NewStats: 3,262,368 , 8,176,943 topics. Date: Monday, 02 June 2025 at 02:11 AM 6gt1p

Originakalokalo:


Lol.

Science facts that these and that happened several million of years ago....

Please leave all these things you stated as facts. They're never facts.

Were you there?

Did anyone on this planet witnessed this?

I believe in God. I have experienced him severally.

I am a spiritual giant. Through prayer, studying the Bible and living a holy life, I have become a force to recon with in the spiritual.

I declare and it comes to .

I have access to spiritually classified information and see events before they happen.

I am a mouthpiece of God.

It is just impossible for me to leave God...

.it's like asking Apostle Paul to deny Jesus after he raised the dead in his name...

It's like asking Apostle Peter to deny Christ after a cripple who has never walked stop at the mention of the name of Jesus.

Through me, miracles have been performed. Not faked, not jazzed...Raw anointing.



He is so close to me. How can I ever deny his existence?

The devil himself knows I am child of God.

This is not what I asked. I repeat what is the evidence you can present that indicates that a god created anything.

LordReed:


This is not what I asked. I repeat what is the evidence you can present that indicates that a god created anything.

My belief and experience are my evidence.

Thank God I can't share this with you...its mine and mine alone.

Peace.

Originakalokalo:


My belief and experience are my evidence.

Thank God I can't share this with you...its mine and mine alone.

Peace.

And you wanted to compare it with science, how did you think that would turn out?

LordReed:


And you wanted to compare it with science, how did you think that would turn out?

Read my first post on this thread.

I did not compare God and Science.

I stated that God gave the Hebrew boys knowledge of Science....That's why they Excel in Babylon...

God is God. He is a creator who gave his people the knowledge to probe, observe and draw inferences.

I also warned the children of God on taking scientific statements in their lives as all in all...

I mentioned that God acts alone. He can choose to show up in situations and defile science.

Miracles in themselves defile science.

I am not comparing mere methods to the Almighty himself.


This the reason for this thread.

Your opinion will matter only after you've actually read the book. Only the ignorant will bother to converse with you about a book you have not bothered to research.

alphaNomega:
Do you know there is nothing you would write on this thread that changes the fact that the Bible is fake? If you like, read all the religious text on earth in the name of research, that is your cup of tea.

Don't forget to pray to your god while at it.

Originakalokalo:


Read my first post on this thread.

Unfortunately, as soon as you said "believers of science" you set a red flag for bulls.

Science is antibelief. And anyone who believes science is treating it like a religion, which it isn't.

What's sad is science is taught like a religion in Nigeria, and that's why we invent very little.

Science is ask and seek and knock with all your heart and soul and mind and being until you actually know, instead of ignorantly believing what you are religiously told.

Genesis 1 is simply very primitive superseded science. Believing it is like believing pre Copernican science, or pre Ptolemy.

Originakalokalo:
There has always been a conflict between the believers of science and those who believe in God.

alphaNomega:


Because science, over the years, has been trying to make life simple and better for humanity. Which is easier to ? And 8 planet solar system or a 21+ planet solar systems?

I don't think this was done to simply to make it easier for people to .

As words used in science have a very specific definitions, Pluto did not fall under that definition of "planet" completely.

There are 3 criteria for a body to be considered a planet
1. It is in orbit around the Sun.
2. It has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape).
3. It has “cleared the neighborhood” around its orbit, (of planetesimals)

Pluto was too small to have done no. 3

So it had to be reclassified as a "dwarf planet".

Sorry this isn't directed at you specifically, this is for people who would use their misunderstanding of science to push some agenda, or for those who are just simply curious.

IMAliyu:

I don't think this was done to simply to make it easier for people to .

As words used in science have a very specific definitions, Pluto did not fall under that definition of "planet" completely.

There are 3 criteria for a body to be considered a planet
1. It is in orbit around the Sun.
2. It has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape).
3. It has “cleared the neighborhood” around its orbit, (of planetesimals)

Pluto was too small to have done no. 3

So it had to be reclassified as a "dwarf planet".

Sorry this isn't directed at you specifically, this is for people who would use their misunderstanding of science to push some agenda, or for those who are just simply curious.

I made reference to point 3 while trying to explain for the other guy, I wrote that other bodies were found within the same orbit as Pluto

budaatum:
Your opinion will matter only after you've actually read the book. Only the ignorant will bother to converse with you about a book you have not bothered to research.

I have done that and realised the book is fake

LordReed:


Why does a god as powerful as you say need to create a universe that requires laws and principles? Why not just create a universe where anything can happen?

What do you mean by "anything"?

Ehiscotch:


What do you mean by "anything"?

A universe in which there are no rules to limit possibilities unlike our current one.

LordReed:


A universe in which there are no rules to limit possibilities unlike our current one.

Are all laws governing the universe really absolute?

Ehiscotch:


Are all laws governing the universe really absolute?

Well we haven't seen anything that doesn't operate following the physical laws of the universe.

LordReed:


Well we haven't seen anything that doesn't operate following the physical laws of the universe.

So you'd rather prefer a universe in a state of Flux - constantly changing?

Ehiscotch:


So you'd rather prefer a universe in a state of Flux - constantly changing?

That is a strange question since I can't do anything about the nature of the universe.

Ehiscotch:


So you'd rather prefer a universe in a state of Flux - constantly changing?

Change "universe", to 'me', or rather, 'yourself'.

Would you rather not prefer yourself in a state of Flux - constantly changing?

The reason I ask is I am personally glad that the universe is in a "state of Flux - constantly changing". It's called growth - think tree, and baby; and evolution, if you think in thousands and thousands and thousands of years.

I'd have hated a world of 'as it was in the beginning'. An eye for an eye makes me shudder!

LordReed:


That is a strange question since I can't do anything about the nature of the universe.

Isn't it rather strange that we can "question" the way the universe is but can't really do anything to change it?

Ehiscotch:


Isn't it rather strange that we can "question" the way the universe is but can't really do anything to change it?

I don't question the way it is, I accept the way it is which is why I don't believe in fairytales of gods able to exist in direct opposition to the physical laws of the universe.

budaatum:


Change "universe", to 'me', or rather, 'yourself'.

Would you rather not prefer yourself in a state of Flux - constantly changing?

The reason I ask is I am personally glad that the universe is in a "state of Flux - constantly changing". It's called growth - think tree, and baby; and evolution, if you think in thousands and thousands and thousands of years.

I'd have hated a world of 'as it was in the beginning'. An eye for an eye makes me shudder!

The phrase "anything can happen" — as used by Lordreed— is relative; there are really no boundaries and I can assume that just anything – A Lion becoming herbivorous or a human laying eggs — can happen.

You see my concern is regarding the "laws of the universe" not the universe itself.

The change you are referring to isn't something new; it is constant.
All seem to be like a cycle that has existed forever: a baby grows to become an adult; a seed a tree, etc.

There really, like the philosopher in Ecclesiastes says, isn't something "new" under the sun. It just seem like a recombination of things to create something "new".

That's why, I think, the words "discovered" or "find" is aptly used in many fields.

Besides, what is your issue with an "eye for an eye"?

LordReed:


I don't question the way it is, I accept the way it is which is why I don't believe in fairytales of gods able to exist in direct opposition to the physical laws of the universe.

So a creator should not exist outside his creation?

LordReed:


Why does a god as powerful as you say need to create a universe that requires laws and principles? Why not just create a universe where anything can happen?

The last time we checked, the universe was God’s and not yours.

Possibly you can ask all the whys because you are at best attempting through naturalistic methodology to understand the world made by God. So in a bid to understand the universe, you will think the universe would have been better if it turned out differently.

I would like to think that you cannot box God into your finite facility to fit into your imaginations. Rather, we humans will need to understand the universe around us to appreciate God’s design. And that is what science is doing, albeit trial and errors.

budaatum:


Unfortunately, as soon as you said "believers of science" you set a red flag for bulls.

Science is antibelief. And anyone who believes science is treating it like a religion, which it isn't.

What's sad is science is taught like a religion in Nigeria, and that's why we invent very little.

Science is ask and seek and knock with all your heart and soul and mind and being until you actually know, instead of ignorantly believing what you are religiously told.

Genesis 1 is simply very primitive superseded science. Believing it is like believing pre Copernican science, or pre Ptolemy.

Science works on beliefs and is not anti-belief.
Why do you think Genesis 1 is primitive?

Nothingserious:


Science works on beliefs and is not anti-belief.
Why do you think Genesis 1 is primitive?

He mistakes simple for primitive.

Originakalokalo:
There has always been a conflict between the believers of science and those who believe in God.

However, this conflict is not needed...

For instance, the Hebrew boys in the book of Daniel were regarded to be skillful in science.

“Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and

cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace,

and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.”
— Daniel 1:4 (KJV)


This shows that God gave them knowledge to observe, experiment and make conclusions.


Now,

God created the sun while science probed and explain it's principle of operation.

If the Sun will be self-sufficient and operate continuously, then it must function on a principle....

Explaining the principle of its operation does not remove the fact that it was created.

The same applies to the rain, sowing and reaping, seasons and weather. All these happen continuously and timely.

A child of God may believe in Science....he/she should however be aware of the danger of believing everything science says....

I will mention why......

God and science aren’t alternatives.

There are more conflicts between science and atheism than there are between theism and science.

Like you said, science only attempts to investigate and understand the universe using laws made by God. Science never made a claim about creating anything. It only attempts to interpret what it thinks already existed in the universe. This is why it doesn’t have answers to the origin questions.

Ehiscotch:


So a creator should not exist outside his creation?

What does that even mean?

LordReed:


What does that even mean?

Maybe I didn't get you. What did you mean by "...of gods being able to exist in direct opposition to the physical laws of..."?

Ehiscotch:


Maybe I didn't get you. What did you mean by "...of gods being able to exist in direct opposition to the physical laws of..."?

Oh you got me there. What I mean by my question is such a concept as you propose is incoherent. You're asking if à being can exist outside of existence, that is not a coherent proposition in my view.

Nothingserious:


The last time we checked, the universe was God’s and not yours.

Possibly you can ask all the whys because you are at best attempting through naturalistic methodology to understand the world made by God. So in a bid to understand the universe, you will think the universe would have been better if it turned out differently.

I would like to think that you cannot box God into your finite facility to fit into your imaginations. Rather, we humans will need to understand the universe around us to appreciate God’s design. And that is what science is doing, albeit trial and errors.

Last time I checked there no label on the universe saying "Made by god".

Sure I can think the universe could have been better. As long as we talking about imaginary beings with imaginary universe building powers, any speculation is welcome.

If I can't neither can you so where do you get off telling me about this god?

LordReed:


Last time I checked there no label on the universe saying "Made by god".

Sure I can think the universe could have been better. As long as we talking about imaginary beings with imaginary universe building powers, any speculation is welcome.

If I can't neither can you so where do you get off telling me about this god?

Because you questioned the laws and principles in a world made by God.

If you come up with imaginations about how you would have made YOUR own world, I wouldn’t have bothered you.

Why are you not following your logic?

Nothingserious:


Because you questioned the laws and principles in a world made by God.

If you come up with imaginations about how you would have made YOUR own world, I wouldn’t have bothered you.

Why are you not following your logic?

I have no reason to think this universe was made by a god.

What bothers you about what I imagine doesn't concern me so feel free to be bothered.

That question is better suited for you.

Nothingserious:


God and science aren’t alternatives.

There are more conflicts between science and atheism than there are between theism and science.

Like you said, science only attempts to investigate and understand the universe using laws made by God. Science never made a claim about creating anything. It only attempts to interpret what it thinks already existed in the universe. This is why it doesn’t have answers to the origin questions.

Well said.

Originakalokalo:


Well said.

Thanks.

Anyone comparing God and science is committing category error as there are no basis for the comparisons.
Science never made a claim to have created anything. Theists make a claim that God created all things. Science only comes into debating on things that had been created.

Say law of gravity. Science doesn’t know how it came to be. But science has tried to investigate how it operates and how the law affects the universe.

Religion mixed with science causes bad religion and bad science or perhaps meta-science which really isn’t science.