MacDaddy01:



Shut the hell up

You and Mr Anony aka mr Annoy piss me off, goddammit!!


You guys are the most dubious artful dodgers known to Nairaland. You dont believe me? Notice how this thread got derailed from diseases which creationism can never explain without magic. There is no commonsense reason for diseases in creationism. However, yu guys shifted the debate to atheism.



Your above quote is nonsense. I dont believe in God because there is no evidence for God. No material evidence at all. None.

Secondly, every definition of God fails

-God is omnipotent? Omnipotence is a paradox- Can God create a rock that he can not move? Any answer, yes or no proves that he is not omnipotent.

-God is all knowing? Wow, so he knows the future? Then where is our freewill? Also why did he not realise that flooding the whole world (which didnt happen) would not change an iota of the evil than man does and can do?


-God is the creator? So your God is so retarded that instead of clicking everything into existence in a second, he had to create the big bang and wait millions of years for the earth to be formed and another set of million years for humans to be created.

;

Deep Sight:

It is simple logic, my friend. Refute it first, before arriving at calculations of how likely it is to be rubbish.

I think you are still laboring under the notion that science should be somehow at war with the notion of God, and will in time refute any logical premise that proves the existence of God. It is this type of attitude that moves people like Jayriginal to doubt simple cause and effect, and moves people like Idehn to say that time and space do not exist at all, and moves people like Dawkins to say that it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into existence in a single lucky step.

It is a terrible burden to labor under: as I said before, it leads one to become FAR more illogical than the religionists.

You called ?

You still miss the point. Its not about doubting cause and effect, its about the absolute value of cause and effect.

You based your arguments based on this notion, and I asked you if it held true absolutely. You said it did in everything we could observe and experience and I told you that such observation and experience are limited. I told you that trying to give the whole an attribute of its components is known as a compositional fallacy.

Thats logic. It can not be faulted.

jayriginal:


You called ?

You still miss the point. Its not about doubting cause and effect, its about the absolute value of cause and effect.

You based your arguments based on this notion, and I asked you if it held true absolutely. You said it did in everything we could observe and experience and I told you that such observation and experience are limited. I told you that trying to give the whole an attribute of its components is known as a compositional fallacy.

Thats logic. It can not be faulted.

You are using templates to make your arguments. In this particular instance, your assertion that this is a compositional fallacy fails for the simple reason that the universe demonstrably began to expand from a point. That discloses a necessary trigger which ever way you look at it: and suggesting the contrary amounts to subscribing to worse voodoo than the religionist.

Anyway, you and I have trashed this matter to bits and seems we won't ever see eye to eye on this one, so let's leave it.

plaetton:

Ok. so the left side of the equation is god, how about the right side of the equation?

Pls dont forget that there is an = (EQUAL) sign that connects both sides of the equation.

Therefore, left side = rigt side,
conversely, all properties or attributes of the left side = all properties and attributes of the right side(even if not manifest but in potential)

Do You Agree?

You are attempting again to say that the universe is the same thing as God. This does not work for the twin reasons that [x]the universe, having a beginning, is not self existent, and [y]the universe is material and again, this shows that it is not self-existent. As such, it is the result of that which is self existent.

The zero equation simply means ex nihilo nihil fit. It shows that there is a permanent somethingness. It does not show that the value or quantum of that permanent somethingness is the same as the value of the resultant universe. In fact, it can never be the same value since the universe is finite whereas the self-existent precursor must needs be of eternal and infinite nature. As such you cannot interprete the equal sign in that manner.

MacDaddy01:

I dont believe in God because there is no evidence for God. No material evidence at all. None.

Honestly, the intense st.upidity of some of the standard refrains of atheists (such as this one) is jaw dropping. I don't know how someone, living in a material world, will turn about to say that he is yet to see any material evidence of God.

The statement is contradictory, and even betrays some challenges in grasping the very meaning of some simple words.

Enjoy your infantile delusions.

Deep Sight:

. . . the universe demonstrably began to expand from a point.

And how do you answer the physicist who says that the laws of physics were not applicable until said expansion ?

jayriginal:

And how do you answer the physicist who says that the laws of physics were not applicable until said expansion ?

He will have to prove how the adamantine law of cause and effect would not apply to a material event commencing at a point. They have made several attempts, pointing at radioactive decay and virtual particles in a quantuum vacuum. You are well aware that both these attempts are failed attempts. I am still waiting for the successful attempt.

Anyway I will tell you something for free. So long as we speak of the finite realm of the material universe, there will be never any such successful proof debunking cause and effect. Never. Not ever. This is because cause and effect is hardwired into reality. Only self-existent things are beyond it: and this universe is not self-existent.

^^^
Currently, all knowledge stops at the proposed singularity. No one can say for sure what was "before".

Deep Sight:

Honestly, the intense st.upidity of some of the standard refrains of atheists (such as this one) is jaw dropping. I don't know how someone, living in a material world, will turn about to say that he is yet to see any material evidence of God.

The statement is contradictory, and even betrays some challenges in grasping the very meaning of some simple words.

Enjoy your infantile delusions.

Lol...your comment is as foolish as ever. An immaterial god does not exist in a material world. Simple.


how is that statement contradictory?

MacDaddy01:



Lol...your comment is as foolish as ever. An immaterial god does not exist in a material world. Simple.


how is that statement contradictory?

Lol. jumping head-first into an empty swimming pool, are we?

No: an immaterial God is not said to exist in a material world: nor was that what was said or argued. You said that there was no material evidence for God. So, I pointed you to all the matter about you, in which you live. So please think before you type.

Deep Sight:

Lol. jumping head-first into an empty swimming pool, are we?

No: an immaterial God is not said to exist in a material world: nor was that what was said or argued. You said that there was no material evidence for God. So, I pointed you to all the matter about you, in which you live. So please think before you type.

huh? A material evidence doesnt exist for God. Simple. What is this fake intlelectual nonsense you're spouting?