ijebuman:

Its called doing research and providing references, unlike the obvious plagiarism exhibited by many on this thread. How can someone sink so low as to post urban myths to justify the existence of God. If you really believe in God why would you feel threatened if others have an opposing view ? Why are opposing views not 'consumable and healthy for human consumption' what are you scared of ?

sbucareer:

to nicetohave here you reference

1. http://www.noao.edu/jacoby/pn_gallery.html
2. http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2003archive/01-03archive/k011303a.html

NOTE
===========
Our Sun will eventually die one day. We will not be here but our children would and it is a terrible faith for human kind.

Scientist has known this for long and are fighting for new technologies for interstellar travel to another star.


You can do this

nferyn:

1. If you would actually use those grey cells of yours and exhibit some cortical activity, you could start by reading my arguments. I regularly provide references to the sources of my knowledge, as I do not want to take credit for those ideas. Some people here are so intellectually bankrupt that they don't bother to do that.
2. If I write about my argument for the non-existence of God, I do not need any sources, because that argument is mine and mine alone. If you would have bothered to read the previous pages, you would have noticed. Now you're just talking out of your ass.
3. You continuously insult me and then have the nerve to say that I'm insulting you. I wonder what kind of education your parents gave you (or maybe it's just you)
This is the first time you tell me anything [/i]about the authority of my references. Is lying for the Good Cause now fashionable among Christians?

nferyn:

Obviously, as you call all non-believers [i]fools [/i]on the Bible's authority, those people will be [i]fools [/i]in your eyes. Why don't you throw away all of our scientific knowledge. After all, a lot of it was based on the work of [i]fools
Why don't you go and practice an uniquely Christian medicine and discard all the knowledge of those non believers. Just put a bible under the bed of the newborns to prevent cot death, that's a uniquely Christian remedy.

nicetohave:

On the issue of the references, just because someone have access to the internet, like you and me, does not make his works true or acceptable........i repeat, every word that i write here now has a link for reference, does that make me an authority? NO! well the authority of what i write however is God who put his words with every child of his, ijebuman,nferyn who/what is the authority behind your arguments?

nicetohave:

Seek to know the truth before you discard it, i still keep searching and nothing has proved to me that we are all genetic/moleculr accidents, it proves we are created by a supreme being who deserves our honour and worship.

nicetohave:

Well according to the bible definition, a fool is one who says there is no God, that makes you and the author of your references fools (remember this is not an intellectual definition) It will interest you to know that the pioneers of the works of medicine are not people who say there is no God, infact time and again the works of medicine lay credence to the fact that "there has to be a God somewhere" when on a daily basis we see people who have no reason anymore to continue to live physiologically being snatched from the jaws of death and come back to life, how do i explain that, science? no i will be a megafool to say that, something brought them back not medicine anymore, we only become living testimonies of what we have seen, the works of the living God! and that goes for my predecesors in the profession who have certified countless miracles.at least medical records don't lie and can't be altered. The anatomy of the human body alone makes foolishness of evolution, what archeaologist do is compare fossils that are merely imprints of the remains of carcasses, how does that animal function physiologically beyond its remain? does its cells, organs and systems and physiologic functioning bear any semblance to man's? why then are zoonotic transplants so unsuccessful if there are similarities in them? all we hear is they evolve, even if we evolve.by what mechanism? has science explained it? or we are yet to get there yet? who set does mechanism in motion? or are they "auto-controlled? give me a break folks, what are we arguing for and against here?

nicetohave:

nferyn i will advice we watch our temper in writing, i will hate seun closing down this thread because this is one that should last and last for others to read..............panthress please put your argument forward and leave out the other insinuations, nferyn is speaking for himself (and ironically against God) let God defend himself, you just do the talking.

nicetohave:

Well according to the bible definition, a fool is one who says there is no God, that makes you and the author of your references fools (remember this is not an intellectual definition)

nicetohave:

It will interest you to know that the pioneers of the works of medicine are not people who say there is no God, infact time and again the works of medicine lay credence to the fact that "there has to be a God somewhere" when on a daily basis we see people who have no reason anymore to continue to live physiologically being snatched from the jaws of death and come back to life, how do i explain that, science?

nicetohave:

no i will be a megafool to say that, something brought them back not medicine anymore, we only become living testimonies of what we have seen, the works of the living God! and that goes for my predecesors in the profession who have certified countless miracles.at least medical records don't lie and can't be altered.

nicetohave:

The anatomy of the human body alone makes foolishness of evolution,

nicetohave:

what archeaologist do is compare fossils that are merely imprints of the remains of carcasses,

nicetohave:

how does that animal function physiologically beyond its remain? does its cells, organs and systems and physiologic functioning bear any semblance to man's? why then are zoonotic transplants so unsuccessful if there are similarities in them? all we hear is they evolve, even if we evolve.by what mechanism? has science explained it? or we are yet to get there yet? who set does mechanism in motion? or are they "auto-controlled? give me a break folks, what are we arguing for and against here?

nicetohave:

If you read my contributions here and on other threads we have argued to and fro, you will see where i had asked you "what authenticates your references?" you apparently overlooked it due to human frailty.

nicetohave:

anyway what i do is argue for and against, i have asked myself "what if there is no God" what if all these is just a calculated deceit, have i believed in vain?, well i read the arguments brought forward not just by you but others who believe christianity and the bible is just a hoax and your argumens does not stand the test of time, even though you said you have read the bible (which i strongly doubt by some statements you make and your absolute lack of clue on certain issues) i will advice you look at the argument and check the reference that gives evidence to the existence of God, you can start by visiting HISTORY.COM, you can't read enough of strong evidence to the existence of a powerful, merciful and awesome God.read accounts of scientists who after strange and unexplanable discoveries have nothing to say other than there is a God somewhere.

nicetohave:

Sudden infant death sydrome (cot death), we don't even know the pathophysiology of it talkless of finding a remedy is that what you bring forward? I practise and teach only that which medicine has taught me but beyond that my faith makes me whole, everyone's faith eventually will be the dividing line between life and death, if some believe in putting the bible under the baby's pillow for a malady which science has profer no cure,then its up to their faith.

panthress:

Haha i do use my brain i can't be bleeped to read your long bullshit.
comin from someone like u look whoz talkin about education
when u stop copyin n pasting bullshit that i can't read because its too long, holla atme
ps
when i mean bullshit i mean bull's rubbish

goodguy:


I'm actually sick and tired of debating God's existence. GOD EXISTS! TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT!!

goodguy:

Allonym, you're gradually becoming an atheist.

We must start by assuming the objective certainty and validity of the principle of causality or sufficient reason -- an assumption upon which the value of the physical sciences and of human knowledge generally is based. To question its objective certainty, as did Kant, and represent it as a mere mental a priori, or possessing only subjective validity, would open the door to subjectivism and universal scepticism. It is impossible to prove the principle of causality, just as it is impossible to prove the principle of contradiction; but it is not difficult to see that if the former is denied the latter may also be denied and the whole process of human reasoning declared fallacious. The principle states that whatever exists or happens must have a sufficient reason for its existence or occurrence either in itself or in something else ; in other words that whatever does not exist of absolute necessity - whatever is not self-existent -- cannot exist without a proportionate cause external to itself; and if this principle is valid when employed by the scientist to explain the phenomena of physics it must be equally valid when employed by the philosopher for the ultimate explanation of the universe as a whole. In the universe we observe that certain things are effects, i.e. they depend for their existence on other things, and these again on others; but, however far back we may extend this series of effects and dependent causes, we must, if human reason is to be satisfied, come ultimately to a cause that is not itself an effect, in other words to an uncaused cause or self-existent being which is the ground and cause of all being. And this conclusion, as thus stated, is virtually admitted by agnostics and Pantheists, all of whom are obliged to speak of an eternal something underlying the phenomenal universe, whether this something be the "Unknown", or the "Absolute", or the "Unconscious", or "Matter" itself, or the "Ego", or the "Idea" of being, or the "Will"; these are so many substitutes for the uncaused cause or self-existent being of Theism. What anti-Theists refuse to admit is not the existence of a First Cause in an indeterminate sense, but the existence of an intelligent and free First Cause, a personal God, distinct from the material universe and the human mind. But the very same reason that compels us to postulate a First Cause at all requires that this cause should be a free and intelligent being. The spiritual world of intellect and free will must be recognized by the sane philosopher to be as real as the world of matter; man knows that he has a spiritual nature and performs spiritual acts as clearly and as certainly as he knows that he has eyes to see with and ears to hear with; and the phenomena of man's spiritual nature can only be explained in one way -- by attributing spirituality, i.e. intelligence and free will, to the First Cause, in other words by recognizing a personal God. For the cause in all cases must be proportionate to the effect, i.e. must contain somehow in itself every perfection of being that is realized in the effect.

The teleological argument, or argument from design, says that the universe possesses so integrated a complexity that it must have been designed by an intelligent mind. Members of monotheistic religions identify this posited architect of the universe with the God of whichever religion they happen to profess. Thus Christians think that the God who is revealed in the New Testament designed the universe, whereas muslims think that Allah did it. The central, and in my opinion conclusive, argument against this can be found in Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion": the architect of the universe must have possessed as integrated a complexity as the universe itself, yet He had no designer; this implies an acceptance of the principle that an integrated and complex system either can create itself or has always existed; which makes the hypothesis of an intelligent designer of the universe unnecessary, for it allows the logical possibility that the universe may simply have organised itself in that way.

The general form of the teleological argument is analogical: the universe is supposed to resemble something that has been designed, so by analogy we are supposed to assume that the universe was designed.

Like all arguments for religion, the argument from design is primarily emotive rather than ratiocinative. The universe, and especially its living content, just 'looks' as if it has been designed. Consider, for instance, the mammalian eye: it defies the imagination to envisage its evolving by random mutation and Darwinian selection. Therefore, Hume's logical attack on this argument is not as effective as it should be. Rather more effective, in practice, are the explications of the evolutionary process to be found in the works of popular science writers, such as Hawkins (as in "The Blind Watchmaker".

nferyn:

Hi Allonym,

In the argument from causality, there are a lot of implicit assumptions on the nature of reality that should not be taken for granted.
1. Ultimate causality comes from a universe in which time is linear and unidirectional. It appears that way because that is the natural human interpretative framework. We are not certain that this is indeed the case, some recent research in physics seems to point at the possibility of a bidirectional time dimension (I just started listening to The Fabric of the Cosmos audiobook, that's why I mention it)
2. Postulating an uncaused cause only makes sense in a linear, unidirectional time. If time were to be circular, there would be no need for an uncaused cause.

nferyn:

3. All the talk about man's spiritual nature is just psychobabble.What is labeled as spiritual is always founded on a basis in the material. It is just a problem of representation, where the representation is seen as independent from what represents.

nferyn:

4. By associating spirituality with intelligence and free and then using the label spirituality to the first cause, the author is using an imperfect pars pro toto construct. This is a very loose association and does nothing to validate the statement of an intelligent first cause, let alone a supreme being or a personal God.

allonym:

This doesn't make sense. I don't believe some of the poems I've read were written by God just because we cannot discover any evidence as to the actual human writer.

In any case, the mechanism currently proposed to explain evolution is called "natural selection".

In your posts, your main topic is - if we cannot understand it, it must be God. That is pure ignorance. People KNEW for a FACT that the world was flat. . . until about 1492 when Columbus managed to sail around the world - yeah - he went to the edge and didn't FALL off the earth!! Amazing what a little knowledge, experiment, and studying can do for you. The church STATED as FACT that the earth was the center of the universe. They even put Galileo under house arrest for proving that it was the sun revolving around the earth and not vice-versa. There are so many examples of thing that human beings did not understand or ever think they could possibly explain in one century and a couple years later, some scientist finds the solution. Doesn't it seem pretty stupid to say just because we don't fully understand something today, we never will and thus it's being done by God?

nferyn:

It's funny you address me here, while it was [i]pantress [/i]that insulted me continuously.

nferyn:

No, it is an insulting one. You know perfectly well what kind of effect calling someone a fool has.

nferyn:

Your point? What is your argument here? Something happens. We do not have a conventional answer to that happening, thus by default, God exist?

nferyn:


Archaeologist do no such thing. This is the work of paleologists or paleo-anthropologists. Please get the scientific field you criticise right.

nferyn:

Please do your research on evolutionary theory and then you have a basis to talk from. It is obvious that transplantations between members of the species homo sapiens sapiens are always successful, aren't they. I'm quite sure you know immunology far better than I do. Delve into that knowledge and you'll have your answer. please stop putting up strawmen.

nicetohave:

.............. yet this one thing i know, all life comes from God and all life will be accountable to him, whether we like it or not, whether we believe it or not; there is no escaping that

nicetohave:

I'll prefer to remain stupid until a plausible explanation can be given why a man who is scheduled for a nephrectomy (removal of the kidney) for an advanced stage of cancer was healed without any trace of it anymore, i prefer to remain stupid until an explantion can be given for a man who is clinically blind from glaucoma regained his sight...............all these and
Many more, i prefer to remain stupid until an explanation is given, until then i hold on to my stupid faith that it is God's handiwork, at least i have an explanation no matter how stupid, which one do you have?

nicetohave:

nferyn, read my statement carefully, i was merely appealing to both you and everyone contributing to this thread, i mentioned panthress too.........no harm is intended and i have a measure of respect for you.

nicetohave:

Again you are getting me wrong, there are several criteron the bible gives for making the diagnosis of a fool " he who replies a matter before hearing it out is a fool" that is another example or statement, being a fool in one regards means you are acting out of congruency, it doesnt make you a fool in every facet of your life, again sorry..........no offense meant, but if a man insists there is no God then without fear or favour he does not know what he is talking about, he is deluded.

nicetohave:

No sir, God is not a gap filling default---instead all knowledge is given by him, and man will never fully discover the functioning of the human body as someone has opined...........because the secret things belong to God, he fortold the explosion of knowledge he also foretold men shall seek knowledge to the ends of the earth yet some questions will remain unanswered, i will wait till explanations can be given to why HIV disappeared from a man's system, at an advanced AIDS stage, until then.....

nicetohave:

so what do archaelogists do? nferyn, you are a master of words and i rever you for that but be careful how you criticize the use of my terms, i am a meticulous and thorough person even though you may not think so because you think i worship a God of default.
Archaeology by dictionary definition :The scientific study of material remains (as fossil relics, artifacts and monuments) of past human life and activities

nicetohave:

There is no such word as paleologists but if you mean paleontologists then paleontology by defintion is a science dealing with the science of past geological periods known as from fossil remains.

nicetohave:

Anthropology is the science of human beings, theology dealing with the origin, nature, and destiny of human beings.........paleo-anthroplogists will just be a combination of the above two, they do not study fossils, archaelogists do, they only use fossils to predict geological periods.

nicetohave:

No sir, transplants between homo sapiens are not always successful, well i will assume your statement is based on your limited knowledge of immunology, and you miss the point of my main argument here.

nicetohave:

We shall continue to go back and forth on this issue, please i have not laid claim to be able to proof to you that there is a God, infact i have continually said that only he can do that despite all our eloquence however i know he exists and i am merely pointing out to you evidences of his footprints in the course of men, you and i, believe it or not and as i always say, whatever you chose is amply rewarded accordingly.

nicetohave:

I am open to corrections because i am human, corrections on certain statements made because like everyone else i am human and error-prone, because of the most read and eloquent i am the least yet this one thing i know, all life comes from God and all life will be accountable to him, whether we like it or not, whether we believe it or not; there is no escaping that

goodguy:

Out of man's knowledge, he has taken time to disprove the existence of THE ONE who gave it to him. What a pity...

In as much as you say there's no God, you can never disprove his existence.

When people see visions, you say it's a psychological disorder.
When people receive miracles, you say it has to do with the body's immunity.
When people profess being witches/wizards, you say they're trying to get attention.

The answers are right there staring at you. OPEN YOUR EYES.

To those of you who say there's no God, have u ever prayed once in your life? If yes, who did you pray to?

nicetohave:

I'll prefer to remain stupid until a plausible explanation can be given why a man who is scheduled for a nephrectomy (removal of the kidney) for an advanced stage of cancer was healed without any trace of it anymore, i prefer to remain stupid until an explantion can be given for a man who is clinically blind from glaucoma regained his sight...............all these and many more, i prefer to remain stupid until an explanation is given, until then i hold on to my stupid faith that it is God's handiwork, at least i have an explanation no matter how stupid, which one do you have?