MrAnony1:
Point of correction: I am not "using God to explain the said phenomena". I am saying that God is the explanation of the phenomena. The existence of specific principles that define the behavior of the physical bodies in the universe necessarily leads us to the existence of a creator that defines these principles. If atheism were true, i.e. "there is no God" then we don't have a way of explaining the existence of the principles that put the universe in order.

All you are saying is god is your default position for "I don't know". . .If I ask you specific questions about the earth and the universe and tell you to use god and give me the answers you wouldn't. Example, if i tell you to use god alone and tell me the age of the earth or the universe you wouldn't be able to do that or use god alone as an explanation for why nuclear fusion is what is powering our sun and other stars?. . .Why nuclear fusion and not something else?. . .You just want me to believe that god created everything but you won't want to tell me how he created, what he used in creating and when he created. . .doesn't that sound off the mark to you?. . . `

MrAnony1:
This is a strawman of my position once again. When I spoke about order there, I wasn't referring to order in a moral sense rather I was speaking about order in a purely physical/"scientific" sense. The order of the physical elements of the universe is a different category from the order of it's moral beings.

Our behavior is driven by chemIcal reactions at the cellular level. That's both physical and scientific. You're willing to present the cell as an example of God's magnificence, and ignore Boko Haram and ISIS in the process. Are we not a collection of atoms and cells?

mazaje:

All you are saying is god is your default position for "I don't know". . .

Isn't that true for all believers? That's why they need faith.

Weah96:

Our behavior is driven by chemIcal reactions at the cellular level. That's both physical and scientific. You're willing to present the cell as an example of God's magnificence, and ignore Boko Haram and ISIS in the process. Are we not a collection of atoms and cells?

Just to get you right, are you saying that people are not morally responsible for any of their actions rather it is all just physical interactions between physical bodies?

MrAnony1:
Just to get you right, are you saying that people are not morally responsible for any of their actions rather it is all just physical interactions between physical bodies?

Your meat ship, your responsibility. You're responsible for the behavior of your organic vehicle.

MrAnony1:
Hi BigUrban, good to see you.

1) Actually, you've just made a strawman of what I said right there. I didn't say that "things aren't true without God", rather I said that it is impossible to have logically consistent explanations for truth without God.

To explain what I mean with regards to science; I don't have to invoke God to know that scientific knowledge is true. It is observable. However, it is impossible for me to have a logically consistent explanation of scientific truths without God.

The universe functions in an orderly way such that it is intelligible and not chaotic. Science takes it for granted that the universe is orderly and then seeks to find out how this order works. The moment you question why the universe is orderly, the best logically consistent way to explain it is by the means of a creator, ditto moral truths and philosophical truths.




2) Are you saying that atheists don't believe that God doesn't exist?

This creator then, is he also orderly and intelligible?

And don't you think that we label something as orderly only because we have identified how it works? I'm not sure that anything is objectively orderly. They just happen and we say they are orderly when we understand how they happen.

Even the term chaos (in the scientific sense) simply refers to extremely unpredictable outcomes. Unpredictable to us, that is.

It is humans that are required for order, since it exists in our head. Any kind of world we find ourselves in, we will find it orderly.

mazaje:

All you are saying is god is your default position for "I don't know". . .

Actually that is not what I am saying at all.

If I ask you specific questions about the earth and the universe and tell you to use god and give me the answers you wouldn't. Example, if i tell you to use god alone and tell me the age of the earth or the universe you wouldn't be able to do that or use god alone as an explanation for why nuclear fusion is what is powering our sun and other stars?. . .Why nuclear fusion and not something else?. . .You just want me to believe that god created everything but you won't want to tell me how he created, what he used in creating and when he created. . .doesn't that sound off the mark to you?. . . `

Here you are asking the wrong questions i.e. questions that have nothing to do with the answers you seek.

You believe Seun is the creator of Nairaland. Yet if I asked you to use Seun alone to give me answers to specific questions you wouldn't. Example, use Seun alone to tell me the age of Nairaland.com. Or why Nairaland is written with python (or whatever programming language it is written in) and not another programming language? You just want me to believe that Seun created everything but you won't tell how or what he used in creating....doesn't that sound of the mark to you?

You see the problem with your questions? I am sure that you'll agree that the fact that Nairaland is 9 years old or that it is written in python tells us nothing about whether Nairaland has a creator or not. What tells us that Nairaland has a creator is the fact that it works according to a specific order such that operating in it is intelligible. Same applies to the universe.

The part in bold is exactly what I mean by the only logically consistent way to explain the universe is that it has a creator. Once you deny this fact, then you have no way to explain the presence of physical bodies or the order by which they function.

finofaya:

This creator then, is he also orderly and intelligible?

And don't you think that we label something as orderly only because we have identified how it works? I'm not sure that anything is objectively orderly. They just happen and we say they are orderly when we understand how they happen.

Even the term chaos (in the scientific sense) simply refers to extremely unpredictable outcomes. Unpredictable to us, that is.

It is humans that are required for order, since it exists in our head. Any kind of world we find ourselves in, we will find it orderly.

MrAnony1 is a simple minded fellow.

He doesnt realise that "order" is a very anthropomorphic phenomena. Our brains are wired to see patterns, even where there are none.

That pattern seeking is also order. There is no order without a pattern.

What Anony fails to see is that for every orderly thing we see, there is an anti-orderly thing negating it.


For instance, the blue skies you see is a result of chaos. Many molecules in the atmosphere plus reflections of different spectrum of lights.

But no, Anony sees God's work in the sky, not knowing the schizophrenic bombardment of molecules and matter that occurs to give it that blue colour.

MrAnony1:
Actually that is not what I am saying at all.


Here you are asking the wrong questions i.e. questions that have nothing to do with the answers you seek.

You believe Seun is the creator of Nairaland. Yet if I asked you to use Seun alone to give me answers to specific questions you wouldn't. Example, use Seun alone to tell me the age of Nairaland.com. Or why Nairaland is written with python (or whatever programming language it is written in) and not another programming language? You just want me to believe that Seun created everything but you won't tell how or what he used in creating....doesn't that sound of the mark to you?

You see the problem with your questions? I am sure that you'll agree that the fact that Nairaland is 9 years old or that it is written in python tells us nothing about whether Nairaland has a creator or not. What tells us that Nairaland has a creator is the fact that it works according to a specific order such that operating in it is intelligible. Same applies to the universe.

The part in bold is exactly what I mean by the only logically consistent way to explain the universe is that it has a creator. Once you deny this fact, then you have no way to explain the presence of physical bodies or the order by which they function.

FAIL FAIL FAIL!!!!

1) Unlike God, Seun has made it clear how he created Nairaland. So we can actually uuse Seun to explain nairaland by using his words.

2) Unlike God, Seun has to submit to certain constraints in creating nairaland.
In using an analogy comparing Seun to God, you make the mistake of showing that Seun as a creator has to submit to the laws/mathematics/order of coding/programming.



In short, the order exists beyond the creator
programming laws exists independently of Seun
Science exists independently and beyond God.


Your analogy proves Majaze annd I correct at the end of the day- science got nothing to do with God

Weah96: Your meat ship, your responsibility. You're responsible for the behavior of your organic vehicle.

Earlier, you said that our behavior is driven by certain chemical interactions. Now it seems to me that you are saying that we are responsible for the things that drive us and control our actions. Is that what you are saying?

finofaya: This creator then, is he also orderly and intelligible?

Yes but not necessarily in the same way that his creation is orderly.

And don't you think that we label something as orderly only because we have identified how it works? I'm not sure that anything is objectively orderly. They just happen and we say they are orderly when we understand how they happen.

Even the term chaos (in the scientific sense) simply refers to extremely unpredictable outcomes. Unpredictable to us, that is.

It is humans that are required for order, since it exists in our head. Any kind of world we find ourselves in, we will find it orderly.

I appreciate this argument but I think you are wrong. It is not because we identify how something works that makes it orderly, The said thing would have been orderly even before we understood it. For instance, the fact that I don't understand the order in which Chinese symbols are written doesn't make Chinese writings disorderly. My point is that order is independent of our understanding.

Now I agree with you that a conscious mind is required to perceive order but I must point out that this doesn't mean that order cannot exist outside the perception of a conscious mind.

Your argument is like saying that if all men were blind then light necessarily wouldn't exist. That's simply untrue.

MrAnony1:
Yes but not necessarily in the same way that his creation is orderly.


I appreciate this argument but I think you are wrong. It is not because we identify how something works that makes it orderly, The said thing would have been orderly even before we understood it. For instance, the fact that I don't understand the order in which Chinese symbols are written doesn't make Chinese writings disorderly. My point is that order is independent of our understanding.

Now I agree with you that a conscious mind is required to perceive order but I must point out that this doesn't mean that order cannot exist outside the perception of a conscious mind.

Your argument is like saying that if all men were blind then light necessarily wouldn't exist. That's simply untrue.

You severely miss the point.


Order is a state of mind. It is a human bias. A human perception.

Note that I am talking about order with respects to the universe.



Let me even give you an example. The light you are even talking about depends on the eye of the being.

The light from the sun is yellowish. That is your human bias
This is because an animal (alien) with sharper vision could see that the light from the sun is actually a milion colours but reflects that yellowish colour.

MrAnony1:
Actually that is not what I am saying at all.


Here you are asking the wrong questions i.e. questions that have nothing to do with the answers you seek.

You believe Seun is the creator of Nairaland. Yet if I asked you to use Seun alone to give me answers to specific questions you wouldn't. Example, use Seun alone to tell me the age of Nairaland.com. Or why Nairaland is written with python (or whatever programming language it is written in) and not another programming language? You just want me to believe that Seun created everything but you won't tell how or what he used in creating....doesn't that sound of the mark to you?

I can as Seun and he will tell me when he created nairaland and launched it, he will also tell me why he used the programming language he used, the reasons could range from ease, availability etc. . .Seun can answer all those questions if I ask him. . .God can not tell you the age of the universe or why he used nuclear fusion to power the sun. . .

You see the problem with your questions? I am sure that you'll agree that the fact that Nairaland is 9 years old or that it is written in python tells us nothing about whether Nairaland has a creator or not. What tells us that Nairaland has a creator is the fact that it works according to a specific order such that operating in it is intelligible. Same applies to the universe.

It does, we know python and Suen has already told us the age of nairaland. . .Nairaland already has Suen's label and trade mark on it and as such no body can claim owener ship of nairaland apart from Seun. . .The universe has no label or trade mark of any god any where, you are just jumping into conclusion. . .

The part in bold is exactly what I mean by the only logically consistent way to explain the universe is that it has a creator. Once you deny this fact, then you have no way to explain the presence of physical bodies or the order by which they function.

Does the universe behave intelligibly like nairaland?. . how so?. . .Nairaland has a very orderly way in which things flow, every thing leads to another thing which ultimately leads to interaction between the users, the universe does not have such order. . .Some laws that hold some parts of the universe do not even apply in others, there seem to be order but there also seem to be chaos in equal magnitude . . .

MrAnony1:
Earlier, you said that our behavior is driven by certain chemical interactions. Now it seems to me that you are saying that we are responsible for the things that drive us and control our actions. Is that what you are saying?

Of course. Who else should be responsible for your behavior?

Sorry forgot to mention it earlier MrAnony1, its really nice to have you back. . .

Order is overrated and overstated by creationists like MrAnony1

He assumes that God put order in the universe.

The fact is that we humans perceive order in the universe. We ascribe order to the things we understand.

Take for instance, Anony takes a look at the mountains and rivers and proclaims that it was God who separated the water from the land in order to make this earth habitable for us humans.

Wrong. The mountains and rivers are a result of erosion, tetonics, sedimentation and the explosion of stars.


The irony here is that if there is a mind behind the creation of those mountains and rivers, it would be a chaotic mind of a chaotic creator because the processes involved to achieve the mountains and rivers are so random, wasteful and time-consuming

MrAnony1:
Yes but not necessarily in the same way that his creation is orderly.


I appreciate this argument but I think you are wrong. It is not because we identify how something works that makes it orderly, The said thing would have been orderly even before we understood it. For instance, the fact that I don't understand the order in which Chinese symbols are written doesn't make Chinese writings disorderly. My point is that order is independent of our understanding.

Now I agree with you that a conscious mind is required to perceive order but I must point out that this doesn't mean that order cannot exist outside the perception of a conscious mind.

Your argument is like saying that if all men were blind then light necessarily wouldn't exist. That's simply untrue.

Whatever form it takes, it is still orderliness. Why is God's own taken for granted?


Outside the perception of the conscious mind, what exists is merely a series of events.

Figuring out how this series operates leads us to say it is ordered. That it is ordered means we can predict it.

Without us, the series exists but it is merely a series of events.

And if all men were blind, light would exist, but sight would not exist.

You know, this is just another variant of the argument from design. You still have to ask who designed the designer.

Good times!

I like how Anony doesnt get space to peddle his sophistry nowadays!!!

TheBigUrban2:


MrAnony1 is a simple minded fellow.

He doesnt realise that "order" is a very anthropomorphic phenomena. Our brains are wired to see patterns, even where there are none.

That pattern seeking is also order. There is no order without a pattern.

What Anony fails to see is that for every orderly thing we see, there is an anti-orderly thing negating it.


For instance, the blue skies you see is a result of chaos. Many molecules in the atmosphere plus reflections of different spectrum of lights.

But no, Anony sees God's work in the sky, not knowing the schizophrenic bombardment of molecules and matter that occurs to give it that blue colour.

Is he? I don't know Mr. Anony.

But the argument from design remains an unconvincing argument for God. It is hard to see how God himself can exist without order. In such a state, one minute he will be omnipresent, and the next he is not.

Any theist should ask where the order that guarantees God's continued existence comes from, since he could not have created it.

mazaje:
I can as Seun and he will tell me when he created nairaland and launched it, he will also tell me why he used the programming language he used, the reasons could range from ease, availability etc. . .Seun can answer all those questions if I ask him. . .God can not tell you the age of the universe or why he used nuclear fusion to power the sun. . .

It does, we know python and Suen has already told us the age of nairaland. . .Nairaland already has Suen's label and trade mark on it and as such no body can claim owener ship of nairaland apart from Seun. . .The universe has no label or trade mark of any god any where, you are just jumping into conclusion. . .

Does the universe behave intelligibly like nairaland?. . how so?. . .Nairaland has a very orderly way in which things flow, every thing leads to another thing which ultimately leads to interaction between the users, the universe does not have such order. . .Some laws that hold some parts of the universe do not even apply in others, there seem to be order but there also seem to be chaos in equal magnitude . . .

You miss the point totally (even though I highlighted it in bold):

1. Asking Seun when he created Nairaland already assumes that Nairaland has a creator called Seun even before engaging with the data before you. This is begging the question.

2. Whether Seun chooses to answer or not tells us absolutely nothing about whether he is the creator of Nairaland. I hope you are not suggesting that if Seun decides not to answer your question then it proves that he didn't create nairaland.

3. Asking for the sort of trademark that is on Nairaland to be on the universe simply shows me that you are not prepared to discuss rationally.

4. You claim that how the universe works is not orderly. This seems weird to me because I know that you subscribe to a naturalist worldview and you reject anything which you believe goes contrary to the laws of physics, if the universe is chaotic as you claim, then you must hold that at least certain parts of it defy physical laws hence you would be contradicting your worldview.

So as I said, The questions you have asked do not in anyway lead us to the answers that you seek. If you think that knowing the answer to the age of Nairaland and the programming language of Nairaland proves that one is a creator, then you must also hold that if you know the age of the earth and that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion then you must have created the universe. How you can't see that your error in your questions beats me.

mazaje: Sorry forgot to mention it earlier MrAnony1, its really nice to have you back. . .

Thanks, actually I wasn't gone. Just don't have as much free time as I used to.

Weah96:

Of course. Who else should be responsible for your behavior?

I see.

finofaya: Whatever form it takes, it is still orderliness. Why is God's own taken for granted?

This is a good question but before I answer it, I must first clarify: Do you at least grant that specific and intelligible functioning order is evidence of design?

Outside the perception of the conscious mind, what exists is merely a series of events.

Figuring out how this series operates leads us to say it is ordered. That it is ordered means we can predict it.

Without us, the series exists but it is merely a series of events.

If the series of events continued to happen in the same way regardless of whether you are conscious of it or not, then I don't see how it's order depends on your consciousness.

If you must hold that order depends on what you can understand, then you must necessarily hold that things you don't understand (e.g. Mandarin Chinese, Latin, neurology, aeronautic engineering or any subject you don't understand) must necessarily be chaotic. This is an odd position to hold.

And if all men were blind, light would exist, but sight would not exist.

I'm afraid that you've really said nothing here. "If all were blind, sight would not exist", "if all were deaf, hearing will not exist" if all did not eat meat, eating meat won't exist" e.t.c. these sort of statements actually lead us to nowhere.

You know, this is just another variant of the argument from design. You still have to ask who designed the designer.

How does knowing who designed the designer prove or disprove the designer in question? i.e: You believe that Seun is the creator of Nairaland.com. Did you need to know who designed Seun in order to come to this conclusion?

The question of "who designed the designer" is an irrelevant question employed to draw one away from the contested point into infinite regress. It is usually an indication that the person asking the question has no real intention of discussing the issue at hand.

mazaje:

When i say god you know very well that i am talking about the theistic definition. . .Now you are back to your nonsense, does this mother earth god of yours only make land green when people sacrifice things to her?. . .There are many green vegetation all over the world where humans do not even visit talk more of offering any sacrifice to any mother earth god there. . .So when I apply fertilizer i am making a sacrifice to mother earth, eh?. . .The problem is when you define your god, give it an attribute and a role, it will be shown to be false. . .The earth as it exist does not need any sacrifice, sacrificing millions of tubers of yam to a desert land like the sahara desert will never make it green. So what role does this yam sacrifice of yours do? how does it apply to the mother earth god, or is the sahara desert not part of the earth? Does your mother earth god only accept sacrifices in some parts and not in others, why or what not?. .Am tired of your mythical tales abeg. . .You are just jumping from one mythology to another. . .applying organic manure to make the land more fertile is now sacrifice to mother earth god abi?. . .

Your dumbness is alarming.. . .

What do you think sacrifice is? Do you care to define it?

Our time are sacrified on land for grazind, out energy are sacrifiecd. . .applying manure to soil is sacrifice. . .investing ones wealth into farming is sacrifce.

I wonder why could act like that coward called logic boy. . . .your reasoning should be expanded. Only a nonentity would think sacrifice ends with giving food to gods.

Guy, this sacrifice best called Ebo in Yoruba has been trashed in Aborisha thread. You can help yourself and do some thinking instead of fooling yourself around.

Something has to be sacrifed for vegetation to take effect on earth. It is not necessary mean we human do it. . . .this is natural law; no cause, no effect.

And again, I cant help you.. . . . .when you know what sacrifice mean, then you will understand how silly you have been coming since.


Good morning.

MrAnony1:



You miss the point totally (even though I highlighted it in bold):

1. Asking Seun when he created Nairaland already assumes that Nairaland has a creator called Seun even before engaging with the data before you. This is begging the question.

2. Whether Seun chooses to answer or not tells us absolutely nothing about whether he is the creator of Nairaland. I hope you are not suggesting that if Seun decides not to answer your question then it proves that he didn't create nairaland.

3. Asking for the sort of trademark that is on Nairaland to be on the universe simply shows me that you are not prepared to discuss rationally.

Is Anony still peddling the false argument that one cant prove that Seun is the owner of Nairaland? Is this guy so dense?

I blame myself and any other atheist that gives this guy the audience to say these things. We should be treating him like Olaadegbu.

frank317:

Guy, enough of these nonsense rantings. who told you twins, heroes, adored person, art gallery and natural entities are God?

Do you care pls check your dictionary?

Take a shift to many conception of God and spiritualities around the world.

Orisha is god (google would helpe you on that).

In yoruba spiritulity, Twins are Orisha. . . .meaning God.

Heroes, adored, admired and inflencial person is God (check your dico)


art gallery is god (check your dictionary).

Natural entities are God (read about Yoruba spirituality, pantheism and spinozism).



This is my help can reach. . . . . .feed yourself from here.

MrAnony1:



[size=18pt]4. You claim that how the universe works is not orderly. This seems weird to me because I know that you subscribe to a naturalist worldview and you reject anything which you believe goes contrary to the laws of physics, if the universe is chaotic as you claim, then you must hold that at least certain parts of it defy physical laws hence you would be contradicting your worldview.[/size]

So as I said, The questions you have asked do not in anyway lead us to the answers that you seek. If you think that knowing the answer to the age of Nairaland and the programming language of Nairaland proves that one is a creator, then you must also hold that if you know the age of the earth and that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion then you must have created the universe. How you can't see that your error in your questions beats me.

Wow, just look at the nonsense argument in bold.

1) First, he strawmans the atheists' argument by claiming that the atheists claim that the universe is not orderly. The atheists' claim is that either
a) the universe just has a series of events- some which we perceive as order and some which we see as chaotic
b) there is equal order and chaos in the universe.



2) Secondly, note how he is implying out of ignorance that the laws of physics are absolute in the universe. The laws of physics do not apply everywhere in the universe. On the quantum level, the laws change or are even non-existent. Gravity is different on different planets. We have blackholes and dark matter.




It is high time Plaetton, Mazaje, Weigraf and co start treating this Anony guy as a joke. We keep giving credibility to his nonsense. A philosophical Joshthefirst if you ask me

mazaje:

You are just every where. . .You don't even know what you are saying, lets take death in what ever concept you describes a god and gave it an attribute that it can never die, what do you mean that mother earth can never die?. . In what context do you use the word the earth can never die?. . .saying the earth will never die means it will remain positively active, but that is false. . .A time will come when the earth will not be active meaning it will die, in what ever context that remains false, the earth will die, saying the earth will never die is FALSE. . .Just accept that the attribute you have given to your god has shown that it is false. . .Your mother god based on the attribute you have given it has already debunked it. . .

If Death is activeness, in what context do you think earth will ever die and become inactive?

mazaje:
Mother earth as god has been debunked. . .

Your wish. . . .keep deceiving yourself.

mazaje:
You are theone actually lying. . .The link you posted does not in any way describes mother earth as a pantheist god but as one of the goddesses among many other gods in greek mythology and other mythologies. . .It even gives her roles and describes her actions. .

This guy is deperate mennnn.

Your lies has not been hiding here . . .you cannot cover it. Never. . . .

You defined Pantheism as:

Pantheism: The belief that nature is god. No supernatural deity is involved in this. Everything in nature is god. . .

https://www.nairaland.com/1855866/why-atheist/8#25574384

Mother earth is defined as:

Mother Nature (some times known as Mother Earth or the Earth-Mother) is a common personification of nature that focuses on the life-giving and nurturing aspects of nature by embodying it in the form of the mother.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Nature

From your definition of pantheism, Nature is God.

From the definition of Mother earth, Nature is god.

Therefore, Mother earth is pantheistic God going by the two definitions.


Your balant lies exposed.

Also I have told you in many cases that pantheism can be fuse into polytheism. . . .something consistute nature and made it up. . . . .each of this thing is natural.


When viewed as each natural entities, it is pantheism fused into polythiesm. .

Viewed as a whole is pantheism . . . .fused into monotheism.

And again, Yoruba spirituality is pagan and at the same time naturalistic pantheism.



Your ignorance and pathetic lies exposed.

mazaje:
And what benefit does worshiping nature adds to any body that does that?. . .How does worshiping trees help humans?. . .What about worshiping rain, how does it help humans?. . .

Define worship. . . . . .mumuni.

And with that, you would be able to know how worshipping natural entities evoke our aweness.

Even your co-atheist is spiritually awaken toward natural entities.

It is only a coward would think worship is all about going to church.

mazaje:
What is divinity?. . .

1. of or pertaining to a god, especially the Supreme Being.
2.
addressed, appropriated, or devoted to God or a god; religious; sacred:
divine worship.
3.
proceeding from God or a god:
divine laws.
4.
godlike; characteristic of or befitting a deity:

What is divine totality?. . .You are just making things up. . .From wiki it simply says a pantheist describes all that exist as god. . .On these your play on words like divinity and totality brouhaha doesn't appear there. . .

Put your brain into work, you will see that your definition fit in into natural entities.

What cloud your reasoning is that you daydream God as a nigga living behind the wind..

Think and think. . . .if you dont know, tell me and I WILL HELP.

mazaje:
So far you have just shown that god actually is nothing but a play on words and just a label, not actually something distinct. . .Sure nature is nature, there is no definition of god in nature labeling nature does not make it god unless i define what god is and how it relates to nature or what role it plays in nature. .Define god, give it a role and attributes and what how it will be shown to be false and non existent. . .What makes nature god?. . .Saying that nature is god means nothing because there is nothing like god in the definition of nature or are pantheist just redefining things and giving them new names?. . .

Lol. . . . .

Do you disbelieve in god (defined pantheistically)?

Do you disbelieve in God (defined as adored, admired and revered person)?

Abeg answer. . . . . .I want to laugh at your . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FOLYKAZE:

If Death is activeness, in what context do you think earth will ever die and become inactive?




Your wish. . . .keep deceiving yourself.





This guy is deperate mennnn.

Your lies has not been hiding here . . .you cannot cover it. Never. . . .

You defined Pantheism as:



Mother earth is defined as:



From your definition of pantheism, Nature is God.

From the definition of Mother earth, Nature is god.

Therefore, Mother earth is pantheistic God going by the two definitions.


Your balant lies exposed.

Also I have told you in many cases that pantheism can be fuse into polytheism. . . .something consistute nature and made it up. . . . .each of this thing is natural.


When viewed as each natural entities, it is pantheism fused into polythiesm. .

Viewed as a whole is pantheism . . . .fused into monotheism.

And again, Yoruba spirituality is pagan and at the same time naturalistic pantheism.



Your ignorance and pathetic lies exposed.



Define worship. . . . . .mumuni.

And with that, you would be able to know how worshipping natural entities evoke our aweness.

Even your co-atheist is spiritually awaken toward natural entities.

It is only a coward would think worship is all about going to church.





Put your brain into work, you will see that your definition fit in into natural entities.

What cloud your reasoning is that you daydream God as a nigga living behind the wind..

Think and think. . . .if you dont know, tell me and I WILL HELP.




Lol. . . . .

Do you disbelieve in god (defined pantheistically)?

Do you disbelieve in God (defined as adored, admired and revered person)?

Abeg answer. . . . . .I want to laugh at your . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Am tired of this endless back and forth. . .Just to make things clear when I say god you know exactly what I mean I clearly gave you the definition but you refused to accept it. . .When an atheist says he does not believe in god it means he does not believe in deities. . .

This is the definition of deity. . .

In religious belief, a deity (Listeni/ˈdiː.ɨti/ or Listeni/ˈdeɪ.ɨti/)[1] is a supernatural being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred. Some religions have one supreme deity, while others have multiple deities of various ranks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity

You are just all over the place, firstly you started by defining god as energy, you even went as far as trying to claiming that the god of the bible is energy just to satisfy your ridiculous delusions. You tried to force the bible to agree with you that its god is a pantheist god which you called energy in your delusions . .When called out you jumped ship and claimed that god as just a label. . .I am not going to respond to you again. . .You have no definition for god. . .To you god means anything which is not what this topic is about, this topic is specifically about the theistic concept of god. . .If you want to discuss your energy god and stone god go create another topic pls and discuss it. . .I am not going to respond to you again. . .

MrAnony1:



You miss the point totally (even though I highlighted it in bold):

1. Asking Seun when he created Nairaland already assumes that Nairaland has a creator called Seun even before engaging with the data before you. This is begging the question.

How is it begging the question?. . .Seun has already made the claim. . .His trade mark is already on Nairaland. . .

2. Whether Seun chooses to answer or not tells us absolutely nothing about whether he is the creator of Nairaland. I hope you are not suggesting that if Seun decides not to answer your question then it proves that he didn't create nairaland.

He has answered already. . .

3. Asking for the sort of trademark that is on Nairaland to be on the universe simply shows me that you are not prepared to discuss rationally.

Why did you say that?. . .Why is god's irrefutable signature not written in any part of the universe so that people will know that the universe was created by him and leave no room for doubt?. . .I thought god wants people to know that he created the universe?. . .

4. You claim that how the universe works is not orderly. This seems weird to me because I know that you subscribe to a naturalist worldview and you reject anything which you believe goes contrary to the laws of physics, if the universe is chaotic as you claim, then you must hold that at least certain parts of it defy physical laws hence you would be contradicting your worldview.

I really don't know what to make of this, all i said was that the universe has equal amount of order and chaos. . .I don't know where you got the universe works is not orderly part. . .

So as I said, The questions you have asked do not in anyway lead us to the answers that you seek. If you think that knowing the answer to the age of Nairaland and the programming language of Nairaland proves that one is a creator, then you must also hold that if you know the age of the earth and that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion then you must have created the universe. How you can't see that your error in your questions beats me.

LOL!. . . .What am saying is that god can not be used to explain anything properly and objectively, god is nothing more than an assumption. . .People have used god to try to explain creation. . .The bible, koran, yoruba, greek, mayan, hindu etc religious scriptures all tried to use god to explain how the universe came about but failed. . .We see the sun and we assume it's god that created it, we see animals and plants then we assume that it was god that created them. . .We see the stars and assume its god. . .But the thing is you can not use god to explain how these things operate, you can only use god to make wild assumptions about things you do not know, if god created them, then god should also be used to explain how they operate. . .You can claim and assume that god created all living organism but you can not use god to explain specific details about the organism, you can not for example use god to explain to me why the DNA of some organisms mutate. . .You can only use god to assume that he created the stars but you can not use god to explain why super novas occur. ..God is just an assumption and the default position for "I don't know " for the theist, at lest that is what you guys have been able to show so far. . . .You want me to just accept that god created everything and set them in place( an assumption), but you don't want me to ask you about the specific mechanism he used to put those things in place if indeed he created them. . .

mazaje:

How is it begging the question?. . .Seun has already made the claim. . .His trade mark is already on Nairaland. . .



He has answered already. . .



Why did you say that?. . .Why is god's irrefutable signature not written in any part of the universe so that people will know that the universe was created by him and leave no room for doubt?. . .I thought god wants people to know that he created the universe?. . .



I really don't know what to make of this, all i said was that the universe has equal amount of order and chaos. . .I don't know where you got the universe works is not orderly part. . .



LOL!. . . .What am saying is that god can not be used to explain anything properly and objectively, god is nothing more than an assumption. . .People have used god to try to explain creation. . .The bible, koran, yoruba, greek, mayan, hindu etc religious scriptures all tried to use god to explain how the universe came about but failed. . .We see the sun and we assume it's god that created it, we see animals and plants then we assume that it was god that created them. . .We see the stars and assume its god. . .But the thing is you can not use god to explain how these things operate, you can only use god to make wild assumptions about things you do not know, if god created them, then god should also be used to explain how they operate. . .You can claim and assume that god created all living organism but you can not use god to explain specific details about the organism, you can not for example use god to explain to me why the DNA of some organisms mutate. . .You can only use god to assume that he created the stars but you can not use god to explain why super novas occur. ..God is just an assumption and the default position for "I don't know " for the theist, at lest that is what you guys have been able to show so far. . . .You want me to just accept that god created everything and set them in place( an assumption), but you don't want me to ask you about the specific mechanism he used to put those things in place if indeed he created them. . .

Mazaje, you're really owning this anony guy.Please I need to talk to you.could you drop an address? thanks

peterphd:
Mazaje, you're really owning this anony guy.Please I need to talk to you.could you drop an address? thanks

mazaje247@yahoo.com

mazaje:

Am tired of this endless back and forth. . .Just to make things clear when I say god you know exactly what I mean I clearly gave you the definition but you refused to accept it. . .When an atheist says he does not believe in god it means he does not believe in deities. . .

This is the definition of deity. . .

In religious belief, a deity (Listeni/ˈdiː.ɨti/ or Listeni/ˈdeɪ.ɨti/)[1] is a supernatural being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred. Some religions have one supreme deity, while others have multiple deities of various ranks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity

You are just all over the place, firstly you started by defining god as energy, you even went as far as trying to claiming that the god of the bible is energy just to satisfy your ridiculous delusions. You tried to force the bible to agree with you that its god is a pantheist god which you called energy in your delusions . .When called out you jumped ship and claimed that god as just a label. . .I am not going to respond to you again. . .You have no definition for god. . .To you god means anything which is not what this topic is about, this topic is specifically about the theistic concept of god. . .If you want to discuss your energy god and stone god go create another topic pls and discuss it. . .I am not going to respond to you again. . .

Mr. . . . . You think you can hide behind lies and arrogance? So you think you would ignore me because you are exposed? This will not stop me from showing you who you're.

We have to redefine what atheism is. Going by what you have up there, atheism should be disbelieve in theistic God but believe in pantheistic, spinoza, panentheistic and other connception of God. . . .including social (admired person) or creative art (theatre gallery) definition of God.

If atheism is defined as that, it is then no more atheism but anti-theism. . ..

Now you know where you belong. . . .not really an atheist you claim to be but an anti-theist. . . .or probably hatheist who just love to hate everything theistic or God.