randomperson:

No, they don't. There are terrible things in nature that refute supposed evidence for god

Now we are talking . So let's hear it . Please don't rehash the death , diseases , poverty argument . I'm tired of repeating the same rebuttal .

Before you respond , note that the probability the universe came by chance is highly inconceivable and insignificant . You may now continue .

felixomor:


E no get.
He has dodged nothing less than 3 questions from me alone.

I've not dodged any of your questions.

So no Atheist is willing to bell the cat and offer us empirical data backing up their NO GOD claim?

Is it this bad? Has their claim been all an assumption with no foundation?

Proof shouldn't be this hard to provide na or am I missing something?

dalaman:


No signature of God in nature to show that God created anything in nature. Hence it remains an assumption. Belief in God does not exist in nature. It is something that must be thought to humans.

Consiousness and intelligence are not evidence for any God else all consious and intelligent beings will naturally believe in God and will not need to be told and indoctrinated with any idea of God. All consious and intelligent humans will all come to the knowledge of the same God and in the same way if Consiousness and intelligence are evidence for God. So another fail.

You are the one who failed.
If u say God must be indoctrinated into man,
Who then indoctrinated the first man on earth?
Who taught man to marry woman?
Provide proof for your claim of indoctrination.

U failed again.

KingEbukasBlog:


Now we are talking . So let's hear it . Please don't rehash the death , diseases , poverty argument . I'm tired of repeating the same rebuttal .

Before you respond , note that the probability the universe came by chance is highly inconceivable and insignificant . You may now continue .

How can you start a debate by shutting out the point of your opponent?

Is God good?

dalaman:


I've not dodged any of your questions.

Ehen, were u not the one who spoke the mind of bacteria?
And failed to tell me how u knew the mind?
Instead u killed science by saying bacteria has no mind.

dalaman:


How can you start a debate by shutting out the point of your opponent?

Is God good?

Dalaman you have been flounderig in a shallow pool when all u had to do was stand up aka show us proof.

KingEbukasBlog:


Now we are talking . So let's hear it . Please don't rehash the death , diseases , poverty argument . I'm tired of repeating the same rebuttal .

Before you respond , note that the probability the universe came by chance is highly inconceivable and insignificant . You may now continue .

If you repeat the same argument from nature, then naturally the response is the same... Nature is beautiful but it's also ugly. You can't refer to the beauty of nature as evidence for god and then ignore the ugliness of nature... That's double standard

dalaman:


How can you start a debate by shutting out the point of your opponent?

Is God good?

Arr u now jumping on anothers statement? Is he the one who formed your opinion?

Give me your own personal proof. Do not hide under anothers

KingEbukasBlog:


Memes come as support when there is no intellectual input . I understand

I have a pink unicorn in my room, it sits on my Biro

prove that wrong

felixomor:


You are the one who failed.
If u say God must be indoctrinated into man,
Who then indoctrinated the first man on earth?
Who taught man to marry woman?
Provide proof for your claim of indoctrination.

U failed again.

First man on earth? Scientifically speaking there is nothing like that. Human anthropology has shown us that humans started worshipping natural agents of nature like the sun, the moon, mountains, rivers etc before they started worshipping spirits and later to invisible beings.

If there is anything like the first man then he invented what ever concept of God he worshipped and others after him kept inventing their own various God/Gods concept.

Sex is natural it exist in nature. If you place 20 years old a man that has never seen a woman in his life beside a Nked woman he'll get an erection. If the woman touches him he will respond. He will not have to be tought to have an erection. It will be automatic.

If all the people in the world are to be presented with the bible on their 20th birthday and told that it is the word of God for example many will just laugh and very few will accept it.

Pastafarian:


I have a pink unicorn in my room, it sits on my Biro

prove that wrong

Even if u have pink panther in your room.
Its not the business of this thread.

dalaman:


No signature of God in nature to show that God created anything in nature. Hence it remains an assumption.

The premise is that everything must have a signature to as proof of ownership . Right? So what signature where you looking forward to that will indeed prove that God created nature

dalaman:
Belief in God does not exist in nature. It is something that must be thought to humans.

Natural theology disproves the emboldened text . Natural Theology is gotten from personal observation and is not learnt .

dalaman:
Consiousness and intelligence are not evidence for any God else all consious and intelligent beings will naturally believe in God and will not need to be told and indoctrinated with any idea of God. All consious and intelligent humans will all come to the knowledge of the same God and in the same way if Consiousness and intelligence are evidence for God. So another fail.

This is a poor conclusion . The existence of consciousness (self awareness ) and ability to understand (intelligence) does not mean that all men will come to knowledge of the same God instead those prove that such cannot exist without a conscious and intelligent creator .

felixomor:


Ehen, were u not the one who spoke the mind of bacteria?
And failed to tell me how u knew the mind?
Instead u killed science by saying bacteria has no mind.

Which scientific document shows that a bacteria has a mind?

dalaman:


First man on earth? Scientifically speaking there is nothing like that. Human anthropology has shown us that humans started worshipping natural agents of nature like the sun, the moon, mountains, rivers etc before they started worshipping spirits and later to invisible beings.

If there is anything like the first man then he invented what ever concept of God he worshipped and others after him kept inventing their own various God/Gods concept.

Sex is natural it exist in nature. If you place 20 years old a man that has never seen a woman in his life beside a Nked woman he'll get an erection. If the woman touches him he will respond. He will not have to be tought to have an erection. It will be automatic.

If all the people in the world are to be presented with the bible on their 20th birthday and told that it is the word of God for example many will just laugh and very few will accept it.

So now you are switching to evolution yet earlier you subscribed to creation but not by religious standards.

WTF!

randomperson:

If you repeat the same argument from nature, then naturally the response is the same... Nature is beautiful but it's also ugly. You can't refer to the beauty of nature as evidence for god and then ignore the ugliness of nature... That's double standard

Please stop misrepresenting my views . I said Nature serves as evidence for God .

felixomor:


Even if u have pink panther in your room.
Its not the business of this thread.

It actually is... By that analogy, he's showing the folly of asking for PROOF OF THE ABSENCE of God.

damogul:



So now you are switching to evolution yet earlier you subscribed to creation but not by religious standards.

WTF!

he didn't say evolution
The population bottleneck has never been as low as two people
Does this have to be as a product of evolution

dalaman:


First man on earth? Scientifically speaking there is nothing like that. Human anthropology has shown us that humans started worshipping natural agents of nature like the sun, the moon, mountains, rivers etc before they started worshipping spirits and later to invisible beings.

If there is anything like the first man then he invented what ever concept of God he worshipped and others after him kept inventing their own various God/Gods concept.

Sex is natural it exist in nature. If you place 20 years old a man that has never seen a woman in his life beside a Nked woman he'll get an erection. If the woman touches him he will respond. He will not have to be tought to have an erection. It will be automatic.

If all the people in the world are to be presented with the bible on their 20th birthday and told that it is the word of God for example many will just laugh and very few will accept it.

You just equated sex to marriage.
Am I surprised?
For your level, No i am not.

Animals have sex, they dont get married.

Besides u just made a claim on human anthropology, with no evidence again.
And if u say there was nothing like first man on earth.

And with the same mouth, u said humans "started worshipping"
The same mouth that said man had to be indoctrinated.

Somethings are obviously wrong.

randomperson:

It actually is... By that analogy, he's showing the folly of asking for PROOF OF THE ABSENCE of God.

bam!
Kamehameha!

KingEbukasBlog:


Please stop misrepresenting my views . I said Nature serves as evidence for God .

Yes... And am saying nature also serves as evidence that your claim that there is god is incorrect

randomperson:

It actually is... By that analogy, he's showing the folly of asking for PROOF OF THE ABSENCE of God.

U see why i no longer respond to you?
U read poorly.

Did he speak on "Absence of pink unicorn" or he spoke on "presence of pink unicorn".

Just go.

randomperson:

It actually is... By that analogy, he's showing the folly of asking for PROOF OF THE ABSENCE of God.

Wrong again! Is there a prior history acknowledged historically of an existence of a pink unicorn? Is there are 2000 page manuscript speaking of it? Is therr any account of eye witnesses also making this claim? Are their occurrences attributable to this pink unicorn? Has anything happened at the mention of the pink unicorn?

if such data exist then we can talk. If none then its a nonsensical comparison.

dalaman:


Which scientific document shows that a bacteria has a mind?

Fo real?
If I show you, what will you do to yourself?

jonbellion:
he didn't say evolution
The population bottleneck has never been as low as two people
Does this have to be as a product of evolution

His comment is from another thread. Pls don't jump into my comments. I am linking him to hos comment on another thread.

felixomor:


U see why i no longer respond to you?
U read poorly.

Did he speak on "Absence of pink unicorn" or he spoke on "presence of pink unicorn".

Just go.

God... Read carefully-
Your demand is= prove there is no god
His demand is= prove there is no pink unicorn...
My reading is not poor, your comprehension skills are

felixomor:


You just equated sex to marriage.
Am I surprised?
For your level, No i am not.

Animals have sex, they dont get married.

Besides u just made a claim on human anthropology, with no evidence again.
And if u say there was nothing like first man on earth.

And with the same mouth, u said humans "started worshipping"
The same mouth that said man had to be indoctrinated.

Somethings are obviously wrong.

jonbellion felixomor obviously sees what I am seeing and why I had to link his comment from another thread to this one. indeed something is wrong.

KingEbukasBlog:


The premise is that everything must have a signature to as proof of ownership . Right? So what signature where you looking forward to that will indeed prove that God created nature

Any signature that reads and serves and evidence to show that a particularGod created nature. We humNs always have our signature on things we create. Where is God's signature in nature?

Natural theology disproves the emboldened text . Natural Theology is gotten from personal observation and is not learnt .

It only shows that humans have the ability to assign agency to things. After all we came down from people that used to worship natural elements like the sun, mountains, rivers.thunder etc.

This is a poor conclusion . The existence of consciousness (self awareness ) and ability to understand (intelligence) does not mean that all men will come to knowledge of the same God instead those prove that such cannot exist without a conscious and intelligent creator .

Not true because evolution accounts for consiousness and intelligence. It offers some explanation. You and I might not accept it but an explanation has been given for consiousness and intelligence that has nothing to do with any intelligent creator. So your assertion that such cannot exist without an intelligent creator is not true.

damogul:



Wrong again! Is there a prior history acknowledged historically of an existence of a pink unicorn? Is there are 2000 page manuscript speaking of it? Is therr any account of eye witnesses also making this claim? Are their occurrences attributable to this pink unicorn? Has anything happened at the mention of the pink unicorn?

if such data exist then we can talk. If none then its a nonsensical comparison.

actually you can say the same for the people they believe in
-UFOS
-BIGFOOT
-The loch ness monster
-the krakken
-the Bermuda triangle
At least there has benn documented appearances of these

jonbellion:
actually you can say the same for the people they believe in
-UFOS
-BIGFOOT
-The loch ness monster
-the krakken
-the Bermuda triangle
At least there has benn documented appearances of these

Are any of those deities?

damogul:



Wrong again! Is there a prior history acknowledged historically of an existence of a pink unicorn? Is there are 2000 page manuscript speaking of it? Is therr any account of eye witnesses also making this claim? Are their occurrences attributable to this pink unicorn? Has anything happened at the mention of the pink unicorn?

if such data exist then we can talk. If none then its a nonsensical comparison.

Which data are talking about!? Because there is a manuscript means it must exist??
Okay, lemme give another analogy that might be more apt... Prove there are no aliens... Because there are reports of alien sightings... So prove they don't exist

randomperson:

God... Read carefully-
Your demand is= prove there is no god
His demand is= prove there is no pink unicorn...
My reading is not poor, your comprehension skills are

And the pink unicorn in his room must have appeared to billions of people abi?

It just keeps getting worse.
Smh