KingEbukasBlog:
IgboLoyalist , bro I think you should read this write up . And ask yourself : if God didn't reveal Himself to the deists how could they deduce that He as a creator exists . You can make more researches on natural theology - this should open up a whole new perspective of this matter .

Taking a abrupt digression from this dispute, the discrepancies in euhemerisms is quite a beauty. I actually sense some compatibilities with deistism to my irreligious stance. If God exists, because it would be intellectually insensible to denounce him altogether. We humans are preposterously pompous to believe that he gives a shred of care about us. Maybe I will do more research.

Blogthug:


God revealed himself through designs in Nature , man seeing intelligent designs deducted that it must be from a supreme being or creative mind .only intelligence begets intelligence.

Exactly . Good one brother .

JackBizzle:



Spoken like a true ignorant fellow.

Language evolves. "gay" does not mean the same thing it meant in the 19th century.

Origin of a word is very different from its use in modern times.

if I call u a pseudo intellectual now u will start frowning face like over night fufu, if u seek the true definition of a philosophical term, u should contact encyclopedia of philosophy, or philosophical dictionary not Oxford dictionary that only gives u the common usage of the words ( note: the definition of words u get on your Google page is not OED but rather OD) don't be a pseudo intellectual

IgboLoyalist:


Taking a abrupt digression from this dispute, the discrepancies in euhemerisms is quite a beauty. I actually sense some compatibilities with deistism to my irreligious stance. If God exists, because it would be intellectually insensible to denounce him altogether. We humans are preposterously pompous to believe that he gives a shred of care about us. Maybe I will do more research.

join Nigerian union of deists watsapp group on 07034362071 let's reason together

Blogthug:


if I call u a pseudo intellectual now u will start frowning face like over night fufu, if u seek the true definition of a philosophical term, u should contact encyclopedia of philosophy, or philosophical dictionary not Oxford dictionary that only gives u the common usage of the words ( note: the definition of words u get on your Google page is not OED but rather OD) don't be a pseudo intellectual

Blogthug:


what's this? did u not hear me say that the scientists that discovered evidences supporting Lemaitre's Big Bang won Nobel prizes? google it and research for yourself, well except they did the debate in your fathers compound lol

How recent is this your information?

Do yourself a favour and go through this link.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/large-hadron-collider/11489442/Big-Bang-theory-could-be-debunked-by-Large-Hadron-Collider.html

And next time you do not have to be rude, especially when you are not well informed on what you're arguing about.

Even at that, Stephen Hawkings has a different view about the beginning of time and big bang.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

only few deists believes in impersonal creator actually, reason is because of evidences supporting intelligent design, and intelligence can only come from a mind, think about the information process in a DNA code . these and many more evidences for Intelligent design even help convinced late former renowned Atheist philosopher Anthony flew ( noted for redefining atheism as lack of belief) into dumping atheism for deism

study renowned deistic philosophers most didn't believe in an impersonal creator , an impersonal creator automatically refutes the idea of Intelligence design which is part of the core beliefs of deism, intelligence can only come from a mind , so u made a false dichotomy, it doesn't hav to either be impersonal or personal when it's a supernatural entity we talking about here

Before i reply these posts appropriately, let me ask you few questions to know if u understand what you're saying.

1)What distinguishes a personal God from an impersonal God.
2)What do deists think about God's intelligence.
3)How does this(answer 2), affect Deists believe in a non-interventionist God.
4)What distinguishes INTELLIGENT DESIGN from CREATIONISM.
5) Finally, please name some self proclaimed deist philosophers you know that believe in a personal God and state why or what made you think they held on to this believe.

4kings:

How recent is this your information?

Do yourself a favour and go through this link.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/large-hadron-collider/11489442/Big-Bang-theory-could-be-debunked-by-Large-Hadron-Collider.html

And next time you do not have to be rude, especially when you are not well informed on what you're arguing about.

Even at that, Stephen Hawkings has a different view about the beginning of time and big bang.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html






Before i reply these posts appropriately, let me ask you few questions to know if u understand what you're saying.

1)What distinguishes a personal God from an impersonal God.
2)What do deists think about God's intelligence.
3)How does this(answer 2), affect Deists believe in a non-interventionist God.
4)What distinguishes INTELLIGENT DESIGN from CREATIONISM.
5) Finally, please name some self proclaimed deist philosophers you know that believe in a personal God and state why or what made you think they held on to this believe.

your first link was an Ad futuris fallacy which u gullibly hold as true , it even clearly stated " could " there, guess u didn't see that, no model so far has been able to refute or explain origin of the universe better than the Big Bang because of the strong evidences supporting it with discovery of CMB in 1978 that got the discoverers Wilson and Penzias a Nobel Prize.

I have read Hawkins lecture on beginning of the universe where he tried to describe what happened prior to Big Bang with lots of probability statements ( could, would, should) and mere personal opinions which again u took to heart, by the way there is something called Presuppositional fallacy , look it up, Hawking's is a good physicist but he is surely terrible when it comes to philosophy, even appealing to him during a philosophical discuss is a fallacy , I suggest u read WLC instead . since our universe (time space matter) had a beginning then its logical to think the cause be timeless, spaceless and matterless hence supernatural .

for your other questions, join NUD on whatsapp 07034362071

all codes of known origin are a product of intelligence, the DNA is code therefore The DNA is a product of intelligence

deductive logical inference

Blogthug:


your first link was an Ad futuris fallacy which u gullibly hold as true

First of all, why do you have to be rude, especially over stuff you are totally wrong about.

, it even clearly stated " could " there, guess u didn't see that, no model so far has been able to refute or explain origin of the universe better than the Big Bang

Which first link are you talking about?
The first link i posted talks about a model that outrightly debunks the Big Bang.
The second link on the other hand, talks about another theory(Large Hadron Collider in Black holes) that could also debunk the big bang.
I guess you clicked on the second one, for you to type this nonsense.
I don't even have the time to address your fallacy issue, here.

because of the strong evidences supporting it with discovery of CMB in 1978 that got the discoverers Wilson and Penzias a Nobel Prize.

For goodness sakes, do you really think i can talk about the big bang without knowing Wilson and Penzias.
Abeg stop arguing with outdated information.

I have read Hawkins lecture on beginning of the universe where he tried to describe what happened prior to Big Bang with lots of probability statements ( could, would, should) and mere personal opinions which again u took to heart,

Wetin this guy dey yarn sef.

Hawkings used Einstien theory of general relativity, Quantum theory and logical deductions to come to the conclusion that the universe and time had a beginning in the big bang.

Abeg can you show me where he used ( could, would, should), in coming to his conclusion among the two links i posted.

by the way there is something called Presuppositional fallacy , look it up,

Irrelevant.

Hawking's is a good physicist but he is surely terrible when it comes to philosophy, even appealing to him during a philosophical discuss is a fallacy ,

Wowww, anyway i brought up a science issue on time and big bang, this seems to be Hawking's specialty not "philosophy".

I suggest u read WLC instead .

Hmmm

since our universe (time space matter) had a beginning

I wonder how you arrived at these conclusion after giving you relevant articles to read up.

for your other questions, join NUD on whatsapp 07034362071

all codes of known origin are a product of intelligence, the DNA is code therefore The DNA is a product of intelligence

deductive logical inference

Mr. Man, it is apparent that you did not understand my posts.
What i said does not attack Intelligent design in any way. That was why i asked you those questions to make sure you understood the terms i used.
Next time try getting well informed before you pick up an argument.

---

And what's NUD, i don't like groups very well.

4kings:

First of all, why do you have to be rude, especially over stuff you are totally wrong about.


Which first link are you talking about?
The first link i posted talks about a model that outrightly debunks the Big Bang.
The second link on the other hand, talks about another theory(Large Hadron Collider in Black holes) that could also debunk the big bang.
I guess you clicked on the second one, for you to type this nonsense.
I don't even have the time to address your fallacy issue, here.

For goodness sakes, do you really think i can talk about the big bang without knowing Wilson and Penzias.
Abeg stop arguing with outdated information.


Wetin this guy dey yarn sef.

Hawkings used Einstien theory of general relativity, Quantum theory and logical deductions to come to the conclusion that the universe and time had a beginning in the big bang.

Abeg can you show me where he used ( could, would, should), in coming to his conclusion among the two links i posted.
Irrelevant.

Wowww, anyway i brought up a science issue on time and big bang, this seems to be Hawking's specialty not "philosophy".

Hmmm

I wonder how you arrived at these conclusion after giving you relevant articles to read up.


Mr. Man, it is apparent that you did not understand my posts.
What i said does not attack Intelligent design in any way. That was why i asked you those questions to make sure you understood the terms i used.
Next time try getting well informed before you pick up an argument.

---

And what's NUD, i don't like groups very well.

NUD Nigerian union of Deists, or u can add my number 07034362071 so we can discuss better on whatsapp. I repeat, no model has refuted Big Bang because of the Strong evidences supporting it CMB , Cosmic inflation and 2nd law of thermodynamics if any has we will be hearing of their Nobel Prize, this is a FACT !

4kings is one confused human being

Blogthug:


NUD Nigerian union of Deists, or u can add my number 07034362071 so we can discuss better on whatsapp. I repeat, no model has refuted Big Bang because of the Strong evidences supporting it CMB , Cosmic inflation and 2nd law of thermodynamics if any has we will be hearing of their Nobel Prize, this is a FACT !

Wilson and Penzias discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation.
This made them win the nobel prize because this radiation was predicted by Robert Dicke to have occurred after the big bang, therefore making it pass as a supporting fact for the big bang theory.

Among scientists this pass a "win" for the Theory, but not evidence per say that the Bigg Bang is actually a fact.
String theory and Newton's law of universal gravitation for example, that were once widely accepted by scientist(as a valid Theory, however), also made prediction that appeared to support it.

The main pillars of the Big Bang Theory which are Singularity and Inflation, still has not been properly explained to construe the big bang as a fact.
Nobody has won a nobel prize to proof the big bang yet(like you claimed), if not a new model will not even be an issue here.

Do you even understand this cosmic background radtion very well?

Even at that you can read James R Rajan view about CMBR and big bang evidence, here: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-cosmic-background-radiation-evidence-for-the-Big-Bang

I started this big bang discussion with the fact that the idea is currently debated with the new models i encouuntered a while ago, even at that the big bang itself is not fully proven because of the lack of explanation for Sigularity and Inflation, which are its strong pillars.

I never said that the universe does not have a beginning or that it does.
This was my exact word:

This "scientific evidence" is currently debated.
So it's not valid for this argument, at the moment.
I'm not an atheist oo, but using that theory is not valid anymore for this kind of debate, at-least for now.

I was being openminded to the maths of these claims.

But from your first reply, it appears that you are not even ready to accept or even consider a contrary view since it attacks your belief(dogma) just like KingEbukasblog, this is not scientific.
I don't fully understand the maths behind this theories yet, i will take an online course after my first degree, but for now, i employ you to search about this yourself, and check if you can find any evidence that makes big bang a fact or if anyone has ever one a nobel prize for proving the big bang theory, like you claimed, then you can come and post your thoughts here.

I am in the middle of my final semester examinations so i don't have time to keep going back and forth in this debate.
If you don't understand that the Big Bang is a theory(a valid one however) just like Einstien general relativity or string theory, and it is subjected to further testing and other contrary models before it can become a fact then sorry for you.

Like i said, my semester examination started this week, so i don't have the luxury of debating in futility, here on nairaland. So go search about the big bang extensively and the quantum equation model i brought up, then hopefully you would come with a valid point.

---

I've saved your number, i will contact you at a later date.

KingEbukasBlog:
4kings is one confused human being

because.....

More contributions please

More contributions please

More contributions please

More contributions please ...

Happy Sunday

More contributions please

More contributions please .

Happy Sunday

More contributions

More contributions please

Amen

More contributions please .

More contributions please

Your star has faded.

You started lying anyhow to the people who Grace your threads

KingEbukasBlog:
More contributions please

KingEbukasBlog:
More contributions please

KingEbukasBlog:
More contributions

KingEbukasBlog:
Happy Sunday

KingEbukasBlog:

KingEbukasBlog:

KingEbukasBlog:
More contributions please .

KingEbukasBlog:
More contributions please

Na wah oo. Only you oo. You don beg people tire, yet no body wan contribute. Na by force?

dalaman:


Na wah oo. Only you oo. You don beg people tire, yet no body wan contribute. Na by force?

.

Just trying to get it to religion section 's first page so that it can be seen This is the 799th post on this thread though so its been good