ashjay001:


Yep, the same way u think Atheists are contradicting themselves n d same way atheists think theists are contradicting themselves. Read again, u just might get it, all things being equal?!

You see, why do you think if i read your post again i will understand just the same way you understand. Is it because we have a common way of thinking which is logical?

Speechless3:
You see, why do you think if i read your post again i will understand just the same way you understand. Is it because we have a common way of thinking which is logical?

Ur mind games no be here! Its been long since someone twisted me around this much without me predicting d outcome! I don't even know if my headache is by u or d heat/sun?

Short of telephaty, this one na stalemate, or I concede. I might not be able to extricate myself from ur twists!

ashjay001:


Ur mind games no be here! Its been long since someone twisted me around this much without me predicting d outcome! I don't even know if my headache is by u or d heat/sun?

Short of telephaty, this one na stalemate, or I concede. I might not be able to extricate myself from ur twists!

Thats the twist you find yourself in when you believe logic exists and does not exist at the same time

My good friend HardMirror wont grace my thread again

I've lost onetrack, CoolUsername and frank317 all within 20hours

Look what being logical has cost me

I just saw one Mzjanet trolling somewhere. Has she seen this thread too?

Teempakguy:
okay. Let's do this. you and I. having a mature discussion.

I agree that Logic exists. my reason for this is that logic is consistent and objective. it is not subjective at all.

The problem with logic and everything is the premise. if you have a faulty premise, you CANNOT be expected to have a sensible conclusion. and that is the problem.

A = B. ONLY if A is equal to something Else, which is equal to B. or if there is a requirement in there somewhere.

The issue of disagreement with atheists and theists is their premise. they observe the same things, and they come to very different conclusions. these conclusions are then used as premises in order to determine whether God exists or not.

for instance. I will give an example.

A sand castle is observed on a beach, and they have absolutely no evidence pointing to anything which could have designed it. now, a sand castle has patterns. it is not utter chaos. now, in a theist mind, patterns are associated with intelligence. in an atheist mind, patterns are subjective.

now, the theist will of course, argue that the sand castle MUST have been built by a human. the atheist will argue, not necessarily. now, the theist has the burden of proof. and he will argue that there is no known natural phenomenon that can make a sand castle to exist. except humans. now, the atheist now has to prove that this is incorrect by citing a phenomenon, besides humans, that can make a sandcastle. if he can't the theist wins, if he can, then the theist has to prove that he is incorrect by citing something that would prevent that pheomenon from being responsible for the sandcastle. for instance, if the Atheist suggested termites, the theist can argue, what would a termite be doing on a beach?

Well said so far.

Teempakguy:

now, extend that to the cosmos. we are here, and we are in this seemingly beautiful world. with lots of recognizable patterns. again, the theist mind associates pattern with intelligence. the atheist insists that pattern can be associated with other things. so, the theist has asserted that a being with extraordinary intelligence must have been responsible for the incredible pattern in the universe. So, he must prove that there is no known natural phenomenon that can make this pattern.

Not just patterns but incredibly complex CODED systems which all life is by virtue of their genes.

Teempakguy:

but he can't. because the atheist already has things like evolution, the big bang, stellar genesis, theory of gravity, weathering . . . and so on and so forth, that the theist HAS to prove wrong in order to put God as the only prime mover of the universe.

The theory of evolution is dead on arrival. No transitional species in fossils or at the moment, just fossils of COMPLETE extant or extinct species coopted as transitional. The mechanisms are so poor I wonder whether its bias or plain silliness that prevents from seeing that accidental copying errors don't make anything, they only degrade or destroy.

Now as for the Big Bang, there is still the possibility that God used it as a means to create our world.

Teempakguy:

So the problem here, is that of proving that all he alternative causes of pattern in the universe, that the atheist has suggested, is in fact incapable of being those causes. and this is the core of the argument. every decade, the atheists keep getting more and more alternative explanations to the pattern in the universe which the theists are finding harder and harder to disprove. and the theist has one book, which, is only valid if the theist has Already proven God exists. so it's not helping here . . .

I have made my arguments above. Especially on the dead theory that's a favorite of your folk.

Teempakguy:

So, If you want to win this argument, you have ONE task. you must make a self consistent theory that explains the limits of the theories of the atheists in explaining the the universe. and then, we will conduct experiments, and we should find these limits. If we do, you have won over the logical atheists. of course, some will still remain atheist. but you will have appealed to the logical ones.

Philosophers over time and in a myriad of ways have decried and argued against the materialism of atheists. Not only is it true that the consciousness through which we view the world immaterial and spiritual. It is also true that material expalanations in and of themselves ignore the IMMATERIAL logic they rest upon. Seeing the stupidity in using purely material explanations to explain a reality that is not strictly material is the first and most fundamental step to seeing the fraud that atheism is.

Teempakguy:

for an example of this. here is an atheist model that predicts the limits of the theistic theory. and which has been confirmed through experiment.

A JudeoChristian God cannot exist because in the book he has supposedly written, he promises to answer prayers. since he has earlier promised to keep his word, and has earlier promised that his word is true, Then prayers should work. If prayers do not work in a scientifically controlled experiment, then we can conclude that he does not exist.

countless such experiments have been conducted and we have found that prayer has no effect of any kind in any situation.

This has made many logical theists into atheists. so, I am expecting your theist version.

You can't put God in a box with experiments.

"Atheism is fraud"-Uyilredia

Good points!

Speechless3:


No1 Postulation: What you are saying is that something is only logical if it has been subjected to tests and in this case experiences. That is we cannot know at once that an abandoned car has a manufacturer except from our life experience of seeing cars being made by man. Loooooool. This is faulty because its saying those who have no idea of who makes cars will be right to conclude on seeing an abandoned car that GM does not exist.

Your logic is based on experience, it is no logic. Logic must be true every where at the same time.

we have a pattern and people have followed it and arrived to results. Find a pattern today and you will never seek miracle. But then again, think of why you believe in God following your assertion, I will be right to say you became a Christian because you were introduced to it? Assume there was no religion, all we will look for is pattern on how to get "everything" done on our own.

Speechless3:
Thats the twist you find yourself in when you believe logic exists and does not exist at the same time

That all atheists could just resort to twisting u all up, instead of ridicule or derision.

So, which do u I should choose? Belief or Unbelief? Logic or Illogical?

Speechless3,

You are very lucky that I did not catch onto this thread early on.

I can see that you are enjoying yourself and trolling the atheists here. Let me put a stop to that-



Addressing the laws of logic;
1) Logic is a human construct. It exists (albeit as an abstract) because we as intelligent beings use it to explain and understand our environment around us. You cannot touch logic- it exists abstractly just like love or emotions do. They have no tangible existence.

2) Logic is not absolutely perfect or objective- there are logical paradoxes and conundrums that defy human logic. However, aside these paradoxes, logic is objective and also, it works better if there is some experience tied to it.

3) Outside a human brain or outside our universe, logic might actually be different. For example, To an ant, a sheet of paper is a cuboid while a human will see it as flat rectangle. We use paper for 2 dimensional constructs but it would be 3 dimensional if we were as small as ants.


==========================
addressing the manufactured car vs the created universe
1) Apples and oranges- A car is not a natural object compared to the earth or a universe. An analogy using a car and the universe to explain creation will always fail.

2) A car is man-made. We already know its origin- it has been made by humans at a manufacturing plant and there is evidence. The universe is unknown. The car is not an organic matter that can evolve or grow on its own.

3) No one knows the origin of the universe. Even the big bang as a theory has many unexplained areas. No one knows. Claiming it is God is a just a lazy lie

JackBizzle post=:
Speechless3,

You are very lucky that I did not catch onto this thread early on.
43415894
I can see that you are enjoying yourself and trolling the atheists here. Let me put a stop to that-



Addressing the laws of logic;
1) Logic is a human construct. It exists (albeit as an abstract) because we as intelligent beings use it to explain and understand our environment around us. You cannot touch logic- it exists abstractly just like love or emotions do. They have no tangible existence.

Ok. So far, so good.

JackBizzle post=:

2) Logic is not absolutely perfect or objective- there are logical paradoxes and conundrums that defy human logic. However, aside these paradoxes, logic is objective and also, it works better if there is some experience tied to it.

True.

JackBizzle post=:

3) Outside a human brain or outside our universe, logic might actually be different. For example, To an ant, a sheet of paper is a cuboid while a human will see it as flat rectangle. We use paper for 2 dimensional constructs but it would be 3 dimensional if we were as small as ants.

Logic hasn't changed only the perspective of the creatures involved.

JackBizzle post=:

==========================
addressing the manufactured car vs the created universe
1) Apples and oranges- A car is not a natural object compared to the earth or a universe. An analogy using a car and the universe to explain creation will always fail.

It won't. We are making a comparison using complexity as a margin. The universe and its life are very complex.

JackBizzle post=:

2) A car is man-made. We already know its origin- it has been made by humans at a manufacturing plant and there is evidence. The universe is unknown. The car is not an organic matter that can evolve or grow on its own.

I have shown the similarity used in the analogy anything else you add as a requirement is empty mind games which no one should tag along with.

JackBizzle post=:

3) No one knows the origin of the universe. Even the big bang as a theory has many unexplained areas. No one knows. Claiming it is God is a just a lazy lie

And why is God a lie? No reason. But there is logic to your simple denial of God as the first cause. Materialism and its st*pidity.

UyiIredia:


Ok. So far, so good.



True.



Logic hasn't changed only the perspective of the creatures involved.



It won't. We are making a comparison using complexity as a margin. The universe and its life are very complex.



I have shown the similarity used in the analogy anything else you add as a requirement is empty mind games which no one should tag along with.



And why is God a lie? No reason. But there is logic to your simple denial of God as the first cause. Materialism and its st*pidity.

I read, re-read and triple re-read your post and it still didnt make sense.

I'm weeping because your brain is dead. My condolences

JackBizzle:



I read, re-read and triple re-read your post and it still didnt make sense.
I'm weeping because your brain is dead. My condolences

Usual insults when you've been a $$wiped.

JackBizzle:



I read, re-read and triple re-read your post and it still didnt make sense.
I'm weeping because your brain is dead. My condolences

Usual insults when you've been a $$wiped.

Speechless3:
"Atheism is fraud"-Uyilredia

Good points!

Thanks. It's a pity these atheists don't use the reason they lay claim too. That's why I call it a fraud. They hold a self-defeating materialist position when there's much more to our world than meets the eye.

UyiIredia:


Thanks. It's a pity these atheists don't use the reason they lay claim too. That's why I call it a fraud. They hold a self-defeating materialist position when there's much more to our world than meets the eye.

That gets me wondering too. I mean it is only common sense to know that immaterial things cannot fit into their created tiny box of knowing truth.

Common sense however seems uncommon

Speechless3:
That gets me wondering too. I mean it is only common sense to know that immaterial things cannot fit into their created tiny box of knowing truth.

UyiIredia:


Thanks. It's a pity these atheists don't use the reason they lay claim too. That's why I call it a fraud. They hold a self-defeating materialist position when there's much more to our world than meets the eye.

Do you believe in the Bible?

@Speechless3,

These are your logical fallacies.
1.False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.
2.Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice-versa.
3.Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false
4.False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.


Concerning point number 1, the world does not need a creator to create it. Where are elements created? Did you not learn this in Primary school? How does land form? So you have not seen crystals growing in salt solutions? If a crystal laden meteorite should fall in a salt solution, was it Cristiano Ronaldo that was taking penalties from Planet Jupiter?

Concerning point number 2, you speak about a god as if such a thing exists, it is a baseless assertion, no one has ever proven a god exists in the first place. So why speak of something you have never seen before, and then discuss how it is impossible for creating something that 6 year olds can do in American primary schools(creating land from water).

Concerning point number 3,you are claiming that since "you" personally, do not see how something came about on it's own, therefore it could not have come about on it's own!!! This is laughable!!! So if Kris Angel performs an illusion in your presence and you do not understand how he did it, therefore "octopus demon"?!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! While you were busy worshiping a dead jew in "tight wet Calvin Klein boxers", hanging on a mango tree, others were busy studying the nature of reality!!!

And last but not least, point 4,your bible is not a physics text book!!! It is not the Chief concensus on Cosmology, it talks about claims that have not been proven(talking snakes, talking donkeys, and men watching DSTV inside the stomach of a man eating fish whose stomach acid could not even digest the man that it swallowed)!!!

It doesn't just add up. Why do the descendants of that donkey adopt brayism as common donke lingo?

Ehn I'm pretty certain Jesus died driving in a lamborghini Centenario at near top speed wearing nothing but a pair of ck briefs.

He was actually killed by the doppler effect.

This thread is just someone trying (and failing) to make a valid argument and going "la la la, I cant hear you" when someone doesn't support her shallow-minded beliefs. How does questioning whether logic exists prove that your imaginary friend exists?

Then one other guy is here, lying that transitional fossils do not exist when there are several to date. He's lying that we don't see animals of the same species with different traits (maybe he doesn't know what a dog is).

So let me ask this, where is the evidence for biblical claims? Why isn't there evidence of the flood? Studies show that all the water in the earth's atmosphere would raise sea levels by about an inch, how do you circumvent that? If you can't then don't come here to talk about logic, because you obviously aren't using it.

bxcode:

You are among the unquantifiable evidence that shows that God exists, look all around you, the creators handiwork are screaming at you everywhere you go, from the tiniest of ant to the firmaments to the wonders of nature yet to be unraveled, you can deny that he exists by merely saying you haven't seen him before which to me is pure arrogance and ignorance but that won't change the fact that God exist and you can't just do anything about it.
Good morning.

Have you seen any other work or example of God's handiwork that can be compared with the Universe?

UyiIredia:


Well said so far.



Not just patterns but incredibly complex CODED systems which all life is by virtue of their genes.



The theory of evolution is dead on arrival. No transitional species in fossils or at the moment, just fossils of COMPLETE extant or extinct species coopted as transitional. The mechanisms are so poor I wonder whether its bias or plain silliness that prevents from seeing that accidental copying errors don't make anything, they only degrade or destroy.

Now as for the Big Bang, there is still the possibility that God used it as a means to create our world.



I have made my arguments above. Especially on the dead theory that's a favorite of your folk.




Philosophers over time and in a myriad of ways have decried and argued against the materialism of atheists. Not only is it true that the consciousness through which we view the world immaterial and spiritual. It is also true that material expalanations in and of themselves ignore the IMMATERIAL logic they rest upon. Seeing the stupidity in using purely material explanations to explain a reality that is not strictly material is the first and most fundamental step to seeing the fraud that atheism is.



You can't put God in a box with experiments.

What do you mean by there are no transitional fossils? you sound like you don't even understand the theory of evolution. the first postulate of the theory is that ALL species are transitional. even you that is talking is a specimen of a transitional speicie. your great great grand children will look nothing like you. and their great grand children might even be another species.

Second, you do not have the moral or Logical Authority to claim that Atheism is a fraud. the fact remains that we are all in the dark. you do not know for sure who or what created and designed the world. all you have is a guess and "Must Be"s. So, stop being Illogical here.

Thirdly, You give intelligence too much credit. So life is complex. so what? do you need intelligence for anything? Intelligence is just a luxury for design. with the right constraints, anything will happen. One of the most beautiful phenomenon in the world, the weather, is guided by pure Chaos. Quantum mechanics is basically the home of total chaos. a non-deterministic system. yet on the macro scale, it transforms into incredible order. without the intervention of any sort of intelligence.

fourth, You saying I can't put God in a box and experiment on him sounds like a cop out. how would you feel if I told you that you can't put evolution and the big bang in a box and experiment on them? you are literally telling me to accept bullshit without verification. how stupid do you think I am?
No thanks, But I will keep subjecting Your God and any other God out there. because the requirement for their existence is that they have objective reality.. not being in the minds of people who can't man up to face the world without a sky daddy..

Speechless3:
Teempakguy.

1. "All designers are humanoids" is true and not true.
(Notice i said complex design earlier on)
True because no non-humanoid can produce a complex design not because non has ever but because they simply lack the creative ability to do so. Only humans are gifted with such. How do i know past experience is not the primary reason we think so? simple, because the first man or men to design the "first ever design" had no past experience and didnt think past experience was what formed their thoughts. They went ahead to design because they had the inbuilt mental capacity to. Am not saying people dont develop on previous designs, i am only saying experience is not the primary cause.

False because God is God and not a human or man. We can call him a being who sometimes demonstrates his powers with human attributes in order to effect communication with us, seeing that we are a people of earthly reasoning. The Almighty would have to reach us in the best possible way we can understand. Does that make him human/humanoid? Does God have hands, legs? no but these are things that are sometimes attributed to him. Simple figurative device is used. If i want to draw the attention of a cat and i begin to "meeuw" does that make me a cat?

2, Ok fine. What are the chances that a nonhuman can design a computer. 0.00, 0.01, 0.02? If there was any other chance apart from human intelligence wont your sense of reasoning inform you? What are the odds that your brain will ever come up with something like a non-humanoid computer designer.

For example, when the europeans came down to africa with their weapons/guns/live ammunitions did any african conceive, even subconciously, that those weapons/guns were designed by non humans. No. They all agreed they were made by the whites...humans Did they have any experience of seeing white people design them. Really no. Common sense!

God is not Human. but he is humanoid. this fact is alluded to in genesis, when he clearly says, let us create man in our own Image. Every thing that theists know about God, comes from a book whose authenticity has not being verified. but that aside.

So, It would seem we have come to conclusion of what logic is, and what the subject of disagreement between theists and Atheists are. what you are trying to do now is that you want to point that the alternative Explanations presented by Atheists on the cosmos is Illogical.

Okay, then. All you have to do is Just prove the big bang theory and the theory of evolution wrong.

JackBizzle:
Speechless3,

You are very lucky that I did not catch onto this thread early on.

I can see that you are enjoying yourself and trolling the atheists here. Let me put a stop to that-



Addressing the laws of logic;
1) Logic is a human construct. It exists (albeit as an abstract) because we as intelligent beings use it to explain and understand our environment around us. You cannot touch logic- it exists abstractly just like love or emotions do. They have no tangible existence.

2) Logic is not absolutely perfect or objective- there are logical paradoxes and conundrums that defy human logic. However, aside these paradoxes, logic is objective and also, it works better if there is some experience tied to it.

3) Outside a human brain or outside our universe, logic might actually be different. For example, To an ant, a sheet of paper is a cuboid while a human will see it as flat rectangle. We use paper for 2 dimensional constructs but it would be 3 dimensional if we were as small as ants.


==========================
addressing the manufactured car vs the created universe
1) Apples and oranges- A car is not a natural object compared to the earth or a universe. An analogy using a car and the universe to explain creation will always fail.

2) A car is man-made. We already know its origin- it has been made by humans at a manufacturing plant and there is evidence. The universe is unknown. The car is not an organic matter that can evolve or grow on its own.

3) No one knows the origin of the universe. Even the big bang as a theory has many unexplained areas. No one knows. Claiming it is God is a just a lazy lie

Speechless3?

Hello? You ran away?

JackBizzle:


Speechless3?

Hello? You ran away?

I no run i just tire for una.

Speechless3:
I no run i just tire for una.

Yeah right.....when the real argument comes, you "get tired"

CoolUsername:


Then one other guy is here, lying that transitional fossils do not exist when there are several to date. He's lying that we don't see animals of the same species with different traits (maybe he doesn't know what a dog is).

And what did I say about transitionals presented? I said they show complete or extant species trasnsitionals. There are no non-viavle trasnitionals and which should see lots if a random process truly made us. The only lie is your precious theory.

UyiIredia:


And what did I say about transitionals presented? I said they show complete or extant species trasnsitionals. There are no non-viavle trasnitionals and which should see lots if a random process truly made us. The only lie is your precious theory.

Are you sure of what your saying? We tend to have far less individuals when a genetic mutation is failed. Also, are you implying that there isn't any variation within fossils of the same species?

@ UyiIredia,


Is atheism the rational choice?

JackBizzle:
@ UyiIredia,

Is atheism the rational choice?

Jamb question.

JackBizzle:
@ UyiIredia,

Is atheism the rational choice?

Jamb question.