blank
search-icon
Top Story

CHRIS-VINCENT: I’ll Establish A Church One Day If Life Gets Tough & These Are the Reasons…

Pastors wanted
Pastors wanted

Establishing a Church Means I Wouldn’t Pay Any Tax on My Huge Earnings

Is it not absurd and ironic that even though the church is the richest institution out there making free money, it pays no tax—and in fact gives less than it takes to the people it steals from?

Whatever you do, even if you are making peanuts of profit, you are expected to pay tax but you can run a church with billions of dollars in profit each year—and proudly announce this without any tax office asking you to pay anything.

If you want to become stinking rich in life and you have access to a group of people who are deeply gullible, is this not the best way to make money? Not only would you be free from the accounting eyes of those who are paying their monies into your pocket, you would also become immune from any sort of auditing or tax payments to the State.

This is why the smartest business people have invested their time and energy into establishing churches—and these days, you can even hire someone to become a pastor at your church. There are several flying advertisements of established churches in Africa looking for pastors to hire.

This means, you wouldn’t even have to do much of the work, just establish the church and hire some crook with the ability to read the Bible—and then you can relocate to Barbados where you would receive your weekly profit, tax free…



READ ALSO: Refused A UK Visa? CLICK HERE FOR HELP

CLICK HERE to subscribe to our daily up-to-date news!!

POPULAR POSTS

LATEST NEWS

MORE FROM Top Story

No related posts found...

97 thoughts on “CHRIS-VINCENT: I’ll Establish A Church One Day If Life Gets Tough & These Are the Reasons…”

  1. It’s quite disturbing that someone who believes the universe itself popped out of nothing thinks someone who believes water can be turned to wine is gullible. Just an opinion. Good night.

    Reply
    • A lot of things (charges) pop up out of nothing at the quantum level—and therefore it is plausible the universe popped out of nothing. Again, it’s your understand of nothing which you may need to check…

      In fact, there is enough evidence and reasons to believe so. it’s not a vacuum belief—it’s a well supported scientific belief; can you say the same of turning water into wine? The two are not even close…Obviously, you do not need evidence to believe in turning water into wine and that is the definition of gullibility…

      Reply
      • Obviously it’s your understanding of “nothing” that needs to be checked. you must be drinking some of that Lawrence Krauss kool-aid yourself.

        I dare you to present evidence that the universe popped out of nothing. I double-dare you.

        Reply
        • Ok. I will start by asking if you can see atoms, protons, xrays microwaves, energy etc without any aids. If you cannot, then that is your proof that the universe pop out of ‘nothing’. Based on your level of reality all those things are nothing. So the statement the universe popped out of nothing is proven. If I have blue car and because of your colour blindness cannot see it. My statement I have a blue car isn’t invalid just because you cannot see blue.
          On other note turning water to wine is not a sign of the divine or the supernatural. Wine is made by crushing grape with water and fermenting it. I can turn water into wine any day at the do it yourself winery. Now if you want to call me divine because of that. That is your problem. If you want to worship me on sundays that also your problem. It also doesn’t mean somehow that I created the universe. There are lots of unknowns in that story.

          Reply
          • What a simpleton! I’m trying to respond but the words won’t just come out. sit back, read the words one by one and then maybe you will get a full understanding of my arguments here.

          • Simpleton! Is just the right word I will use to describe you for what you took out of my posting. Your premise is that Chris cannot call anyone gullible if he believes the universe popped out of nothing. He tried to tell you the denominator for understanding that statement is the definition of ‘NOTHING’. Your rambled off. So to simplify, one might say to a simpleton, I posted that. If you want to have a deeper debate. I will ask you define ‘NOTHING’.
            Also my paragraph about turning water to wine was to simply prove to you that anyone can turn water into wine. It doesn’t make them gods or supernatural. And that there is no gullibility there if you believe people can turn water to wine. Once again, a smarter person would have gotten that. Instead you took it like a simpleton. Betraying your perception of the world.
            When it comes to science nothing doesn’t mean no-thing. But a smarter guy will know that. ‘NOTHING’ in your repertoire doesn’t mean no-thing to a quantum physicists or the rest. So the fault is yours for assuming nothing means ‘no-thing’ in science. Hope that simpler and clearer? Or do I need to type slower?

        • Also popped out of nothing is simple to explain. You can argue that computers popped out of nothing if your time line starts at the beginning of man.

          Reply
          • i don’t think you understand what he meant by “Popping out of nothing” as been used in this discussion.. Your analogy is way off..

          • I do understand. He means absolute “nothing-ness”. No particles, no waves etc. But that is his problem. Scientists don’t say that.

        • You also have a straw man in your premise. Scientists don’t mean nothing as in no-thing. It is the believers who usually attribute the “universe out of nothing” meme to scientists. The irony is that for those of you who believe in a creator the same a”creator out of nothing” argument can be made against you.

          Reply
          • Stop making a fool of yourself. If by “nothing” you mean “something”, then why call it “nothing”. Don’t you get it? Who’s attacking a straw man here? Is it you or me?

          • You should heed your own words and stop making a fool out of yourself, . I asked you to define ‘nothing’. The ‘nothing’ of a mundane uneducated mind is different from the nothing of science/telescopes and radio waves. Go back and read your first posting which says “who believes the universe itself popped out of nothing.. “. Did Chris say that? Or you are just extrapolating that since he’s an atheist, that is his belief? That is your first straw man.
            You also ask for proof of universe being created out of nothing. Which as far as I know no one is claiming it to be the case. That is your other straw man.
            Now if you can define ‘NOTHING’ and stop attacking things no one said, we’ll make a headway.

      • See, I thought so. You always exhibit pseudo-intellectual behavior on here with no one to point out the gaps in your thinking or arguments. If you have any evidence of the universe coming into existence from nothing, the whole world (not just me) is waiting to see it. Then we can shame all the so called “credulous” religious people.

        On the other hand i’ll reiterate that if by “nothing”, you mean quantum vacuum, you are obviously dishonest because that isn’t nothing. You get those silly ideas from Lawrence Krauss as pointed out in my earlier response and if any body wants to know what i’m talking about, they can look up reviews of Lawrence Krauss’ “‎A Universe from Nothing”. no respectable scientist or intellectual would take the position you are taking.

        We are still waiting for the evidence, Sir.

        Reply
        • Even the computer you are using now didn’t just “pop” of somewhere…… it had a designer who created it, how much more a universe containing life of many diverse forms. Surely there was a grand Designer that made all this happen.

          Reply
          • What if i told you the computer was “created” out of nothing..
            What if i told you that everything is created out of nothing…

            People need to understand what nothing means before they embark on this discussion

          • What’s your definition of nothing because it seems your “nothing” means a lot of things…. enlighten us

      • I think your business/site has good potential… however your constant ramblings abt faith is quiet distracting and taxes your credibility. Focus on celebrities; I believe that to be good niche you’ve found. You are not enlightening anyone as the debate on faith has been going on since the beginning of times and will go on well after we’re gone. stick to what you do well.

        Reply
        • If we publish about 15 articles a day and 1 or 2 is on faith and you have a problem with that, then I am sure you are on the wrong website—or you are reading from the wrong group of persons.

          I define what I do well…LOL and if you don’t find the debate interesting, you can as well stick to the usual celebrity gossip and enjoy that ( I don’t think we’ve stopped serving that).

          As you can see, there are many others who love to talk about faith and discuss such things, with most of our faith articles getting the most views. The question is; why are most people reading what you say they don’t like?

          Why did you even read it yourself? Why didn’t you comment on the Menaye Donkor or the Jackie article out there? I wouldn’t stop writing about religion or faith or anything I feel like—same way I have not stopped you reading things of your choice or prevented you from talking about what you like.

          it’s a free world, allow people to write what they want to write about and you decide to read what you want to read. Does that make a lot of sense to you?

          And before you jump, I am the last person to be bothered about credibility (which mostly translates as what people think or their opinion about me). I won’t read a person who does not have a credibility because that will be a waste of my precious time and the fact that millions are reading us indicate that, we do have a credibility to such people—even if not to you or some others…

          That is life, you can’t please everyone and I don’t intend to—rather I intend to please myself first by discussing what I feel like… 🙂

          Reply
    • Yes the universe was “created” or “popped” out of nothing(no-thing)..The problem is that most of the masses(people) do not understand what nothing( No-thing) really means…

      God exists and exists not. it is all based on perception..

      P/s ..And yes it is possible as well to turn water into wine..

      Reply
  2. Oh well, i guess none of GC moderators are at their desks since my comments with references just as Chris’s won’t be approved. So much for free speech and human rights.

    Reply
  3. Yes the universe was “created” or “popped” out of nothing(no-thing)..The problem is that most of the masses(people) do not understand what nothing( No-thing) really means…

    God exists and exists not. it is all based on perception..

    P/s ..And yes it is possible as well to turn water into wine..

    Reply
  4. everything that exists at it core came out of nothing.. That is the reality..we are all always creating out of nothing…

    Reply
  5. “God” “created” the universe out of nothing.. Thats the reality. God is nothing. Thats the ultimate reality.

    The problem is that theist and atheist are both gullible and ignorants to see that they are all saying, seeing the same things but in different ways… You are all stuck deep in the illusions

    Reply
    • Ok we are ignorants why? because you said so? and what makes you think you’re right my Dear God is not nothing he is spirit you people are too carnal you cannot understand.

      Reply
      • perhaps you lack the understanding of ignorance. it is not an insult(it appears you took it that way).. it simply means lack of information or knowledge..if you dont have knowledge of something then yes one is deemed to be ignorant of that thing..

        To be ignorant is to sin..it is to miss the mark..to sin is to miss the mark.. yE are sinners and have fallen short of the glory of “God”…

        back to your point.. it is not a matter of right or wrong..it is a matter of truth/reason/logic/common sense..

        understand things before you utter them. dont just repeat stuff/hogwash you have been told by the gods(pastors, priests etc) of your world..

        understand what both spirit and nothing really means before you utter them…What is spirit?

        what if i told you what you what you call spirit and nothing are one and the same…

        spirit simply means energy..spirit is to religion as energy is to Science. they are the same thing.. They are both no-thing..

        if you can wrap your mind around this then perphaps we can have a discussion. if not then im afraid you are not ready for this discussion

        Reply
        • My dear nothing means neant,empty,no energy,no flesh,no bones nothing it’s not possible you need to think about your definition of nothing,by paying attention to nature around you physical nature abhors a vacuum,you can’t us the word nothing to talk about humanity creation that is craziness and please stay humble you’re not more intelligent than anybody here ok,calling energies,spirit nothing just to attract people attention.You don’t even know what you’re talking about,go back to school and learn what is nothing.

          Reply
          • You are silly really ..Parroting that nothing means neant, empty etc is the same as saying an automobile means a car , a vehicle etc..

            You ended up where you started.. Nothing ..
            It seems the topic is over your head and I dint like to waste my time lately so I will make it simple for you..

            In laymen terms NOTHING simply means something with no properties…There you have it.
            Now use this simple definition and plug it in the discourse at hand and perhaps you will be enlightened as to what we are debating about..

  6. Chris you still have a lot to learn. Yes religion is a cancer and humanity still have long way to go in awakening off their silly illusions(ignorance) and beliefs but you are going about it the wrong way.

    You are doing the same things you accuse religious folks of doing. ie intolerance and condemnation..

    if you think condemanttion, insults and i am better than you alltitude (becuase of your higher level of perception )is going to change these religious folks to reason and see things your way then im afraid you lost before you started brother..

    Your way of seeing ultimate reality might be “better” but you are not going to “save” the stupid/ignorant/sinner from his foolish ways if you think the solution is to condemn and mock/insult. The redeemer bringeth forth salvation and peace not condenmation, suffering and hell.. Think Jesus(Yashua) or whatever you want to call him..

    Attacking others beliefs is not going to make them change their beliefs. Most people beliefs are as a result of their understanding or lack of.. ones level of awareness/perception/intelligence determines what they believe in..

    Yet a higher perception does not denotes “better” than. it simply means higher. One who is on a plane above you is not better than you..They are just above ground and as such has a higher level of perception. doesn’t mean they are better and as such deserves to condemn or ridicule you.

    it is okay to bring/point out the fallacies in religion( and believe me there are many) and the silly/ignorant belief in a Supreme Deity but youre going about it the “wrong” way..

    Higher intelligence or intelligence denotes power and with power comes great responsibility to save the sinners/ignorants(those of lower intelligence) into a higher level of consciousness..

    Intelligence or wisdom does not condemn but makes better.. Don’t think you are saving or making anything/anyone better by condemnation or ridiculing..

    I dont know if you realized but most of your readers resent and despise you the more and more you write to ridicule their beliefs..

    let me end here

    Reply
  7. These are all true statements..

    1.Nothing exists (its hard for most to wrap their minds around this statement)
    2.something exists
    3.both something and nothing exists
    4.”God/Energy/Consiciouness is something and nothing..
    5.God/Energy is spirit
    6.God/Energy is all there is

    People that wants to have the God/universe debate have to atleast grasp these basic stuff first..

    Reply
  8. You must not have read what i posted because all what you’re saying is answered there!

    Read specifically that of Professor Lennox of Oxford for answers to that.

    Vilenkin is simply saying what others before him have said, which is that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing”> but that is hardly evidence. In fact, no scientist takes that as evidence, Its just a mere assumption.

    Having a mathematical equation that can accurately measure distance between two planets is hardly evidence of why the planets exist or even how they came to exist.

    Reply
  9. @disqus_iZNPWdE50U:disqus i have three questions for you… i want to see where you are with this discussiion

    1.Do you believe in God? if you do,do you believe that there is only one God and no one else?
    2. Do you posit/beleive God created the universe out of something or nothing?
    3. If She created out of something, then from What?

    Reply
    • 1. I do believe in God, and only one God.
      2. Yes i do believe that He created the universe out of nothing.
      3. From my second answer, you can deduce there is no answer for your third question
      There is a huge difference between my stance and that of the other side. Which i will be glad to discuss.

      Reply
      • Who created God? I need evidence as you’ve asked above. None of your faith hogwash. If you want proof that the universe didn’t come out of nothing, the let ask the same of your creator. Who created him?

        Reply
        • Man, you just won’t die, huh. I will prove your foolishness to you and i will never ever engage in a dialogue with you ever again. The “who created the creator” or “who designed the designer” argument is philosophically the weakest. Since i can’t put a link here i will take my time and type things out for you.

          In order to recognize that an explanation is the best, you don’t have to have an explanation for the explanation. For example, If you woke up to a bowl of fufu on your dining table, you immediately know that someone prepared it and placed it on your table. If you asked your room mates or siblings or whatever, they may come to the same conclusion. But what you cannot ask them is that “how did the person who placed the food there come into existence?”. Do you not think that is a foolish question?

          Even if they gave you an explanation of where she came from, then, I, the third person will be equally justified in asking for an explanation of their explanation, creating what is called an infinite regress. What you fail to recognize in all your folly is that the explanation of the explanation of the explanation ad infinitum is not relevant to the initial situation of the food actually being placed there by someone.

          This should satisfy your amateurish philosophical arguments on who designed the designer.

          Also you may want to know your basic philosophy of first principles. One of them is the principle of causality. When you understand that principle, then one can hope that you will begin to understand why anyone believes an eternally existing being outside space-time is capable of creating space-time but cannot believe that space time can create itself from nothing.

          This education was a one-time free of charge deal. No more of those. You pay me, I school you from now on.

          Reply
          • This has turned into a whole different discussion but the question of who created the designer is philosophically valid. If you wouldn’t accept that the Universe can pop up out of ‘nothing’ (I note you are struggling with the cosmological concept of nothing ), why should anyone accept that a designer also popped out of nothing to design anything? Of course, that is not a valid argument—in philosophy.

            For an argument to be valid, the conclusion must follow a defined premise; you can’t vary the premise when you want to suit your conclusion.

            Now, back to the idea of evidence/proof, I asked you what do you mean by evidence or proof, after I have defined what is accepted as proof or evidence in any intelligent discourse.

            If that is the proof you want, then a valid argument amounts to such a proof—and a stable mathematical equation should fall within a valid argument (a certain premise and a conclusion).

          • First of all, your so called “cosmological nothing” is perfectly understood but you refuse to accept that you will be misleading the average person by telling them the universe creates itself from nothing. Will you go ahead and tell them that what you claim to be nothing is actually “something”?

            Speaking of difficulty, you have not responded to any of the arguments in the links i provided, you know. You’ve said nothing about David Albert’s rejection of your “Cosmological nothing”. You totally ignored your own Jerry Coyne’s opinion on the situation and every other post i put up there, while on the other hand i have addressed everything you’ve claimed directly.]

            Also you pointed out “For an argument to be valid, the conclusion must follow a defined premise; you can’t vary the premise when you want to suit your conclusion.”

            To that i say you lack understanding of basic philosophy too. Stick with your so called Law. My premises of causality (Kalam Cosmological argument) were

            Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
            The universe began to exist.
            Therefore, the universe has a cause.

            From that, your claims of who created the creator are non-sequitir. The have no bearing what so ever on the argument and certainly do not follow from that.

            but answering that, i’ll copy and paste a response from one of your fellow atheists. “It is similar to asking such an inane question as what’s the beginning of the beginning, or the end of the end based in a refusal to accept the finality of what is. When you get to the Supreme Being, the Cause of causes there is nothing more to add, that is the very definition of what we are speaking of and looking for and which is also required logically for any rational system. There must be something so defined, which contains all the inherent properties to be so defined by necessity according to natural and material philosophy and science, not to mention theology.

            Only something OUTSIDE of ‘the natural’ or the universe could be the first cause of it. And that is what we call God, a maximally great being. That which is the beginning in itself, self sufficient and self existent must be naturally excellent for those same reasons and such a entity which must be arrived at logically in any system, puts an end to the search for causes. For everything in the universe must have a cause including that which is mentioned as self caused but the difference is one is self caused and self existent and sufficient the others are not. We know of those that are not by experience materially according to laws but we only know of the hidden and more subtle one through the light of intellect which discovers it logically and reasonably just as mathematics are discovered. Therefore one is not smart to ask what is the cause of the Final cause or one is undisciplined and immature and flippant”.

          • Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
            The universe began to exist.
            Therefore, the universe has a cause.
            Define the cause.
            This cosmological argument also stops short of defining the cause. Then concorts a theory about something that is uncaused, exists beyond space and time etc. Why don’t they just call this being big kahuna? And if this being exists what is its relationship to their moribund religion? The faith based line of thinking usually ends because it is not sustainable. Lets take this example from the bible
            Theist: Jonah was swallowed by a whale.
            Atheist: What type of whale? There are several.
            Theist: God said a whale. Don’t ask what type of whale because you are being stupid, immature and flippant.
            End of discussion.
            Such is the new found tactic of those of faith when it comes to dealing with this issue.
            If the universe has a cause, then the cause should also have a cause. If you can’t answer that. Then don’t start that line. Just say I am ignorant and don’t know.

          • maybe we should all have this discussion as well..

            If the un-caused cause is infinite then there is no need to define it. You cant define, bound or measure infinity.. The uncaused cause doesnt have to have a cause. it simply is.

            The problem arises when people view the uncaused cause as finite. then the question becomes valid..

            Also does “nothing” has a cause. i dont think so..does nothing exist? yes

          • Also let me add that if the uncaused cause is infinite which is true.. then anything that has a beginning and an end(time, space etc) is therefore an illusion..

          • “Also does “nothing” has a cause. i don’t think so..does nothing exist? yes”
            Doesn’t that defeat the case that anything that exist has a cause? If nothing exists?

          • that was in effect my question or statement to you.. if nothing exist? which it does, then your statement that “anything that exists has a cause is not “true”…do you agree?

            i see your confusion though, my statement “if nothing exist” is not the same as “if nothing does not exist”.. i meant it as in if nothing exists, then that “something” which we are calling “nothing” exists..

            i will understand if it confuses you. most people do not get it..

          • If nothing exist does it become anything? Are you trying to say nothing exists and doesn’t have a cause? We are not going in circles here. Ok. Let me re-state my question. Doesn’t that defeat the case that anything/”nothing that exist” has a cause?

          • let me put it another way perhaps you will understand better..
            what i am saying is that it is false to claim that anything(both something and nothing) that exists(keyword is “anything”) has a cause. unless you want to claim that nothing(which is part of anything) has a cause..

            it is something that has a cause, not nothing. it is the something that has a beginning, not nothing. The nothing is infinite and thus has no end nor beginning. unless of course you think otherwise..

            Think energy( first law of thermodynamics).. Energy simply is..but matter on the other hand has a beginning and an end..

            perhaps you have to define what you mean by “exist”

          • If someone will be misled by the idea of cosmological nothing, then that surely is not my cup of tea—is it? That is by the way. Surely we are talking about the cosmos, and therefore the reference of nothing should be that which falls within that discipline.

            On a layman point of view, nothing can mean a lot—I can open my hand and say there is nothing in there; when in fact, there is a lot in there; isn’t it? So for any sort of intelligent discussion, we need rules and defined grounds–some relative idea of nothing wouldn’t work and that is why I don’t think we need to point it out to anyone that we are talking about a cosmological nothing…

            Now, your argument of everything that began to exist must have a creator blah blah is a typical Dr. William Craig pill—and I have heard it over and over again from sophisticated theists.

            But this is the sort of nonsense that comes from it; granted even this holds, that does not mean a prayer answering God created the universe—or there was a DESIGNER (well thought of design).

            It creates infinite regress to keep asking who created the designer—and that is why most do not want to consider it as a valid question but since you cannot show even with a simple equation that the designer did not also have a beginning and as such he is exempted from this same logic, why should anyone accept that of him? Of course, we should because you have placed him so.

            You wanted proof/evidence that the universe popped out of nothing (here, cosmological nothing), intellectually meaning, the plausibility of this happening—and I have provided you with a plausible mathematical equation (which should measure as proof or evidence) that this ‘probably’ happened. Unless you are able to provide a contrary proof or evidence (and I have already defined evidence/proof), surely, my position is the plausible world view on this subject…

            ***I have not responded to those link because those are arguments made by different people, pretty long and if you want them answered, summarize them in your words or present them as such, taking into consideration that, the site needs to run while we maintain this discussion too***

          • Someone cleverly said to that article on the link your provided this “But you are missing the prime motivation for the “God did it” explanation: The explanation itself, which you admit fails in all other respects, lacks evidentiality, etc. is based solely on the proposition that complexity needs a designer. The atheist is not raising some general requirement for good explanations, he is pointing out the self-defeat in this theistic explanation.”

          • School me? You are having a laugh! Your selective application of ‘everything has creator’ is what makes you a joke. You can’t use that logic to bash scientist and then draw the curtain on the origins of the creator. The problem with your theory is you cannot defend it that’s why you have exceptions. You cannot call that a theory when there are holes in them. Face it you don’t know the origins of the universe and existence. You are just trying to make sense of it all. But that journey starts with humility and admission that you are ignorant. Not righteous lies and big whoppers. Your belief in your absolute knowledge of the origins of the world is what leaves you twisted like a pretzel. Your ego is the reason you can’t face that fact. The fact that you are ignorant of what or who the universe is. Unlike your absolute stands, science is not absolute and it will continue to discover new things that will prove the theory. You on the other hand will be stuck with ‘all swans are white’ dilemma.
            Educate me? You are too twisted to know which hole you are speaking out of. I am certain is not the one make for speaking. LOL. You can’t school a god!

          • The AD HOMINEM charge is like the ‘you hurt my feelings’ trope in this case. Can’t defend your theory? Scream ‘you hurt my feelings’ and hope the person becomes sympathetic. Sorry man! You brought it on yourself. You can’t pick an choose how to apply the theory you are defending. Then again people of faith are selective literalists. Sorry. Carry on with your twisted logic! A being outside space and time created the earth from ‘NOTHING’. Yet you are arguing that space and time could not have created the universe out of nothing. Genius!!

      • Created the universe out of nothing. That is your belief and you dare question the scientific realm that has proven the existence of so many things the human mind couldn’t perceive? I see. You are a simple simon. Nothing deep. Water is water. Anybody that say’s it two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen should provide a proof. While you don’t have to prove anything. Great way to be!!

        Reply
      • The universe was created out of nothing. You disagree. Yet you agree on an unknown creator creating it out of nothing. Put those two beside each other and see who is the genius here. Your statement has two big unknowns. While science has at least only one to contend with. That is the huge difference. However you prefer the one with two unknowns because you have another unmeasurable attribute called faith. Now who is the gullible one?

        Reply
      • ok good a few more questions.. lets discuss..
        1. do you believe and i agree that in the beginning, before “creation” nothing else existed but this one God?

        2. What does “nothing” mean to you? and can you expatiate on what you mean by “created the universe out of “nothing”..

        3.And if you believe he created from nothing. was this nothing that God created the universe from, always existed with God prior to “creation”?

        P/s I think we got ourselves a long discourse ahead so i want to establish certain things before we proceed. And sorry for the delay in replying i had to take care of something

        Reply
        • I haven’t had any sleep in 48 hrs and was getting ready to sleep when i posted my first comment and hence the “good night” at the end of it. i have no energy left so can we have this discourse tomorrow?

          Reply
          • I told you no more free schooling for you. i see you got wiser and backed off your “who designed the designer” stupidity. i also see you stayed up all night doing some research to come back. And why did you get so upset about egos and arrogance and all that yesterday? you went from loud mouth to meek lamb in a nanosecond. I just HATE when you folks beat down on other folks for having hope in life when yours is a sad existence(i don’t need to expand on that. That’s another assignment for you). Obviously I could be a religious person and if i am, i don’t think even you believe that my thinking is mediocre (judging from the virtual flogging you received yesterday). So quit being a freaking bully on the internet. Open your mind and freaking read. Don’t argue on things you don’t know jack about. These are my two cents. Take it or leave it.

          • Schooling? Like I said you are a lightweight. You cannot school a god. You are taking again from a hole not made for speaking. I see your problem. You have a huge ego and that coupled with your ignorance is what accounts for your arrogance and your inane point of view. You have gotten away with that so far because nobody dared to call you up on it. Even my dog can make those statements. Why? Because he wouldn’t need to back it up with facts.
            Flogging? Only in your hollow, tumbleweed filled head is that even true. Then again you are a man of fantasy not facts. You make things up. As far as you little brain is concern you are a king. No facts needed.
            Can’t support your facts? Claim victory and go home. Well that will work in your little playground where you are the king. Not in my world.
            Did you say open my mind? LOL. Look who is talking? The village ‘genius’ who still believe the earth is flat.
            If you were capable of formulating ideas on your own, I will take you seriously. But you are just a parrot repeating what you’ve heard. That’s why you can’t defend any of your so called views. Heed your own words and stop pretending you know jack about what you are talking about. Monkeys may attribute rainfall to gods with sprinklers. It doesn’t make it true. And no amount of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling ‘LALALALALA’ will make it true.
            The rest of your fantasies don’t even deserve any comments. Just like the fantasy that a timeless, immutable being beyond space and time with all the power capable of creating the universe out of nothing couldn’t create a perfect world. And is a bastard without an origin.
            A simple I don’t know would have sufficed. But that is not the style of an egomaniac who still think he matters even from the edge of the universe.
            That’s my two cents. Take it or leave it!.

          • I also told you, you cannot school a god. Your delusions is what makes you think there is sense in what you’re positing. You are afflicted with the a complex mix of hyper-ego, hyper-ignorance , arrogance mixed with tons of fantasy. Your positions are not of your own, starting with your religion(And I don’t need to expand on that). And absolutely yes. Your thinking is mediocre.
            The argument you are making comes for a mediocre and simplistic mind. Any beast can make that argument. Who eat my homework? God did it. Who created the fufu of the table? God did it. Now that in itself is retarded. But you go further by attributing human characteristics to something that is according to your mind outside of space and time. That of creation.
            And you don’t see the fallacy in that?
            LOL. Schooling? You need one. You are not schooling anyone.

          • You are an everyday genius full of hot air and beans. A flat-earther who is full of it. No original thought and that includes your religion. I have more brains in my toenail that you have in your head. Now before you go charging that toenails have no brains,let me state that it is an expression. It means you are dumb. And by you own words, god did it.

          • You keep proving my point, son. You are incapable of simple comprehension. Why in the world did I venture philosophy with you? I never even said I’m religious! I could be, but I never said that. I said here that I’m a theist! You’re unworthy of my attention.

            Also I see how you got schooled on the logic in the other post. Go home looser. You’re full of punch lines with no substance I think you should be a rapper

          • Philosophy of what? Nonsense? Did you google that word theist? Pathetic! Comprehension? So says the person whose world is devoid of metaphors and nuances. Sorry, you are talking out of your butt hole.
            Got schooled? Me? How so? When I answered the puzzle and some. I considered every possible angle for that vague puzzle.
            Look, you are not deep. You are shallow and transparent. A simpleton. No wonder you wrap yourself in simplistic nonsense. A country scholar. Now go crawl back into your cave where you are considered intelligent. This is the real world where we don’t think in one dimension.
            You will be a better rapper since all you know is to string a series of nonsense together and pretend you are making sense.
            Let me repeat this. You cannot school a god.

          • PS: This is not the ghetto and I am not your son. Your street lingo doesn’t fly in my word. Neither is your moribund train of thought. Not sod off!!

          • Obviously you don’t even understand how the internet works. Did you consider the possibility that i’m your actual father?

          • But gods don’t have causes or fathers according to you. See how stupid you are? Pathetic twart!

          • Haha If i were GC, i’d intervene to stop you from making a fool of yourself any further.
            I believe in a GOD, not gods, and you certainly ain’t Him. So you must be a poser. Like Zeus, or Horus . They had fathers.

          • Now begging GC to stop me? LOL!! What a common trait for a believer. Can stand the heat? Kill the ‘heretics’ , ban and burn the books. Typical. I know your lot.

          • You win sir. you have proven me wrong. the universe really was created out of nothing. I am a sad and delusional third-worlder who’s holding on so some myth of God’s existence. You’ve enlightened me. Thank you.

          • Unlike you I know how the internet works. I make my living designing systems and modules for the internet. You on the other hand believe the earth is flat and there is a being sitting in a throne. Thank gaia the world never paid attention to your lot. We will still be using chisel and hammer to type out our letters.

          • Oh yeah? And how do i make my living? As a theoretical physicist and science philosopher. By your logic, you aren’t even qualified to engage me on this topic.

          • In your dreams. All you are is a lowly Ghanaian who does shift work in some factory. Keep dreaming. Theoretical physicist and science philosopher? Bull crap. Think you are confusing big bang theory with your pathetic reality.

          • yeah you are what you say you are but i’m not what i say i am? Haha! Come back down to earth! You know what, you win. You won it all. I’m a lowlife living in a slum somewhere in Ghana who is not even educated enough to engage you. i will crawl back into my hole. Enjoy your life.

  10. People at this moment there really is no reason to argue or even try to justify the reason you are a christian. This universe is too complex to just pop out of nowhere. If there are times that you find yourselves doubting the existence of God, ponder on this, if what the bible says is actually true and you believe in it, once you die, what have you lost, maybe a lifetime of worldly fun but you’ve gained eternity. If what the bible says is false, those who dont believe have lost eternity.

    Reply
  11. Wow Chris Wants to be a Pastor Now. We thank God. It’s a good idea that you can even consider becoming a pastor or starting a church. I would However suggest you study Pastoral Ethics of ministry along the way and behave contrary to what the scriptures says.

    Reply
  12. Chris wants to be a Pastor Now. Wooow. We thank God. By the way learn good ministerial ethics and stay away from malpractices as the bible admonishes us and you would be an excellent pastor. I would consider visiting ur church one day.

    Reply
  13. What’s with the attack on Christianity. It’s fine if you are an unbeliever, but to go about making claims of it not being real is pure rubbish. Just as you are allowed to believe in whatever you believe, I too am allowed to believe that there is a God who created Heaven and the universe.

    Reply
  14. I think a big point that many people who try to prove or disprove God forget is that those who believe in God are believers. At least for me, i am not trying to scientifically justify the existence of God. It is simply my belief that God exists. Like how it is simply many people’s belief that a person they believe to be good is good but they can never truly prove that the person is and always will be good. If you want prove or disprove that God exist or does not exist, it is up to you atheist folks who want scientific reasoning for everything to prove it. It is not up to believers to prove because we simply believe.

    Frankly, i don’t think that the idea of God is something that can be proven or disproved. The believes about God is too numerous and forever evolving so that even if you disprove some point about God some exception springs up. God is like humans, he is not an easily defined being. Humans are so complex, always changing and full of so many emotions and ideas, etc that you can never fully understand a human being. In the same way, you can never truly prove or disprove existence of God you can only choose to belief that he exists or that he does not.

    Reply
    • Are you saying the concept of God is not an intellectual subject, because in the world of intelligence, we deal with “proves and disproves”. You make assertions that God is not like humans, he is not an easily defined being blah blah—how do you know all this? It’s sounds to me you have just gotten up from bed and after having drunk some wine—-you are saying all you want and we should accept it, right? That is what any intelligent person will think because you cannot provide a proof for what you are saying which means it wouldn’t therefore hold in the rim of intellectual discussion.

      What you see being done here shows that, the FAITH argument (believe without evidence) is not for intellectuals any more and it has died with time. That is some bronze age concept no one takes serious any more. No one believes in God just by faith, at least not in any intellectual setting; so if anyone wants to claim there is a God in the camp of reasonable heads, he or she ought to provide evidence or some sort of valid proof. else the person is talking gibberish.

      If I wake up to tell you that, the flying spaghetti monster exists and created the universe and I really have faith this is true, should that be accepted? That may sound pure nonsense to any intellectual, same way the idea founded solely on faith that a God exists and created the universe sounds. Therefore, whoever makes a claim, has the burden of proof—else, the default position is; the claim is false.

      Now you understand why the God evidence is so important in the world of reasonable beings? I am sorry to say this but you seem to belong to the bronze age; believe in God without evidence (the faith days). We are past that sweetie 😉

      Reply
      • As i said, as a believer, i am not trying to scientifically prove the existence or non-existence of God to anyone because it is simply a belief. The dictionary defines belief as:” confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof” and ” confidence; faith; trust”. God’s existence is a belief and as such, it requires no prove on my part.
        On the other hand, it seems that atheist scientifically contend that God does not exist so the burden of proof falls on them( as i previously stated this is hardly verifiable). If atheists just “believed” that God does not exist, then they also would not have to prove the non-existence of God as it is a belief. Now if the non-existence of God is a belief, then basically we have two types of people, with respect to religion, on this earth: people who believe that God exist and people who believe that God does not exist.

        Also, i am not saying that the concept of God is not an intellectual subject rather that it is a concept that is beyond human logic.

        Reply
        • What you need to understand is that every reasonable belief
          is held on grounds—and unless there is a valid reason or evidence for a belief, that belief is pretty useless, absurd or is/should not be taken serious. So if your belief in relation to God is held in vacuum, on no grounds of reason, evidence or proof, then it falls within the absurd beliefs; it’s nothing better than someone believing in the Zeus God, the Thor God or believing that HIV is caused by witches.

          Example is, I believe you are a woman—this is a belief and
          I have grounds or reasons for believing so which is, your username is assigned to women in the Ghanaian culture—and based on that, I hold that belief. Of course, I may be wrong but at least for my belief to given any sort of credibility, it must be founded on reason or evidence or something credible.

          Here, you are saying, you believe in God in the vacuum and you don’t need to show why you believe he exists—pretty absurd and you can go about with that but no reasonable person will accept that else, everyone will wake
          up and believe in whatever and expect us to take that belief serious.

          Again, you seem not to understand both the principle and placement of burden of proof—and atheism. Now, I know people may be laughing at you but let me teach you this. A person who makes a claim has the burden of proof—so you saying, there is a God is a claim, the other person who is rejecting the claim (me saying there is no God or it’s highly probable there is no God) do not hold the burden of proof. This is very basic and that is why you have not seen any of the people above spending time to debate that…So if you want to join the adult table, make sure you understand the common principles or rules of engagement.

          Also, you have a wrong understanding of atheism—atheists
          are not making any claim where they will be needed to hold any burden of proof. Atheism is the statement that a
          certain preposition is not TRUE, and in this case, the God exists preposition. So atheist rejects the God claim for absence of evidence, reason or valid argument for it.

          And you saying God is beyond human logic is another claim you are making, for us to take this claim serious or accept that God is beyond human logic; you have to prove this to us—or provide a valid argument as to why you are saying so. Else, I take it as you saying whatever you want and every reasonable person will do so.

          Now, Have a Good day and for me to respond to you again, you must make sure you know the basic rules of engagement first being launching into the main debate 🙂

          Reply
          • Even though you disagree to the claim that God exists, you make your own new claim that God does not exist so you will need to prove this new claim. Claiming that God does not exist is a claim in on itself so you would have to prove your claim. If you can’t prove it either, then basically what we have are two claim both of which have not been proven. Since both have not been proven, we really do not know which one is true and so you choose to belief whichever one you want or to not belief either. I have chosen to belief based on the bible, Jesus Christ(has been proven to have existed) and his words.
            Basically i am choosing to believe in the words of Jesus Christ and i suppose that you are not. My main point is that religion is based on believes and as such it’s not really something that can be subjected to rigorous proves. They are things in this world that cannot be proven and mind you most scientific things that we take to be true are just theories. Theories are not proves rather basically what we know to be true at the moment that is why they are always changing. Before we all thought Newton’s Law applied to everything but it doesn’t. It applies to mechanics but not to special relativity.
            I digress but basically, as the idea of God is complex and infinite, it cannot really be proved or disproved. Believers accept this and as such believe in the existence of God. Now if you can prove that God does not exist more power to you. If not, who you are right now is someone who just believes in the non-existence of God.
            Take it or leave it.

          • You should read this post and know that even the brightest among the scientists shares your beliefs
            He addresses those issues from the second question on.

            replace the spaces with dots

            http://blogs scientificamerican com/cross-check/2014/07/22/physicist-george-ellis-knocks-physicists-for-knocking-philosophy-free-will/

  15. Oh my word I can’t believe I have sat down and read every single comment on this article. And they are all bonkers, I bet some of these readers feed on crake cocaine before hitting the keys. You all need to take a chill pill. Because nobody in their right mind will want to waste their time debating about something they don’t have a clue about. And mind you Chris always want to win the argument. So don’t bother expressing your views here. I love his work though.

    Reply
  16. Eventually there’s a brother who has the notion
    to hit it point blank. Unfortunately superstition is the sickness of Africans. My
    philosophy is, if you believe in something that you do not understand you
    suffer… thanks brother Chris have a nice day.

    Reply
    • You never got around to answering my questions. We all could have learnt a thing or two. I wanted to know your bases in believing in a God( a supreme being if you did)

      Reply
      • I wan to discuss these things only when we are both trying to learn. When you asked me those questions, i thought “Ok maybe we can have a discussion here”. And then all of a sudden, someone pulls up calling my beliefs “religious hogwash”. People like that are a turn off. I only talk back to them in a way to show that it’s very despicable to argue that religious people are hoi polloi(in its strictest form). I can’t have an intellectual discourse with people like that. Thus people who refuse to even acknowledge that many of the most instrumental scientists were and are religious people. If any so called intellectual believes that George Ellis and Francis Collins are lunatics, i don’t see us agreeing on anything and that even includes agreeing to disagree. That being said, you have been very respectful of other people’s beliefs and therefore i’m open to having discussions with you.

        Reply

Leave a Reply