adepeter2027:

You know what? I agree with you.

Let's just end it

Sorry adepeter but I will not let you off so easily. You need to answer the question.

Why do you labour daily if you are not sure of being alive the next hour?

Why do you plan for your education, strive for the job you love, plan your life for the next 50 years when you are not sure of the next hour?

You see people die daily unexpectedly yet you keep going forward. Why?

butterflyl1on:


Sorry adepeter but I will not let you off so easily. You need to answer the question.

Why do you labour daily if you are not sure of being alive the next hour?

Because every moment is precious

Atheists like adepeter know that there is no life so we appreciate this life which we are sure of more and try to make every moment count as opposed to theists who believe in the afterlife who are constantly waiting for the end of the world so they can relocate to the "heaven" promised by the religions despite the lack of evidence this place or hell exist.

This thread has been derailed

only vaxx and agentofallah stayed on topic and are the only people still making me check the thread

hahn:


Because every moment is precious

Atheists like adepeter know that there is no life so we appreciate this life which we are sure of more and try to make every moment count as opposed to theists who believe in the afterlife who are constantly waiting for the end of the world so they can relocate to the "heaven" promised by the religions despite the lack of evidence this place or hell exist.

We are not talking about heaven hahn. Adepeter knows heaven isn't what this discussion is about. Thank you for your offspoint contribution but the question wasn't for you.

adepeter2027:

Bro, you Dae fall my hands the more óò. Why are you guys shifting the definition of faith to suit the topic on ground?

Okay, lemme ask you this;
Can gaseous oxygen be seen? No
Can oxygen be felt physically? No
Can presence of oxygen be experimented? Yes.
Can oxygen be quantified? Yes.

Does that mean OXYGEN evidence is accepted based on faith?

I want your own definition of faith, then we can continue because I'm not understanding comparing loving some as having faith that person LOVES you.

Morealso, like you stated above, faith is a thing of the spirit realm, can the love we have for some be equated to something of the spiritual realm?

haaa... Oxygen is a chemical element while love is an abstract object.... You can't deal with them in the same manner....one is acid formation and another one is natural feelings..dem no look alike...


Faith in my own definition is when your belive have reached an higher state of confidence....

butterflyl1on:


Sorry adepeter but I will not let you off so easily. You need to answer the question.

Why do you labour daily if you are not sure of being alive the next hour?

I would have love to respond to your question but the honest fact is, I don't even understand the question.

BTW, what if I'm not working to earn a living currently? What if I'm in school (Sec sch, university for BSc, abroad for my masters?). Automatically, your question is invalid and doesn't make sense to me currently.

But like I told you, let's end it here.

You're trying to redefine FAITH to fit the physical world even tho you outrightly stated it above that FAITH is a thing of the spirit REALM.

You don't wanna agree faith is employed when EVIDENCE IS LACKING.

butterflyl1on:


So Science is subjective and God is objective?

Is science no longer based on human perception?

You are just so eager to type without reading. See you making blunders everywhere and fellow ignorant people ended up liking and sharing your ignorant post about God being objective.

You and I know that God is subjective to a believer.

Science is objective. So why try to twist it?

You said science is based on human perception while God is not, but your assertion is completely false.

God according to the claim is also based on human perception. When you worship God for example you sing praises to him in human language, you give offering to him with human things, you communicate with him through the human language, when he allegedly acts you use your human perception to know that he did so, for example answered prayers. Human perception is what you use to know that your God exist. Even when describing your God and trying to explain to the atheist you use human perception to do that.

You ONLY run to the he spiritual angle when you are stuck and can not cleary explain your assertions or when you see the that it doesn't make any sense at all else it is ALWAYS human perception you use to explain your God and try to make people understand it.

adepeter2027:

I would have love to respond to your question but the honest fact is, I don't even understand the question.

BTW, what if I'm not working to earn a living currently? What if I'm in school (Sec sch, university for BSc, abroad for my masters?). Automatically, your question is invalid and doesn't make sense to me currently.

But like I told you, let's end it here.

You're trying to redefine FAITH to fit the physical world even tho you outrightly stated it above that FAITH is a thing of the spirit REALM.

You don't wanna agree faith is employed when EVIDENCE IS LACKING.

The question was updated and touched your response

butterflyl1on:


Since you do not care then let it be. If you do not care then why bother everyone day in day out for evidence of these claims. One preceeds the other. The claim before your demand for evidence yet you say you do not care about the claims. If truly you do not care why then demand for demonstrative evidence?

Mr Spinner. I said I care about the evidence and not the claims. Everybody can make claims. Your ability to substantiate it is what matters. There are bogus and real claims. Your ability to substantiate your claim is what will determine if it's bogus or real. .

vaxx:
haaa... Oxygen is a chemical element while love is an abstract object.... You can't deal with them in the same manner....one is acid formation and another one is natural feelings..dem no look alike...

This is the problem with most people. When the argument no longer suits the topic, they drift.

Faith in my own definition is when your belive have reached an higher state of confidence....

Thanks bro. I'm currently stressed up. I can't type again.

But a message for you and Butterflyli-on is; FAITH AND EVIDENCE are two parallel lines that can't meet, no matter what.

Once more, thanks

dalaman:


You said science is based on human perception while God is not, but your assertion is completely false.

God according to the claim is also based on human perception. When you worship God for example you sing praises to him in human language, you give offering to him with human things, you communicate with him through the human language, when he allegedly acts you use your human perception to know that he did so, for example answered prayers. Human perception is what you use to know that your God exist. Even when describing your God and trying to explain to the atheist you use human perception to do that.

You ONLY run to the he spiritual angle when you are stuck and can not cleary explain your assertions or when you see the that it doesn't make any sense at all elements it is ALWAYS human perception you use to explain your God and try to make people understand it.

You seem to have lost track of this discussion. We are talking about FAITH.

faith does not subscribe to human perception but its results DO.

God does not subscribe to human perception because God is approachable only through faith.

I am sure you read were I talking about the effects of faith being measurable but not faith in itself.

So I ask again is science subjective and God objective?

AgentOfAllah:


Colourless (col·or·less): Without colour

You cannot say two things which are colourless have the same colour, let alone that one derives its colour from another. That's just abuse of logic.

I agree wit you

butterflyl1on:


We are not talking about heaven hahn. Adepeter knows heaven isn't what this discussion is about. Thank you for your offspoint contribution but the question wasn't for you.

Olodo na him you be

I answered your question and then went on to elaborate and that is all you could understand?

Pfft

Indeed you are right

adepeter2027:

This is the problem with most people. When the argument no longer suits the topic, they drift.

Thanks bro. I'm currently stressed up. I can't type again.

But a message for you and Butterflyli-on is; FAITH AND EVIDENCE are two parallel lines that can't meet, no matter what.

Once more, thanks

you are welcome

dalaman:


Mr Spinner. I said I care about the evidence and not the claims. Everybody can make claims. Your ability to substantiate it is what matters. There are bogus and real claims. Your ability to substantiate your claim is what will determine if it's bogus or real. .

Same assertion is being made by me. I do not care about your desire for evidence simply because any effort by me is futile simply because.

1. You lack faith (belief in God) so all that is seen or done would be useless.

2. You are a carnal minded man. All you see and can reason from is the physical so for you the spiritual DOES NOT EXIST! So can you be force-fed with what you do not want or have the ability to appreciate or interpret?

hahn:


Olodo na him you be

I answered your question and then went on to elaborate and that is all you could understand?

Pfft

Indeed you are right

We are talking specifically about FAITH and you jumped in and started talking about relocating to heaven and you call me an Olodo ba?

Your own Olodo is looking at you on your screen.

adepeter2027:

This is the problem with most people. When the argument no longer suits the topic, they drift.

Thanks bro. I'm currently stressed up. I can't type again.

But a message for you and Butterflyli-on is; FAITH AND EVIDENCE are two parallel lines that can't meet, no matter what.

Once more, thanks

Since you already knew the bolded why then have you been arguing and asking questions about faith and wanting to link it to something physically discernible all this while despite my repeatedly telling you that faith in itself is not measurable but its results are. ?

butterflyl1on:


Since you already knew the bolded why then have you been arguing and asking questions about faith and wanting to link it to something physically discernible all this while?

Bro, I never disagreed with you, instead you're the person doing so.
I plead with you to read our messages again.

I don't argue to win. I discuss to learn and widen my horizon.

adepeter2027:

Bro, I never disagreed with you, instead you're the person doing so.
I plead with you to read our messages again.

I don't argue to win. I discuss to learn and widen my horizon.

I never disagreed with myself did I?

You kept saying faith isn't evidence. Which means faith based on God must subscribe to empirical proof to be true.

I kept saying faith based on God IS evidence. Even when there is no scientific submission backing it up it exists on its own simply because its anchor (God) does not submit to scientific scrutiny. God is subjective.

butterflyl1on:


I never disagreed with myself did I?

You kept saying faith isn't evidence. Which means faith based on God must subscribe to empirical proof to be true.

I kept saying faith based on God IS evidence. Even when there is no scientific submission backing it up it exists on its own simply because its anchor (God) does not submit to scientific scrutiny. God is subjective.

Okay, I now understand you...

But since, you never concluded this way

Why?

butterflyl1on:


We are talking specifically about FAITH and you jumped in and started talking about relocating to heaven and you call me an Olodo ba?

Your own Olodo is looking at you on your screen.

You asked a questions "Why do you labour daily if you are not sure of being alive the next hour?"

And I answered you

Obviously it is a waste of time engaging your delusional ass

vaxx:
evidence of creationist isn't only logical it also has a science base... I even suggest creationist and evolutionist should work together ...the see hole that evolutionist could not see and they point it to them not to ignore the basic scientific law... An authority on science a physician paul Davies said, “The appearance of design is overwhelming.”

Have you read Paul Davies' works? I recommend "God and the New Physics" it's a fascinating read. Anyway, read this article titled: "Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it", written by Paul Davies, to understand that remark in its proper context.

Science is perfectly capable of pointing out the difficulties in its own theories. I'm even willing to wager with you that every single thing creationists quote as some kind flaw they discovered with scientific theories are things the very scientists who developed the theories highlighted themselves. It is just as important to highlight your shortcomings in science as it is to report on your successes. This gives future scientists new interesting questions to explore, which is why scientific discovery never ceases.

Why the complex design is logical...

logic has it that nothing produces nothing. When you test nothing like zero… no energy,, no air othing comes from it. However, if you stick something into nothing and something comes out of it then it is solely because of the something that is introduced to the nothing. This is logical.

Nothing is not even testable base on science method

You're conflating two different things here! The notion of nothingness and the idea of complexity. "Complex design" is not a counterpoint to "nothingness". "Somethingness" is the counterpoint to "nothingness". No one I know of, argues that something came out of nothing. That is indeed, a tenuous argument, simply because no one knows what "nothing" truly means. Even space vacuum isn't nothing, and as far as we know, zero energy has never been measured anywhere.
As for "complex design", that's just a forced concept which requires you to first assume the object of examination was designed. Such an assumption is uncalled for in the absence of evidence.

adepeter2027:

Okay, I now understand you...

But since, you never concluded this way

Why?

I have been saying it repeatedly so how did you miss it?

butterflyl1on:


I have been saying it repeatedly so how did you miss it?

Nevermind tho

adepeter2027:

Nevermind tho

AgentOfAllah:

Have you read Paul Davies' works? I recommend "God and the New Physics" it's a fascinating read. Anyway, read this article titled: "Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it", written by Paul Davies, to understand that remark in its proper context.

Science is perfectly capable of pointing out the difficulties in its own theories. I'm even willing to wager with you that every single thing creationists quote as some kind flaw they discovered with scientific theories are things the very scientists who developed the theories highlighted themselves. It is just as important to highlight your shortcomings in science as it is to report on your successes. This gives future scientists new interesting questions to explore, which is why scientific discovery never ceases.


You're conflating two different things here! The notion of nothingness and the idea of complexity. "Complex design" is not a counterpoint to "nothingness". "Somethingness" is the counterpoint to "nothingness". No one I know of, argues that something came out of nothing. That is indeed, a tenuous argument, simply because no one knows what "nothing" truly means. Even space vacuum isn't nothing, and as far as we know, zero energy has never been measured anywhere.
As for "complex design", that's just a forced concept which requires you to first assume the object of examination was designed. Such an assumption is uncalled for in the absence of evidence.

i insert the idea of nothingness into the topic becuse the concept of overwhelming design can't be overlook... ... It must surely come from somewhere ...Even Paul admit ... The evidence use by the creationist to back up the complex designes is both observable and testable and that make it scientific....what make it complex here is the ability to produce similarities....


Will science be able to produce a versions of the universe like ours, what about mammals (biological system ),ecosystem like ours and so many more....if this version can be produce using scientific method.... I am ready to consider the concept of complex design baseless.....

One very interesting thing here is.... Evolution theory do not discredit the concept of complex design....

vaxx:
i insert the idea of nothingness into the topic becuse an overwhelming design can't be overlook... Even Paul admit ... The evidence of complex designer is both observable and testable and hence make it scientific....the complex here is the ability to produce similarities....


example A universe like ours
A mammals biological system
An ecosystem like ours and so many more....

Vaxx could you rephrase this post? I really don't understand what you intended to write here.

AgentOfAllah:

Vaxx could you rephrase this post? I really don't understand what you intended to write here.

I am not concentrating.... You can recheck now

dalaman:


Am not a creationist. In fact creationism is completely mythical and fictitious.

There are many parts of evolution that depend too.much on assumptions and the alleged intelligent guesses of its proponents. Part if it make sense and it remains the best explanation we have for the diversity of life but a lot of it is nonsene in my opinion.

Well, the truth about evolution is refusing to accept it doesn't make it a bunk. Trust me friend there are thousands of people - scientists mostly in the past - who's tried to disprove it but instead the theory keeps getting stronger amassing more evidence. Theory of evolution by natural selection is one of those theories in science - just like heliocentric theory - that can never be disproved.

vaxx:
i insert the idea of nothingness into the topic becuse the concept of overwhelming design can't be overlook... ... It must surely come from somewhere ...Even Paul admit ... The evidence use by the creationist to back up the complex designes is both observable and testable and that make it scientific....what make it complex here is the ability to produce similarities....

How do you test complex design?

Will science be able to produce a versions of the universe like ours, what about mammals (biological system ),ecosystem like ours and so many more....if this version can be produce using scientific method.... I am ready to consider the concept of complex design baseless.....

So reproducibility by human endeavour is your criteria for adjudging something to be complex design? If so, answer me these questions: Do you understand that the laws of nature are immutable to the whims of humans? Why do you think human ingenuity is a legitimate criteria by which to judge the creative prowess of natural processes?

One very interesting thing here is.... Evolution theory do not discredit the concept of complex design....

Then what does evolution do?

@op,


The answer to your question............................................."PROTO-PRIMATES"!!!

Your question has been answered before and yet again, your question contains "multi-dimensional errors"!!!

Niflheim:
@op,


The answer to your question............................................."PROTO-PRIMATES"!!!

Your question has been answered before and yet again, your question contains "multi-dimensional errors"!!!

I am aware science claim very first primate evolve during Paleocene epoch...( first major worldwide division of rock)aka big bang....My question is this who are they....any sample? Who is their ancestor....or do they manufacture themselves....

Point out to one error of my question? Am willing to learn