benzics:
because just like Santa, yahweh doesn't exist

Yahweh is the name Hebrews call The Supreme Being . There are other names other cultures give to the Supreme Being - Anu , Allah , Olodumare etc .

Anas09:

Raphaelmontella, you claim you are smart by virtue of you being an atheist, now i wonder how a smart person will be lazy at reading. Smh@u

smart?? LMAO

DeepSight:


I did not say any such thing - please go back and read exactly what he said.

Yes. And you conveniently ignored the next sentences in his post. I believe you know what ''cherry-picking'' is.

4everGod:


Now this is an intelligent young man! However as the icing on the cake do you believe there is a God?

4kings is a deist . But unlike DeepSight , he believes in an impersonal God.

benzics:
whoa, your dull brains actually thought I meant "not being logical".. Check the post above to see a breakdown of what I meant you little minded being!

abeg just gerawt.

Ranchhoddas:
Yes. And you conveniently ignored the next sentences in his post. I believe you know what ''cherry-picking'' is.

That is not cherry picking

Anas09:

Where are all the atheists? Why have they left this kid to destroy himself by himself?

LMAO


most of them are now hiding under agnosticism.

benzics:

Going by your logic, that your heartbeat and existence is the proof of a God.

Does that mean that the existence of that God is a proof of a greater god, and does that mean that the existence of that greater god is a proof of a more greater god and the list goes on till infinity, and if you dare stop at a point, that means your logic is invalid...

Just like in programming,
while(isgod) {god++;}
which means, while there is a god, continue creating gods till infinity, and once the loop stops, that means there is no longer God!

What you are referring to is the problem of an infinite regress. An infinite regress is existentially illogical and it is with sure and sound logic that we assert that there must exist a permanent and eternal something which is what we call God.

In basic logic, these would be the premises for my saying so.

Premise One: The Universe is something, and exists

Premise two: Something cannot emerge from nothing.

First Inferment The universe thus emerged from something pre existing

Second Inferment: Thus for anything to exist: there must have always been something already in existence

Conclusion: It is rational to see thus, that for anything to exist, there must exist a permanent something.

The nature of that permanent something is what you should discuss.

Now, I say to you that there are necessary or self-existent things: things which exist by default and do not require creation.
This very fact alone, resolves the problem of an infinite regress: for there needs be no infinite regress once we recognize the existence of self existent things - and this cannot logically be denied.

Here are a few examples of self existent things:

1. Eternity
2. Infinite Space

Now let me pause here and see if this makes any sense to you before we build our thought development further.

KingEbukasBlog:

That is not cherry picking

Yes. It's picking oranges.

EyeHateGod:

No mind me jare it seems like deepsight didn't notice this.... Make we call am shallowsight...

Really?

DeepSight:


In addittion to "noble" those were not mistakes. They were a reflection of your schooling.

benzics:

Just like in programming,
[i] while(isgod) {god++;}
which means, while there is a god, continue creating gods till infinity, and once the loop stops, that means there is no longer God!

Please don't insult my program with this . Please just stop

DeepSight:


Really?

OK

DeepSight:


What you are referring to is the problem of an infinite regress. An infinite regress is existentially illogical and it is with sure and sound logic that we assert that there must exist a permanent and eternal something which is what we call God.

In basic logic, these would be the premises for my saying so.

Premise One: The Universe is something, and exists

Premise two: Something cannot emerge from nothing.

First Inferment The universe thus emerged from something pre existing

Second Inferment: Thus for anything to exist: there must have always been something already in existence

Conclusion: It is rational to see thus, that for anything to exist, there must exist a permanent something.

The nature of that permanent something is what you should discuss.

Now, say to you that there are necessary or self-existent things: things which exist by default and do not require creation.
This very fact alone, resolves the problem of an infinite regress: for there needs be no infinite regress once we recognize the existence of self existent things - and this cannot logically be denied.

Here are a few examples of self existent things:

1. Eternity
2. Infinite Space

Now let me pause here and see if this makes any sense to you before we build our thought development further.

good tutorial for him!

DeepSight:


What you are referring to is the problem of an infinite regress. An infinite regress is existentially illogical and it is with sure and sound logic that we assert that there must exist a permanent and eternal something which is what we call God.

In basic logic, these would be the premises for my saying so.

Premise One: The Universe is something, and exists

Premise two: Something cannot emerge from nothing.

First Inferment The universe thus emerged from something pre existing

Second Inferment: Thus for anything to exist: there must have always been something already in existence

Conclusion: It is rational to see thus, that for anything to exist, there must exist a permanent something.

The nature of that permanent something is what you should discuss.

Now, say to you that there are necessary or self-existent things: things which exist by default and do not require creation.
This very fact alone, resolves the problem of an infinite regress: for there needs be no infinite regress once we recognize the existence of self existent things - and this cannot logically be denied.

Here are a few examples of self existent things:

1. Eternity
2. Infinite Space

Now let me pause here and see if this makes any sense to you before we build our thought development further.

good tutorial for him!

KingEbukasBlog:

Please don't insult my program with this . Please just stop

I just taya....
maybe he thinks he is the only programmer in the thread. LMAO!

KingEbukasBlog:


Please don't insult my program with this . Please just stop

lol your program? what language do you think that is?

Ranchhoddas:
Yes. It's picking oranges.

That is not cherry picking . Choosing what to reply and neglect in an arguer's post is not cherry picking .

ambassagod:


good tutorial for him!

Are you this desperate?

benzics:
lol your program? what language do you think that is?

The loop cannot end if it's infinity..

ambassagod:


LMAO


most of them are now hiding under agnosticism.

And Seun?

4kings:
4evergod thanks a lot, I've learnt much on carbon dating now.
However as it can't really go beyond its half life of 5730years & probably a maximum life of 750000years. What about Uranium Lead dating?

And by the way, either dating system, in proper look, goes beyond the young-earth creationist date of 6000years.
Even KingEbukasBlog knows this as he is an old-earth creationist.

I would have loved to engage you, but your dismissal of common DNA and different view of Natural Selection will definitely make the discussion annoying. Though I don't take evolution as a "FACT", I acknowledge it as a valid "Theory".

My stand on Uranium Lead Dating is thus;

A swimming race illustrates the simple principles involved in quantifying time. This swimmer is competing in a 1,500 metre race and we have a precise, calibrated wristwatch. We note that at the instant the swimmer physically contacts the edge of the pool our wristwatch reads 7:41 and 53 seconds. How long has the competitor taken to swim the 1,500 metre race?

You cannot ken how long the swimmer took unless you kenned the time on the wristwatch when the race commenced. Without the commencement time it is impossible to establish the time for the race. Again i reiterate IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!

Authentically, kenning the commencement time is still not enough. During the race you have to optically canvass the swimmer and count how many laps he has swum so you ken that he has done 1,500 metres. And you have to check to ascertain he physically contacts the edge at the terminus of each lap. Without these observations you cannot be sure that the time is valid. That is why you require at least two, sometimes three judges to quantify the time of the race to the standard needed to enter the record books

This illustrates the whole quandary with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend an abundance of time impressing you with the details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they omit discussion of the rudimental imperfection in the method: you cannot measure the age of a rock utilizing radioactive dating because you were not present to quantify the radioactive elements when the rock composed and you did not monitor the way those elements transmuted over its entire geological history.

In other words, the fatal quandary with all radioactive dates is that they are all predicated on posits about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the postulations you make. And that is what geologist do, they make up a postulated geological history for rock depending on the numbers that emanate from the geochronology lab

KingEbukasBlog:


That is not cherry picking . Choosing what to reply and neglect in an arguer's post is not cherry picking .

When the two sentences are clearly not independent of one another? Do you apply this same logic when same is done to the Bible?

ambassagod:


smart?? LMAO

O yeah. He is an atheist sir. No matter how dumb someone is, immidiately he declares for atheism, his IQ jupms to the highest level. Didnt we see one who testified of this fact here?

Atheism upgrades the intellects, so, yes Smart.

ambassagod:


they don't want to have their Mohammed busted.

lol

Oh, Muhammed with low self esteem.

DeepSight:


Really?

He enjoys typing before thinking. Its a habit.

EyeHateGod:

No mind me jare it seems like deepsight didn't notice this.... Make we call am shallowsight...

Really? You want to dare that? U no fit percieve say deepsight no be your class? Hmmm Children. This atheism dey big una head.
No respect.

EyeHateGod:

The loop cannot end if it's infinity..

Am waiting for the guy's response since he claims it's an insult to his program..

Now maybe he has even dodged my question as usual, oya, KingEbukasBlog, come and see the full code incase your head didn't understand that one because you didn't see the statement to consider

var isgod=1; //this means there is a god
var god=1; //not relevant though
while(isgod > 0) { god++; /*if isgod is set to 1,that means there is God, and this code will continue running till infinity until someone sets isgod to 0 which means there is no God */ } else { document.write("god has seized to exist or he never existed " ;//self explanatory }

I don't even know why am talking about codes in a religion section, well that's what stupid people can make you do

Ranchhoddas:
When the two sentences are clearly not independent of one another? Do you apply this same logic when same is done to the Bible?

A curious spirit may have been in malevolent attendance around your eyes and within your mind when you read what he wrote, I dispel the spirit and I herewith reproduce again what he wrote and the lines that followed it. I highlight them specially, so please note and read carefully and slowly:

"No scientific fact is based on logic. Am sure if you are a scientist, you know steps things have to go through to become a fact right? AND LOGIC IS NOT ONE OF THEM

Logic is only applied when you have no fact or evidence AND normally, such things can't happen logically, so you disprove them, not the other way round, using philosophical logic to "claim to know" of a God!"

benzics:
because just like Santa, yahweh doesn't exist

I perceive you 17yrs old. Your arguements are so childish.
As you read the Ops, if you read, didnt you find point at all to debunk? How did 'Satan' Clause come into this thread?

If you were a Christian, by now the Mod would have banned you for off topic, but as i can see the atheistic immunity covers you.

You can easily leave what the Op is about and jump into something else, and still walk free.

God is watching Seun in 4D.


Just make little effort, no matter how little, to address the Op. Unfortunately, all your community have abandoned you to roast.

benzics:

I don't even know why am talking about codes in a religion section, well that's what stupid people can make you do

I am sorry to say, but the greatest st.upidity on display here has been yours and yours alone.

DeepSight:


I am sorry to say, but the greatest st.upidity on display here has been yours and yours alone.

wow, that's great to know , thanks for the info

Anas09:

Really? You want to dare that? U no fit percieve say deepsight no be your class? Hmmm Children. This atheism dey big una head.
No respect.

I haven't had a chance to Engage him in Any argument here besides his "sight" are only looking for Spelling Error...