TLuzzie:
Lolzzz. Should I call you a blockhead? Where did I deny being an atheist?

Again, trying to project your mental status onto others

Sorry, you didn't have to deny it to sound foolish
The way u used it was foolish none the less.

hopefulLandlord:


they can't

Of course....... Their answer determines whether atheists will take their argument serious whenever they claim that "something coming out of nothing is impossible". Contradictions and inconsistencies destroy credibility.

felixomor:
Again, trying to project your mental status onto others
Sorry, you didn't have to deny it to sound foolish The way u used it was foolish none the less.

Ok.

spacetacular:


Don't flatter yourself!

Stop disgracing your husband joor! You're too old for this nah. While, "I", like you said, "still have a long way to go".

TLuzzie:
Stop disgracing your husband joor! You're too old for this nah. While, "I", like you said, "still have a long way to go".

My husband can speak for himself and he does so ever so eloquently.

You do have a long way to go when it comes to common sense. So for that, you are right!

spacetacular:


My husband can speak for himself and he does so ever so eloquently.

You do have a long way to go when it comes to common sense. So for that, you are right!

Good, b!tch. I've fed you your dogsh!t and you found it delicious. Enjoy your meal. Oya leave me alone now, will you? You can't marry two people nah.

hopefulLandlord:


I just saw this now

you missed my point, Kalam doesn't have anything to do with omnipotence, infact you've tactically proved my point that you need another argument to buttress the failure of the Kalam which explains why even Craig had to put the ad hoc "omnipotence" to save the Kalam

I never missed your point, I agreed with it. Some Comoslogical arguments like Craig's allows for the possibility. In fact I wasn't even arguing for the kalam, I just referenced craig's article to show u his response to that copy & paste u posted earlier.

TLuzzie:
Good, b!tch. I've fed you your dogsh!t and you found it delicious. Enjoy your meal. Oya leave me alone now, will you? You can't marry two people nah.

Oh so you are an encapsulation of that which you dish out? I hope the job pays well.

JackBizzle:



I like how you put out your thoughts on a coherent manner. However, I do not agree with some of it.

There will always be a paradox of the first cause and infinite regress.

You see, time as a concept goes infinitely both ways- the future goes on forever and the past will keep going further back. Just like how numbers can be infinite on both sides of the number line.

There may not be a first cause but rather a cyclical recurring loop of creation and anti creation. This is science fiction but it really appeals to me.

I also accept a cyclical universe. Each age starting with a big bang and ending in a big crunch. Well, something like that. The idea is that the origin of that big bang and where it eventually returns to are the foundations of the universe. Now, this is what qualifies as the "first cause" or "set of first causes" I termed NECESSARY. If the physical universe itself isn't eternal, then it must depend on something. It's like some energy from the origin being transformed into physicality, and physicality eventually returning to that non-physical origin, like a wave continuously rising and collapsing, like the musical waves of Orpheus. The key point here is that the origin, the foundation is not NOTHING or NONEXISTENCE since neither can give rise to SOMETHING nor EXISTENCE. It's only transformation of the universal fundamental basis taking place endlessly.

This is why I mock the theists and deists for denying the possibility of creation from nothing, and then turning around to claim that some creator God or supreme being created the universe out of pure nothingness, bringing it into existence out of NONEXISTENCE destroying their earlier argument. It's ridiculous.

hopefulLandlord:


of course!

There's no reason to be an adherent of the Abrahamic god IMO.

An unsubstantiated, invisible, all knowing, all powerful, supernatural creator judge, that refuses to reveal itself, leaves no evidence, and is petty enough to eternally punish those that were unconvinced ... is a pretty outrageous claim.

I'm going to need more than some old books that can best summed as "trust me" to buy into that claim. Why would you believe such a thing is a better question than why wouldn't you. Especially considering there's no shortage of old books, all with different stories, that all rely on "trust me" as their basis.

But whatever, each to their own I suppose.

Right. I agree.

JackBizzle:



I like how you put out your thoughts on a coherent manner. However, I do not agree with some of it.

There will always be a paradox of the first cause and infinite regress.

You see, time as a concept goes infinitely both ways- the future goes on forever and the past will keep going further back. Just like how numbers can be infinite on both sides of the number line.

There may not be a first cause but rather a cyclical recurring loop of creation and anti creation. This is science fiction but it really appeals to me.

Please stop embarrassing yourself . It is called the first cause and the first cause is immutable .

TLuzzie:
Thank you. You can fuck_ off, now please. Why's that so hard to do? What is your problem?

My problem is that you are my favourite past time

spacetacular:


My problem is that you are my favourite past time

Very good. I get the message. I'll help you inform one of my uncles that there's a new babe from the UK. But rest assured that I'll NEVER reply you again.

TLuzzie:
Atheism is contrasted with THEISM, as the name implies, not DEISM. A person like Richard Dawkins is armed against theists but philosophically ill-equiped against a deist. He has no weapons with which to fight. Deists will kill off his arguments in poofs of smoke.

Stop pitting atheism against deism, and stop hiding under the umbrella of deism. YOU are not a deist. Argue for theism.

By the way, I'm BOTH an atheist and a WEAK/IMPLICIT adeist.

You are a bit confused . Theists and deists alike have logical reasons to acknowledge the existence of God. Deists just have a different thought about the nature of God since it is a theological position.

The same way a panentheist (not pantheist ) has a different thought about the nature of God .

Atheism is pretty 4cked up like 4kings pointed out . A pantheist believes the universe is god. People can deify anything nowadays . So denying the existence of God/gods is actually idiotic . If I choose to call my mobile device my god , are you gonna tell me that my mobile device is not god or it does not exist ?

With this thinking, there is indeed a creator , a First cause but atheists don't see it as God .

They are not really denying it's existence, they just believe it is not worthy to be called God because they expect it to do things and if It does not do those things , then why call it God ?

KingEbukasBlog:


Please stop embarrassing yourself . It is called the first cause and the first cause is immutable .

Is the first cause a scientific fact or some theological woowoo

TLuzzie:
I also accept a cyclical universe. Each age starting with a big bang and ending in a big crunch. Well, something like that. The idea is that the origin of that big bang and where it eventually returns to are the foundations of the universe. Now, this is what qualifies as the "first cause" or "set of first causes" I termed NECESSARY. If the physical universe itself isn't eternal, then it must depend on something. It's like some energy from the origin being transformed into physicality, and physicality eventually returning to that non-physical origin, like a wave continuously rising and collapsing, like the musical waves of Orpheus. The key point here is that the origin, the foundation is not NOTHING or NONEXISTENCE since neither can give rise to SOMETHING nor EXISTENCE. It's only transformation of the universal fundamental basis taking place endlessly.

This is why I mock the theists and deists for denying the possibility of creation from nothing, and then turning around to claim that some creator God or supreme being created the universe out of pure nothingness, bringing it into existence out of NONEXISTENCE destroying their earlier argument. It's ridiculous.

Bravo!

You put it better than I could.

Cc kingebukasblog ati spectacular. This is how to give a reasoned opinion and not the B.S. you produce

KingEbukasBlog:


You are a bit confused .

Lol. I may be a bit 'confused', but you're definitely a tad confused more than I am.

Theists and deists alike have logical reasons to acknowledge the existence of God. Deists just have a different thought about the nature of God since it is a theological position.

And the atheist is attacking the THEIST thought about the nature of the universe's origin/the first cause/"GOD", so defend it IF YOU are a theist. It is called aTHEISM for a reason.

The same way a panentheist (not pantheist ) has a different thought about the nature of God .

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Atheism is pretty 4cked up like 4kings pointed out . A pantheist believes the universe is god. People can deify anything nowadays . So denying the existence of God/gods is actually idiotic . If I choose to call my mobile device my god , are you gonna tell me that my mobile device is not god or it does not exist ?

Good point. It depends on what you MEAN by 'God'. You can't be insane enough to tell me that the universe finds its origin in your mobile device, can you?

With this thinking, there is indeed a creator , a First cause but atheists don't see it as God.

Chill bro. Atheism denies the God of the theists. That is the only set of Gods the atheist has RULED out. He might not subscribe to the others, but might be apathetic towards them.

They are not really denying it's existence, they just believe it is not worthy to be called God because they expect it to do things and if It does not do those things , then why call it God ?

The Abrahamic God, I repeat, is an IMPOSSIBLE NONSENSE.

TLuzzie:
Very good. I get the message. I'll help you inform one of my uncles that there's a new babe from the UK. But rest assured that I'll NEVER reply you again.

You are quite emotional today. So you will never reply me again? Let's see how long you can go on with it especially with the chart blowing range of vitriol and bile in you.

An apple never falls far from the tree. Your uncles must be your replica. You all would be my favourite past time. I take serious people seriously but clowns are just for past times.

JackBizzle:


Is the first cause a scientific fact or some theological woowoo

Do you have a scientific mind? You do not even possess what you seek.

The first cause you know Is it a scientific fact?

felixomor:

Which "deist " present their thought "process?
How many can u mention?

Theists have far more reasons than any argument group for the existence of God. [s]No matter your twisting.

Besides, you are the one who says things must be proven, you are the one who knows what a folklore, and myth is without proving.
That was how Dawkins ignorantly wrote in his best-selling book that Jesus never existed, until historians fooled him publicly.
Sorry atheism is more than dogmatic, considering those who fell for that book.[/s]

Which God do you worship as a theist?

TLuzzie:
Lol. I may be a bit 'confused', but you're definitely a tad confused more than I am.

And the atheist is attacking the THEIST thought about the nature of the universe's origin/the first cause/"GOD", so defend it IF YOU are a theist. It is called aTHEISM for a reason.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Good point. It depends on what you MEAN by 'God'. You can't be insane enough to tell me that the universe finds its origin in your mobile device, can you?

Chill bro. Atheism denies the God of the theists. That is the only set of Gods the atheist has RULED out. He might not subscribe to the others, but might be apathetic towards them.

The Abrahamic God, I repeat, is an IMPOSSIBLE NONSENSE.

So if the abrahamic God is an impossible nonsense this means there is a possible "sense" of a God out there which to you isn't the abrahamic God. So can you tell me who or what this God is?

JackBizzle:


Bravo!

You put it better than I could.

Cc kingebukasblog ati spectacular. This is how to give a reasoned opinion and not the B.S. you produce

Someone around here is already missing my replies sha.

TLuzzie:
I also accept a cyclical universe. Each age starting with a big bang and ending in a big crunch. Well, something like that. The idea is that the origin of that big bang and where it eventually returns to are the foundations of the universe. Now, this is what qualifies as the "first cause" or "set of first causes" I termed NECESSARY. If the physical universe itself isn't eternal, then it must depend on something. It's like some energy from the origin being transformed into physicality, and physicality eventually returning to that non-physical origin, like a wave continuously rising and collapsing, like the musical waves of Orpheus. The key point here is that the origin, the foundation is not NOTHING or NONEXISTENCE since neither can give rise to SOMETHING nor EXISTENCE. It's only transformation of the universal fundamental basis taking place endlessly.

The theory of the cyclic universe has been debunked by science . I'm on a mobile device now , I would have explained in details.

This is why I mock the theists and deists for denying the possibility of creation from nothing, and then turning around to claim that some creator God or supreme being created the universe out of pure nothingness, bringing it into existence out of NONEXISTENCE destroying their earlier argument. It's ridiculous.

There are three concepts of creation

1. Creatio ex deo - creation out of the being of God which I subscribe to

2. Creatio ex materia - eternal universe coexisting with God from past infinitude.

3. Creatio ex nihilo - creation out of nothing

Not everyone subscribes to creation out of nothing . And there are theists who object creatio ex nihilo

Apparently, you are mocking in ignorance which is just a pitiful thing to see .

spacetacular:


Do you have a scientific mind? You do not even possess what you seek.

The first cause you know Is it a scientific fact?

Anonyism- answering questions with questions when cornered

JackBizzle:


Bravo!

You put it better than I could.

Cc kingebukasblog ati spectacular. This is how to give a reasoned opinion and not the B.S. you produce

You do not even understand what you responded to. Let me post an extract To Help you out with.

"Now, this is what qualifies as the "first cause" or "set of first causes" I termed NECESSARY. If the physical universe itself isn't eternal, then it must depend on something. It's like some energy from the origin being transformed into physicality, and physicality eventually returning to that non-physical origin, like a wave continuously rising and collapsing, like the musical waves of Orpheus. The key point here is that the origin, the foundation is not NOTHING or NONEXISTENCE since neither can give rise to SOMETHING nor EXISTENCE. It's only transformation of the universal fundamental basis taking place endlessly."


He is simply saying that the universe has a creator but he is struggling to understand how this creator achieved this feat. Which is understandable due to his limited perception.

So do you believe the universe was CREATED or it EXPANDED FROM A SINGULARITY?

KingEbukasBlog:


The theory of the cyclic universe has been debunked by science . I'm with a mobile device now , I would have explained in details.



There are three concepts of creation

1. Creatio ex deo - creation out of the being of God which I subscribe to

2. Creatio ex materia - eternal universe coexisting with God from past infinitude.

3. Creatio ex nihilo - creation out of nothing

Not everyone subscribes to creation out of nothing . And there are theists who object creatio ex nihilo

Apparently, you are mocking in ignorance which is just a pitiful thing to watch .

Oh, interesting. Can you tell me how CREATION OUT OF THE BEING OF GOD occurs, and which part of the scriptures of your theistic religion of Christianity backs it up?

KingEbukasBlog:


The theory of the cyclic universe has been debunked by science . I'm with a mobile device now , I would have explained in details.



There are three concepts of creation

1. Creatio ex deo - creation out of the being of God which I subscribe to

2. Creatio ex materia - eternal universe coexisting with God from past infinitude.

3. Creatio ex nihilo - creation out of nothing

Not everyone subscribes to creation out of nothing . And there are theists who object creatio ex nihilo

Apparently, you are mocking in ignorance which is just a pitiful thing to see .

Number one holds true and I subscribe to that as well. God conceived us as thought (his being) and brought us to reality.

Much the same way every invention or produce of man was also first a thought and later a tangible projection of himself.

TLuzzie:
Oh, interesting. Can you tell me how CREATION OUT OF THE BEING OF GOD occurs, and which part of the scriptures of your theistic religion of Christianity backs it up?

Creatio ex materia renders god redundant in my opinion. I see nothing for god to do in that scenario.

Creatio ex nihilo is just stupid.

spacetacular:



You do not even understand what you responded to. Let me post an extract To Help you out with.

"Now, this is what qualifies as the "first cause" or "set of first causes" I termed NECESSARY. If the physical universe itself isn't eternal, then it must depend on something. It's like some energy from the origin being transformed into physicality, and physicality eventually returning to that non-physical origin, like a wave continuously rising and collapsing, like the musical waves of Orpheus. The key point here is that the origin, the foundation is not NOTHING or NONEXISTENCE since neither can give rise to SOMETHING nor EXISTENCE. It's only transformation of the universal fundamental basis taking place endlessly."


He is simply saying that the universe has a creator but he is struggling to understand how this creator achieved this feat. Which is understandable due to his limited perception.

So do you believe the universe was CREATED or it EXPANDED FROM A SINGULARITY?

The fact is that I do not know how the universe came about. The most plausible theory, albeit sci-fi, to me is the cyclical multiverse.

Tluvie is saying the same thing albeit in his/her own way.

Ogbeni, SWERVE

TLuzzie:

Someone around here is already missing my replies sha.