NewStats: 3,265,214 , 8,186,028 topics. Date: Friday, 13 June 2025 at 09:53 PM 6t7059

Tenisam:


Buhari backed Osinbajo if not he won't put in to contest primary. But Tinubu influence is over the bar, I'm sure you could recollect how many people stepped down for him.

Are you drunk? It was all about money and clout, and you think if Buhari had thrown his clout and FG money behind Osonbajo, Tinubu would have come close?? Plus Osinbajo was actually more popular

KennethOkonkwo:

He never begged Buhari not to back osinbajo.

Luck is a basic thing life.
Even you yourself,you are just lucky to be posting on nairaland.sitesunblocked.org today.you could have been dead .

Well, what I mean is, a better politician would not have put himself in that position, and would not have also lost Lagos and Abuja

richiemcgold:
I can still recollect how Tinubu was really sidelined during Buhari's era. Man was totally schemed out and he almost lost political relevance. Some people even predicted he was on his way out of APC to SDP. But here he is today, he is the president of the federal republic of Nigeria. This is a big lesson for those who care to learn from others.

What is there to learn? The only thing to learn is, be lucky. He was lucky Buhari didn't want to back Osinbajo. That's all

Does OP know what "manifest" means?
Illiteracy

JimRohn:
Your sarcastic reply, while emotionally charged and full of giggles, is intellectually hollow. You’ve resorted to cheap mockery because you clearly lack the philosophical depth to engage with metaphysical concepts beyond Reddit-level materialism. Since you chose to abandon reason for emojis, allow me to drag your arguments out of clown world and back into rational discourse — point by point.

1. “Why can God be eternal but the simulators can’t?”

Because eternal in theology refers to necessary, uncaused, absolute being — not “advanced aliens in a basement” playing Minecraft with the cosmos.

Your simulators, by definition, are contingent beings: limited, imperfect, and existing within some higher system of laws, time, and causality. If they can make mistakes, then they are not absolute. If they began to exist, they had a cause. If they depend on any framework to exist or operate, then they are not necessary beings.

> You confuse high technology with divinity — an error of both logic and theology. Just because something can manipulate a simulation doesn’t mean it explains why existence exists at all.

2. “Necessary being — Why?”

Because the alternative is philosophical absurdity. Either:

There is an infinite regress of causes — which is impossible since actual infinites cannot be traversed in real time (cosmological argument).

Or there is a first, uncaused cause — a necessary being that grounds existence itself.

That’s not “Islamic assertion” — that’s Aristotelian metaphysics, affirmed by Muslim, Christian, and even some secular philosophers. If you can’t understand the distinction between contingent and necessary existence, you have no business discussing cosmology or theology.

3. “Why can’t the simulators have those qualities?”

Because you just itted they’re flawed and capable of making mistakes. That alone disqualifies them from being necessary, eternal, self-sufficient, and perfect.

> You want to pretend imperfection is divine just so you can keep worshipping your fictional simulators. That’s not reasoning — that’s desperation.

4. “No before or after? That’s ridiculous.”

You’re projecting your linear temporal bias onto a being outside of time. It’s not “nonsense,” it’s standard in philosophy of time and accepted even in modern physics. Time is a created dimension — it began with the universe. Asking “what was God doing before creation” is like asking “what’s north of the North Pole.”

> If you’re confused by a God who exists timelessly, your problem is with basic metaphysics, not Islam.

5. “God’s will vs. the existence of the universe”

God’s eternal will doesn’t mean the universe is eternal. It means God always willed to create at a specific point in temporal creation. The execution of the will is temporal; the intention is eternal. This has been answered for over a thousand years. Try reading more than Reddit atheist forums.

6. “Why allow evil?”

Because evil is part of a larger framework of trial, free will, and ultimate justice. It’s not that evil had to happen — it’s that God allowed it as part of a test with an eternal outcome.

> You demand a utopia in dunya — but God has decreed al-Akhirah as the place of eternal reward and justice.

Your model offers no justice, no purpose, no ability, and no answer to evil except “oops, simulator glitch.” That’s not a solution — that’s moral nihilism.

7–8. “Why is man imperfect? Is it his fault?”

God created man with free will, and that entails the ability to choose imperfection. That’s not a flaw — that’s the condition of moral agency. You want a perfect robot, not a moral being.

> If you can’t understand the difference between deterministic programming and responsible moral freedom, you’re in no position to critique divine justice.

9. “72 virgins and prayer rituals”

This is a tired, tabloid-level mockery that shows you’re not engaging with Islamic theology — just parroting YouTube propaganda.

Islam teaches:

Salvation is by faith, sincerity, good deeds, and divine mercy.

Rituals like prayer are for spiritual purification, discipline, and connecting to Allah — not “brownie points.”

And the “72 virgins” line is not even core theology — it’s a gross misrepresentation of hadith misunderstood by both Islamophobes and their cheerleaders.

> You reduce profound spiritual discipline to a meme because you cannot fathom transcendent worship — only physical utility.

10. “Where is your evidence? Philosophy isn’t evidence!”

You are drowning in epistemic confusion. Evidence isn’t just lab results — it includes rational necessity, logical coherence, moral insight, and experiential knowledge. Islam offers all four.

Your “simulation” model:

Offers no ontological grounding,

No metaphysical explanation,

No moral framework,

No hope of justice,

No first cause,

And no final purpose.

It’s not even a worldview. It’s a science fiction story you mistake for theology.

Final Slap of Reality:

Mockery doesn’t make arguments disappear.

Sarcasm is not a substitute for logic.

And sci-fi speculation does not dethrone the timeless truth of Tawḥīd.

> “Say: He is Allah, the One; Allah, the Self-Sufficient; He begets not, nor was He begotten; and there is none like unto Him.”
(Qur’an 112:1–4)

You can keep laughing. But the fact that your only weapon is emoji-tier sarcasm proves one thing: you’ve already lost the argument.

Now, bring your “next question” — if it’s as weak as the last, I’ll dismantle that one too.

Thanks for still responding despite my laughing at you. But put yourself in my position: when juxtaposed with real life who wouldn't find your words hilarious? But let's get one thing clear: my reasonings here are from ME, NOT YouTube or Reddit or Aristotie or anybody. And speaking of Aristotle (that you keep citing), all those philosophers, starting with Socrates the father of them all, came to the conclusion they knew nothing. Einstein rightly also came to the same conclusion. But you, with all due respect, our discussion here reminds me of the saying "... stupid people already have all the answers"

But your "evidence" is in what Aristotle said. Well, that's not evidence. The type of evidence I'm talking about is the type we have in Christianity - for thousands of years prophets said God was comming to stay with us. A great prophet came to announce his imminent comming and said he was there to prepare his way. When he finally came he said he was indeed the expexted God, did things God would do, and said his words would never away. Thousands of years later, he is proven right!

I started this discussion by defining who "you" is - this "you" that has all the answers. Just by size, "you" is infinitestimally too small to know anything. " You" only hears , sees, and perceives a microscopic amount of what's in his own dimension, talkless of possibly multiple other dimensions. "You" doesn't know where he is, why he's there, or even if he is really there at all!.

Now to dismantle your points one by one. (BTW let me say unequivocally, I am a Christian. My discussion of the simulation theory here is to show that it is actually more based in real-life observation than Islam).

1) How do you know you have free will? Where do your thoughts come from? How do you know you're not designed to THINK you have free will.

2) Why can’t the simulators br exactly like God, however you define him? In other words why couldn't God have created the universe by simulation? (My speculation about possible qualities of the simulators were just that - speculation)

3) You still haven't told us how and why "first cause" would suddenly start causing for no reason

4) Time did not start with the universe. Time started the moment there was any iota of change or movement. You can't have movement or change without time

5) "God's will" or no "God's will" the point is, creation started at a certain point by an intelligent being. Intelligent beings don't suddenly start creating for no reason and without some change

6) Your “Why allow evil?” thesis is nonsense. We've also shown it is likely you don't have free will

7) Your "Why is man imperfect? Is it his fault?” , we've already shown it is quite likely you don't have free will

8} In Islam you are rewarded by Allah (by going to heaven) for certain behaviours. Yet Allah doesn't care if you do those behaviors. Please make sense

9) No, philosophy isn’t evidence. Even philosophers rightly tell you they know nothing. Only ignorant people have all the answers. Evidence is what happened with Christ!

dibunotion:
Nairaland wants to turn us all to writers by force. Which one be 40 words before you go fit express yourself. I'm a man of few words
I tire for nairaland oo

40 like this: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

JimRohn:
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your engagement, though I must respectfully note that your response, while informal and sarcastic in tone, still falls short of providing a philosophically rigorous alternative to the Islamic conception of God. Allow me to address the key points you raised in a structured manner:

1. False Equivalence: “Who Created God vs. Who Created the Simulators”

You claimed that asking “who created the simulators” is equivalent to asking “who created God.” This is a category error.

In classical Islamic theology (and in classical theism more broadly), God is defined as a necessary being (wājib al-wujūd)—a being that exists by necessity and cannot not exist. He is not contingent, not limited by space, time, or cause. He is uncaused, eternal, and self-sufficient. Therefore, the question "Who created God?" is philosophically incoherent—it misunderstands the very definition of what God is.

On the other hand, the “simulators” you propose are, by your own ission, not perfect, not eternal, not immutable, and capable of making mistakes. This means they are contingent beings, subject to causality, time, and limitations—thus the question “Who created them?” is entirely appropriate and necessary. If they began to exist, they require a cause.

So your comparison collapses under scrutiny: you are equating a contingent, imperfect entity with a necessary, self-existent being. This is not a valid equivalence.

2. The Misunderstanding of Immutability and Creation

You assert that it’s difficult to imagine how a changeless God could “suddenly” create without being prompted or undergoing change. This difficulty, however, stems from imposing temporal constraints on a timeless being—a fallacy known in philosophy as anthropomorphic projection.

In Islamic theology, God’s act of creation is not a change in His essence. Time itself is a creation—God does not “wait” to create, nor does He “suddenly” act within a temporal framework. Rather, from our perspective, there is a “before” and “after,” but from God's perspective—outside of time—His will is eternal, and His action is not sequential like ours.

As Muslim theologians like Al-Ghazali and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi have explained, God’s will to create is eternal, but its effects unfold within time as He wills. This is not irrational; it simply transcends our limited experience of temporality.

3. The Problem of Evil: A Theological Misstep

You suggest that because the simulators don’t claim to be all-knowing, all-powerful, or all-good, their flawed creation is understandable—but you claim that if God had these attributes, then evil, suffering, and injustice should not exist.

This is the classic problem of evil, and it has been answered comprehensively within Islamic thought:

Islam teaches that evil exists within a larger framework of divine wisdom. What appears as suffering or injustice to us may serve greater purposes beyond our perception—moral testing, spiritual growth, the exercise of free will, and the manifestation of divine attributes like justice, mercy, and patience.

The existence of evil does not negate God’s goodness; rather, it affirms that this world is not the final stage of reality. The Qur’an explicitly teaches that ultimate justice will be realized in the Hereafter.

By contrast, in your simulation model, evil exists simply because the creators are flawed or indifferent—offering no hope of justice, no moral grounding, and no transcendent meaning. That is not a theological improvement—it is a moral nihilism dressed in science fiction.

4. Mocking Divine Praise (e.g., “Allahu Akbar”)

You remarked sarcastically that if the simulators desired constant praise from their creation, they would appear insecure or suspect.

Again, this misunderstands Islamic theology. God does not need our praise, nor does He benefit from it in any way:

> “If you disbelieve—indeed, Allah is free from need of you. Yet He does not approve for His servants disbelief.”
(Qur’an 39:7)

When Muslims say “Allahu Akbar” or engage in worship, it is for our own benefit, not God's. Worship aligns the human soul with truth, humbles the ego, instills discipline, and connects us to our Creator. God is not insecure; He is infinitely worthy of reverence, and our worship is an acknowledgment of that reality—not a divine need for affirmation.

5. Materialist Reductionism vs. Metaphysical Depth

Your simulation model is ultimately a materialist framework that imagines super-beings running our universe like a video game. But these beings are still limited by a physical substrate, logic, causality, and time—they are not metaphysical absolutes. Thus, they cannot for why there is existence at all, nor can they ground morality, purpose, or consciousness.

In contrast, Islamic theology presents a conception of God that is:

Necessary (not contingent),

Eternal (not bound by time),

Perfect (not subject to ignorance or mistakes),

Transcendent yet near (Qur’an 50:16),

The source of all moral and rational order.

This is not “assertion without evidence,” as you allege—it is a well-established metaphysical framework ed by centuries of rigorous theological and philosophical discourse across cultures.

Conclusion

Your simulation hypothesis remains an imaginative idea—but it cannot serve as a serious theological foundation. It fails to for the origin of being, the grounding of moral values, the necessity of a first cause, and the human yearning for transcendence, justice, and truth.

Islam, on the other hand, offers a rational, consistent, and spiritually profound vision of God:

> “Say, He is Allah, the One.
Allah, the Eternal Refuge.
He neither begets nor is born,
Nor is there to Him any equivalent.”
(Qur’an 112:1–4)

If you are genuinely interested in exploring a worldview that satisfies both the intellect and the soul, I invite you to revisit this vision with an open mind.

Let me know if you’d like to discuss any point further—I’m happy to continue the dialogue with mutual respect and clarity.

Thanks for your thoughtful but once again inadvertently comical response. It's as if you assume you're talking to slowpokes and once you assert something and throw in Islam it becomes so!😅

Here are some absurdities in your post:
1) God can be eternal but the simulators can't be.
Why exactly? (You: No reason. Just take my word for it!😅)

2) Being that exists by necessity and cannot not exist. Why exactly (You: No reason. Because that's Islam theology!😅)

3) A being not limited by space, time, or cause. uncaused, eternal, and self-sufficient.
Why can't the simulators have same exact qualities? (You: you ask too many questions!😅)

4) The universe was created and wasn't always there but at same time it was always there (just so we can say there was no change) because there was no before and after
(With due respect, this is ridiculous nonsense)

5) What does "God's will to create" have to do with FACT that the universe was not always there?

6) If something evil or tragic happens it is because it serves a greater good. Why couldn't it have been arranged so it didn't have to happen at all? (You: No way. How then can we say God has all those attributes yet evil and tragic things still exist?😅)

7) How can a being that never makes imperfect things make an imperfect world? (You: I dunno. You ask too many questions!😅)

8} Whose fault is it that man is so full of imperfection (You: I know he didn't create himself but believe me it is his own fault that he's not perfect😅)

9) The only way you make it to heaven and 72 virgins is by praying 5 times and hitting your head on the ground and doing things. But none of these matter to the person who decides if you go to heaven or not!😅

10) You: I know simulation model is at least based on reality, but believe me, Islamic model is NOT “assertion without evidence,” because it is a well-established metaphysical framework ed by centuries of rigorous theological and philosophical discourse across cultures. (Me: erm, so where is the evidence? You: you ask too many questions!🤣)

You: conclusion, Islam offers a rational, consistent, and spiritually profound vision of God, never mind that it is responsible for 99% of religious terrorism in the world today, and that I wouldn't be a Muslim at all but for accident of birth!😅

Easy - laser surgery
It looks really ugly too

JimRohn:
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your willingness to explore complex questions, though I must respectfully note that your reply replaces theology with speculative science fiction rather than offering a coherent metaphysical alternative to the Islamic conception of God.

Let us examine your line of reasoning carefully.

1. Is the Simulation Theory a Viable Basis for Theology?

The idea that our universe is a simulation, while intriguing as a thought experiment, remains unproven speculation. Philosophers like Nick Bostrom and public figures like Elon Musk have popularized it, but even the scientists who explore this hypothesis do not treat it as established fact—it is a metaphysical possibility, not a demonstrable reality. Using such a speculative premise to redefine the nature of God is methodologically flawed.

Simulation theory is fundamentally a materialist model: it posits that our universe is a computer program run by advanced beings. However, this immediately disqualifies those beings from being God in the classical sense. Why?

These “designers” are contingent—they exist within time and depend on a higher set of physical laws to run their simulations.

They are neither absolute, infinite, nor necessary beings.

They are, at best, advanced creatures—not the Creator.

In Islam (and in classical theism broadly), God is not merely a powerful being within a larger system—He is the necessary, self-existent foundation of all being, including time, space, matter, and causality. By contrast, simulation theory replaces God with a “super-engineer” inside another created order, which only defers the question: Who created the creators of the simulation? If your “God” has a creator, then He is not God.

2. Does God's Perfection Still Matter in a Simulated World?

Even if we hypothetically accept the simulation model, the question of ultimate metaphysical reality remains. The "simulation" itself would still require:

A cause (it cannot come from nothing),

A rational order, and

A set of moral and metaphysical values (since you’re discussing divine interaction, meaning, and ethics).

These requirements point us again to a necessary, uncaused, and eternal being beyond all simulations—i.e., the God described in Islam.

Your proposal that “God” does not need to be perfect or unchanging collapses the concept of God into something less than divine. If “God” can change, evolve, or be surprised, then “God” is subject to time and ignorance—and therefore not worthy of ultimate worship. As a Muslim, I must respectfully reject the notion of trading a timeless, all-knowing, perfect Creator for a speculative, finite programmer.

3. Can God Enter His Creation Like a Programmer Enters a Simulation?

Your analogy of God “entering” the simulation misunderstands the distinction between transcendence and immanence. In Islam, God is not absent from His creation—He is closer to us than our jugular vein (Qur’an 50:16), yet He remains distinct from creation, not bound by it.

Saying “God entered creation” implies that God becomes subject to time, space, pain, ignorance, and mortality. This is precisely what Islam rejects as illogical and theologically incoherent. A being who suffers, bleeds, or dies is not God by definition—he is a created, limited being. The Qur’an says clearly:

> "There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing." (Qur’an 42:11)

To reduce God to a character in the simulation—even a “special” one—is to strip Him of transcendence and reduce Him to creaturely status. Islam avoids this confusion by affirming that God communicates with creation (through revelation and prophets) without ever becoming part of creation.

4. Time and Reality in Islamic Theology

You mentioned that “time did not exist before the simulation.” In Islamic theology, this is well established. God is eternal and uncreated, and time itself is His creation. But unlike your analogy, God is not “outside the simulation” like a creature watching a screen—He is outside of time and space altogether and thus is not dependent on any medium or created platform to act or will.

This again affirms God’s absolute independence (al-Samad) and self-sufficiency.

Conclusion

Your reply, while creative, ultimately exchanges a necessary, eternal, perfect God for a finite and speculative construct born of materialist imagination. The simulation model may entertain the mind, but it lacks the philosophical depth and explanatory power of the Islamic conception of God.

Islam affirms that God is:

Absolutely one and unique (Ahad),

Eternal and self-sufficient (al-Samad),

Not begotten and does not beget (Lam yalid wa lam yūlad),

And that nothing is comparable to Him (Wa lam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad).
(Qur’an 112:1–4)

If you’re genuinely interested in what is both rationally coherent and spiritually fulfilling, then I invite you to consider this vision of God—a vision that transcends simulations, science fiction, and the limits of materialist thought.

Let me know if you’d like to explore any of these points further.

Thanks for your erudite (but again funny) response.
It is funny how you make assertions all over the place without a shred of demonstrable evidence😆, yet flippantly dismiss a theory based on real-world observation - the relatively low speed of light is our speed limit for absolutely no reason.
You also ask who created the simulators without realizing same can also be asked about God.😅 The simulators can also have always existed but in not claiming immutability they can actually create. On the other hand it is very hard to imagine a never-changing anything to suddenly start creating something as complex as the universe without prompting, without an iota of change, and for absolutely no reason. Also, the simulators don't claim perfection and never making mistakes, hence their creation is imperfect. They also don't claim to be all-knowing and all-powerful and all-good, so naturally evil exists, so do pain, suffering, injustice, atrocities, etc. If they claimed to be all that, then we would expect non of those to exist. Both cannot be simultaneously true. Also if they're interested in their simulation constantly telling them they're great and Allahu Akbar, we'd be very suspicious of them. So on the whole they're the ones you should NOT flippantly dismiss!

JimRohn:
You’ve raised some interesting questions, and I appreciate the opportunity to engage with them respectfully and thoughtfully.

1) "How do you know God is absolutely perfect?"
The claim that God is absolutely perfect is not a human invention—it is a necessary conclusion based on the very definition of God as the Ultimate Being. Perfection, in theological discourse, refers to the absence of deficiency. If God lacked anything—power, knowledge, justice, mercy, or independence—He would not be God in the first place. This is not a contradiction of God's incomprehensibility; rather, it affirms that while we cannot grasp God's essence fully, we can know certain truths about Him through revelation and rational reflection. Islam, like classical theism, affirms God’s perfection as essential to His divinity.

Now, turning to your questions:

1) "Can an absolutely perfect God create an absolutely imperfect being?"
Yes, and there is no contradiction here. God's perfection does not mean He can only create what is perfect in itself—it means He acts with wisdom and purpose. Creating limited, contingent beings is not a flaw, but a demonstration of His will, power, and mercy. Imperfection in creation does not imply imperfection in the Creator, any more than a potter is flawed because his clay pots are not made of gold. In Islamic theology, God's creation of the imperfect is part of the divine plan to manifest His attributes—such as mercy, justice, and forgiveness—within a moral universe.

2) "Why would a perfect God care about worship from insignificant creatures?"
This question stems from projecting human psychology onto God. In Islam, God does not need worship—it adds nothing to Him and takes nothing away if withheld. Worship is for our benefit, not His. The Qur’an states: “If you disbelieve—indeed, Allah is free of need of you…” (Qur’an 39:7). Worship is how we align ourselves with the truth, purify the soul, and fulfill our purpose. A God who creates out of wisdom would naturally give creation a purpose—and worship is how human beings fulfill theirs, not because God is insecure, but because He is just and merciful.

3) "How can something that never changes be alive or act?"
This question confuses ontological immutability with inactivity. When we say God never changes, we mean His essence and attributes are not subject to evolution, decay, or alteration. This does not negate His will, knowledge, or power to act. In Islamic theology, God acts in time without being changed by time. His will is eternal, and His actions manifest within creation according to His wisdom. Change implies moving from one state to another, which is a deficiency in created beings—but not applicable to the Creator, who is timeless and beyond the physical constraints of space-time.

In conclusion, your questions are important, but they highlight a central issue: the tendency to define God by human limitations, rather than by revealed attributes and rational coherence. Islam affirms that God is absolutely perfect, eternally self-sufficient, and beyond change—not because we limit Him, but precisely because He is not limited like His creation. This is why we reject the idea that God would become a man, be tempted, suffer, or die—because such attributes are logically and theologically incompatible with absolute perfection.

Let me know if you'd like me to expand further on any point.

Thanks for your erudite (though fanciful) response
I'd try to get us out of fancy and theoretical God given attributes by totally ignorant man, and bring us to to an actually possible God that relates to actual reality.

Now, we don't know the true nature of the universe but some of our smartest minds, including Elon Musk, have concluded it is very likely some sort of simulation. They point to things like why nothing in the universe can go faster than the speed of light - because that's the maximum speed of the processor. Now, assuming this is so, what we would perceive as God would be the people who designed and launched the simulation, specifically the person in charge of it all (the Father). This is now something practical, not God inside a book. In that scenario what do you think would be the qualities of God? Do they necessarily have to include being perfect and never changing, etc? And is it possible for us to comprehend there is a whole real world outside our simulated computer world, a whole real world of people going to work and living their lives. And why can't it be possible for "God" to enter the simulation, quite different from special charaters sent within the simulation (prophets). And of course before the simulation was launched time did not exist from our perspective, but of course time was quite in existence in the real world outside the computer

Samueltemi337:
Nah this one nor enter mr governor
Kenneth Okonkwo had a decent career as an actor


BTW people can't even book space anymore because of the 40 character nonsense 😂

What is the 40-character nonsense?
Oh ok, I tried to post the question and it won't let me. This must be brand new. Na wa

Just seeing Sabinus I was already laughing 😅
(Make I go YouTube watch am small)😂

JimRohn:


I leave you with this question:

If God is absolutely perfect, then how can He assume imperfection without ceasing to be perfect?

That is the real contradiction at the heart of the Incarnation.

Oh I just noticed I didn't answer your question.
Here:
How do you know God is absolutely perfect? I thought we agreed you're incapable of comprehending God?

So I leave you with questions too:
1) Can you please explain how an absolutely perfect can create an absolutely imperfect?
2) If you were the one who designed and launched something as unbelievably vast as the cosmos would you be interested that microscopic subjects in a spec of dust in it be constantly worshiping you and telling you how great you are and Allahu Akbar etc?
3) How can something that never changes be alive? And how can something that never changes make any moves at all?

JimRohn:
Thank you for your reply. While I note your shift in tone and the insertion of ridicule, I will maintain a respectful and rational approach for the sake of meaningful dialogue. Let me respond to your points clearly and carefully:

1. On Foreknowledge and Predestination

You argue that God’s foreknowledge must necessarily entail predestination, asserting that because God knew Adam and Eve would eat the fruit, they were destined to do so. This conflates knowledge with causation.

Let’s clarify:
Foreknowledge is the awareness of what will happen, not the cause of what happens. Knowing that a person will freely choose A over B does not make you the cause of their choice. For example, if I record a football match and know the final score in advance, that knowledge does not make me the cause of the result.

The logical distinction between foreknowledge and compulsion is widely recognized in both philosophy and theology. Denying that distinction results in fatalism—rendering moral responsibility meaningless. If God forced Adam and Eve to sin, it undermines justice. Islam avoids this by affirming God’s perfect knowledge and human moral agency—without contradiction.

You may call this "wordplay," but it is actually precise philosophical reasoning. Assertions do not replace argument.

2. On Time and God’s Will

You object to my explanation of God’s unchanging will by suggesting I have subjected God to time, and that this implies the universe is eternal.

That is incorrect. In Islamic theology, God is not subject to time—He is the Creator of time. His will is eternal, but the manifestation of that will can occur in time without implying change or temporality in God Himself. This distinction is not a “smokescreen”—it is a logical separation between God’s attributes and the created effects of His will.

The universe is not eternal. It had a beginning, brought into existence by God’s timeless command. God's willing the universe does not mean He changed His mind or was once inactive. Rather, His eternal will is timelessly linked to what He brings into existence at specific points in time. This is a coherent view that preserves God’s transcendence.

3. On the Incarnation and Logical Coherence

You write:

> “God can do just about anything. The least of what God can do is have his spirit occupy a human body.”

This is where clarity is essential. Islam affirms that God can do all things consistent with His nature. He cannot be ignorant, weak, or mortal because these are negations of divinity—not expressions of omnipotence.

Saying “God can do anything” does not justify affirming logical contradictions. For instance, can God cease to be God? Can He become ignorant, limited, or die? If your answer is “yes,” then you reduce God to a mutable being, which contradicts divine perfection.

Moreover, Christian doctrine insists Jesus is not merely a body possessed by God (as you seem to suggest), but one unified person who is simultaneously fully divine and fully human. That raises a contradiction, not a mystery: How can one person be both omniscient and ignorant, omnipotent and weak, immortal and dead?

These are not mysteries like the Trinity’s relational dynamics. They are metaphysical contradictions—affirming opposites in the same respect. That’s not "man's microscopic logic"; it’s basic reason, which must apply if faith is to be intelligible.

Even in Scripture, God says:

> “Come, let us reason together.” (Isaiah 1:18)

So appealing to reason is not a denial of God's majesty—it is a way to engage sincerely with revealed truth.

4. Final Reflection

Ridicule may feel satisfying, but it is not a substitute for clarity or logic. I am committed to respectful engagement and am willing to continue dialogue if it is rooted in mutual respect and intellectual seriousness.

As the Qur'an says:

> “Say: Are those who know equal to those who do not know? Only they will who are people of understanding.” (Qur’an 39:9)

I leave you with this question:

If God is absolutely perfect, then how can He assume imperfection without ceasing to be perfect?

That is the real contradiction at the heart of the Incarnation.

Thanks for your polite but funny response. Sorry you detect a shift in tone. It's just that your replies are inadvertently very funny and I don't know how else to convey that.

Example, whoever said God's foreknowledge caused anything? I never said so nor even implied it. God's foreknowledge MEANS things are predestined. Simple. There is nothing philosophy or anybody can add or subtract from that. In other words, either God knows everything OR man has free will. You can't have both. Yet we instinctively know we have both. Our brains just don't have the capacity to reconcile how.

So also with Incarnation. We know God definitely took on human body for some 33 years, but our brains don't have the capacity to reconcile how exactly it worked.

As for creation, God exists in the eternal now where time does not exist. To say his will started manifesting at a certain point in time is nonsensical wordplay.

We no longer even mention the contradictions of existence of evil, pain, disease, natural disasters, etc, simultaneously as an all powerful, all loving, and all good God!

In conclusion, you should really let these type of debates go. Nature hasn't given man the brainpower to be able to tackle them. Notice I never said any of the things are NOT true because they are contradictory? Infact I said we instinctively know they are true despite them being contradictory. Same with Incarnation, we may not comprehend the inside details of it all but we know God tha Son took on the nature of man and lived amongst us over 2000 years ago!

Thanks for chatting with me

NairaLikes:
Apart from Catholic and Anglican, others are business centers.

How about Aladura Cherubim and Seraphim

Before that he said he can NEVER be president


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc6COWi65hU?si=7apYzBezdj1cBotI

JimRohn:
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your continued engagement and your willingness to explore these deep theological matters seriously, even if you express amusement. Let me respond carefully to the core of your points with logic, clarity, and mutual respect.

1. You Misstated My Position on Divine Foreknowledge and Human Free Will

You wrote:

> “You don't see logical contradiction between outcomes being dependent on man's actions and simultaneously being independent of man's actions…”

This misrepresents my position. I never said outcomes are “independent” of human actions. Rather, I clarified that God's knowledge of future human choices does not cause those choices. God knows them eternally, but the agency remains with the human being. There is a logical distinction between foreknowledge and predetermination.

This is a known philosophical issue that’s debated across religious traditions, but it does not require affirming a contradiction. One can coherently affirm both divine omniscience and human moral responsibility without affirming opposites at the same time in the same respect.

2. The Core Problem with the Incarnation Remains: Contradictory Attributes

You stated:

> “God decides to have the full human experience so his eternal spirit enters a human body with all its weaknesses… Everything that happens with the body only happens with the body and does not affect his spirit.”

Respectfully, this attempted resolution introduces the very contradiction I am highlighting.

Let’s analyze:

If only the body experienced ignorance, hunger, fatigue, and death—while the divine spirit remained unaffected—then the one undergoing those human experiences is not fully God and fully man in one person.

But Christian doctrine insists that Jesus as a person is simultaneously fully God and fully man—not a human body merely occupied by a divine spirit in parallel.

This introduces a compositional dualism that fragments the personhood of Jesus. Either:

Jesus died—meaning the divine died (contradicting divine immortality), or

Jesus didn’t die—meaning only the human nature died (dividing the person and nullifying the Incarnation).

Thus, the contradiction arises in the assertion of simultaneous opposites in a single person:

Mortal and immortal

Temporal and eternal

Dependent and independent

Limited in knowledge and omniscient

These are not mere mysteries. They are mutually exclusive definitions. To affirm both is to affirm A and not-A in the same respect and at the same time, which is the very definition of a logical contradiction.

3. On God Creating Without Change

You asked:

> “An unchanging God that was all alone suddenly starts creating without external stimuli or internal change. Can't you see that's impossible?”

This challenge arises from a temporal framework that assumes God’s will must be triggered by change or stimulus.

In Islamic theology, God’s will is eternal and unchanging. The effects of His will—such as creation—manifest in time, but His will itself is not newly formed or changed. We distinguish between:

God’s eternal attribute of will, and

The temporal manifestation of that will in creation

This is no more contradictory than an author who has had a story in mind eternally, yet chooses to publish it at a particular time. The expression in time does not imply a change in the author’s intention.

Furthermore, you stated:

> “He was all alone.”

But this is an assertion not grounded in revelation. Islam affirms that God is eternally perfect and self-sufficient. His act of creation is not a response to loneliness or need, but a manifestation of His wisdom and will. There is no contradiction here, only an assertion of divine transcendence beyond human categories of change and need.

4. Final Clarification

You concluded:

> “God temporarily occupying a body is easier to accept.”

What’s “easier to accept” emotionally or imaginatively is not the issue. The standard is not subjective plausibility, but logical coherence. Islam affirms that God is exalted beyond taking on human attributes. To claim otherwise is to collapse the distinction between Creator and creation, which leads to theological incoherence.

Conclusion: Faith Should Not Contradict Reason

Islam recognizes mystery—yes—but never embraces logical absurdity. There is a difference between what is beyond our comprehension and what is incoherent by definition.

Thus, the difference remains clear:

Paradox involves complexity or mystery.

Contradiction affirms opposites simultaneously in the same respect.

The doctrine of Incarnation falls into the latter, not the former.

I welcome further discussion if we remain committed to thoughtful, respectful dialogue.

> “Do they not reflect within themselves? Allah created the heavens and the earth and everything between them for a purpose and an appointed term.” (Qur’an 30:

Thanks for your polite (though laughable) response. I assume you're a fairly intelligent guy and that I don't have to spell everything out for you. I took it for granted you'd infer that God's foreknowledge inescapably means predestination no matter how anybody tries to confuse you with wordplay. Example, Adam and Eve were destined to eat the apple BECAUSE God knows to the last detail the where, how, and when. AT SAME TIME Adam and Eve had perfect free will to eat or not eat the Apple! And you don't see any contradiction there. All you see is "mystery"!😅

About the second point, I must it I'm a bit disappointed in you (I hope I haven't overestimated your intelligence). How can you make anything about God subject to time?? Can you define this "time" in relation to an unchanging God? Atheists will just toy with you. Don't you know what yoiu just itted is that the universe is eternal? Your placing it inside "God's will" is just a smokescreen.

On to the incarnation thing, the HUGE flaw in your reasoning about this is that you try to fit limitless God into man's microscopic logic and understanding. God can do just about anything. The least of what God can do is have his spirit occupy a human body. Even lowly demons can do that! I don't know how you can't see that God has the power to feel and do anything with that body while still remaining God!

JimRohn:
Thank you again for your continued engagement and for narrowing the focus of the discussion. I appreciate your desire for clarity and simplicity, so I will address the core of your paragraph as requested.

The Key Distinction: Paradox vs. Contradiction

You asked: What is the difference between my objection to the doctrine of Incarnation (God becoming man) and theological questions such as:

God knows everything, yet man has free will

God is beyond space yet present everywhere

God never changes yet began creating

God is all-good, yet evil exists

God is all-loving, yet suffering exists

God is just, yet injustice exists

This is a fair and important question, and the answer lies in a critical distinction between mystery and logical contradiction—or more precisely: paradox vs. impossibility.

1. Islamic Theology Affirms Divine Mystery Without Logical Contradiction

In all the examples you listed, there is tension or mystery, but not an outright logical contradiction. Let me illustrate:

a. Divine Knowledge and Human Free Will

> Apparent paradox: If God knows all future actions, how can humans be free?

Response: Islam acknowledges this as a profound mystery. But it is not a contradiction unless you assert that God’s knowledge causes human action in a deterministic sense. Islam holds that God's foreknowledge does not negate human freedom—He knows what we will choose, but we are still the agents of those choices.

The two can coexist without logical contradiction, even if the mechanism is mysterious.

b. God Being Beyond Space Yet Present Everywhere

Response: Islam teaches that God is not a body, not in a place, and not subject to spatial constraints. His “being everywhere” refers to His knowledge, power, and authority—not physical presence. There is no contradiction here, only a distinction between transcendence and immanence.

c. God Never Changes Yet Created

Response: Creation is not a change in God’s essence, but a manifestation of His eternal will. God’s will to create is eternal, but the effects of that will manifest in time. There’s no change in God Himself—only in the created world.

d. The Problem of Evil and Suffering

Response: This is an emotional and philosophical problem, not a formal contradiction. God may allow evil and suffering for purposes that include testing, purification, moral growth, or wisdom beyond human grasp. While we may not fully understand why, the existence of suffering does not logically contradict God’s attributes unless we define “goodness” in a limited, human-centric way.

2. The Incarnation Is a Logical Contradiction

Now contrast this with the doctrine of Incarnation—that Jesus is fully God and fully man at the same time and in the same person.

This is not a paradox or mystery—it is a formal contradiction:

God is immortal – cannot die

Man is mortal – does die

God is all-knowing – cannot be ignorant

Man is limited in knowledge – learns and forgets

God is independent – needs nothing

Man is dependent – eats, sleeps, suffers

To say Jesus is 100% God and 100% man simultaneously is to say:

He is mortal and immortal

Limited and unlimited

Created and uncreated

These are not mysteries—they are mutually exclusive attributes. It’s not that we don’t understand how this works; it’s that it cannot logically work by definition. To affirm both at the same time is to affirm that A = not-A, which violates the principle of non-contradiction—the foundation of all rational thought.

3. Conclusion: Logical Boundaries Matter

So, to answer your challenge directly:

> The difference is that your list includes paradoxes, which are difficult but not logically impossible.

> The doctrine of the Incarnation is a contradiction—affirming two opposite truths in the same respect, at the same time.

Islam respects mystery, but it does not affirm the logically absurd. Belief does not require rejecting reason. Rather, true belief integrates heart and mind.

If belief asks us to affirm that the unlimited became limited or the unchangeable changed, we are not dealing with mystery—we are dealing with incoherence disguised as faith.

Thank you for the thoughtful exchange. I remain open to continuing the conversation.

> “Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth… are signs for those who reflect.” (Qur’an 3:190)

Thanks for your erudite response and for giving me a good laugh!🤣😂😅
You don't see logical contradiction between outcomes being dependent on man's actions and simultaneously being independent of man's actions, but you see contradiction in God’s spirit temporarily occupying a human body!😅

Actually all the things I listed are harder to accept than God temporarily occupying a human body:
God decides to have the full human experience so his eternal spirit enters a human body with all it's weaknesses. Everything that happens with the body only happens with the body and does not affect his spirit.
Where exactly is the contradiction?

On the other hand an unchanging God that was all alone suddenly starts creating without external stimuli or internal change. Can't you see that's impossible. Can't you see you're making the atheists' argument for them?

emmabest2000:
Sex is overrated


No 12

Until you don't get it and desperately want it

yyba:
go back and check who called the police in 2015 immediately buhari became president, you guys must continue with it you like it or not. Operation fire for fire

I'm a police officer

yyba:
first to call the police doesn't mean you must win the case oo , if you know you know

Who called police?

Kalulu44:

Pls make me understand I beg of you.

You can't. You ain't built that way

Not bad

You don't understand
For SOME people, that's what they enjoy most - that back and forth tribal insults. Just as some men the joy of their lives is beatong their wives!

JimRohn:
Thank you for your reply and for engaging with the topic so candidly.

While I appreciate your sincerity and the intent behind your comments, I believe your response unintentionally illustrates the very dilemma I was highlighting—namely, the conflation of mystery with logical incoherence. Let me address your points clearly and respectfully.

1. Quantum Mechanics Does Not Justify Theological Contradictions

You’ve reiterated that quantum mechanics (QM) defies our understanding, suggesting that, similarly, theological contradictions should be acceptable. However, this comparison fails in a critical way.

Quantum mechanics may be counterintuitive, but it is not incoherent. It functions within a rigorous and mathematically consistent framework. Scientists may not intuitively understand wave-particle duality or quantum entanglement, but these concepts do not violate the law of non-contradiction. They are observable, testable, and mathematically predictable.

Contrast that with theological statements such as:

God is omniscient and grew in knowledge

God is immortal and died

God is immutable and became flesh

These are not mysteries—they are logical contradictions if affirmed in the same sense and at the same time. And no appeal to scientific mystery can resolve a formal contradiction. The issue is not that we don’t understand how these things work—it’s that they are logically impossible when taken literally.

2. Misrepresenting Islamic Theology Does Not Justify Trinitarian Contradictions

You proposed several rhetorical challenges to Islamic beliefs, such as:

“How can Allah be in one place and everywhere at once?”

“How can He hear all people at the same time?”

“How can He act while being unchanging?”

But these are not contradictions; they are theological questions that fall within the realm of divine attributes.

Islam holds that:

Allah is not limited by space or time. He is not "in" a place; He is beyond all spatial and temporal constraints (Qur’an 6:103).

Allah hears and knows all things, not sequentially or through physical mechanisms, but by His timeless, attribute of knowledge and will (Qur’an 2:255).

Allah acts without undergoing change in His essence, because His will is eternal, and His actions manifest in creation without altering His being.

These are mysteries of transcendence, not violations of logic.

But the claim that God is simultaneously fully God (immortal, all-knowing, omnipotent) and fully man (mortal, ignorant, limited) in the same person at the same time is a category error that collapses under logical scrutiny.

3. Reason Is Not the Enemy of Faith

You stated:

> “We instinctively know certain things though they can't stand logical scrutiny.”

But if that principle is consistently applied, then every theological claim—true or false—becomes equally valid simply because someone “instinctively” believes it. A Hindu could say, "I instinctively know there are many gods," or a polytheist might say, "I instinctively believe in divine incarnations." Does that make their beliefs true?

If we abandon logic as the filter, then all truth claims become equally unverifiable and indistinguishable.

Ironically, your very appeal to instinct or experience still relies on reason to argue that those instincts are valid and should be trusted. One cannot say, “Logic fails,” and then use logic to argue for that conclusion.

4. Faith Must Be Reasonable, Even If Not Exhaustive

No Muslim claims that God is fully comprehensible. Islam affirms God's transcendence and mystery. But it distinguishes clearly between what is beyond reason and what is against reason.

God’s essence may be incomprehensible. But His revealed attributes must be logically coherent:

Eternal = not subject to death

All-knowing = not ignorant

Independent = not in need

Islam never says “God became a man.” Because that would entail that the Unlimited became limited, the Eternal entered time, and the Dependent became Independent—which are mutually exclusive.

5. Ending a Conversation Doesn’t End the Inquiry

You concluded by saying:

> “Respectfully, this should be the end of the discussion. I don't see how you can have anything to say after this.”

I understand that theological discussions can be intense, and you are of course free to disengage. But truth is not a matter of who gets the last word—it is a matter of coherence, consistency, and sincerity in seeking it.

As Muslims, we believe in using the mind God gave us to test claims, weigh evidence, and avoid affirming contradictions—because the One who revealed Himself is also the One who created reason.

> “Will they not reflect?” (Qur’an 59:21)

If a claim demands that we suspend the very tools God gave us for discernment, then it is not a divine mystery—it is a human fabrication.

Conclusion

I don’t say this to win a debate, but to clarify a principle: Mystery is not a license for incoherence. Faith begins where reason ends, but it must never begin against reason.

Let us not confuse reverence with irrationality.

Islam’s message remains:

> “He is Allah, the One.
Allah, the Eternal Refuge.
He neither begets nor is born,
Nor is there to Him any equivalent.” (Qur’an 112)

This is not evasive simplicity—it is sublime coherence.

I remain open to sincere discussion should you choose to continue.

With respect and clarity!

Thanks for your Politeness.
Once again my analogy using QM is to illustrate just a little bit how limited man's logic is. We still don't know the why of QM, we just know it is the way it is. Naming something or using mathematics to describe it doesn't mean you understand why it is so.

Can't you see you can't win this argument? Because if you apply logic to religion as a whole it will also collapse. You can't selectively apply logic. You touched on it when you said that'd mean other religions are also right. YES, they are also "right"! It's all about belief NOT logic!
You keep using the word "truth". Just because you believe something doesn't make it the truth!

If you don't mind, please address only this paragraph in your next response, to keep things short and simple. Thanks.
Please, in simple language, clearly tell us the difference between your logical objections to incarnation and these:
* God knows everything (meaning everything is predetermined), yet man has free will
* God is in Heaven yet same exact God is everywhere and in everyone
* God never changes yet at some point same God changed and started creating things
* God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all good, yet evil exists.
* God is all-loving yet pain, disease, and natural disasters exist
* God is just, yet injustice exists and destinies seem alloted arbitrarily not based on merit

Add yours

tiswell:
The topic in context is about women with ovulation issues


That's how you lots fail exams

I only asked a question, madam examiner!

Successsearch90:
u never SEE natural beauty before

All I know is, untouched natural black hair like this below looks somehow

JimRohn:
Thank you once again for your response.
I appreciate your attempt to use an analogy from quantum mechanics to address the perceived paradoxes in Christian theology. However, with respect, your analogy—while imaginative—is flawed both in scope and category. Let me explain why, and respond directly to the claims you’ve made:

1. Category Error: Physics ≠ Theology

Quantum tunneling, as observed in quantum mechanics, describes a physical phenomenon occurring under specific probabilistic laws of subatomic behavior. It is not a logical contradiction, even if it defies classical intuition.

Physicists do not say:

> “A particle is in two logically opposite states at once (e.g., dead and alive in the same sense)”
They say:
“Our classical intuitions don't apply at quantum scales, but the event remains mathematically consistent within a testable framework.”

Now compare that to Trinitarian claims:

God is immortal and died.

God is omniscient and grew in knowledge.

God is unchanging and took on a new nature.

These are not merely counterintuitive—they are internally contradictory if taken literally in the same sense at the same time.

So the analogy to quantum mechanics misrepresents the nature of the contradiction. A mystery is not the same as a logical impossibility. One is unknown; the other is incoherent.

2. Evidence Cannot Justify Logical Absurdity

You said:

> “We start with the certainty that Jesus is God based on evidence.”

This raises an important question: What kind of evidence?

If the evidence you cite is scriptural, then we must ask: Does that scripture consistently and clearly teach the divinity of Jesus, without contradiction?

But even if one claims to have overwhelming textual evidence, it still does not resolve the issue. For example:

If someone says,

> “Here is strong textual evidence that 2+2=5,”
we do not accept the conclusion simply because it’s “evidenced.” We test it against logic and coherence.

Likewise, if a text asserts that God is both mortal and immortal, both omniscient and ignorant, both all-powerful and subject to death, we must ask whether the conclusion is logically tenable, not merely whether it's “claimed.”

Your assertion that logic is too “limited” to test such claims is self-defeating. Because your very appeal to “evidence” requires the use of logic to assess it.

If human logic is truly too limited to assess the claim “Jesus is God,” then you cannot also use human logic to argue that the “evidence” proves it.

3. We Must Distinguish Mystery from Incoherence

It is not arrogance to test theological claims with reason—it is essential. God, in all monotheistic traditions, is the author of both revelation and reason. To suspend one in favor of the other is to divide what God has unified.

Islam does not claim full knowledge of God's essence, but it affirms what God has revealed about Himself:

> “There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)

That is not speculation—it is revelation. And that revelation creates a logical boundary:

If God is eternal, He does not die.

If God is self-sufficient, He does not hunger.

If God is all-knowing, He does not grow in knowledge.

To say otherwise is to affirm contradictions—not mysteries.

4. A False Dilemma: Deny the Bible or Accept Contradiction

You stated:

> “The only way you can prove Jesus is not God is by denying the Bible.”

Respectfully, this is a false dilemma.

I do not have to deny every verse of the Bible to reject the doctrine of the Trinity or Jesus’s divinity. I can:

Recognize that the Bible contains authentic teachings of past prophets,

Acknowledge that it has undergone textual evolution and human interpretation,

And conclude that certain later theological claims—such as the full divinity of Christ—are not part of the original message of monotheism.

The Qur’an confirms earlier revelations but also corrects distortions introduced by people over time:

> “They distort the words from their places…” (Qur’an 5:13)

Thus, Islam neither rejects all of the Bible nor blindly accepts later theological innovations that contradict the message of pure monotheism taught by all prophets.

5. Conclusion: Faith Must Be Reasonable

Let me summarize respectfully:

Quantum mechanics describes physical mysteries—not logical contradictions.

Appealing to evidence does not override logic—it must be consistent with it.

Mystery does not license incoherence.

Faith in God does not require suspension of reason—it invites its use.

If the claim “Jesus is God” leads to a collapse of logical categories, then it is not the mystery that needs defending—but the claim itself that needs re-examination.

Islam teaches:

> “Say: He is Allah, [who is] One.
Allah, the Eternal Refuge.
He neither begets nor is born,
Nor is there to Him any equivalent.” (Qur’an 112:1–4)

That is not irrational simplicity—it is divine clarity.

Let us continue our discussion not by dismissing reason, but by honoring the very faculty God gave us to seek the truth.

Once again, thanks for your erudite response.
With respect, what you fail to grasp is the enormous limitations of human reasoning and logic. That's what my QM analogy is meant to illustrate. , QM is still within this our dimension and within our microscopic spec of part of the universe, yet it doesn't make sense to us!
But the really big deal is that you selectively (actually deceptively) apply your insistence on detailed vigorous logical coherence and consistency, when in fact religion as a whole cannot withstand such test. Otherwise explain to us how:
* Allah can be in one place and everywhere at same time
* Allah can simultaneously listen to one person and every person at same time
* Never shows himself
* Is inside everyone yet separate in one place
* Starts creating when he never changes
* Should care about your extremely microscopoc spec of a world and minutae of your life when
there are trillions of galaxies
Etc.
So you see, we instinctively know certain things though they can't stand logical scrutiny. We know God can and did take on human form and visit planet earth. If you must subject that to rigorous logical examination, then subject religion itself to same, and you'll also conclude it doesn't make sense. Yet we instinctively know it is true.

Respectfully, this should be the end of the discussion. I don't see how you can have anything to say after this

delugadou:


Maybe the same reason. Do you know how many tongues have gone down there?

We await professionals to debunk/confirm the theory abi hypothesis

In that case many of our politicians and big men won't have any children, instead they're the most fertile!

AngelahFlo:
It
My Bro this one is hard but I'll forgive her still. You see she stole the coat and might even claim it's hers and not yours. Lemme share with you another experience to buttress this particular case. Years ago about 2015 a lady friend of mine who used to help me whenever I was in a financial mess had a financial challenge and wanted to borrow the sum of N4500 from me with a promise to pay back in a few days time. I borrowed her the money and sent her my number to send the money to. When it was the due date, I messaged her on WhatsApp to know if she had sent the money as I couldn't receive alerts on my phone at the time and she responded that she had sent the money. I checked my balance the following day to confirm only to see that the money didn't reflect. This led to a series of back and forth Chats with neither of us getting anywhere. When she blocked my line for awhile, cos she later unblocked it, I decided to forgive her the debt since our relationship was more important at the time. It's the real reason why till date I don't borrow friends money if they request. I'd rather give you if I have because of instances like this.
You forgive her and let her go with the coat. God will provide you with another coat in His time.

AngelahFlo:

Something I didn't share in my story above. This lady friend who's now a very popular celebrity broke my newly bought double layered frameless glasses and made it look like an accident. I didn't know at the time. It was during my moment of analysis that I realized she had done it on purpose..It's what made me shun the church for a long while just to avoid seeing them

Thanks for your erudite response.
You are forgetting the aspect of deterance both for the person who did the wrong and for onlookers watching the situation. People tend NOT to repeat something that is punished, and tend to repeat something that is rewarded. Example, let's say Russia invades Ukraine and takes Dumbass region and Ukraine let's them keep it. They'll next invade Poland, etc.
Meanwhile other countries (onlookers) will learn that it pays to invade their neighbors and take their land!

JimRohn:
Thank you again for your response. I appreciate the attempt at simplicity, but I must respectfully point out that oversimplification—especially in theology—can obscure rather than clarify.

Let me respond directly and clearly to the core of your argument:

1. Appealing to Mystery Does Not Eliminate Contradiction

You say that we cannot speak of contradiction because we “don’t know exactly what’s going on.” But this approach confuses mystery with incoherence.

Let me illustrate:

It is one thing to say we do not fully comprehend God's essence.

It is another to say God became mortal, ignorant, and died, while still being immortal, all-knowing, and eternal—at the same time.

These two sets of qualities are not merely mysterious—they are mutually exclusive. A being cannot logically be all-knowing and ignorant, eternal and mortal, self-sufficient and in need, all in the same sense and at the same time.

This is not a matter of "not knowing what's going on." This is a matter of logical coherence. [b]A square cannot also be a circle. [/b]And claiming that it is so “in another dimension” is not an explanation—it’s an evasion.

2. You Cannot Claim Knowledge and Deny It at the Same Time

Your argument contains a deep contradiction. You say:

> “We have no way of knowing the full nature of this God.”

Yet you also say:

> “We MUST believe Jesus Christ is God.”

But if we “have no way of knowing,” then you cannot also claim certainty about Jesus’s divinity. One cannot affirm a claim while denying the epistemological tools necessary to it.

You’re effectively saying:

“We don’t know what God is, or what divinity means, but we do know Jesus is divine.”

This is not humility. It is selective reasoning—asserting divine mystery when challenged, and certainty when convenient.

3. True Simplicity Does Not Mean Ignoring Reason

You mentioned that this is a “VERY simple matter.” Simplicity, however, does not mean ignoring complexity where it genuinely exists. The question of God's nature is not a trivial one—it is central to all theology.

If I were to say:

> “God cannot be three persons in one because that's contradictory—case closed.”

You would likely accuse me of dismissing too quickly, and rightly so. But when you say:

> “Jesus is God because we can’t argue otherwise—end of story,”

That is not a reasoned defense. That is intellectual resignation.

4. Islamic Consistency: Transcendence Without Absurdity

Islam does not claim to fully comprehend God. But it does affirm that God is:

Absolutely One—not composed of persons or parts

Eternal—not subject to time or death

Self-sufficient—not in need of food, rest, or protection

This is not speculative philosophy. It is what God Himself revealed. The Qur’an asserts:

> “There is nothing like unto Him.” (Qur’an 42:11)

This gives us a standard to test claims about God. If someone claims that God became a man, was tired, bled, and died, then we are not being arrogant to say: [/b]this contradicts what we know of God’s revealed nature.

5. Conclusion: Mystery Cannot Override Logic

Let me summarize the issue with clarity:

You claim we must accept that Jesus is God because we lack the capacity to reject it.

[b]But if we lack that capacity, then we also lack the capacity to affirm it.

Therefore, your argument defeats itself.

Appealing to mystery cannot justify accepting what contradicts God’s revealed attributes. True faith is not belief in logical contradictions, but trust in what is consistent with both revelation and reason.

So again, I say respectfully:

If Jesus was born, limited, and subject to death—then he cannot be the eternal, unlimited, immortal God.

That is not confusion. That is coherence.

Let us continue our discussion with sincerity—but let us do so without hiding contradiction behind the veil of mystery.

Thanks for your polite response.
For the sake of brevity and to not type too much I've tried NOT to repeat things I already said elsewhere or say things that should be obvious. But I see that doesn't really work.

So I'll instead use an analogy from Quantum Mechanics. In QM a particle is able to appear on the other side ( through) a barrier it can't possibly through. Now, it can't possibly through the barrier BUT it did through it. We don’t come and use Bible and Quiran and logic to say it didn't through the barrier. We can ONLY say we don't fully understand what's going on.

Likewise with Christ, we start with the certainty that he is God, the Son of God, based on EVIDENCE - same way we started with the certainty that the particle ed through the barrier based on evidence.

The only way you can "prove" the particle didn’t through the barrier is to deny that it happened. Likewise, the only way you can "prove" Jesus is NOT God is by saying the Bible is false or is made-up. You can't accept that Bible is true and at same time try to use etremely limited human logic to say Christ is NOT God - because his being God is based on evidence NOT logic!

Just as the case in QM, you can’t say something didn't happen because it can't. The fact is, it DID happen. God DID come to earth. The fact that your extremely limited human logic tells you it could not have happened does not mean it did not happen!