if and only if') statements of logic?

Now, in saying that logic can yield truth independent of metaphysics and supernaturalism, please understand that I'm not an atheist, but rather showing you the fallacy of your own logic.

This does not mean that atheists and evolutionists cannot use logic or do science. But when they do, they must borrow from the above Christian principles, an action which is not consistent with their professed worldview.

That's a false premise to argue. Naturalism, the cinderella of the atheistic worldview (as is supposed) does not need to borrow anything from any religion in other to maintain a sound consistency. This is not to attack Christianity, but we should not be so impassioned as to forget ourselves to the point we begin to misrepresent the worldviews of other people.

Let us hear from real scientists such as Prof. Dr. Werner Gitt, a German professor, how he uses the laws of nature about information and the Bible to show the evidence of the existence of God.  See how he disproves the idea of the "big bang" and exposes the theory of evolution (i.e. chemical and biological evolution) as false and impossible processes from the viewpoint of the laws of nature.

Commonsense teaches us that whatever we think we know we can still learn from others.  This professor shows how the laws of nature about information have:

[list]
[li]Refuted the assumption of scientific materialism and the theories of chemical and biological evolution;[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]It has also falsified all philosophies or theories that are based on the assumption of scientific materialism including chemical and biological evolution.[/li]
[/list]

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfEDDTjNiFs&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/flash]

The concluding clip on the laws of Information by Prof. Dr. Werner Gitt.

[flash=400,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDkifltHVI0&border=1&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/flash]

OLAADEGBU:

[list]
[li]It has also falsified all philosophies or theories that are based on the assumption of scientific materialism including chemical and biological evolution.[/li][/list]

OLAADEGBU, please before you run cheaply around with that assumption, could you show a list of what you termed "all philosophies or theories" of scientific materialism _{(let's leave out evolution, so that you won't have to bother accusing me of 'bedfellows' in that backstreet)} - please just give us that list as far as you know and we shall take it from there. Thank you in advance.

viaro:

OLAADEGBU, please before you run cheaply around with that assumption, could you show a list of what you termed "all philosophies or theories" of scientific materialism _{(let's leave out evolution, so that you won't have to bother accusing me of 'bedfellows' in that backstreet)} - please just give us that list as far as you know and we shall take it from there. Thank you in advance.

If you care to know watch the clips posted and you will save yourself some pain.

Here is Ken Ham's presentation on "Where did God come from?"

[flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgk-bIdXxFI&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></[/flash]

Watch all the clips clearly Here

OLAADEGBU, perhaps I missed it, but how did Ken Ham delineate "all philosophies or theories" of scientific materialism? Please help do so here and let's doscuss the subject. Thanks.

viaro:

OLAADEGBU, perhaps I missed it, but how did Ken Ham delineate "all philosophies or theories" of scientific materialism? Please help do so here and let's doscuss the subject. Thanks.

Why would'nt you miss it with those evolutionary spectacles that you are using?  I took the pain to post all the clips of Prof. Dr. Werner Gitt for anybody to see how he used the laws of information to refute the philosophies of scientific materialism and as evidence of the existence of God and you are here feigning ignorance that Ken Ham did'nt address your questions.  Why don't you start by answering the questions at the beginning of this thread and then read up on the links provided before you begin to jump to conclusions?  since it appears that is the only exercise you seem to be doing here ( i.e. jumping to conclusions). 

OLAADEGBU:

Why would'nt you miss it with those evolutionary spectacles that you are using?

Hehe, my dear friend, viaro wears no evolutionary goggles with which to gawp at the cacophony you've been scribbling here.

I took the pain to post all the clips of Prof. Dr. Werner Gitt for anybody to see how he used the laws of information to refute the philosophies of scientific materialism and as evidence of the existence of God and you are here feigning ignorance that Ken Ham did'nt address your questions.

I have serious problems with Christians bragging the way you do about 'laws' - almost everything that you post must be a 'law' or it is not 'science', whereas you really have no clues about the basic of these matters.

Goodness! What "laws of information" are you talking about? Just because Dr. Werner Gitt discusses a few things about information, they have become 'laws' just at the snap of your fingers?   Are you kidding me?

Gently now. . I'm not oblivious about information in systems science. True, many people use the phrase 'laws of information' in many endeavours, some of which include things like:

      *  Moore's law in computing, which describes a long-term trend in the history
          of computing hardware; as well as determine that the data storage ability
          of a microchip is doubled once a year or once every year and a half;

      *  Lean six sigma, used in business to increase overall speed in production
          and customer satisfaction. The lean sigma has five "laws" as well -
                        ~  Law of the Market
                        ~  Law of Flexibility
                        ~  Law of Focus
                        ~  Law of Velocity
                        ~  Law of Complexity and Cost

      *  Pierre Teilhard de Chardin' Law of Complexity/Consciousness -
         'the tendency in matter to complexify upon itself and at the same time
          to increase in consciousness.'  Teilhard is quoted as having said:
         'the higher the degree of complexity in a living creature, the higher
          its consciousness; and vice versa'

      *  In Information Theory, Carlos Gershenson delineates what is often
          described as 'tentative laws of information' as generalizations of Darwinian,
          cybernetic, thermodynamic, and complexity principles. These tentative laws
          include:
                       ~  Law of Information Transformation
                       ~  Law of Information Propagation
                       ~  Law of Requisite Complexity
                       ~  Law of Information Criticality
                       ~  Law of Information Organization

          The funny thing is that the details of some of these tentative laws are not
          refuted by Dr. Werner Gitt or Ken Ham; and we know that some of them are
          spoken about in positive ways in creationism.


          *  If you're in for a lighter mood, then consider the humorous "law" in this
          subject commonly called 'Murphy's Law of Information Technology' - which
          is a big name for the idea that anything that will go wrong will go wrong. It
          yet is respected among many computer technologists who deem it to contain
          these sets of laws:

                     ~  Law of Inconvenient Malfunction
                     ~  Law of Cable Compatibility
                     ~  Law of Hardware Compatibility
                     ~  Law of Bad Sectors
                     ~  First Law of Selective Gravitation
                     ~  Second Law of Selective Gravitation
                     ~  Law of Reality Change
                     ~  Law of Noise
                     ~  Law of Expectation
                     ~  Law of the Titanic
                     ~  Law of Debugging
                     ~  Law of Neurosis
                     ~  Law of Available Space
                     ~  First Law of Bad Sectors
                     ~  Second Law of Bad Sectors
                     ~  Law of Noise
                     ~  Law of Software Compatibility
                     ~  Law of Option Preferences
                     ~  Law of Expectation
                     ~  Law of the Titanic

The simple reason why I would point these things out to you is just to make you see that what many people make up as 'laws of information' are quite simply arbitrary - some humorous, even though they may have some cogency of application to some field or enterprise.

However, when people talk about the 'law of information' in science, they should not just make up ideas and expect everyone to just nod and claim everything in those arbitrary laws as 'science'. Established science aims to be clear and simple, and not arbitrary.

Why don't you start by answering the questions at the beginning of this thread and then read up on the links provided before you begin to jump to conclusions?  since it appears that is the only exercise you seem to be doing here ( i.e. jumping to conclusions). 

I have not been jumping to conclusions; and the reason why I have waited up until now before answering those questions are two-fold:

(a) I am not a fan of Darwinism; and no matter what you try to affirm about me, I have no 'evolutionary bedfellows'. Since that is not my domain, you cannot expect me to be answering roll call on that behalf.

(b) I have waited to see how much you understand about scientific theories and laws; and seeing that you just fling words in an arbitrary fashion to the point of a joke, it would make for an even funnier joke to begin to educate you on what you simply can't handle. I've done it before, you have not dared to cough about what I set forth in posts #340 to #344, and for anyone to expect better from you is the day dinosaurs will visit Hyde Park!

@viaro,

If you had been patient enough to watch Prof. Dr. Werner Gitt's video you would realised that what he was presenting was the laws of nature about information and not what you are babbling about. I know you are eager to show us what you know but learn a bit of wisdom by looking before you leap because you have gone off on a tangent. Didn't I warn you to learn from others unless you want us to know that you know it all.

Dr. Grady McMurty explains the evidence for a young creation using 100% science and 100% Bible.                         

[flash=400,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwWZSlHLYFY&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_GB&feature=player_embedded&fs=1[/flash]

To watch all the clips and more click on the link below:

http://www.creationworldview.org/sample.asp

OLAADEGBU:

@viaro,

If you had been patient enough to watch Prof. Dr. Werner Gitt's video you would realised that what he was presenting was the laws of nature about information and not what you are babbling about.

OLAADEGBU, it's either you are confused or just on Nairaland to circulate deliberate falsehood and declare them divine. . . or the only other way I could understand and feel sorry for you is perhaps that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about when it comes to the mention of the word 'science'.

I already saw the vids by Dr. Werner Gitts before you posted them, and my keeping quiet about it up until now was to provide us both with an opportunity to discuss. What you have repeatedly done is confuse terms and make them up as you go along. In those vids, Dr. Gitts speaks of "ten scientific laws of information" - and that was what I was interested in and consequently requested that you provide us with. What are those 'ten scientific laws of information' that no scientist talks about in established science? Is it not clear to you that Dr. Gitt was just making catch phrases to help people like you who are too busy confusing yourselves?

But now you have come back to remodel it to 'the laws of nature about information'. Please stand steady or just shut up. Do you realise that they are NOT the same thing? Are you that dense or just trying to confuse people who may not notice the subtle disfference? So which is it -

            ~   laws of nature?

            ~   laws of information?

                              or. .

            ~   laws of nature about information?

Either way, you are obviously a confused fellow looking out to gull others.  Before you do any further damage to your brain, please humble yourself and do just a little review of what is referred to in science as '[url=http://Laws of Nature]Laws of Nature[/url]' from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online. You will find examples of laws of nature clearly set out.

As to the 'ten scientific laws of information' that Dr. Gitts talks about, I have asked you to please delineate them to show where scientists have published them in established science. I often use the clause 'established science' for people like you who often confuse science for the circus show you put up here; otherwise science is just science - or, a proper term for guys like you is pseudoscience.

OLAADEGBU, where are those 'ten scientific laws of information' in established science?

I know you are eager to show us what you know but learn a bit of wisdom by looking before you leap because you have gone off on a tangent.

I'm not eager to show anything and have said before that viaro is not that intelligent - always willing to learn. If I went off tangent, bless me by correctly showing where in established science any scientists ever speaks of the 'ten scientific laws of information' - just simply point them out from authentic sources as I have done for 'laws of nature' from Standford Encyclopedia.

Didn't I warn you to learn from others unless you want us to know that you know it all.

I don't know it all and have always wanted to learn; so please oblige my request above. Thank you in advance.

The words of Jesus are timeless and timely even in times like this.

OLAADEGBU:

@viaro,

I was about to post a response to your post but then the words of Jesus Christ my Lord dawned on me that I should not force the truth on rebels who have no stomach for it, that I should not give holy things to fault finders, mote hunters or evil speakers. Jesus was certain when He uttered these timeless words:

"Give not that which is holy to the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." -- Matthew 7:6

For others who sincerely seek for answers to these questions click: Here

Nice debate going on. . . . I am learning a lot!

But Ola, why do you call viaro a sinner since he doesn't agree with your own interpretation of certain portions of the bible. Does that mean all the denominations of Christianity that do not interpret the bible as yours do are sinners?

I would want you guys to trash this issue thoroughly and let everyone choose a side as the Spirit leads because it seems a compromise wouldn't be reached.

ow11:

Nice debate going on. . . . I am learning a lot!

But Ola, why do you call viaro a sinner since he doesn't agree with your own interpretation of certain portions of the bible. Does that mean all the denominations of Christianity that do not interpret the bible as yours do are sinners?

I would want you guys to trash this issue thoroughly and let everyone choose a side as the Spirit leads because it seems a compromise wouldn't be reached.

Read, believe and obey your Bibles and as many as are led by Spirit of God are the children of God.

Who's report do you believe?

It is interesting when you see religious fundamentalists try to claim the genesis story as a default position if any other position does not stand the most rigorous scrutiny. However the genesis story should not be scrutinised? Just believe! period!! Knowledge and understanding of the world we live in is not complete, but it is improving every day as people use their brains and think!! But some people decide to keep their knowledge fossillized to the level available three to four thousand years ago to primitve desert cattle rearers. And laughably, they claim you have to believe first before you can understand, and not the other way round!!! Common sense is indeed NOT common!! What you have all along this thread is the fallacy of 'appeal to authority', posting other people's opinion as evidence. The fundamentalist doesnt need to prove anything. Just believe. That is actually how their name is coined! A BELIEVER is someone who can believe what his brains tells him not to be true!! It is a peculiar frame of mind!! Learning how to suspend reason!! "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason"

akered:

A BELIEVER is someone who can believe what his brains tells him not to be true!! It is a peculiar frame of mind!! Learning how to suspend reason!! "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason"

Akeredolu, you're trying far too hard to place your atheism where it actually belongs. Faith does not eschew reason, regardless what fundamentalism may lead you to infer. Touting yourself a rationalist does not even cut it for you.

I noticed your first four posts on Nairaland were carbon copies of long thesis on tithes (first, second, third, and fourth). It seemed that after your ancillary claim to have contacted 3 rabbis in the L.A. area was exposed as a humiliating hoax that was rank-xeroxed from Ernest L. Martin, you lost your center of gravity so that your pretences of being 'Christian' have all eroded. You seemed to rather switch quickly from talking like a 'Christian' to clearly showing who you truly are - but did you have to try to LIE to make an impression? Did you have to show your own 'rationality' by first attempting to DECEIVE the public?

Perhaps that was your "peculiar frame of mind" - you didn't think about that one before "learning to suspend reason". But it's your world, so enjoy your "reason" (even if you had to deceive your readers).

@akered,

What saith thou?

Questions About Creation
April 14, 2010

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding."(Job 38:4)

In chapters 38-41 of Job is recorded a remarkable series of 77 questions about the creation--questions which God asked Job and his philosophizing friends, and which they were utterly unable to answer. At the end of the searching examination, Job could only confess: "Therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not" (Job 42:3). Modern evolutionists, despite all their arrogant pretensions, still are not able to answer them either, over 35 centuries later!

But there is one who can answer them, and His answers echo back from another ancient document, the marvelous eighth chapter of Proverbs. To God's first question, "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth," comes His answer: "When he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him" (Proverbs 8:29-30). The speaker here is the divine wisdom. He is the Word of God, the pre-incarnate Son of God, soon to become the Son of man. In this amazing chapter, He echoes an answer to the most searching of God's inscrutable questions to Job and his friends:

"Who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth?" (Job 38:. "He set a compass |literally 'sphericity'| upon the face of the depth: . . . When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment" (Proverbs 8:27, 29). "Hast thou commanded the morning . . . and caused the dayspring to know his place?" (Job 38:12). "When he prepared the heavens, I was there" (Proverbs 8:27).

Our Saviour was there! "For by him were all things created" (Colossians 1:16).  One more question: "Have the gates of death been opened unto thee?" (Job 38:17).  Yes, and they have not prevailed!  "For whoso findeth me findeth life, . . . all they that hate me love death" (Proverbs 8:35-36). HMM

The Light and the Sun
April 15, 2010

"The day is thine, the night also is thine: thou hast prepared the light and the sun."(Psalm 74:16)

One of the traditional "discrepancies" attributed by the skeptics to the Genesis account of creation is the fact that there was "light" (Hebrew or) on the first day of creation week, whereas God did not create the "lights" (Hebrew ma-or) to rule the day and the night until the fourth day.

However, it is interesting that modern evolutionary cosmologists find no problem in having light before the sun. According to their speculative reconstruction of cosmic history, light energy was produced in the imaginary "Big Bang" 15 billion years ago, whereas the sun "evolved" only five billion years ago. Thus, even in their attempts to destroy the divine revelation of Genesis, they inadvertently find it necessary to return to its concepts. Light energy somehow had to be "prepared" before the sun and other stars could ever be set up to serve as future generators of light energy. The fact that light is an entity independent of the sun and other heavenly bodies is one of the remarkable scientific insights of the Bible. As the basic form of energy (even intrinsic in the very nature of matter, as expressed in the famous Einstein equation), it is significant that the first recorded word spoken by the Creator was: "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3).

In this chapter, the psalmist is entreating the Lord of light, the Creator of all things, to deliver His people from those who are seeking to destroy all genuine faith in the true God of heaven. "The tumult of those that rise up against thee increaseth continually" (Psalm 74:23). Nevertheless, "God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth" (v. 12). The mighty God of creation, who established and controls all the basic energies of the cosmos and their manifestation on the earth, is fully able to defeat His enemies and establish His people. We can be sure of that. HMM

For more . . . .

The Bible Stands

Answers In Genesis