vaxx:
objectively verify evidence.......my existence is an evidence of the existence of GOD......

but if you say am wrong, you have to provide me God definition ...... what is GOD?

Read my post again...

Fvcknames:


I might not be getting the discussion fully, but I'd like to drop my 2 cents
I feel something can exist without you observing it, but that does not mean it definitely exist.
So there 'could' be a god without us experiencing it, but that doesn't mean there is.
But the chances of that god(if it exists) being the Christian God is slim.
So what I get here is that saying god doesn't exist does not stop him from existing(if he does), and saying that god exists does not make him exist if he doesn't.

All in all, I feel this arguments are of little use for the parties involved cause no matter the points given whether in favour of theists or atheists, there is always going to be a way around it.

I am sad to say that you are only confusing yourself here. These arguments are of great value to all concerned especially Atheists.

1) Atheists secrets are out in the open. Atheism is a religion of hatred and destruction.
2) Atheists are battling with the fallen tree.
3) Atheists are unable to answer simple question, like what is a table which the esteemed Vaxx asked. Other questions that Atheists struggle with are;

1) Is Dark Matter the spiritual essence of NO-god?
2) Are Black Holes the place Atheists go to after they succeed in their mission to destroy all religions and its followers?

Fvcknames:


I might not be getting the discussion fully, but I'd like to drop my 2 cents
I feel something can exist without you observing it, but that does not mean it definitely exist.
So there 'could' be a god without us experiencing it, but that doesn't mean there is.

Yes, you seem to have gotten it, however, I'll add that unlike the theist, the atheist has the null hypothesis on his side; we as humans always move from null hypothesis not towards it and that's as sensible as it can be, otherwise we start claiming anything exists

To show the sense in this, I'll replace god with something like "Pink Unicorn", you do not assert a pink unicorn exists despite lack of evidence because it can exist despite it, you start by assuming a pink unicorn does not exist till its found out to exist, assuming it doesn't exist is the "Null hypothesis"

I don't believe there is a god because the null hypothesis starts me from there, and it's up to believers to demonstrate that their god proposition is true.

When anybody can:
1. Provide a coherent definition of what they mean by "god"

2. Provide empirically testable predictions of that god, and show that these predictions are true

3. Show that this god is more parsimonious than all other natural explanations

I'll (at least tentatively) accept that a god exists. So far, none of these requirements have come anywhere close to being met, and I can reasonably assert that the proposition of a god existing is likely false.

butterflyl1on:


You are imploding bro.

We are talking about God and not unicorns or teapots in space or aliens or spaghetti monsters (stay on track)

First you say Gods CAN EXIST WITHOUT ANYONE SEEING, FEELING HIM, ETC

then from saying THEY CAN EXIST you jumped eons forward and declared THE FACT IS THAT THOUGH THEY CAN EXIST THEY CATEGORICALLY DO NOT EXIST

you are sweating up a storm right now I can tell

If one does not need to have a sensory perception of something before that thing would exist why they is God an exception? Is he not also seen as an object in our objective world? (according to you)?

How can God not categorically exist when you said and I quote



Can God not stand in His own right and have nothing to do with the eye of the beholder?

The argument can go both ways
The fact that I have no proof that God exists does not stop him from existing
But also, the fact you believe that he exists does not make him exist

hopefulLandlord:


You mean there's no evidence?

"The universe began to exist" (Vilenken weeps) therefore god exists

"Objective morality" therefore god does care how we live our lives, therefore god exists and we should all blow ourselves up as allah commands and take slaves that'll obey us in fear and trembling

"The human body is designed by a designer that needs no designer" therefore god exists

"Can you explain............?" if you can't, god exists

"If you can imagine god, it exists" aka Ontological proof, you're imagining unicorn? No, it doesn't apply to unicorns

"I was in an accident, 1 billion people died but I survived" therefore god exists, ignore the fact that 1 billion just died, those don't really matter

"There's this book I have, written by ignorant goatherders who thought the sun moves round the earth under the influence of some powerful holy spirit, this book said god exists" therefore god exists

"That book also said god has revealed himself to everybody" therefore god exists

aren't these proof enough stop fighting god

dalaman:


Butterflyl1on's recent evidence for his God is the story about some lady that got married to a guy that shares the same birthday with her after meeting him in a month and someone telling her that she'll marry someone that she shares something in common with.

This is the type of person we are dealing with. A guy whose God is now an event planner and match maker.

How can someone read that testimony and not admit some Jewish carpenter reportedly killed in a small Israeli village aeons ago wasn't dying for his sins?

dalaman:


Ogbeni, does your God exist and does it want people to know it exist? How did you get to know that your God exist? How can anybody know that your God exist?

From what I see, you will never be able to know if the creator God exists. Sorry dude but that is the hard truth. So take a break dont stress others.

hopefulLandlord:


Yes, you seem to have gotten it, however, I'll add that unlike the theist, the atheist has the null hypothesis on his side; we as humans always move from null hypothesis not towards it and that's as sensible as it can otherwise we start claiming anything exists

To show the sense in this, I'll replace god with something like "Pink Unicorn", you do not assert a pink unicorn exists despite lack of evidence because it can exist despite it, you start by assuming a pink unicorn does not exist till its found out to exist, assuming it doesn't exist is the "Null hypothesis"

I don't believe there is a god because the null hypothesis starts me from there, and it's up to believers to demonstrate that their god proposition is true.

When anybody can:
1. Provide a coherent definition of what they mean by "god"

2. Provide empirically testable predictions of that god, and show that these predictions are true

3. Show that this god is more parsimonious than all other natural explanations

I'll (at least tentatively) accept that a god exists. So far, none of these requirements have come anywhere close to being met, and I can reasonably assert that the proposition of a god existing is likely false.

Budaatum already answered you.

the objective stands in its own right and has nothing to do with the eye of the beholder.

Even you already answered yourself and I quote you directly

Objectivity is something true or not regardless of someone's perception

This echoes budaatums comment and BOTH OF YOU ARE ATHEISTS?

so objectively God can exist with or without your perception right?

So why asking for evidence if you said the above?

Like I said, face a mirror and curse who you see in the mirror for exposing you

JacksonD7:
Now that we've established the fact that atheism is nothing more than a religion, I would like to talk about tolerance. Personally I've got nothing against a Christian going to church, putting his arms in the air and saying "thank you Jesus".

I've also got nothing against a Muslim knelling in a mosque and saying "Allah Akbar". I'm also cool with an atheist not subscribing to a higher power, believing his ancestors are apes, and viewing his/her existence as a purposeless, meaningless accident.

But, the thing is you can do all that without being so obnoxious about it. News flash people: you can be an atheist without bashing other religions!.

I know that for some people I'm preaching to the wind, I know that I've angered some atheists with this article. I know that some of you will go down to the comments and call me an ignorant buffoon.

But it doesn't matter. I'm religious, you're religious and whether you like it or not, that's the truth. We were all religious in the beginning, we are religious now, and we will be religious at the end. Get used to it.

There you have it we are all religious. But the worst religion on earth is Atheism. It is the only religion that is a afraid to tell others what Atheism have to offer a suffering humanity.
Why is this? Is it because the Prophet Richard Dawkins is a Satanist? What superior benefits has Atheism to offer mankind that world religions cant offer?

hopefulLandlord:


How can someone read that testimony and not admit some Jewish carpenter reportedly killed in a small Israeli village aeons ago wasn't dying for his sins?

His God sent himself on a suicide mission to sacrifice himself to himself to save humans from himself? And he didn't even stay dead so what was the point?

This story is the most important story according to those that are in the bubble of delusion.

ScienceWatch:
From what I see, you will never be able to know if the creator God exists. Sorry dude but that is the hard truth. So take a break dont stress others.

LMAO.

He is always trying to give himself high blood pressure over this issue.

hopefulLandlord:


Yes, you seem to have gotten it, however, I'll add that unlike the theist, the atheist has the null hypothesis on his side; we as humans always move from null hypothesis not towards it and that's as sensible as it can be, otherwise we start claiming anything exists

To show the sense in this, I'll replace god with something like "Pink Unicorn", you do not assert a pink unicorn exists despite lack of evidence because it can exist despite it, you start by assuming a pink unicorn does not exist till its found out to exist, assuming it doesn't exist is the "Null hypothesis"

I don't believe there is a god because the null hypothesis starts me from there, and it's up to believers to demonstrate that their god proposition is true.

When anybody can:
1. Provide a coherent definition of what they mean by "god"

2. Provide empirically testable predictions of that god, and show that these predictions are true

3. Show that this god is more parsimonious than all other natural explanations

I'll (at least tentatively) accept that a god exists. So far, none of these requirements have come anywhere close to being met, and I can reasonably assert that the proposition of a god existing is likely false.

It is because of the inherent wisdom of religions that they have not given Atheists any help with their crooked questions.

They know that Atheists must first prove the existence of their NO-god and produce a WhitePaper outlining Atheism religions mission for mankind. It is now more than 100 years and Atheists have never produced it. Instead they aimlessly and cruelly jab at world religions with superstitious Pseudo science and their strawman called NO-god.

PLease produce evidence of your NO-god if you want to be taken seriously.

butterflyl1on:


Budaatum already answered you.



Even you already answered yourself and I quote you directly




This echoes budaatums comment and BOTH OF YOU ARE ATHEISTS?

so objectively God can exist with or without your perception right?

So why asking for evidence if you said the above?

Like I said, face a mirror and curse who you see in the mirror for exposing you

Come on man, yes they said something can exist without you believing it exists. They didn't say it definitely exists if u don't believe in it.
So I say a god can exist without us believing it exists, not that it definitely exists.
What do we do then, we find proof to cement our stance that it exists not just assume that it exists.
Unicorns might exist if u don't believe they do, but we don't just assume they do, we have to find proof for certain that they exist.
The argument that hopefulLandlord and Budatuum brought does not support the theistic stance, it goes both ways
I think this is the 3rd time I'm typing this;
People believing a god doesn't exist does not stop him from existing if he already does, so also people believing he exists does not make him exist if he doesn't.

ScepticalPyrrho:
On your failure to provide verifiable proofs that God(s) exists, I'll rather maintain that God, just like Santa Claus, doesnt exist no matter how much some people want them to.

OK, to stay on topic No2, I will agree with you subjective views. One thing is bothering me about you, why are you unable to explain to us the existence of your NO-god. I know very little about about your NO-god. Does he have another name?

I heard that he is a cool dude that created superstitious Dark Holes. It is rumored that NO-god has supernatural powers so great that he made invisible Dark Matter so Atheists can be more intelligent.

I am interested Sir. Tell me more !!

ScepticalPyrrho:
Read my post again...

you ask for evidence of God....I provide myself...... Or you do not also believe I exist.......

vaxx:
you ask for evidence of God....I provide myself...... Or you do not also believe I exist.......

Now read your own comment above.

Fvcknames:

Come on man, yes they said something can exist without you believing it exists. They didn't say it definitely exists if u don't believe in it.
So I say a god can exist without us believing it exists, not that it definitely exists.
What do we do then, we find proof to cement our stance that it exists not just assume that it exists.
Unicorns might exist if u don't believe they do, but we don't just assume they do, we have to find proof for certain that they exist.
The argument that hopefulLandlord and Budatuum brought does not support the theistic stance, it goes both ways
I think this is the 3rd time I'm typing this;
People believing a god doesn't exist does not stop him from existing if he already does, so also people believing he exists does not make him exist if he doesn't.

NO.

They said a God can exist without us PERCEIVING ITS EXISTENCE and not BELIEVING ITS EXISTENCE. note the difference.

This was why i said that if this is their position then why are they asking for OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD or is sensory perception not objectivity?

NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT BELIEF HERE. WE ARE ON ABOUT SENSORY PERCEPTION.

ScienceWatch:
OK, to stay on topic No2, I will agree with you subjective views. One thing is bothering me about you, why are you unable to explain to us the existence of your NO-god. I know very little about about your NO-god. Does he have another name?

I heard that he is a cool dude that created superstitious Dark Holes. It is rumored that NO-god has supernatural powers so great that he made invisible Dark Matter so Atheists can be more intelligent.

I am interested Sir. Tell me more !!

ScepticalPyrrho:
Now read your own comment above.

it seems am wasting my time .....am sorry dude

Fvcknames:

Come on man, yes they said something can exist without you believing it exists. They didn't say it definitely exists if u don't believe in it.
So I say a god can exist without us believing it exists, not that it definitely exists.
What do we do then, we find proof to cement our stance that it exists not just assume that it exists.
Unicorns might exist if u don't believe they do, but we don't just assume they do, we have to find proof for certain that they exist.
The argument that hopefulLandlord and Budatuum brought does not support the theistic stance, it goes both ways
I think this is the 3rd time I'm typing this;
People believing a god doesn't exist does not stop him from existing if he already does, so also people believing he exists does not make him exist if he doesn't.

I have heard Of Atheists that Believe God exist, even though he dont. But assume he does because others have suggest he could, but knocks down rumors that he might exist outside his own existence. I hope that make sense so that we can move forward to the important things the OP graced us with.

You appear to be a knowledgeable person.

Can you tell me what Atheists are offering A suffering world, or am I wrong to believe that their are billions of suffering humanity?

vaxx:
it seems am wasting my time .....am sorry dude

Glad you realised quickly

butterflyl1on:


NO.

They said a God can exist without us PERCEIVING ITS EXISTENCE and not BELIEVING ITS EXISTENCE. note the difference.

This was why i said that if this is their position then why are they asking for OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD or is sensory perception not objectivity?

NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT BELIEF HERE. WE ARE ON ABOUT SENSORY PERCEPTION.

OK man, sensory perception
Look at what I said about unicorns

butterflyl1on:


NO.

They said a God can exist without us PERCEIVING ITS EXISTENCE and not BELIEVING ITS EXISTENCE. note the difference.

This was why i said that if this is their position then why are they asking for OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD or is sensory perception not objectivity?

NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT BELIEF HERE. WE ARE ON ABOUT SENSORY PERCEPTION.

You have made that very, very clear to him. Even a lower grade student will get it first time. Why are Atheists so thick skulled?

If he want to swerve away from scientific embarrassment, over to belief, I will be happy to accommodate him for 15 mins before I go for Coffee.

butterflyl1on:


NO.

They said a God can exist without us PERCEIVING ITS EXISTENCE and not BELIEVING ITS EXISTENCE. note the difference.

This was why i said that if this is their position then why are they asking for OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD or is sensory perception not objectivity?

NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT BELIEF HERE. WE ARE ON ABOUT SENSORY PERCEPTION.

OK man, sensory perception
Look at what I said about unicorns
We can't just assume God exists because he can exist without us sensing him.

vaxx:
it seems am wasting my time .....am sorry dude

You and Butterflyl1on are very sharp. The smartest Atheists are no match for you guys. There last resort is to bring their superstitious Black Holes and Dark Matter to confuse you guys. Watch out !!

Fvcknames:

OK man, sensory perception
Look at what I said about unicorns
We can't just assume God exists because he can exist without us sensing him.

But we can assume a tree fell in the forest without us seeing or hearing it right?

Your unicorn comment is still on about BELIEF and not sensory perception. Besides are we talking about UNICORNS?

ScienceWatch:
You have made that very, very clear to him. Even a lower grade student will get it first time. Why are Atheists so thick skulled?

If he want to swerve away from scientific embarrassment, over to belief, I will be happy to accommodate him for 15 mins before I go for Coffee.

Dude throughout this argument, I didn't insult ur intelligence.

Fvcknames:

OK man, sensory perception
Look at what I said about unicorns
We can't just assume God exists because he can exist without us sensing him.

I am sad to say that Butterflyl1on wont answer this type of questions Sir. He has more important things to deal with here.

Meanwhile can you please answer this question for the benefit of millions of anxious readers world wide:
Can you tell me what Atheists are offering A suffering world, or am I wrong to believe that their are billions of suffering humanity?

ScienceWatch:
You and Butterflyl1on are very sharp. The smartest Atheists are no match for you guys. There last resort is to bring their superstitious Black Holes and Dark Matter to confuse you guys. Watch out !!

Two of them above who are hopeless and and a salamander have already started with the black holes and dark matter jargon. Did you see how they were ignored?

We know their games already.

Fvcknames:

Dude throughout this argument, I didn't insult ur intelligence.

OOOps. Did I really do that. Na, please be kind enough to show me the error of my ways.

butterflyl1on:


But we can assume a tree fell in the forest without us seeing or hearing it right?

Your unicorn comment is still on about BELIEF and not sensory perception. Besides are we talking about UNICORNS?

"I" am saying the fact that we didn't observe that a tree fell does not change the fact that it fell in the 1st place if it fell at all.
If we don't 'see' or 'hear' unicorns, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I'm just trying to say that it goes both ways

ScienceWatch:
I am sad to say that Butterflyl1on wont answer this type of questions Sir. He has more important things to deal with here.

Meanwhile can you please answer this question for the benefit of millions of anxious readers world wide:
Can you tell me what Atheists are offering A suffering world, or am I wrong to believe that their are billions of suffering humanity?

I didn't even ask a question.