efficiencie:
1. Fine tuning of the cosmos

It's not evidence that God exist, the universe is not fine tuned.

2. Evidence of design in nature (related to evidence 1)

There's no evidence for design. The evidence says things took time while forming. We have observed stars and planers form, thanks to hubble telescope. We didn't see anything designing it.
We have observed evidence that it took years for living organisms to form. Nothing like creation or design

3. Structured information (e.g the DNA)

We knowhow DNA formed. It's not a debate in science. There's no God involved jn the formation of DNA. As a matter of fact, this is my area of specialty, I can educate you more on it.

×4. The comprehensibility of the universe

The universe is not comprehensive, even if it was, it's still not an evidence for god that can be testable.

5. Successful mathematical modeling of natural phenomena (like the appearance of the fibonacci sequence in flowers, sea shells etc) [

I am wondering why you think this is any sort of evidence. Do you need a starter pack on how evidence work?

6. Reports of supernatural phenomena

there are not evidence that those supernatural phenomena ever occurred. Only claims

7. Origin of something from nothing.

Then where did God originated from. If you say he didn't originate from anything then why can't the universe?

These seven points tell me that it would be stupid to believe there isn't a supremely intelligent being somewhere, known as God!

Your 7 points proves that you lack proper understanding of what evidence is. You however, presented flawed philosophical arguemts.

Your point number 7 will force you to commit a fallacy of special pleading because you will end up saying your God is the uncaused cause thereby braking your own law of nothing comes from nothing

Dliquidmetal:
This theists matter don tire me workch how are you able to deal with these people? I mean its very frustrating to converse with them omooo I wonder how you can do that without getting mad.
I'm trying to be as patient as Richard Dawkins in his debates lol but honestly these people aren't logical one bit,see claims everywhere without evidence(s) to back them up and they want rational folks to swallow it so we can as well sink into their delusion
Workch:prove the existence of God to me
Theists: The air you breathe is evident of the existence of God....wtf?
I might as well say the air i breathe is the evidence of the existence of a unicorn and they also have to believe it because I also have no evidence but I believe it exists,these people don't know how delusional they actually sound

I just ask for evidence then they start ranting.

They don't like the word "evidence"

Dtruthspeaker:


And I believe that a certain theist may reply that obviously, presuming that you were not lying, God, in your language is called "Unicorn", therefore, you already prove and have acknowledged His Existence!

So there is nothing to prove.

Exactly as seeing the Camry and someone says Mr. Toyoda is the god of Toyota and a jos man says, "No, it's 'duck yansh’

So it clearly means you too have seen what we see and therefore YOU HAVE SEEN THE PROOF ONLY THAT YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT NAME TO DESCRIBE THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE SEEN exactly as "back" and "rear" mean the same thing.

Therefore, you are no longer an opponent but one of our witnesses.

if this is how evidence works then I wonder where human development would still be rn lol
Enjoy your delusion

Dliquidmetal:
if this is how evidence works then I wonder where human development would still be rn lol
Enjoy your delusion

That is how evidence indeed works. What you guys do not know is that there are many different types and classes of evidence which appear in different ways.

That is what we lawyers know and how we are able to prove the Truth of a matter or disprove a Lie.

Workch:
I dont believe anything without seeing the evidence. I can see the evidence for big bang.
I can see the evidence that the universe is atleast 13.8billion years. The evidence is all over the internet if you care you search for it and it's testable.
Your statement is wrong.
you attempted to commit a fallacy of whataboutism as well

Good! Show me?

AudioMonkey:


You're the evidence you ask for.

how?

AudioMonkey:


A masterpiece of art is evidence of the artist.

What did you study in school?

AudioMonkey:


That is a deviation for now, maybe later.

not really, I just feel like someone who at least attended a university would know that inferring that I am an evidence for god is a fallacy. It would have been taught in general studies-philosophy and logic.


Your argument is flawed based on "questionable cause fallacy"; This fallacy occurs when a causal connection is assumed without proof. All too often claims to a causal connection are based on a mere correlation. The occurrence of one event after the other or the occurrence of events simultaneously is not proof of a causal connection.

While I agree that many people really do not remember alot of things they were taught in school, I also think that the Nigeria educational system has made it impossible to prompt critical reasoning and sound logic. This is why you immediate start making an argument for god without a proper proof.
Your argument from design also shows gross lack of basic knowledge of science. It's also a form of "appea to ignorance" fallacy

I'm not evidence for your God, I am evidence that genetics and hereditary is fact and that my parents had sex. That's the only evidence we have for my existence. No God in the equation yet

AudioMonkey:


You're yet to make a point, you've only made unconnecting rhetorics of irrelevant theoretical terms.

My point is, you committed an obvious fallacy which you need to address. It's impossible to validate an Argument full of fallacies.

"A masterpiece, evidence of a designer" isn't a fallacy, it's daily fact and reality, except your so called over-education deprived you the simple meaning of fallacy.

This is why I am sure that you have poor philosophical knowledge. "evidence of design" in terms of origin of the universe comes with lots of fallacy.
"evidence of design" assumes that everything has to be designed hence there has to be a designer. It's a myopic view.
I. It leads to a vicious cycle of infinite regress because your God must also have a designer. Something that is capable of making the universe and even called perfect must be very organized hence that thing must also have been designed and ad infinitum. In philosophy, we call this "turtles all the way down". It's a flawed way of reasoning.

II. This form of reasoning will force you to commiting a "special pleading fallacy" by saying that your God is the uncaused cause. That's ridiculous because you make a rule and then break it because the rule won't favour you at some point.

You're a masterpiece, and you're an evidence of a designer, who/which possesses some advanced intelligence, creativity and power.

×there's no evidence for any design dude. It's a fallacy

An app might be able to work autonomously, but a step backward, a programming language made the app, further steps back, there is a intelligent designer behind it all.
Genetics and hereditary are not intelligent designer who know a lady should have curves and softer body, they're merely tools or programming languages to a final masterpiece.

Comparing an app with a human is a "faulty equivalence" fallacy.

I. This is because for example, I know that Apple owns the IOS, I know where Apple office is, I can contact them whenever. I can repeat this verification multiple times and I will get the same result, such cannot be said for your god. We cannot contact him repeatedly, we cannot test anything whatsoever, we are not even sure if he exist, where is his office?

II. The modus operandi of heredity is totally different from that of programming. This is why I assume that you dont know science. They might seem comparable to a layman, but not to a savvy.
Genetic codes bend to natural forces and they have been doing that for billions of years, programming codes don't.
Genetic codes are transcibed and translated into proteins to perform certain metabolic functions in the cells, programming languages follows prompts from the user of that device before it can perform any operation.
I can't imagine how an educated person should think that they are comparable

From your parochial perspective, the puppet is dancing all by itself but someone with wider knowledge knows there a puppeteer controlling the puppet with strings.

Your false impression about your so called education is the real fallacy.

So who is the puppeteer puppeting the puppeteer that is pupetting us?

Do you see the problem with your logic?

According to my little research about life including science and co , I came to conclusion of two theory
1 Life is too good to have been evoluted from nothing

2 life is not too perfect to have been created.
I don Know if there is a theory out there that support this but I can call it created evolution mean in a way it seems we are created to evolve something like that

because life itself looks so reduculos to be created in the first place for instant
Fate and survival of the fittest which exist among us is not a part of supposed creation because they lack purpose which is creation

Creation= purpose
Evolution=lack of purpose

Why is there fate ... Why did our creator choose survival of the fittest method does it means out creator is more ruthless and partial

How can we evolve from nothing
If ACTUALLY nothing can come outa nothing then evolution is useless

AudioMonkey:

It seems you think calling the word 'fallacy' unnecessarily would miraculously validate your argument and invalidate mine.


Lol. Really? No evidence for any design?
Your atheist mentor scientists were smart not to ever say such. Even a kid knows better than this. Science never said there wasn't a design, being designed by intelligent God or the design naturally existing itself is the debate, so If you say this, then what do you really know?
The universe you're living in is an integration of further complex integrations of complicated functions, matters, forces and then aesthetics. This is just a lame description by the way.
Just a step into the natural world, looking at the sky and landscape, you don't need much sense or education to know these are masterpieces in beauty and design.
It's obvious you don't know what you're saying but still, If I may ask you, what is a design to you?




Though you know Apple's office or the owners, yet there are many artifacts or objects lying everywhere, once owned by someone who're not known. Even though the makers/owners cannot be known or traced, yet by sense and logic, we know some people made those things, they are not just existing.
But going by your logic, should we throwaway the assurance of the makers/owners just because we do not see them or able to contact them repeatedly, and claim all these objects made themselves?


You're not getting it. Even man-made designs don't follow the same modus operandi, much more natural against artificial. That isn't the point. The simple point you do not understand is that whatever the modus operandi are, either in natural or artificial world, they're just tools put in-place by a superior designer, to perform certain functions all in a process to a particular end product. They're not the designers, they're just building tools.
Unlike you said, programmes don't necessarily need to get prompt from a user before they perform actions. It all depends on the design. Infact a programme is expected to react autonomously to values and variables inorder to ease the user. Yet this doesn't make the programme the designer. It's just a tool to achieve the design of the designer.
Your confusion here is that you simply don't know the difference between a superior designer to a sophisticated device/tool/programme performing functions to achieve the design.
A sophisticated device carrying out complex functions doesn't equate a superior designer who is the mind behind everything.

Why are deliberately avoiding the part that says your logic will create infinite regress?

If everything is so organized and has to be designed, then who created our very organized creator?

Try to answer this question without special pleading

AudioMonkey:


Why did you cowardly delete your last reply? I saw your mention but it's already deleted.
Are you running already?

I didn't even know that the post was removed.
This is because you are in haste to win the argument instead learning. Posts cannot be deleted on nairaland, sometimes anti-spam not removes post and gives 24hrs ban.

Calm down, you are not intelligent enough to win this debate if it's a win you want.
You are not even intelligent enough to figure that comments cannot be deleted on nairaland.

AudioMonkey:

Welcome back my boi.
Lol, sounding boastful as expected.
I really want to learn from the self-assuming, most intelligent atheist to grace this forum, that is why I'm in haste.
Calm down, I can't expect to win an overly self-important genius like you. Where would you put your ego and face if you allow yourself defeated in the midst of fellow atheist who look up to you.
I'm only here to deflate your ego and false education a little before I vanish.

At bolded, if posts cannot be deleted on Nairaland, so what happened to your reply?

Then answer the question.

Who created the organized creator of everything , if everything organized has to be created?

I am not ready for unnecessary distractions. Answer that question

AudioMonkey:

Welcome back my boi.
Lol, sounding boastful as expected.
I really want to learn from the self-assuming, most intelligent atheist to grace this forum, that is why I'm in haste.
Calm down, I can't expect to win an overly self-important genius like you. Where would you put your ego and face if you allow yourself defeated in the midst of fellow atheist who look up to you.
I'm only here to deflate your ego and false education a little before I vanish.

At bolded, if posts cannot be deleted on Nairaland, so what happened to your reply?

I'm very interested in knowing how you want to answer that question.

If everything has is to orderly not to have a creator, it means this creator must in itself be orderly, so who created the creator?

AudioMonkey:


Your question has a simple answer.
God does not necessarily need a designer/creator. A supernatural God can exist supernaturally.
Keep your special pleading to yourself, I don't need it as I've broken no rule yet.

Is it not atheists who claim and plead for a universe with limited, physical possibilities? In the universe of theists, there are limitless possibilities.
Your own world you represent is logical and physical, the world I represent is both natural and supernatural, so if I employ logical rules or claim mystery, I never broke any rule, I'm still within the scope of what I represent.
In a movie where everyone takes normal process to cook, if a magician said he conjured his own food. He didn't break any rule. Whichever method he used, he's not wrong. He can choose to follow valid logic or defy it, that is why he's a magician.
You claim your own universe is monochrome black/white, I said mine is multicoloured, don't cry foul if I present various colors because what limits you does not limit me. Either I use black/white just like you or more colors, I've not broken any rule, I'm still valid within the scope of what I represent.

Every design has an intelligent designer/creator. This is a valid logical fact.
Also, a supernatural God can defy logic and exist all by itself or some other mysterious ways beyond logic. This is also valid.

When it's said that, something is supernatural, do you expect it to follow or operate only on logical rules?
It doesn't follow logic or natural rules every time, or it can chose to follow logical/natural rules or not, that is why it's called supernatural. Get that.

You're the one on the hot seat here, not me, when you're done and I start asking my own questions, we'll see how you will logically explain this kind of universe we live in created itself or existed by accident or coincidences like your mentors claim.

So you are going to special plead for your God as expected.

I'm proposing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the creator of the universe and the flying spaghetti monster cannot be created.

Disprove that

The flying spaghetti is the uncaused cause

AudioMonkey:


The only special pleading here is all-noing jean-ius like you who doesn't expect mystery to defy logical rules, so he could get a quick narrow-escape from this whole argument.
Anytime I contradict the fundamentals of theism which includes both logic and mystery, natural and supernatural, point it out but if you can't, then I remain valid.

Seems this your so called Flying Spaghetti monster is very special to you. You're highly fascinated by it all the time.
Last time I saw your Flying spaghetti, it was being devoured with fried egg by some hungry lads across the street. I heard it is no longer a monster and can no longer fly, as it has been forced to be the equivalence of shit in a lavatory.

Now answer my question. You claim the universe isn't a design. So what is a design and how is the universe not a design?
It's time to begin hitting yourself below the belt.

Tell me why the flying spaghetti monster cannot be the creator of the Creator and the invisible pink unicorn cannot be the creator of the flying spaghetti monster.

Seems silly to you right?
I can make it turtle all the way down more, the God of next Tuesdayism created invisible pink unicorn. You can add yours

This is what happens when you keep making shit up without evidence.

AudioMonkey:


Alright, you're right. Shits are made up without evidence.
Either atheism, deism, theism or whatever again, things are being made up here and there.
The more difficult part is making whatever you made-up work.
You've made-up yours too, now make it work.
Let's see how your universe created itself without the intervention of a superior being, intelligence or any other form of supernatural interference.

Another fallacy "whataboutsim"

"was the universe created?

I don't know would have been a genuine answer but because you are full of shit from religion, you see a need to insert a creator.

Now how many more creators should we come up with with your fallacious logical of infinite regress.

You cannot win this debate even if you want to, it's dead on arrival. A belief in a creator is a myriad of fallacies and can easily be rubbished by basic arguments.

Ken4Christ:


The greatest evidence is in you and that is your conscience. You are just suppressing just to maintain your preconceived opinions.

People must go to hell. In fact, over 95% of the world population will land in hell. Many are called, but few are chosen. If you want to continue on the wide road that leads to destruction, it's your choice.

Okay let me indulge you...I agree that it is indeed God's doing. But which one?

What shows it is not ogun? Or my personal god, dondiri? Can you prove that it is Yahweh/ Jesus?

Dtruthspeaker:


And I believe that a certain theist may reply that obviously, presuming that you were not lying, God, in your language is called "Unicorn", therefore, you already prove and have acknowledged His Existence!

So there is nothing to prove.

Exactly as seeing the Camry and someone says Mr. Toyoda is the god of Toyota and a jos man says, "No, it's 'duck yansh’

So it clearly means you too have seen what we see and therefore YOU HAVE SEEN THE PROOF ONLY THAT YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT NAME TO DESCRIBE THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE SEEN exactly as "back" and "rear" mean the same thing.

Therefore, you are no longer an opponent but one of our witnesses.

And people take this guy serious? Simply amazing....no body can be this high.