menesheh:


You seems not proud with your faith menn.


Now hopefully, you are under the umbrella of yahweh cum jesus mary right?

You are funny...how convenient for you to say that im not proud of my faith when you have little or no idea of your existence...

This is a logical discussion, why are you people trying to forcibly slot in religion.
I guess ive exhausted your logical ideas so much that you have to resort to religion. its a shame.

Weah96:


The ancient Egyptians didn't call their moral guideline Golden Rule. The term was coined by Christians in reference to the Sermon on the Mount.

My question is, since morality had a divine origin, according to you, where did the ancient Egyptians get their "do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" from? They wrote down that code 2000 years before Jesus arrived with his own.

Mr man give me concrete evidence of the existence of the golden rule before the Bible...And dont come at me with some ancient stone age books...

You are asking and answering your own questions, how absurd.....I never said morality had a divine origin, you did......Im arguing that logically, there is no such thing as morality.

Quit trying to slot in religion.

winner01:
You are funny...how convenient for you to say that im not proud of my faith when you have little or no idea of your existence...

This is a logical discussion, why are you people trying to forcibly slot in religion.
I guess ive exhausted your logical ideas so much that you have to resort to religion. its a shame.

If not your faith and religion, what are logiking about bruh?

menesheh:


If not your faith and religion, what are logiking about bruh?

we are "logiking" about the existence of God....and last i checked, faith and religion "clouds" our opinion on the topic of the existence of the Universe, at least as the atheist believe.

winner01:
we are "logiking" about the existence of God....and last i checked, faith and religion "clouds" our opinion on the topic of the existence of the Universe, at least as the atheist believe.

BOLDED : That why am concerned and continue asking you about your faith so that we can narrow it down. But you seems not proud with your religion

menesheh:



BOLDED : That why am concerned and continue asking you about your faith so that we can narrow it down. But you seems not proud with your religion

Dont ask me about my faith, instead give me reasonable arguments to substantiate your claims and then we can narrow that down.
How has my pride become your concern, lol
man up, you are not talking with a kid

winner01:
Mr man give me concrete evidence of the existence of the golden rule before the Bible...And dont come at me with some ancient stone age books...

You are asking and answering your own questions, how absurd.....I never said morality had a divine origin, you did......Im arguing that logically, there is no such thing as morality.

Quit trying to slot in religion.

Stone books that predate the bible aren't allowed? Do you want me to summon dead witnesses from antiquity? I'm afraid that the deed is beyond my present abilities.

I apologize for making unnecessary assumptions. I was under the impression that you came from the school of thought which presupposes a divine origin of morality. My bad.

You're quite correct with your views on morality though. However, that's the reason why civilized societies have laws which are all based on a positive interpretation of the Golden Rule.

winner01:
Dont ask me about my faith, instead give me reasonable arguments to substantiate your claims and then we can narrow that down.
How has my pride become your concern, lol
man up, you are not talking with a kid

Am an atheist, which my claims do you want substantiation?

menesheh:


Am an atheist, which my claims do you want substantiation?

proof of your existence.

Weah96:


Stone books that predate the bible aren't allowed? Do you want me to summon dead witnesses from antiquity? I'm afraid that the deed is beyond my present abilities.

I apologize for making unnecessary assumptions. I was under the impression that you came from the school of thought which presupposes a divine origin of morality. My bad.

You're quite correct with your views on morality though. However, that's the reason why civilized societies have laws which are all based on a positive interpretation of the Golden Rule.

"Civilized societies" are grossly unfair and tyrannical to enforce primitive laws down the throats of the populace....A general concensus should be reached, only then can we have fairness and equity in a "civilized society" .

winner01:
proof of your existence.

You don't know me. You only know that I must be a human being or a very intelligent A.I. system. Those are your choices. In that case, anything I say to you on this forum and through the medium of cyberspace is sufficient proof that you're communicating with a human or AI who uses the moniker WEAH96.

Ask me to do something an ordinary human will do. For example, create another username of your choosing and show up in this thread with it. We will keep the mods aware since sockpuppetry is against the rules.

Now, if you still insist that the proof is insufficient, then I must make you aware that we could arrange a similar experiment for whichever personal God you follow. I'm willing to accept the insufficient evidence, provided the God is talking or typing here.

Weah96:


You don't know me. You only know that I must be a human being or a very intelligent A.I. system. Those are your choices. In that case, anything I say to you on this forum and through the medium of cyberspace is sufficient proof that you're communicating with a human or AI who uses the moniker WEAH96.

Ask me to do something an ordinary human will do. For example, create another username of your choosing and show up in this thread with it. We will keep the mods aware since sockpuppetry is against the rules.

Now, if you still insist that the proof is insufficient, then I must make you aware that we could arrange a similar experiment for whichever personal God you follow. I'm willing to accept the insufficient evidence, provided the God is talking or typing here.

Not so fast mister...Communication is a very shallow proof to provide of your existence...Lets think out of the box here......Dont you communicate with other humans in dreams and illusions......Whatever you think you can do as a proof can also be done in an illusion...

When you give me a substantial proof, then you will see my standpoint on the existence of the Creator

winner01:
"Civilized societies" are grossly unfair and tyrannical to enforce primitive laws down the throats of the populace....A general concensus should be reached, only then can we have fairness and equity in a "civilized society" .

In primitive laws, women were beaten with mop handles. On the contrary, our present laws are a more refined and humane version of the primitive laws of which you speak. For example, many primitive societies degraded the woman to little more than an item which produces children and pleasure. Even though they knew about the Golden Rule, they would have expected the same treatment in return. A young man who beat his wife daily, expected his sister to be treated the same. His morality was intact.

Today the practice is generally frowned upon in secular societies. We somehow manage to learn, through the children who grow up, that some shyt is flat out wrong. Our parents are merely old children, as we will be soon. It is up to the newer children to provide the improvement.

Check out Terence McKenna's Novelty Theory if you want to learn about the nature of increasing complexity.
Humans will eventually be unable to tell a lie to another human. Fairness will come at an unknown cost.


https://sites.google.com/site/patrickmhmbs/home/mckenna

winner01:
proof of your existence.

I've answered that question b4,


I don't know. Do you know?



Are you a Christian? Just wanna ask you some questions!

winner01:
Not so fast mister...Communication is a very shallow proof to provide of your existence...Lets think out of the box here......Dont you communicate with other humans in dreams and illusions......Whatever you think you can do as a proof can also be done in an illusion...

When you give me a substantial proof, then you will see my standpoint on the existence of the Creator

LOL, are you a solipsist? Only a solipsist will say that he's dreaming here. Ha-ha-ha. This is not a dream, BTW. I carry a totem with me, like DiCaprio in the movie Inception. If you're an honest person, you would say the truth. But you also claim to talk to God, so I don't expect you to come close to anything called truth.

BTW, I will accept a deliberate illusion or a good dream at this point. How come the God cannot come in an illusion or dream? Even that is beyond him too?

menesheh:


I've answered that question b4,


I don't know. Do you know?



Are you a Christian? Just wanna ask you some questions!

Haha.........You have no clue of your existence...Thats some serious sh*t.

Now that you have vividly run out of logical ideas, then i can talk faith. And that is even subject to your objectivity.
I am a child of God, give your questions.

Weah96:


LOL, are you a solipsist? Only a solipsist will say that he's dreaming here. Ha-ha-ha. This is not a dream, BTW. I carry a totem with me, like DiCaprio in the movie Inception. If you're an honest person, you would say the truth. But you also claim to talk to God, so I don't expect you to come close to anything called truth.

BTW, I will accept a deliberate illusion or a good dream at this point. How come the God cannot come in an illusion or dream? Even that is beyond him too?

Stop putting your words in my mouth mr weah96, you are saying things i never said....If you accept a deliberate illusion or dream, then you still have to prove it to me...

winner01:
Haha.........You have no clue of your existence...Thats some serious sh*t.

Now that you have vividly run out of logical ideas, then i can talk faith. And that is even subject to your objectivity.
I am a child of God, give your questions.

How do you arrive to the conclusion that god is real?

I think the last thing i want to do on this forum is argue or try to explain bible topics to unbelievers.
This is a discerning advice @ winner01.
No matter how many times you try to explain or prove them wrong,they will not accept.They keep going round in circles.
Just like an INFINITE LOOP in C++.

We need you to explain some edifiying bibles subjects and not waste your time with these Guys.

winner01:
Stop putting your words in my mouth mr weah96, you are saying things i never said....If you accept a deliberate illusion or dream, then you still have to prove it to me...

OK, I will. Now can you go to the dream or the illusion where you talk to this God and tell him to come to my own dream or illusion? Leave the the proof business to me.

Tell him to forget real life, ignore the cancer wards with the small children, I'm taking dreams and illusions at this point.

winner01:
proof of your existence.

They're really making you go in circles with them

They just keep going over what has already been said, thereby getting themselves confused which has no end

It then becomes an absurd circle

menesheh:


I've answered that question b4,


I don't know. Do you know?



Are you a Christian? Just wanna ask you some questions!

I thought atheists are disapproving of God in general, but here, you guys are making me understand that it's actually the 'Christian God' that you hate (mostly)

Is there a particular reason and do you mind telling?

Thoniameek:


I thought atheists are disapproving of God in general, but here, you guys are making me understand that it's actually the 'Christian God' that you hate (mostly)

Is there a particular reason and do you mind telling?

Not really. The reasons why you are presuming that we hate christian god is that we talk about Christianity pretty much. we are born into the faith and know much about it. Most atheist you see here on nairaland were once christians or lived in christian areas and are most familiar with the bible, so they engage you based on what they know.
Muslims atheist attack more of islam, in fact i think muslims atheist attack mostly Muslims, you wish to take it personal

Great, now that you have in a way earned my attention on religion. Lets reason.

Detecting the non-physical force; You guys have been battling with my take on the non-physical ( e.g feelings, illusions, affection) from the begining this topic alone, You have had little to no idea on this issue. And i dont blame you either, human reasoning walls are broken when it comes to this.
Real atheists usually become mute when this topic is raised. They look deceived and become unimaginably stup1d when they go ahead to accept the idea of attitude, consciousness and all forms of non-physical forces...

The lifetime of a human is extremely short to actually know about a fraction of the universe. take for instance the cosmological constant which was discovered late in the last century. Studies continue to add up to our existing knowledge about the universe and contrasting sources show that its makeup is extremely unlikely.


The big bang theory; Which states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all the matter and energy it will ever need. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history in milliseconds, the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe. The atheists are so engrossed in their belief that they become apprehensive of the fact that the big bang could have been a response to a supreme command. They are also apprehensive of the fact that it is presently logically impossible for light to beget life.

But the universe is so enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, i mean contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If it was, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. How conveniently coincidental for the atheist to believe that the universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

Recently i read that quarks and antiquarks combine to annihilate each other. Originally, it was expected that the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. If the ratio were exactly equal to one, the universe would have consisted solely of energy which is obviously not conducive to the existence of life. However, this just pushes fine tuning a level down to ask why quarks display the masses they have. Those masses must be fine tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.
Why isn’t the cosmos a sea of bland radiation? This is the question that would have followed if you actually answered my question on your existence. The triumph of matter suggests that the laws of physics are just biased.


Cosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into these 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist (Dr. L. Dyson, 2002). How convenient is it for the atheist to believe that a random process can make intelligent exceptions in fluctuations to favour an habitable environment.


Many atheists now believe in the multi-universe theory. This theory requires one to believe that there are more universes in existence than the number of all the subatomic particles that exist in our universe.
Our universe just happened to be one of the few that is able to support life. Here is what a recent article from Science says about this hypothetical "multiverse" spinning off an "infinity" of other universes:
"Uncomfortable with the idea that physical parameters are simply lucky accidents, some cosmologists, including Hawking, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger 'multiverse,' each with different values for these parameters. Only those values that are compatible with life could be observed by beings such as ourselves."
Now what scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model None!! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain any evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist). Even some science websites admit that such ideas amount to nothing more than unfalsifiable metaphysics:
Hear Paul Davies' take: "Whether it is God, or man, who tosses the dice, turns out to depend on whether multiple universes really exist or not. If instead, the other universes are relegated to ghost worlds, we must regard our existence as a miracle of such improbability that it is scarcely credible."...



On the other hand, the theist says that God designed the universe with just the right laws of physics.
Note that neither the multiverse nor the "God hypothesis" is testable. However, the "God hypothesis" is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics.
How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this
Why would it even want to do this
Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all
None of these questions are logically explained by naturalism. Only an intelligent Being would be motivated and expected to produce any kind of universe such as what we see.
If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, then common sense would eliminate the super universe/ multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model.
The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew , a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it. Likewise, Frank Tipler, A Professor of the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University, and a former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of the laws of physics.



Finally, a common objection to the "God hypothesis" is the problem of how God came to be. If everything has a cause, why does God get an exception
The problem with such reasoning is that it assumes that time has always existed. In reality, time is a construct of this universe and began at the initiation of the Big Bang. A God who exists outside the time constraints of the universe is not subject to cause and effect. So, the idea that God has always existed and is not caused follows logically from the fact that the universe and time itself was created at the Big Bang. The Bible makes these exact claims - that God has always existed and that God created time, along with the entire universe, being described as an expanding universe.
So, an atheist who claims to live by logic and evidence cannot arbitrarily assign eternity to a universe that is clearly temporal.
Now, its not like God has left His name etched onto the surface of planets. However, there is abundant evidence that the universe was designed by super intelligent Agent, who purposed that the universe should exist and be capable of supporting advanced life. The design of the universe is just one line of evidence that tells us that God is real and created the universe. The design of the earth and solar system is also quite impressive. Likewise, chemistry and physics preclude the possibility that life evolved on earth . In addition, human beings are remarkably different from every other animal on earth, suggesting a departure from naturalistic processes...
Remove sentiments and see the picture mr menesheh.

Weah96:


OK, I will. Now can you go to the dream or the illusion where you talk to this God and tell him to come to my own dream or illusion? Leave the the proof business to me.

Tell him to forget real life, ignore the cancer wards with the small children, I'm taking dreams and illusions at this point.

Even though you have accepted the fact that your life is an illusion, You still havent proven to me the fact that your life is an illusion.

menesheh:



Not really. The reasons why you are presuming that we hate christian god is that we talk about Christianity pretty much. we are born into the faith and know much about it. Most atheist you see here on nairaland were once christians or lived in christian areas and are most familiar with the bible, so they engage you based on what they know.
Muslims atheist attack more of islam, in fact i think muslims atheist attack mostly Muslims, you wish to take it personal

johnydon22 said the same thing earlier and i corrected it...There is no such thing as muslim atheist or christian atheist...Atheists, even if born into religion dont believe in it so why choose to attack a particular God.
The spirit actually knows the Truth about God even if the flesh acts stubborn and cocky and so it tends to manifest its evil through the flesh.......Many atheists irregardless of initial belief, believe that the christian God is the worst of all, the reason is crystal clear for those who are mentally sound.

Thoniameek:


They're really making you go in circles with them

They just keep going over what has already been said, thereby getting themselves confused which has no end

It then becomes an absurd circle

Ill actually quit the argument when i get a cue, they seem intelligent but f00lishness is what comes out of their mouths. I have proven that the life of anyone who does not believe in God is already in confusion.....that is why they kept asking for my religion

Religion is their tool for attacking a theist, when it comes to common sense, only very few of them are objective.

sportsmaster:
I think the last thing i want to do on this forum is argue or try to explain bible topics to unbelievers.
This is a discerning advice @ winner01.
No matter how many times you try to explain or prove them wrong,they will not accept.They keep going round in circles.
Just like an INFINITE LOOP in C++.

We need you to explain some edifiying bibles subjects and not waste your time with these Guys.

Ill leave them in their folly very soon, none of them seem to be able to catch up anyway...

winner01:
johnydon22 said the same thing earlier and i corrected it...There is no such thing as muslim atheist or christian atheist...Atheists, even if born into religion dont believe in it so why choose to attack a particular God.
The spirit actually knows the Truth about God even if the flesh acts stubborn and cocky and so it tends to manifest its evil through the flesh.......Many atheists irregardless of initial belief, believe that the christian God is the worst of all, the reason is crystal clear for those who are mentally sound.

What are your reasons for believing in god?

winner01:
Even though you have accepted the fact that your life is an illusion, You still havent proven to me the fact that your life is an illusion.

Now you're the one making the assumptions. Dreams occur to most humans naturally during the period known as REM sleep. I promised to interview the God there if you can be so kind as to set up an interview. The God is unwilling to show up here on the message board, or in person.

You are espousing solipsism, an idea which runs contrary to what is found in the Abrahamic religions. Allah and Yahweh were public demonstrators, and there was no indication that anyone was sleeping or in a dream.

winner01:
Great, now that you have in a way earned my attention on religion. Lets reason.

Detecting the non-physical force; You guys have been battling with my take on the non-physical ( e.g feelings, illusions, affection) from the begining this topic alone, You have had little to no idea on this issue. And i dont blame you either, human reasoning walls are broken when it comes to this.
Real atheists usually become mute when this topic is raised. They look deceived and become unimaginably stup1d when they go ahead to accept the idea of attitude, consciousness and all forms of non-physical forces...

The lifetime of a human is extremely short to actually know about a fraction of the universe. take for instance the cosmological constant which was discovered late in the last century. Studies continue to add up to our existing knowledge about the universe and contrasting sources show that its makeup is extremely unlikely.


The big bang theory; Which states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all the matter and energy it will ever need. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history in milliseconds, the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe. The atheists are so engrossed in their belief that they become apprehensive of the fact that the big bang could have been a response to a supreme command. They are also apprehensive of the fact that it is presently logically impossible for light to beget life.

But the universe is so enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, i mean contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If it was, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. How conveniently coincidental for the atheist to believe that the universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

Recently i read that quarks and antiquarks combine to annihilate each other. Originally, it was expected that the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. If the ratio were exactly equal to one, the universe would have consisted solely of energy which is obviously not conducive to the existence of life. However, this just pushes fine tuning a level down to ask why quarks display the masses they have. Those masses must be fine tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.
Why isn’t the cosmos a sea of bland radiation? This is the question that would have followed if you actually answered my question on your existence. The triumph of matter suggests that the laws of physics are just biased.


Cosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into these 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist (Dr. L. Dyson, 2002). How convenient is it for the atheist to believe that a random process can make intelligent exceptions in fluctuations to favour an habitable environment.


Many atheists now believe in the multi-universe theory. This theory requires one to believe that there are more universes in existence than the number of all the subatomic particles that exist in our universe.
Our universe just happened to be one of the few that is able to support life. Here is what a recent article from Science says about this hypothetical "multiverse" spinning off an "infinity" of other universes:
"Uncomfortable with the idea that physical parameters are simply lucky accidents, some cosmologists, including Hawking, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger 'multiverse,' each with different values for these parameters. Only those values that are compatible with life could be observed by beings such as ourselves."
Now what scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model None!! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain any evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist). Even some science websites admit that such ideas amount to nothing more than unfalsifiable metaphysics:
Hear Paul Davies' take: "Whether it is God, or man, who tosses the dice, turns out to depend on whether multiple universes really exist or not. If instead, the other universes are relegated to ghost worlds, we must regard our existence as a miracle of such improbability that it is scarcely credible."...



On the other hand, the theist says that God designed the universe with just the right laws of physics.
Note that neither the multiverse nor the "God hypothesis" is testable. However, the "God hypothesis" is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics.
How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this
Why would it even want to do this
Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all
None of these questions are logically explained by naturalism. Only an intelligent Being would be motivated and expected to produce any kind of universe such as what we see.
If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, then common sense would eliminate the super universe/ multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model.
The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew , a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it. Likewise, Frank Tipler, A Professor of the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University, and a former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of the laws of physics.



Finally, a common objection to the "God hypothesis" is the problem of how God came to be. If everything has a cause, why does God get an exception
The problem with such reasoning is that it assumes that time has always existed. In reality, time is a construct of this universe and began at the initiation of the Big Bang. A God who exists outside the time constraints of the universe is not subject to cause and effect. So, the idea that God has always existed and is not caused follows logically from the fact that the universe and time itself was created at the Big Bang. The Bible makes these exact claims - that God has always existed and that God created time, along with the entire universe, being described as an expanding universe.
So, an atheist who claims to live by logic and evidence cannot arbitrarily assign eternity to a universe that is clearly temporal.
Now, its not like God has left His name etched onto the surface of planets. However, there is abundant evidence that the universe was designed by super intelligent Agent, who purposed that the universe should exist and be capable of supporting advanced life. The design of the universe is just one line of evidence that tells us that God is real and created the universe. The design of the earth and solar system is also quite impressive. Likewise, chemistry and physics preclude the possibility that life evolved on earth . In addition, human beings are remarkably different from every other animal on earth, suggesting a departure from naturalistic processes...
Remove sentiments and see the picture mr menesheh.

The write-up is too long. I prefer consice comments.

menesheh:


The write-up is too long. I prefer consice comments.

He's trying to conceal his regurgitated and beaten down argument that God created the universe. They always repeat the same argument over and over and over instead of going through the older threads and beginning from there. See nonsense like this:

The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics.
How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this

The man doesn't understand the argument against his position, that's the only reason why he would ask such a question? Folykaze, can you please tell this guy that a powerful, super universe can also be called God? He's bringing a preconceived notion of the word to the table and trying to hide behind that meaning to infer his white humanoid God.