How is GOD a Mystery.. at least something must exist and for lack if sufficient knowledge of its origin in entirety, cause it to be classified a Mystery.. I might be wrong there but there you have it

MacDaddy01:

Spirits do not exist. No evidence.


It is like me claiming to fly. No evidence for human body flight. None.

Please, read about evolution before we discuss.

I know what evolution says. Just answer my question

Ihedinobi:

Of course I know what atheism is. It's a philosophy that holds that God or Deity or the Absolute or the Arbitrary does not exist. But its proponents hold that certain candidates for Deity do not exist while others do. That makes atheism a lie.

Good $deity. No, we don't. First of, first cause etc is not science yet. Not till there's some testable hypothesis. Atheists reject the notion of ANY deity. There is absolutely no evidence to support one, simple.
Personally, supposing there really is a first cause, I am damn sure there would be no jazz behind its actions. It would be all natural laws. You claim one is playing with words, you are trying to pass 'god' off to describe anything that could potentially be responsible for first cause, regardless of said entities properties. All notions of personal gods are equally ridiculous. Some notions of first cause might be plausible, but that is all conjecture.

No gods, simple...

wiegraf:
Good $deity. No, we don't. First of, first cause etc is not science yet. Not till there's some testable hypothesis. Atheists reject the notion of ANY deity. There is absolutely no evidence to support one, simple.
Personally, supposing there really is a first cause, I am damn sure there would be no jazz behind its actions. It would be all natural laws. You claim one is playing with words, you are trying to pass 'god' off to describe anything that could potentially be responsible for first cause, regardless of said entities properties. All notions of personal gods are equally ridiculous. Some notions of first cause might be plausible, but that is all conjecture.

No gods, simple...

Indeed!!!

Where are u from by the way?

Tgirl4real:

Indeed!!!

Where are u from by the way?

UK
Ungwan kudu, kaduna

wiegraf:

UK
Ungwan kudu, kaduna

lol

Do u perchance have an idea when u will die?

Tgirl4real:

lol

Do u perchance have an idea when u will die?

No... Could you please tell me?

wiegraf:

No... Could you please tell me?

I don't o. I thought u would have an idea.

Actually, I wanted to ask what happens to u when u die. Could u help me with that info?

Tgirl4real:

Who gave mystery that definition?

Dictionary meaning

mys·ter·y 1 Pronunciation (mst-r)
n. pl. mys·ter·ies
1. One that is not fully understood or that baffles or eludes the understanding; an enigma:

Because you can't understand doesn't mean it isn't real or it doesn't exist. It's confusing to you cos God that created you, has decided to give you a brain that can not comprehend such. Which shows that he is greater than you.

Saying something is not real because there is no evidence or clue (according to u) to support it, is true, but only scientifically due to human limitations.

Science itself is a product of the human intellect and it is limiting (of course, thank baba God that gave us the gift to think and create)



Who formulated this theory?

This is still a limitation of your human brain.



What is antimatter? What is gas? Are they not words created from the human mind? Have u seen where the creation reasons out its creator?

wow, so many failed arguments. Where is Ihedinobi?

Tgirl4real:

I don't o. I thought u would have an idea.

Actually, I wanted to ask what happens to u when u die. Could u help me with that info?

Usually body decays. Sometimes it's buried, cremated, or sent to labs, organ donations, etc

MacDaddy01:



wow, so many failed arguments. Where is Ihedinobi?

I much prefer it when there are more xtians with the temerity to debate us. That's why I like having him and @anony around

Ihedinobi:

Wanna bet?

Go ahead then.

wiegraf:

I much prefer it when there are more xtians with the temerity to debate us. That's why I like having him and @anony around

lol.....I agree.

manmustwac: @Post
Well I don't believe in any God & you can't prove that I do.

Neither can you prove that you don't. The noose in your position stands in any attempt to prove that you don't believe in any God.

1supremo:
Neither can you prove that you don't. The noose in your position stands in any attempt to prove that you don't believe in any God.

since I don't believe in god or any god for that matter your the one who has to prove me wrong since u don't believe me.

manmustwac: since I don't believe in god or any god for that matter you are the one who has to prove me wrong since u don't believe me.

Since you are not willing to define your position yourself, I will get you a definition of my idea of who you are from a sage:

"…the New Rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial impression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher that all life is a waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a police man for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself...." - G. K. CHESTERTON

1supremo:

Since you are not willing to define your position yourself, I will get you a definition of my idea of who you are from a sage:

"…the New Rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial impression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher that all life is a waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a police man for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself...." - G. K. CHESTERTON

You are quite an intelligent fellow.
And your point is .............?

lagerwhenindoubt:

How are you sure it is GOD.. If not for the Faith Glue you would not have as much as 1% evidence to your claims..

lol...... what is God?

cyrexx:

LOL.

You are lying and you are going to perish in your mythical hell fire if you do not repent. I never said or implied that science is my god by any stretch of imagination or inference. You would wish i say that because whoever does not acknowledge your yahweh must be damned as an idolater worshipping another god. I can clearly see what religion has done to configure your brain this way. You must see god in everything.

Its OK. No lele. Whatever floats your boat.

Cheers, mate

Did you say the following, dude?

cyrexx:
. . . i will rather rely on scientific explanation of the universe (which holds true and valid irrespective of culture or religioius faith) rather than rely on any religious faith . . .

The evidence is right here on the thread, so I don't think that you'll deny saying it.

Consider the bolded words. They're the same and they apply to things that share the same characteristic: they both offer an explanation for existence. You say that you choose science over faith (whatever that means). We could loosely translate that to mean that you swear by science. It doesn't need to be put that way, but I think you get my meaning.

Also, you have conferred infallibility and immutability on science (the red statement in your comment, particularly the words, "true" and "valid". These two qualities belong exclusively to that which is God.

By the two foregoing paragraphs, it is perfectly right to say that Science is your God.

wiegraf:
Good $deity. No, we don't. First of, first cause etc is not science yet. Not till there's some testable hypothesis. Atheists reject the notion of ANY deity. There is absolutely no evidence to support one, simple.
Personally, supposing there really is a first cause, I am damn sure there would be no jazz behind its actions. It would be all natural laws. You claim one is playing with words, you are trying to pass 'god' off to describe anything that could potentially be responsible for first cause, regardless of said entities properties. All notions of personal gods are equally ridiculous. Some notions of first cause might be plausible, but that is all conjecture.

No gods, simple...

Personal or not, anything you think explains existence is what you revere as God. And from your comment above, you have named it to be "natural laws".

manmustwac: Go ahead then.

Do you exist?

MacDaddy01: Where is Ihedinobi?

Right here, dude. Sorry I couldn't stay steady. Still can't but I'll be answering as often as possible.

Ihedinobi: There is no worldview that lacks an element or entity that exhibits self-sufficiency.

But God is self sufficient, right?

Also, your introduction is very poor. You haven't been able to define God and connect a necessary belief to him.

1supremo:

Since you are not willing to define your position yourself, I will get you a definition of my idea of who you are from a sage:

"…the New Rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial impression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher that all life is a waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a police man for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself...." - G. K. CHESTERTON

How does this affect the atheists??

Tgirl4real: @ Macdaddy,

The fact that u were born of a woman, alive and kicking is evidence there is God whether u believe or not.

You HAVE to prove that such a phenomenon only has a supernatural explanation.

Kay 17:

But God is self sufficient, right?

Also, your introduction is very poor. You haven't been able to define God and connect a necessary belief to him.

You do understand what it means for anything to be self-sufficient, right? That quality of self-sufficiency is what makes a thing God.

Ihedinobi:

Personal or not, anything you think explains existence is what you revere as God. And from your comment above, you have named it to be "natural laws".

I don't revere anything.
I don't subscribe to the idea of a first cause, I am sitting on the fence. i do I have said this several times. I do not know, I see evidence supporting, then I'll pick. Hence the nice 'supposing' in that post which you chose to ignore
Only thing I'm sure of with regards to first cause, THERE WERE NO DEITIES INVOLVED
This is like at least the 5th time I've told you the above in the last ~48 hours...

wiegraf:

I don't revere anything.
I don't subscribe to the idea of a first cause, I am sitting on the fence. i do I have said this several times. I do not know, I see evidence supporting, then I'll pick. Hence the nice 'supposing' in that post which you chose to ignore
Only thing I'm sure of with regards to first cause, THERE WERE NO DEITIES INVOLVED
This is like at least the 5th time I've told you the above in the last ~48 hours...

Ok. I'll humor you. You don't know. But you're dead sure there were no deities involved! How does this last sentence follow from the second one? How can you be sure about anything that touches something you also say you know nothing about.

Ihedinobi:

Ok. I'll humor you. You don't know. But you're dead sure there were no deities involved! How does this last sentence follow from the second one? How can you be sure about anything that touches something you also say you know nothing about.

Actually I've been humoring you for a bit now.
BECAUSE THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT. AND ALL LOGIC/THEORIES PUT FORTH SUPPORTING IT ARE AT NURSERY SCHOOL LEVEL

Do you understand now?

Kay 17:

How does this affect the atheists??

Go back to the post it was originally addressed to. If you want to sustain a conversation here, ask a different question.

wiegraf: You do realize that atheism is a rejection of the notion of deities, and that is all there is to it?

... and you should realise that an absolute rejection of The Absolute is a self-defeating argument.