wirinet:


You are forgetting to put Mark Zukerbergs reaction in its proper context. He was asked whether he is an atheist, and he answered in the negative, but he now added that although he was raised as a Jew, there was a period he questioned things. This could only mean, that he questioned the Jewish God. And since he was still in the process of responding to the question of whether he is an atheist or not, it could only mean that there was a period he was an atheist.

For the umpteenth time sir , questioning anything about God does not make anyone an atheist .

CNN : Aren't you an atheist .

King Ebuka : No . I was raised a Christian and I questioned some things ...

Right there , the questioning does not make me an atheist because I was only critical and skeptical about my beliefs . You don't cease being a Christian or a religious person when you question things . And questioning things also involve questioning contrary views like other religions , other positions about God and even atheism .

KingEbukasBlog:


They are not atheists . You have to prove they are atheists first before surmising that they want to please the crowd .

the onus probandi does not lie on me, it is left to them to tell us what they believe in(cos they've refuse to mention any faith), until then, any link from whatsoever source is an hoax.

KingEbukasBlog:


Claims made without evidence should be dismissed without evidence . Its simple logic .

Wall Street made a claim without any evidence and it should equally dismissed without evidence .

Imagine Wall Street should call me a deist without evidence , anyone can dismiss their claims without even stating that I'm a Christian because they had no evidence .

No single evidence even points to Mark Zuckerberg as an atheist .

Summary : The onus is on the claimant making the claim .

Wait.... Theism has no evidence so should be dismissed right?

randomperson:

Wait.... Theism has no evidence so should be dismissed right?

funny enough that was a quote from late Christopher Hitchens the famous athiest who could hitchslap any thiest into the dust

randomperson:
Wait.... Theism has no evidence so should be dismissed right?

lol... maybe you are right but don't forget that KingEbukasBlog has proofs for any thing theism.

KingEbukasBlog:


They are not atheists . You have to prove they are atheists first before surmising that they want to please the crowd .

How do you prove someone else is an atheist? Do you you put his brain to a device or a polygraph machine to know what he/she actually believes. Most atheist do not publicly reveal their atheistic status. Only very people close to me know I do not believe any God - my wife and maybe two friends, most people simply see me as irreligious.
On the other end of the scale, there are many Christian pastors who are really atheist at heart. I know a fairly popular one who had altercations with my wife (can't give much details). When she told him that he Will end up in hell, he simply said there is nothing like hell, meanwhile, he preaches about hell to his numerous followers every Sunday.

niyihawking:

lol...
maybe you are right
but don't forget that KingEbukasBlog has proofs for any thing theism.

Proofs?? Maybe personal delusion is now synonymous with proof

randomperson:

Proofs?? Maybe personal delusion is now synonymous with proof

randomperson:

Proofs?? Maybe personal delusion is now synonymous with proof

randomperson:

Wait.... Theism has no evidence so should be dismissed right?

The evidence in Theism is a universe that began to exist . All evidence points towards a universe that began to exist

The Cosmological Argument

1. If the universe has a beginning , then it has a cause .

2. The universe has a beginning

3. Therefore , the universe has a cause .

This is just common sense .

While Atheism says

The universe has a beginning but it was not caused . This means that

1. The universe came from Nothing . And nothing according to quantum mechanics is a sea of energy and that is something

2. The universe created itself - This has been proven to be a logical absurdity

OR

3. No evidence whatsoever points to an eternal universe

Atheists are now making a case for the third point , the onus is on them to prove it . But still it does not mean that God does not exist .It only postulates an impersonal God - one which the universe and God co-exist as a timeless cause-effect situation

Read here for more details : https://www.nairaland.com/3541406/mark-zuckerberg-never-atheist-first/1#52312590

KingEbukasBlog:


The evidence in Theism is a universe that began to exist . All evidence points towards a universe that began to exist

The Cosmological Argument

1. If the universe has a beginning , then it has a cause .

2. The universe has a beginning

3. Therefore , the universe has a cause .

This is just common sense .

While Atheism says

The universe has a beginning but it was not caused . This means that

1. The universe came from Nothing . And nothing according to quantum mechanics is a sea of energy and that is something

2. The universe created itself - This has been proven to be a logical absurdity

3. No evidence whatsoever points to an eternal universe

Atheists are now making a case with the third point , the onus is on them to prove it . But still it does not mean that God does not exist .It only postulates an impersonal God - one which the universe and God co- exists as a timeless cause-effect situation

Read here for more details : https://www.nairaland.com/3541406/mark-zuckerberg-never-atheist-first/1#52312590

looooooool

Wawu

KingEbukasBlog:


The evidence in Theism is a universe that began to exist . All evidence points towards a universe that began to exist

The Cosmological Argument

1. If the universe has a beginning , then it has a cause .

2. The universe has a beginning

3. Therefore , the universe has a cause .

This is just common sense .

While Atheism says

The universe has a beginning but it was not caused . This means that

1. The universe came from Nothing . And nothing according to quantum mechanics is a sea of energy and that is something

2. The universe created itself - This has been proven to be a logical absurdity

3. No evidence whatsoever points to an eternal universe

Atheists are now making a case for the third point , the onus is on them to prove it . But still it does not mean that God does not exist .It only postulates an impersonal God - one which the universe and God co-exist as a timeless cause-effect situation

Read here for more details : https://www.nairaland.com/3541406/mark-zuckerberg-never-atheist-first/1#52312590

now you are sounding like a deist

[/quote]

notjonbellion:
looooooool Wawu

[/quote]

notjonbellion:
looooooool Wawu

wirinet:

How do you prove someone else is an atheist? Do you you put his brain to a device or a polygraph machine to know what he/she actually believes. Most atheist do not publicly reveal their atheistic status. Only very people close to me know I do not believe any God - my wife and maybe two friends, most people simply see me as irreligious.

There is deism , panentheism and their adherents are irreligious and there are atheists in religion

Please sir , I implore you to read this thread and tell me what you think . https://www.nairaland.com/3500235/must-read-god-without-religion

On the other end of the scale, there are many Christian pastors who are really atheist at heart. I know a fairly popular one who had altercations with my wife (can't give much details). When she told him that he Will end up in hell, he simply said there is nothing like hell, meanwhile, he preaches about hell to his numerous followers every Sunday.

Lol . There is actually no Hell for now anyways .

Hell exists after God's judgement

Also let her be aware of false prophets . The bible exhorted us to do so .It says that even the elect could be deceived on the last days

But anyway , you still have to prove this story is true . It is very possible it was concocted to support your stance

Naughty you sir !

KingEbukasBlog:


The evidence in Theism is a universe that began to exist . All evidence points towards a universe that began to exist

The Cosmological Argument

1. If the universe has a beginning , then it has a cause .

2. The universe has a beginning

3. Therefore , the universe has a cause .

This is just common sense .

While Atheism says

The universe has a beginning but it was not caused . This means that

1. The universe came from Nothing . And nothing according to quantum mechanics is a sea of energy and that is something

2. The universe created itself - This has been proven to be a logical absurdity

3. No evidence whatsoever points to an eternal universe

Atheists are now making a case for the third point , the onus is on them to prove it . But still it does not mean that God does not exist .It only postulates an impersonal God - one which the universe and God co-exist as a timeless cause-effect situation

Read here for more details : https://www.nairaland.com/3541406/mark-zuckerberg-never-atheist-first/1#52312590

A whole lot of crap. But I will emphasize these
"All evidence points towards a universe that began to exist."
Which evidence in fact?? Name the evidence.
And assuming it was created, does that mean it was created by a monotheistic god and not a group of super- intelligent aliens??

randomperson:

A whole lot of crap. But I will emphasize these
All evidence points towards a universe that began to exist. Which evidence in fact?? Name the evidence.
And assuming it was created, does that mean it was created by a monotheistic god and not a group of super- intelligent aliens??

began to exist by itself
Bro I think it's just best to say I don't know

notjonbellion:
began to exist by itself
Bro I think it's just best to say I don't know

I was just quoting him... Of course I don't know. But if he claims there is evidence that the universe began to exist? Then he should name it

randomperson:

A whole lot of crap. But I will emphasize these
"All evidence points towards a universe that began to exist."
Which evidence in fact?? Name the evidence.
And assuming it was created, does that mean it was created by a monotheistic god and not a group of super- intelligent aliens??

Here is why the universe began to exist

KingEbukasBlog:


1. The universe keeps expanding

2. Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity indicates that the universe was an effect , not a cause . It was caused to exist

3. Galaxies keep moving apart from each other . It only indicates that they were closer at some point .

4. The radiation echo / The afterglow of the Big Bang

Please read Stephen Hawking " The Beginning of Time" : http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
.

It is very less likely for a universe with multiple creators to exist :

KingEbukasBlog:


Yeah and its inaccurate

The constructional elements of deist thought include :

1. God exists and created Nature

2. God gave humans the ability to reason

Some deists believe that God is not interested in human affairs , here is why I think they are wrong . And that stance by deism that God does not intervene seems dogmatic . So its unfair to religion that its theologies are repudiated by Deism .

Deists are proponents of the First cause and they believe this cause is external and uncaused . Now , imagine the law of cause and effect existing in timeless eternity . Example : 0 degree Celsius (cause ) , Frozen water (effect) . That means if this should take place in a timeless eternity then frozen water should always be . That is to say since God exists in timeless eternity as a cause , then the effect which is the universe should co-exist with God . But since the universe is created then it shows that God has the will to lead to its cause . And since it shows that God can act on Its own volition , then he is a personal God . A personal God is saliently implied in his timelessness and freedom of will since he set out and created a new effect which is the universe without any antecedent determining conditions . Ergo , God also has the freedom of will to intervene in the affairs of the universe and of men .

And that is why Polydeism is illogical too . That means you have multiple unembodied individual minds who very unlikely agreed in unison to cause the universe to exist . And here is why Christianity is powerful true , since God is three cosubstantial hypothasis then its very logical that these three irrefragably caused the universe since they are of one Divine mind though of distinct personalities .

I might be wrong

niyihawking:

now you are sounding like a deist

Not really .

KingEbukasBlog:



Here is why the universe began to exist




It is very less likely for a universe with multiple creators to exist :

All what u listed don't prove that the universe began to exist. They only suggest that idea. They are all theories. Just like evolution, the anatomical and chemical similarities between man and other primates suggest a common ancestor but it's not conclusive proof of evolution.
And as regards the concept of multiple creators, u are making the assumption that these super-intelligent aliens would act like humans and disagree about whether and how to create. But that is not necessarily so, they unknown aliens so they have no defined properties. In fact, they could have the exact same interrelationships that obtains with the Trinity. So the problem of disagreement is no problem.
Also, the reference to aliens is just hypothetical. Why can't the universe be created by an evil genius. A single extremely intelligent being intelligent enough to make the world. Or it could be created by a being who doesn't consider itself supreme and believes it has a creator who is responsible for his intelligence. The point being that a monotheistic supreme being has as much proof as any other being we can imagine to possess the requisite intelligence to create the world

randomperson:

All what u listed don't prove that the universe began to exist. They only suggest that idea. They are all theories. Just like evolution, the anatomical and chemical similarities between man and other primates suggest a common ancestor but it's not conclusive proof of evolution.
And as regards the concept of multiple creators, u are making the assumption that these super-intelligent aliens would act like humans and disagree about whether and how to create. But that is not necessarily so, they unknown aliens so they have no defined properties. In fact, they could have the exact same interrelationships that obtains with the Trinity. So the problem of disagreement is no problem.
Also, the reference to aliens is just hypothetical. Why can't the universe be created by an evil genius. A single extremely intelligent being intelligent enough to make the world. Or it could be created by a being who doesn't consider itself supreme and believes it has a creator who is responsible for his intelligence. The point being that a monotheistic supreme being has as much proof as any other being we can imagine to possess the requisite intelligence to create the world

Infinite regress is illogical , You can define the properties of the First Cause using logic - changeless , spaceless ,immaterial , omnipotent , timeless

Anything that is timeless is unchanging .

And its called the FIRST cause for a reason bro . Plus abstract objects don't stand in causal relations like numbers .

And for the universe being created by an evil genius , I don't argue for the moral nature of the creator logically since the creator transcends human morality .

Christian's Trinity causing the universe to exist is plausible like I said because the creator is three consubstantial hypostases not a pantheon of gods with different substances like the polydeists posit .

And for logical reasons there is one supreme being - if there are more than one like such with different substances then its possible that conflict could ensue .

And again for logical reasons God is immutable (changeless ) and this agrees with his perfection .

KingEbukasBlog:


Infinite regress is illogical , You can define the properties of the First Cause using logic - changeless , spaceless ,immaterial , omnipotent , timeless

Anything this is timeless is unchanging .

And its called the FIRST cause for a reason bro . Plus abstract objects don't stand in causal relations like numbers .

And for the universe being created an evil genius , I don't argue for the moral nature of the creator logically since the creator does not transcends human morality .

Christian's Trinity causing the universe to exist is plausible like I said because the creator is three consubstantial hypostases not a pantheon of gods with different substances like the polydeists posit .

And for logical reasons there is one supreme being - if there are more than one like such with different substances then its possible that conflict could ensue .

And again for logical reasons God is immutable (changeless ) and this agrees with his perfection .

It's pure assumption to say the creator of the universe is the first cause. There is no reason why he can't be created by uncreated creator who BTW is not who u call god... So it's an assumption to equate the creator of the universe with the supreme being.
Why does the first cause have to be omnipotent. Is there any logical barrier between being the first cause and being limited??
Christianity's Trinity causing the universe isn't more plausible than the other creation stories of other religions and mythologies... In fact, the Muslim idea of a single supreme being with undivided, unshared authority is a lot more plausible than Christianity's concept of three persons coming together to form god... Because that would mean the three different personalities were the uncaused causes.
Actually, it's not illogical that there is more than one supreme being. The idea of conflict is in itself adverse to the concept of supremacy. Many supreme beings who don't consciously have to agree but carry out the same actions because by their nature they are too perfect to have conflicting intentions or ideas. Again, if for logical reasons there is only one supreme being, then also for logical reasons, the supreme being wouldnt need three personalities

randomperson:

hristianity's Trinity causing the universe isn't more plausible than the other creation stories of other religions and mythologies... In fact, the Muslim idea of a single supreme being with undivided, unshared authority is a lot more plausible than Christianity's concept of three persons coming together to form god... Because that would mean the three different personalities were the uncaused causes.

I thought I have explained the trinity to you before . It is not three gods coming together to form one God . It is one God existing as three consubstantial hypostases .

This is where faith comes in , because it is possible that this God could exist as multiple consubstansial hypostases .

If different things are composed of the same essence or substance , they are one . So its not right to say uncaused causes .

randomperson:

It's pure assumption to say the creator of the universe is the first cause. There is no reason why he can't be created by uncreated creator who BTW is not who u call god... So it's an assumption to equate the creator of the universe with the supreme being.

The first cause is said to be uncaused .

The Argument is

For anything that begins to exist , must have a cause

The first cause exists in timeless eternity , It has always been .

So there is no reason to assume that the first cause has its own creator .

randomperson:
Why does the first cause have to be omnipotent. Is there any logical barrier between being the first cause and being limited??

Omnipotent means all powerful or having great power

Just causing the universe to exist makes God unimaginably powerful .

Since God is uncaused , eternal and supreme (Transcendent) then It is all powerful in this case within logical possibilities .

@ Randomperson

If you assert that the first cause has a cause to explain the existence of the first cause then it will also be necessary to assert the first cause's cause has a cause it goes on ad infinitum .

And with infinite regress nothing can ever be explained .

That's why infinite universes and infinite chains of causes are illogical propositions .

notjonbellion:
I think this forum should start paying for any thread opened
That way we won't be giving stupidity a chance

Kingebukasblog is a slowpoke

First you started out that mark was never an atheist based on the fact that the international media organization that said he was didn't provide any proof.
And your supposed proof that mark was never an atheist as claimed by the international organization is the screenshot of thier article confirming that mark was an atheist?


Its as confusing as it looks
Are you on weed?

The proposition that mark is an atheist has been there for years, he has had countless opportunities to displace them but he never did. Because mark was an atheist.

Lennycool:
First you started out that mark was never an atheist based on the fact that the international media organization that said he was didn't provide any proof.
And your supposed proof that mark was never an atheist as claimed by the international organization is the screenshot of thier article confirming that mark was an atheist?


Its as confusing as it looks
Are you on weed?

The proposition that mark is an atheist has been there for years, he has had countless opportunities to displace them but he never did. Because mark was an atheist.

Gosh !

Because people call me a deist and I don't care about it , means I am a deist

Wow .

Logic has been murdered

KingEbukasBlog:


Gosh !

Because people call me a deist and I don't care about it , means I am a deist

Wow .

Logic has been murdered

Did you see anything about deism there.
And whoa you're still awaka.
My guy you are obsessed with nairaland

KingEbukasBlog:


Lol . Its all about the rumors . The rumors were instigated by Wall Street's unsubstantial claim . They are not true .

They were rumours yet mark never said anything until now?

KingEbukasBlog:


Lol . Its all about the rumors . The rumors were instigated by Wall Street's unsubstantial claim . They are not true .

Even when he put atheism as his belief on his own profile?

you can lie

MrPresident1:
Bill Gates is not and atheist, Mark Nsukabread is not an atheist they are both religionists lmao.

Anyways, when Jesus comes, the eyes of everyone will open. You have no idea the role of organised religion in this end times

Hopefully on or before the 20th of January, 2017, right?

JackBizzle:


Even when he put atheism as his belief on his own profile?

you can lie

You have to provide proof that he did such a thing . It behoves you to show me this evidence .

And how did this elude you : If Mark had put such thing in his profile (though there is no evidence ) then he is longer an atheist .

That means those that believe his response was to maintain a cordial relationship with the Facebook users are delusional .

Yikes ! How did atheists get into this quagmire ?