chukwudi44:

Back to my previous argument[b],nothing is uncaused i.e everything that exists has a cause.[/b]

Oh really?
What caused God then?

For the world to have evolved ,something must have started the whole evolution process .

So mr tudor what existed before evolution started and what actually caused it ?

Mr chukwudi time and time on NL we tell you that atheist and evolutionist are two different things.
Not all atheists are evolutionists. Infact before darwin and his evolution theory atheists existed.
So i define atheism to you again : disbelief in god as potrayed by revealed religion.
Not belief in evolution.

If you're looking for answers go ask wirinet or KAG they are both evolutionist atheists.

Prizm:

First of all, you have to disabuse yourself of the idea that thinking rationally is possible only by being wedded to a worldview anchored on a strict naturalistic framework. Secondly, that entire statement you just made is False. The philosophical arguments on the existence of God do not rely on scriptures or what you have chosen to deride as "the writings and ideas of deluded primitive men who call themselves men of god". Two of such arguments are the Cosmological Argument and the Argument from Design. If you are not conversant with these arguments, then go read up on them. If you are familiar with them and you have a sound logical refutation, then let us hear it. If you come back with other empty assertions of self-worth then I am not obliged to respond to you. Let your much-vaunted superior arguments speak for you. We are all here to learn from each other, right?

This is just another empty assertion. On what basis or proof do you assert that "proof whether 'deductive' or 'inductive' should be definitive and leave no room for doubt for it to be called proof"? How do you know that this statement you just made is true? Does that assertion have any concrete materialistic/naturalistic explanation or evidence? The answer is NO.

At any rate, you are mistaken if you assume I am going to be locked into some unfruitful, unsophisticated back-and-forths on the topic. This issue calls for serious mentation--it is not an opportunity for jejune point scoring. For example, what do you mean when you ask for a "concrete" evidence of God? Are you asking to be shown something that has matter and could be called God? What sort of "concrete" evidence are you looking for? Let us hope you are not asking to be shown a logical contradiction i.e a material/empirical evidence for a God concept which by definition is spaceless or boundless; infinitely pre-existent or eternal in the past and future; immaterial or incorporeal; and ultimately omnipotent. It will be like asking for me to show you a square circle or a married bachelor. So, once again, tackle the philosophical arguments for the existence of God and tender your logical/rational refutations if you have any. This is not time for cheap rhetoric. You can do the honorable thing however and declare beforehand that you are not prepared to contemplate non-naturalistic alternatives and spare us a lot of time.


Yeah, but what sort of evidence is a naturalist going to accept or believe anyway? If you start ab initio [/i]and decree by fiat that you'll only be persuaded or convinced by naturalistic explanations then there is no need for us to waste our time here. It is astounding that anyone has to spell out to you that there cannot be any naturalistic explanations for non-naturalistic phenomena. Besides, any statement to the effect that [i]"naturalistic/empirical explanations are all that we have to accept when examining truth claims" collapses if one were to ask how such a statement/truth claim can be shown to be true. Such a statement cannot be empirically proven or explained by naturalistic means. This is going to sound like mumbo jumbo until you actually start thinking a little deeper on the subject. This discussion is not a popularity contest where trite and specious replies are tendered for the purpose of some cyber one-upmanship. I want to believe there are serious and honest theists, agnostics and atheists alike who really want to exchange ideas in a meaningful way.

Nice try. I am not going to accept that you have no burden of proof if you want to describe yourself as an atheist. Theists who believe in the existence of a God AND Atheists who believe in the non-existence of a God have to present their positive evidence for that stance. This means that it is logically fallacious to claim without good evidence for your own position, that the inability of the opposition to adequately explain their own truth claims counts as a logically necessary proof of your own claim. It means that both sides could be wrong.

For example: Side A claims that a certain watch found at an excavation site was designed by some intelligence and Side B claims that the watch was not designed but can be explained as the product of blind chance. Side A and B have a burden on them to present positive arguments for their case. Side B cannot just sit back and declare victory because Side A may not be able to explain how watches are designed, nor indeed who the designer of that watch is.

If you want to be taken seriously, start addressing those philosophical arguments for the existence of God. What you have to do is tear down those arguments and erect positive atheistic or naturalistic alternatives of your own. This calls for you to engage your brain. No one here is duty-bound to furnish you with any proof or evidence that you can cavalierly denounce to your heart's content. Funny that you seem to think that anyone is trying to secure your approval for what constitutes proof. If you don't see that in any discussion for the existence or non-existence of God that Atheists and Theists have to present their own case, then there is no need for any sort of discussion. Theists can happily believe in God; atheists can happily disbelieve in God--and no side is committed to showing the other why their stance is the more plausible or rational.

Cheers!

What is God? Please, tell us first what God is and how you come to know about him. Then we can begin to work out arguments for/against his existence. Without that we would be groping in the dark.

All the so-called philosophical arguments you have given so far are also equally valid for Sussicorn. So should we believe in Sussicorn?

Who is this Prizm guy? I like him very much!!!

Prizm:

First of all, you have to disabuse yourself of the idea that thinking rationally is possible only by being wedded to a worldview anchored on a strict naturalistic framework. Secondly, that entire statement you just made is False. The philosophical arguments on the existence of God do not rely on scriptures or what you have chosen to deride as "the writings and ideas of deluded primitive men who call themselves men of god". Two of such arguments are the Cosmological Argument and the Argument from Design. If you are not conversant with these arguments, then go read up on them. If you are familiar with them and you have a sound logical refutation, then let us hear it. If you come back with other empty assertions of self-worth then I am not obliged to respond to you. Let your much-vaunted superior arguments speak for you. We are all here to learn from each other, right?

This is just another empty assertion. On what basis or proof do you assert that "proof whether 'deductive' or 'inductive' should be definitive and leave no room for doubt for it to be called proof"? How do you know that this statement you just made is true? Does that assertion have any concrete materialistic/naturalistic explanation or evidence? The answer is NO.

At any rate, you are mistaken if you assume I am going to be locked into some unfruitful, unsophisticated back-and-forths on the topic. This issue calls for serious mentation--it is not an opportunity for jejune point scoring. For example, what do you mean when you ask for a "concrete" evidence of God? Are you asking to be shown something that has matter and could be called God? What sort of "concrete" evidence are you looking for? Let us hope you are not asking to be shown a logical contradiction i.e a material/empirical evidence for a God concept which by definition is spaceless or boundless; infinitely pre-existent or eternal in the past and future; immaterial or incorporeal; and ultimately omnipotent. It will be like asking for me to show you a square circle or a married bachelor. So, once again, tackle the philosophical arguments for the existence of God and tender your logical/rational refutations if you have any. This is not time for cheap rhetoric. You can do the honorable thing however and declare beforehand that you are not prepared to contemplate non-naturalistic alternatives and spare us a lot of time.


Yeah, but what sort of evidence is a naturalist going to accept or believe anyway? If you start ab initio [/i]and decree by fiat that you'll only be persuaded or convinced by naturalistic explanations then there is no need for us to waste our time here. It is astounding that anyone has to spell out to you that there cannot be any naturalistic explanations for non-naturalistic phenomena. Besides, any statement to the effect that [i]"naturalistic/empirical explanations are all that we have to accept when examining truth claims" collapses if one were to ask how such a statement/truth claim can be shown to be true. Such a statement cannot be empirically proven or explained by naturalistic means. This is going to sound like mumbo jumbo until you actually start thinking a little deeper on the subject. This discussion is not a popularity contest where trite and specious replies are tendered for the purpose of some cyber one-upmanship. I want to believe there are serious and honest theists, agnostics and atheists alike who really want to exchange ideas in a meaningful way.

Nice try. I am not going to accept that you have no burden of proof if you want to describe yourself as an atheist. Theists who believe in the existence of a God AND Atheists who believe in the non-existence of a God have to present their positive evidence for that stance. This means that it is logically fallacious to claim without good evidence for your own position, that the inability of the opposition to adequately explain their own truth claims counts as a logically necessary proof of your own claim. It means that both sides could be wrong.

For example: Side A claims that a certain watch found at an excavation site was designed by some intelligence and Side B claims that the watch was not designed but can be explained as the product of blind chance. Side A and B have a burden on them to present positive arguments for their case. Side B cannot just sit back and declare victory because Side A may not be able to explain how watches are designed, nor indeed who the designer of that watch is.

If you want to be taken seriously, start addressing those philosophical arguments for the existence of God. What you have to do is tear down those arguments and erect positive atheistic or naturalistic alternatives of your own. This calls for you to engage your brain. No one here is duty-bound to furnish you with any proof or evidence that you can cavalierly denounce to your heart's content. Funny that you seem to think that anyone is trying to secure your approval for what constitutes proof. If you don't see that in any discussion for the existence or non-existence of God that Atheists and Theists have to present their own case, then there is no need for any sort of discussion. Theists can happily believe in God; atheists can happily disbelieve in God--and no side is committed to showing the other why their stance is the more plausible or rational.

Cheers!

huxley:

What is God? Please, tell us first what God is and how you come to know about him. Then we can begin to work out arguments for/against his existence. Without that we would be groping in the dark.

All the so-called philosophical arguments you have given so far are also equally valid for Sussicorn. So should we believe in Sussicorn?

huxley:



To prove that something does exist, don't you thing we first need to know what it is we are seeking to prove, ie, the thing's ontology. Have you got a positive, objective and non-contradictory first-order ontology for GOD? Give us God's ontology - then we shall decide whether such amounts to the ontology of an existent entity.

Prizm:


So when theists say that their belief in God is anchored on reason but ultimately on faith, intelligent and discriminating theists and atheists are supposed to understand that to mean what it simply means--which is that on the God question, human knowledge and comprehension is so vanishingly small and insufficient to pronounce with any degree of certainty what God really is. A keen awareness that God exists might be present but the concept of God (especially his boundless and infinite attributes) are just simply not circumscribed by 'rudimentary' human mentation.

Concepts of Deity are so easy to bash and that is probably why militant atheists are so keen to hear of various concepts. But it is not necessary to have a concept of something in order to accept it exists. All that is required is the experience. The experience itself might shatter all preconceptions previously held.

Pastor AIO:

Concepts of Deity are so easy to bash and that is probably why militant atheists are so keen to hear of various concepts. But it is not necessary to have a concept of something in order to accept it exists. All that is required is the experience. The experience itself might shatter all preconceptions previously held.

Pastor AIO my favourite theist on Nigeria, how you dey?

Experience and its interpretation is the bane of religion. Because how you interpret your experience would be different from how i would interpret the same experience. Experience is predominantly our emotional responses, and emotional responses are varied depending on our expectations, our present state of mind and our belief systems. lets me give examples of some experiences; Happiness, joy, sadness, love, likeness, pain. All these experiences are determined by our expectation, our social systems. etc. An experience that makes one person sad would make another person happy, even the same experience can make a person happy at one moment and make the same person sad at another moment.

The problem of religions is that you are telling me to accept the interpretation of the experience of other people (long dead). it goes even worse, you are telling me to accept the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation of the experience of some persons, as written down.

If a person tells me his experience and its interpretation thereof, it is called evidence, since i was not there during the experience, i might believe, but nobody would blame me for not believing( remember thomas - no body blamed him). But if someone told me of the experience told to him by someone else, it would be termed hearsay, i would seek out the original person to confirm the story. But if i could not confirm the story, i would accept the story with a pinch of salt. But if the story is told "according to" someone else, then unless i get the same experience and can interpret it the same way, i am not at liberty to believe the story.

Tudór:

Oh really?
What caused God then?Mr chukwudi time and time on NL we tell you that atheist and evolutionist are two different things.
Not all atheists are evolutionists. Infact before darwin and his evolution theory atheists existed.
So i define atheism to you again : disbelief in god as potrayed by revealed religion.
Not belief in evolution.

If you're looking for answers go ask wirinet or KAG they are both evolutionist atheists.

Tudor since you dont beleive in evolution then,what do you think brought the earth and humanity into existence, give us your own tudor theory.

chukwudi44:

Tudor since you dont beleive in evolution then,what do you think brought the earth and humanity into existence, give us your own tudor theory.

Evolution or the Theory of Evolution is NOT something one believes in. Scientific theories or facts are NOT amenable for belief. You can either accept, reject or defer acceptance of scientific theories.

Think about it this way - do you belief in gravity or the theory of gravity?

Belief are rightly attributable to metaphysical or philosophical propositions or doctrines, like the following;

1) I believe in justice for all
2) I believe in democracy
3) I believe in Sussicorn

chukwudi44:

Tudor since you dont beleive in evolution then,what do you think brought the earth and humanity into existence, give us your own tudor theory.

Dude i don't have a theory. . .i never claim to know it all or have all the answers quite unlike you christians. . . .

huxley:

Evolution or the Theory of Evolution is NOT something one believes in. Scientific theories or facts are NOT amenable for belief. You can either accept, reject or defer acceptance of scientific theories.

Think about it this way - do you belief in gravity or the theory of gravity?

Belief are rightly attributable to metaphysical or philosophical propositions or doctrines, like the following;

1) I believe in justice for all
2) I believe in democracy
3) I believe in Sussicorn

Is that your definition of belief? Mine is much simpler. A belief is something that is accepted as true. One can either belief in the Theory of Gravity (Newton's or Einstein's, take your pick) or Not. I'll need you to better articulate what you see as the difference between Belief and Acceptance as True.

I do not believe in any theory of gravity though I accept that the various theories of gravity are useful for understanding many phenomena that I experience.

I do not believe in any Concept of God though I accept that the various concepts have their uses in understanding many phenomena that have occurred.

wirinet:

Pastor AIO my favourite theist on Nigeria, how you dey?

Experience and its interpretation is the bane of religion. Because how you interpret your experience would be different from how i would interpret the same experience. Experience is predominantly our emotional responses, and emotional responses are varied depending on our expectations, our present state of mind and our belief systems. lets me give examples of some experiences; Happiness, joy, sadness, love, likeness, pain. All these experiences are determined by our expectation, our social systems. etc. An experience that makes one person sad would make another person happy, even the same experience can make a person happy at one moment and make the same person sad at another moment.

The problem of religions is that you are telling me to accept the interpretation of the experience of other people (long dead). it goes even worse, you are telling me to accept the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation of the experience of some persons, as written down.

If a person tells me his experience and its interpretation thereof, it is called evidence, since i was not there during the experience, i might believe, but nobody would blame me for not believing( remember thomas - no body blamed him). But if someone told me of the experience told to him by someone else, it would be termed hearsay, i would seek out the original person to confirm the story. But if i could not confirm the story, i would accept the story with a pinch of salt. But if the story is told "according to" someone else, then unless i get the same experience and can interpret it the same way, i am not at liberty to believe the story.

Greetings Wirinet, I'm fine thank you and I hope you are well too.

Experience and its interpretations are the bane of not only religionism but also of every other ideology or -ism that human mentation can come up with.

By saying that this is the problem with religion is to paint religion in broadstrokes that is unfair and quite uncritical. In every religious culture that I'm aware of there are esoteric traditions that point to and urge one beyond the ostensible forms of the religion. In some parts of the world it is very much an undercurrent while in other parts it is more on the surface like in the Zen schools in Asia. So this is an issue that is addressed within most religious cultures already and is a part of the religious culture. So to regard religion superficially and denounce it on the basis of that is quite unfair.
Just because there are superficial christians out there doesn't mean that you have to be superficial as well.

Pastor AIO:

Who is this Prizm guy? I like him very much!!!

So do I!

Who are you Prizm?

Pastor AIO:

Is that your definition of belief? Mine is much simpler. A belief is something that is accepted as true. One can either belief in the Theory of Gravity (Newton's or Einstein's, take your pick) or Not. I'll need you to better articulate what you see as the difference between Belief and Acceptance as True.

I do not believe in any theory of gravity though I accept that the various theories of gravity are useful for understanding many phenomena that I experience.

I do not believe in any Concept of God though I accept that the various concepts have their uses in understanding many phenomena that have occurred.

Think about it this way:

Do you not believe in the theory of gravity in the same way that you do not believe in Allah (or Sango, or Sussicorn)?

Do you believe in dark matter or dark energy?

huxley:

Think about it this way:

Do you not believe in the theory of gravity in the same way that you do not believe in Allah (or Sango, or Sussicorn)?

Do you believe in dark matter or dark energy?

err. . . yes I disbelieve in the theory of gravity in the same way that I disbelieve in the existence of Allah. I don't see how this helps anything.

I don't believe in dark matter either, but I do believe it is possible that it exists.

I'm none the wiser.

@Tudor

How on earth do you think the world and it's living organisms came into existence?

These things just didn't exist ,something brought them into existence,as a scientist

how can you explain this mysteries.

chukwudi44:

@Tudor

How on earth do you think the world and it's living organisms came into existence?

Can't you read?
I said i don't know. I wasn't alive at the begining for petes sake!

These things just didn't exist ,something brought them into existence,as a scientist

how can you explain this mysteries.

You say this with such certainty. . .how do you know the earth didn't just come into existence?


And oh, i'm not a scientist neither am i a fortune teller so i can't explain any mystery to you.

Tudór:

Can't you read?
I said i don't know. I wasn't alive at the begining for petes sake!You say this with such certainty. . .how do you know the earth didn't just come into existence?


And oh, i'm not a scientist neither am i a fortune teller so i can't explain any mystery to you.

Hi Tudor. If you accept that you do not know as your above post seems to suggest. Is it not reasonable to also say that you do not know whether God exists or not? Best wishes.

chukwudi44:

Back to my previous argument,nothing is uncaused i.e everything that exists has a cause.For the world to have evolved ,something must have started the whole evolution process .

So mr tudor what existed before evolution started and what actually caused it ?

Nonsense; several things of which we have become aware are uncaused - virtual particles, radioactive decay. Further, the world did not evolve (in the biological sense, that is). Sure the earth went through changes, but it is separate, study-wise, from biological evolution. In any case, one needn't resort to gods to study or discover the processes of biological evolution and planetary formations.

@ KAG

why did u run away with ur tails?

m_nwankwo:

Hi Tudor. If you accept that you do not know as your above post seems to suggest. Is it not reasonable to also say that you do not know whether God exists or not? Best wishes.

Hello Mr m_nwankwo, i hope you do not mind me answering the above question, because i was there once, and still today after much searching, there are still many things i do not know.

It not unreasonable to also say that you do not know whether God exists or no,t because the actual definition of what a God is has not been adequately explained. We hear all sorts of nebulous definition like God is a spirit, God is the creator of everything we do not understand, and so on. The description of a God by most cultures, especially ancient ones, is very  similar to a very powerful but egocentric and highly insecure warrior kind, who sits on an expensive throne, wearing expensive crown, in his court, and forces people to love, fear,revere, worship, and continuously sing praises to him. He then dishes out punishment/reward based on his mood or how happy is with his subjects. Examples that fits that description includes Zeus, Yahweh, Allah, Sango, Odin, Thor, Jupiter, and lots of others. That image of a God does not fly with lots of people even they do not know the origin of the universe or existence, they are sure this "man" or king or spirit cannot be it.

A lot of people derive their power (political) from being a member of the inner court or a representative of this God King.

Even today some people like Olumba Olumba claims to be God and creator of the universe, and try telling his believers he is not and just because someone does not understand the universe does not make it mandatory to believe olumba olumba created it.

m_nwankwo:

Hi Tudor. If you accept that you do not know as your above post seems to suggest. Is it not reasonable to also say that you do not know whether God exists or not? Best wishes.

Hello.
It depends on what you call as "god".
If you're referring to the christian god then hell, i'm damn sure he doesn't exist.

chukwudi44:

@Tudor

How on earth do you think the world and it's living organisms came into existence?

These things just didn't exist ,something brought them into existence,as a scientist

how can you explain this mysteries.

This is what all theist can do that me as an atheist can't do, The theist ONLY allows the possibility for his god to be uncreated and refuses to allow that other things can be uncreated. If your god can be uncreated then the universe can be uncreated too no reason to believe otherwise. If you say that everything needs a creator then god must need a creator too, what created god? There is abosolute no reason to believe that the universe must behave like the human society.

If you insists that there is a god out there that created the universe then which god is it? The word god can be used to mean anything, There is no universally acceptable concept for the word god, even members of the same religion do not even agree on the basic nature of the god they all profess and talk about.

Since you are a christian you have to tell us how your understanding of the christian god came about and how you verified that it is true and how it can be independently verified by others.

Saying that the god of the bible created the univserse is nothing but a claim, you first of all have to show with empirical evidence that the god of the bible exists before claiming that he created the universe.

If you look at the bible, koran, etc you will see that their gods are just more powerful versions of the people. All the gods all have humans attributes like anger, jealousy, hate, racism, etc. The people that brought the concept of god all did so for a reason which is mostly to help them better understand the world around them. They saw lightingning and decided that their god most have caused it, earth quake was the roar or anger of their gods, they saw rainbow and it was labelled a convenant with their god or the necklace of their goddes etc.

They had no understanding of the universe and our own position in it, to them the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. The universe as it is makes all the gods that are worshipped on earth look too insignificant.

Tudór:

Hello.
It depends on what you call as "god".
If you're referring to the christian god then hell, i'm damn sure he doesn't exist.

Any evidence?

noetic2:

Any evidence? 

He can't prove that your deity does not exist, any more than he can't prove that allah or zues do not exits.  It doesn't work that way the way it works is the claimant (you) has to prove or more correctly provide overwhelming evidence that your claim is true. If I say that I have a dog you can not prove that I don't have one unless after I have provided evidence to show that I truly have one or not. Base on the evidence that I have provided you can go ahead and show if I truly have a dog or not.

Now over to your where is your evidence to show that your god exist outside your imaginations.

toneyb:

He can't prove that your deity does not exist, any more than he can't prove that allah or zues do not exits.  It doesn't work that way the way it works is the claimant (you) has to prove or more correctly provide overwhelming evidence that your claim is true. If I say that I have a dog you can not prove that I don't have one unless after I have provided evidence to show that I truly have one or not. Base on the evidence that I have provided you can go ahead and show if I truly have a dog or not.

Now over to your where is your evidence to show that your god exist outside your imaginations.

what a RIDICULOUS assertion.

I have no basis for saying that u dont have a dog. . . .as such I would not make such a claim.
But If u open ur mouth to say that there is NO God. . . .then u should have an evidence to back up such a claim. . . , is that hard to do?

@Wirinet

Hi. Thanks for your response. I reply as follows:

Hello Mr m_nwankwo, i hope you do not mind me answering the above question, because i was there once, and still today after much searching, there are still many things i do not know.

It not unreasonable to also say that you do not know whether God exists or no,t because the actual definition of what a God is has not been adequately explained.

The point of my post to Tudor is to suggest to him that one may not say that God does not exist except one is knowlegeable about all possibilities in the universe. Thus he seems to accept that he does not know of all possiblities. Thus I think it is fair for him to say that he does not know whether or not God exist but unfair to say that God does not exist. Thus I was actually commending his accptance that he does not know. I only suggested that he should carry that notion of not knowing to his future investigations concerning God and the universe.

It not unreasonable to also say that you do not know whether God exists or no,t because the actual definition of what a God is has not been adequately explained. We hear all sorts of nebulous definition like God is a spirit, God is the creator of everything we do not understand, and so on. The description of a God by most cultures, especially ancient ones, is very  similar to a very powerful but egocentric and highly insecure warrior kind, who sits on an expensive throne, wearing expensive crown, in his court, and forces people to love, fear,revere, worship, and continuously sing praises to him. He then dishes out punishment/reward based on his mood or how happy is with his subjects. Examples that fits that description includes Zeus, Yahweh, Allah, Sango, Odin, Thor, Jupiter, and lots of others. That image of a God does not fly with lots of people even they do not know the origin of the universe or existence, they are sure this "man" or king or spirit cannot be it.

Yes, different concepts of God are being peddled about and some are ridiculous that they do deserve disdain and ridicule. But the gaps in the concepts of God are not enough reason to declare that God does not exist. Concepts of God and God are not one and the same thing. I do not think that we have the capacity to conceptualize God. Any such attempt leads to idolatory and can not withstand robust logical as well as experiencial scrutiny. I also think that it is not helpful to ask others to define God because once they attempt that, the definitions will fall flat and provide ammunition for atheists to attack.  Concepts and cognition are the way the brain and mind is hardwiired and while concepts are useful in understanding what is perceptible to our physical senses and instruments that improve on them, they are useless in experiencing God and his power. But since the human brain and mind have eclipsed this awareness of God in us just like a mud covers a diamond, it has become very difficult and for most impossible to recognise God. That is the reason why people are asking for evidence even though the evidence is in and around them. I often believe that the search for God is personal and no one who seeks will go empty handed. Thus I encourage you not to give up on your quest but to continue until you find billions of evidence confirming the existence of God.

A lot of people derive their power (political) from being a member of the inner court or a representative of this God King.

Even today some people like Olumba Olumba claims to be God and creator of the universe, and try telling his believers he is not and just because someone does not understand the universe does not make it mandatory to believe olumba olumba created it.

 

Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence are revealed attributes of God. People can make claims and that is there choice. But if a person claims to be God, then such a one should provide evidence of omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience. For a start such a person should publish how he created the universe for scientists and others to examine. Stay blessed.

Tudór:

Dude your reply is too long. You do not need to spam to prove your god. Any attempt to quote and reply you would be deleted by the spam bot. So let me go straight to the point.

First of all let me say that the cosmological and design argument try to prove that there might be an intelligent force behind the universe whether that intelligent force is what you refer as god or not is a whole new argument for all we know the universe might be a simulation in some alien supercomputer and these same cosmological and intelligent design argument can be used to argue this too.  Also this same arguments can be used to "prove" the existence of the millions of gods on this planet so tell me, what rational and logical basis have you got to prove that this so called intelligent force is yahweh( assuming you're a christian).

I remind you i define atheism as disbelief in god as potrayed by revealed religion"- so when someone comes mouthing off that he's got proof, i expect to see solid empirical proof that jehovah as revealed by the bible (writings of deluded men) does indeed exist .
Your belief in yahweh or jehovah is purely based on blind faith so you guys should spard us the expired mantra that christianity is rational.
Cheers.

I’ll make this brief also. Here are my observations:

1)You seem to be confusing the Cosmological Argument with the Design or Fine-tuning Argument. They are different lines of arguments. Like I suggested earlier, drop this hasty and lazy intellectual approach to this discussion, go and familiarize yourself with what these arguments really are.

2)If you had done so, you would not have come out to speculate that the explanation for the origin of the universe is some alien supercomputer. The concept “alien” (by which we mean possible physical beings in the planets of this or distant galaxies) and “supercomputer” (by which we mean a powerful physical/material, spatially defined, and temporal computational device) are subsets of the universe. They are contingent entities and not necessary entities.

3)How you choose to define atheism is your own problem and no sensible person is going to engage someone who insists on being shown an empirically provable God. If such an empirically provable thing exists, it will not qualify as God. To make this simpler for you to understand, the God concept is independent of the name God—once the concept satisfies the attributes of God, it shouldn’t matter if you choose to call it “The Big Primordial Shell”, “7X3O1R”, “Cosmic Singularity” or any other qualifiers that appeal to you.

4)You have not shown us, by way of logical proof or arguments, why we should agree with you that “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” does not exist. I may or may not agree with you when you present your case but don’t expect anyone to be convinced by your arbitrary decree to that effect. Show us how you have managed to prove, without reasonable doubt, that Jehovah does not exist.

huxley:

What is God?  Please, tell us first what God is and how you come to know about him.  Then we can begin to work out arguments for/against his existence.  Without that we would be groping in the dark.

All the so-called philosophical arguments you have given so far are also equally valid for Sussicorn.  So should we believe in Sussicorn?

If you don’t know what God is, then I wonder what you are arguing for or against. First of all, go and familiarize yourself with the topic under discussion (God’s existence or nonexistence), familiarize yourself with the intelligent and deeply thought-out arguments for or against the topic and then make up your mind as to which one is the more plausible. I don’t have the time nor inclination to help you with that search for I’ll be encouraging some sort of intellectual laziness.

Now, I realize that what I have said so far may not sit well with you precisely because you probably already have some idea of what God is or is held up by theists to be. If you were truly and completely nescient of the idea then this last statement “All the so-called philosophical arguments you have given so far are also equally valid for Sussicorn.  So should we believe in Sussicorn?” sticks out like a very sore thumb.

That statement shows me the mindset of some atheist who has chosen to trivialize the discussion. You’ll find out rapidly enough that I don’t bother myself replying any and every comment. So you might as well claim that the philosophical argument for God applies to “invisible pink unicorns”, “Celestial teapots” or “the flying spaghetti monster”. That is your own cup of tea. That is the sort of rabid militant New atheism that is anchored on silly ridicule and a dearth of critical reasoning which reminds one forcefully of rabid militant theism they supposedly reject. Whatever happened to the deep thinking atheist philosophers of old like Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Bertrand Russel etc? The fallacious sort of appeal to mockery or ridicule which passes for the New Atheist arguments are simply underwhelming.

where is tudor and huxley

Here’s a concise formulation of the Cosmological Argument (for those who may not bother to do the necessary research):

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

What this means quite plainly is that the universe along with space, time, matter and energy came into being. The universe is not a necessary entity; it is a contingent entity. It does not have an infinite past. The only necessary being/entities one can think of are  a) numbers b) an unembodied personal mind. This is the conception of God that theists work with—a personal, unembodied, spaceless, infinite, eternal mind. It goes without saying that numbers though necessary, do not have any creative ability. It follows that the cause of the universe is a mind greater than the universe—by which we mean something that is immaterial, boundless, spaceless and eternally pre-existent.

How is it then that when you present the Cosmological argument, an atheist’s response is “What Caused God?” That question simply shows a misunderstanding of the argument. Anyone asking this question should familiarize him/herself with what “necessary” and “contingent” entities are. That question is as laughable as asking “What makes a triangle have three sides whose angles add up to 180 degrees?”, or “Why should a triangle have three sides with angles that add up to 180 degrees?” The answer is as simple as saying “That is what a triangle is DEFINED as”. I have nothing to discuss with anyone who wants to argue with definitions. If you do not like the definition given, go ahead, define yours and see if we may agree or disagree.

Another argument an atheist may make when confronted with the Cosmological Argument is to suggest that “the universe is uncaused” which is a patently false idea given its finitude in the past. An atheist is left with the worst option of declaring that the “universe just popped out of nothing, from nothing and by nothing” and that I suggest is even worse than magic. Nothing pops out of nothing, from nothing, by nothing. To suggest otherwise is to be painfully irrational. Not even radioactive decay; or virtual particles which merely arise and disappear from fluctuations in the quantum vacuum—a veritable ‘sea’ of energy.

To refute the argument, you have to shoot down or falsify the premises. Otherwise, you'll arrive at the painful conclusion whether you want to or not.

Prizm:

Here’s a concise formulation of the Cosmological Argument (for those who may not bother to do the necessary research):

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

What this means quite plainly is that the universe along with space, time, matter and energy came into being. The universe is not a necessary entity; it is a contingent entity. It does not have an infinite past. The only necessary being/entities one can think of are  a) numbers b) an unembodied personal mind. This is the conception of God that theists work with—a personal, unembodied, spaceless, infinite, eternal mind. It goes without saying that numbers though necessary, do not have any creative ability. It follows that the cause of the universe is a mind greater than the universe—by which we mean something that is immaterial, boundless, spaceless and eternally pre-existent.

How is it then that when you present the Cosmological argument, an atheist’s response is “What Caused God?” That question simply shows a misunderstanding of the argument. Anyone asking this question should familiarize him/herself with what “necessary” and “contingent” entities are. That question is as laughable as asking “What makes a triangle have three sides whose angles add up to 180 degrees?”, or “Why should a triangle have three sides with angles that add up to 180 degrees?” The answer is as simple as saying “That is what a triangle is DEFINED as”. I have nothing to discuss with anyone who wants to argue with definitions. If you do not like the definition given, go ahead, define yours and see if we may agree or disagree.

Another argument an atheist may make when confronted with the Cosmological Argument is to suggest that “the universe is uncaused” which is a patently false idea given its finitude in the past. An atheist is left with the worst option of declaring that the “universe just popped out of nothing, from nothing and by nothing” and that I suggest is even worse than magic. Nothing pops out of nothing, from nothing, by nothing. To suggest otherwise is to be painfully irrational. Not even radioactive decay; or virtual particles which merely arise and disappear from fluctuations in the quantum vacuum—a veritable ‘sea’ of energy.

To refute the argument, you have to shoot down or falsify the premises. Otherwise, you'll arrive at the painful conclusion whether you want to or not.

There is none of this an atheist (Tudor, Maaje, Toneyb) does not know. . . . it is only convenient to live in delusion and walk round in circles.

welcome to nairaland religion forum. . . . .where debates with atheists run in endless circles.

Prizm:

If you don’t know what God is, then I wonder what you are arguing for or against. First of all, go and familiarize yourself with the topic under discussion (God’s existence or nonexistence), familiarize yourself with the intelligent and deeply thought-out arguments for or against the topic and then make up your mind as to which one is the more plausible. I don’t have the time nor inclination to help you with that search for I’ll be encouraging some sort of intellectual laziness.

Now, I realize that what I have said so far may not sit well with you precisely because you probably already have some idea of what God is or is held up by theists to be. If you were truly and completely nescient of the idea then this last statement “All the so-called philosophical arguments you have given so far are also equally valid for Sussicorn.  So should we believe in Sussicorn?” sticks out like a very sore thumb.

That statement shows me the mindset of some atheist who has chosen to trivialize the discussion. You’ll find out rapidly enough that I don’t bother myself replying any and every comment. So you might as well claim that the philosophical argument for God applies to “invisible pink unicorns”, “Celestial teapots” or “the flying spaghetti monster”. That is your own cup of tea. That is the sort of rabid militant New atheism that is anchored on silly ridicule and a dearth of critical reasoning which reminds one forcefully of rabid militant theism they supposedly reject. Whatever happened to the deep thinking atheist philosophers of old like Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Bertrand Russel etc? The fallacious sort of appeal to mockery or ridicule which passes for the New Atheist arguments are simply underwhelming.

Ouch!! And I thought I had a harsh rhetoric.

But I had the feeling that Huxley would sooner or later walk into this. It's like he's headbutted the guy's fist with his nose.

I think we all have lost the faith in da lord.