KingEbukasBlog:


Smh . So can you explain why you called me an iiidiot . Cos I need to know why . Show me that I'm wrong . Not pontificating when you know so little

I'm too daft to explain anything to you, you are the omniscient one. The student of Logic and computer, the King, The unconquered debater, He who knows the mind of God. God himself. Very god of very god. begotten not made. Infinite and boundless. Boundless and infinite. Being of one substance with eternity. From beginning to end, past to future eternally now and then. I hail you. Ogoooooooooo!

omonnakoda:
No I have never gone that far,have you?

I was lying on the grass when I was a kid (about 6 I think) and I started to daydream about space. And in my daydream which was actually a revelatory vision I was brought up to the wall.

PastorAIO:


I was lying on the grass when I was a kid (about 6 I think) and I started to daydream about space. And in my daydream which was actually a revelatory vision I was brought up to the wall.

Tell me more

omonnakoda:
My position is I don't know ,how do you know there is an end?

Well imagine a drum of water being poured on the ground . Its boundary - the water on the ground - keeps expanding as the water in the drum is being poured on the ground , no matter how fast it expands it does not mean that it has no end .

So that's how I see it . I may be wrong

PastorAIO:


I'm too daft to explain anything to you, you are the omniscient one. The student of Logic and computer, the King, The unconquered debater, He who knows the mind of God. God himself. Very god of very god. begotten not made. Infinite and boundless. Boundless and infinite. Being of one substance with eternity. From beginning to end, past to future eternally now and then. I hail you. Ogoooooooooo!

We all know you are but is this a way of evading my question? A new tactic I am not aware of .

KingEbukasBlog:


Well imagine a drum of water being poured on the ground . Its boundary - the water on the ground - keeps expanding as the water in the drum is being poured on the ground , no matter how fast it expands it does not mean that it has no end .

So that's how I see it . I may be wrong

You are guessing.It is no better than interpreting a woman's smile. You see what you want to see.........

omonnakoda:

ever hear the saying
ei incumbit probatio qui dicit non qui negat

It is for those who claim there is a god to prove it

The Onus is on no one .

But wait can you prove the universe needs no creator . Or will I be inundated with scientific assumptions ?

KingEbukasBlog:


The Onus is on no one .

But wait can you prove the universe needs no creator . Or will I be inundated with scientific assumptions ?

I cannot prove it but that came up in a logical exchange that the universe must have a creator which fails to answer why if the universe must have a creator the creator does not have a creator ad infinitum .So we cannot logically infer a creator as was claimed
The onus exists ,if you claim there are yellow men from Mars visiting earth every night you cannot ask me to prove it is not so.For someone who claims knowledge of LOGIC you are disappointing .......

omonnakoda:
You are guessing.It is no better than interpreting a woman's smile. You see what you want to see.........

Ah women ! Its difficult to say especially if she keeps simpering at you just to get something from you


So the statement "You see what you want to see" applies to both sides , yeah ?

omonnakoda:
I cannot prove it but that came up in a logical exchange that the universe must have a creator which fails to answer why if the universe must have a creator the creator does not have a creator ad infinitum .So we cannot logically infer a creator as was claimed

So does the universe have a beginning , a cause ?

omonnakoda:
Tell me more

Well I was at the end of the universe and I tried to imagine what was on the other side of the wall but all I could imagine was empty space, but I knew that was not true because there couldn't even be space on the other side. In the end my attempts to figure it out was just an exercise in futility.

KingEbukasBlog:

We all know you are but is this a way of evading my question? A new tactic I am not aware of .

It is either that I am too daft to answer or I am evading. Only a great true and approved omniscient one like you can know for true. I don't believe there can be a tactic that you are not aware off. You're too intelligent!! I know I'm stupiddd, but trust me, I'm not Stupiddd enough to try to outsmart you. I've learnt that lesson, at least.

KingEbukasBlog:



So does the universe have a beginning , a cause ?

I do not know ,I have absolutely no idea but take issue with those who claim to know

PastorAIO:

It is either that I am too daft to answer or I am evading. Only a great true and approved omniscient one like you can know for true. I don't believe there can be a tactic that you are not aware off. You're too intelligent!! I know I'm stupiddd, but trust me, I'm not Stupiddd enough to try to outsmart you. I've learnt that lesson, at least.

mtcheew

omonnakoda:
I do not know ,I have absolutely no idea but take issue with those who claim to know

ok then

KingEbukasBlog:


mtcheew

Thank you for the benediction.

KingEbukasBlog:


Wait a minute , are you insinuating that is illogical to believe that a conscious eternal creator exists and it is logical for the lack of belief ? Elucidate , no circumlocution .

I made no insinuations. You made the claim that belief in god is logical, and I sought your definition of god in order to scrutinise this claim.

You copied me in your response to PastorAIO, so I shall assume the following are your definitions:

Genesis 1 : 1
In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Here, you still haven't defined god, you've only expanded your body of unsubstantiated claims.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

This only repeats Genesis 1:1 in more verbose terms, and pads it with a unintelligible sentence. Neither "the word" nor "god" has any obvious meaning to me.

First, the bible tells us who was present at the beginning; the beginning being the origin of all things, of creation itself. God was at beginning. God, is not nothing. God has always existed, He is the I AM, so there has never actually been nothing.

Why should I believe what the bible tells us? Isn't appeal to authority a logical fallacy?

Genesis also says God created the heaven, and the earth. I believe the heaven here doesn't signify the firmament, as that is physical, and was recreated on the physical earth.
Heaven in the verse is the spiritual realm itself.

I don't care what you believe heaven means or what the bible claims god created. I merely asked for the definition of god.

The Immaterial realm has an origin too, God is the origin of all.

What immaterial realm?

God's foreknowledge is his foreknowledge

Tautologies are true, but what does this really mean?

Never said God was in infinity. I said God himself is infinity and eternity, and everything is contained in him.

Let me ask you this: If you are, yourself, finite, how can you possibly know that anything is infinite?

To recap

1) You made a claim that it is logical to believe in god.
2) I have attempted to subject this claim to the rigours of logic by requesting a definition of god
3) Rather than provide a clear definition of god, you have expanded your body of claims about "god", all of which are unintelligible arrangements of familiar words.

From the foregoing, it is obvious that god is at best, a nebulous concept; and thus, cannot be subjected to the rigours of logic. Ergo, by definition, belief in god remains illogical until you can provide a sensible definition of that word.

AgentOfAllah:


I made no insinuations. You made the claim that belief in god is logical, and I sought your definition of god in order to scrutinise this claim.

You copied me in your response to PastorAIO, so I shall assume the following are your definitions:

Here, you still haven't defined god, you've only expanded your body of unsubstantiated claims.

This only repeats Genesis 1:1 in more verbose terms, and pads it with a unintelligible sentence. Neither "the word" nor "god" has any obvious meaning to me.

Why should I believe what the bible tells us? Isn't appeal to authority a logical fallacy?

I don't care what you believe heaven means or what the bible claims god created. I merely asked for the definition of god.

What immaterial realm?

Tautologies are true, but what does this really mean?

Let me ask you this: If you are, yourself, finite, how can you possibly know that anything is infinite?

To recap

1) You made a claim that it is logical to believe in god.
2) I have attempted to subject this claim to the rigours of logic by requesting a definition of god
3) Rather than provide a clear definition of god, you have expanded your body of claims about "god", all of which are unintelligible arrangements of familiar words.

From the foregoing, it is obvious that god is at best, a nebulous concept; and thus, cannot be subjected to the rigours of logic. Ergo, by definition, belief in god remains illogical until you can provide a sensible definition of that word.

You rushed to a conclusion after asking me questions on concepts you dont understand? . How is that even possible ?

A round of applause for this gentleman

KingEbukasBlog:


You rushed to a conclusion after asking me questions on concepts you dont understand? . How is that even possible ?

A round of applause for this gentleman

KingEbukasBlog:


You rushed to a conclusion after asking me questions on concepts you dont understand? . How is that even possible ?

A round of applause for this gentleman

Yes, I formed my conclusion based on the answers you made available to me. Nonetheless, there was a caveat in my conclusion. I stated that "belief in god remains illogical until you can provide a sensible definition of that word". I am willing to revise my conclusion when you provide a sensible definition. As such, feel free to clarify these concepts I don't understand if you believe they'll help me understand the definition of god.

AgentOfAllah:


Yes, I formed my conclusion based on the answers you made available to me. Nonetheless, there was a caveat in my conclusion. I stated that "belief in god remains illogical until you can provide a sensible definition of that word". I am willing to revise my conclusion when you provide a sensible definition. As such, feel free to clarify these concepts I don't understand if you believe they'll help me understand the definition of god.

I gave sensible definitions in accordance to bible texts . You not seeing it as helpful or logical does not mean its not - your opinion . What I'll do is to explain in details . That's all

KingEbukasBlog:


I gave sensible definitions in accordance to bible texts . You not seeing it as helpful or logical does not mean its not - your opinion . What I'll do is to explain in details . That's all

Except I don't know the meaning of 'definition', I am pretty sure you didn't give any definitions at all, you only made more claims about what god has supposedly done, and a few witless statements like god "is the I AM" and "in the beginning was the word, the word was with god and the word was god" and used the bible as an authority as if that's a logically valid argument.

Remember that this is meant to be your proof that belief in god is logical. Using logical fallacies (such as appeal to biblical authority) to demonstrate logic is just an absurd paradox. And this is even assuming that any sense can be made from the stuff you've quoted. So please, I am still waiting for your logical definition of god, thanks.

AgentOfAllah:


Except I don't know the meaning of 'definition', I am pretty sure you didn't give any definitions at all, you only made more claims about what god has supposedly done, and a few witless statements like god "is the I AM" and "in the beginning was the word, the word was with god and the word was god" and used the bible as an authority as if that's a logically valid argument.

Remember that this is meant to be your proof that belief in god is logical. Using logical fallacies (such as appeal to biblical authority) to demonstrate logic is just an absurd paradox. And this is even granted that any sense can be made from the stuff you've quoted. So please, I am still waiting for your logical definition of god, thanks.

You asked for the definition of God , where the hell am I going to get it from ? Alex Ferguson's biography ? . Its like you asking for the profile of Chelsea fc , I get it from the official website and you accuse me of making logical fallacies (such as appeal to official club website authority ) . . Dude , you are not making any sense . Anyway , I'll just answer your questions .

My belief in God being logical is totally different though .

KingEbukasBlog:


You asked for the definition of God , where the hell am I going to get it from ? Alex Ferguson's biography ? . Is like you asking for the profile of Chelsea fc , I get it from the official website and you accuse me of making logical fallacies (such as appeal to official club website authority ) .

My belief in God being logical is totally different though .

I asked for the definition of god that will allow us to assess logically, the claim that believing in god is logical. Without such a definition, your claim is simply nonsensical.

You provided the verse in Genesis 1:1 as the definition of god. This verse states that god created heaven and earth. This is a claim, not a definition. I don't know what "heaven" is, but I know what earth is, and there is not a shred of proof that god created earth, since I don't know what "god" means. I don't suppose you believe god is the accreting guts of an exploded star? If you do, then I can agree that god truly created earth.
I hope you can understand why I insist you provide a sensible definition for god.

AgentOfAllah:


Except I don't know the meaning of 'definition', I am pretty sure you didn't give any definitions at all, you only made more claims about what god has supposedly done, and a few witless statements like god "is the I AM" and "in the beginning was the word, the word was with god and the word was god" and used the bible as an authority as if that's a logically valid argument.

Remember that this is meant to be your proof that belief in god is logical. Using logical fallacies (such as appeal to biblical authority) to demonstrate logic is just an absurd paradox. And this is even assuming that any sense can be made from the stuff you've quoted. So please, I am still waiting for your logical definition of god, thanks.

Something I keep forgetting but is worth your while remembering is that a lot of these guys do not actually know the meanings of 90 per cent of the words they use.

I don't think he understand what you mean when you ask for a definition.

KingEbukasBlog:

You asked for the definition of God , where the hell am I going to get it from ? Alex Ferguson's biography ? . Its like you asking for the profile of Chelsea fc , I get it from the official website and you accuse me of making logical fallacies (such as appeal to official club website authority ) . . Dude , you are not making any sense . Anyway , I'll just answer your questions .
My belief in God being logical is totally different though .

A definition is not a profile. you may get the profile of Chelsea fc from the official website, but you won't get the definition of Chelsea fc from the website.

You don't get the definition of any word you've used from any external source. You spoke a word. We presume that you know what you intended to refer to when you used the word. If you cannot provide a definition for yourself from your own brain then that means that you had no idea what you were talking about before you used the word.

PastorAIO:


Something I keep forgetting but is worth your while remembering is that a lot of these guys do not actually know the meanings of 90 per cent of the words they use.

I don't think he understand what you mean when you ask for a definition.



A definition is not a profile. you may get the profile of Chelsea fc from the official website, but you won't get the definition of Chelsea fc from the website.

You don't get the definition of any word you've used from any external source. You spoke a word. We presume that you know what you intended to refer to when you used the word. If you cannot provide a definition for yourself from your own brain then that means that you had no idea what you were talking about before you used the word.

PastorAIO does not know 99 percent of the words he uses- that's what I think of you . And why the heck do you think your opinion is true or even counts . You need to get your brain checked this guy . The same way you feel we dont know what we are doing , its the same way we feel you know nothing . Every man to his own opinion .

AgentOfAllah:


I asked for the definition of god that will allow us to assess logically, the claim that believing in god is logical. Without such a definition, your claim is simply nonsensical.

You provided the verse in Genesis 1:1 as the definition of god. This verse states that god created heaven and earth. This is a claim, not a definition. I don't know what "heaven" is, but I know what earth is, and there is not a shred of proof that god created earth, since I don't know what "god" means. I don't suppose you believe god is the accreting guts of an exploded star? If you do, then I can agree that god truly created earth.
I hope you can understand why I insist you provide a sensible definition for god.

God - the Supreme Conscious Eternal Creator . Creator of all things . And all things were made by Him . An EVERYTHING is Contained in Him/part of Him . Are you happy now ?

Soon you'll start asking me where he stays and how he looks like and all worth not , I have to repeat everything Ive been saying on Nairaland from day 1- that's what I'm trying to avoid . Your lack of belief in God is inveterate , so why do you care to know anyway .

I'll answer your questions later - that's if there's any need for that

PastorAIO:


A definition is not a profile. you may get the profile of Chelsea fc from the official website, but you won't get the definition of Chelsea fc from the website.

You don't get the definition of any word you've used from any external source. You spoke a word. We presume that you know what you intended to refer to when you used the word. If you cannot provide a definition for yourself from your own brain then that means that you had no idea what you were talking about before you used the word.

Always missing the point . He wants me to define The Christian God . The bible holds the best definition of God because its one of the primary sources of our knowledge of Him .

Define :
state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.

The nature of God can also be described through his acts/works as seen in the Bible . If I should start making descriptions of God that cannot even deduced from a biblical text - that's heresy .

Define God .

1. He is the creator of the physical universe and the immaterial realm as seen in Genesis 1 : 1

a. We can deduce that He is the Supreme Being
b We can deduce that is not bound by time - eternal , no beginning no end since time is a constituent of our universe

And so on
2. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made as seen in John 1 : 3

a. He is the Supreme Being , none before Him

3. He is a Spirit as in John 4 :24

"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

What I'm I doing ? I am describing exactly who God is . I can state other qualities/attributes of Him - omniscience , omnipresence , omnipotence obviously what's my source : The bible !

So using the bible as my source of the description of God or His nature is valid . Because if it does not correlate with the bible , I am describing something/someone else . Apparently , the 'appeal to bible authority' he cited and described its usage as fallacious is utter balderdash

KingEbukasBlog:


PastorAIO does not know 99 percent of the words he uses- that's what I think of you . And why the heck do you think your opinion is true or even counts . You need to get your brain checked this guy . The same way you feel we dont know what we are doing , its the same way we feel you know nothing . Every man to his own opinion .

crase man. I beg, I concede. You are right. Profile is equal to definition.

PastorAIO:


crase man. I beg, I concede. You are right. Profile is equal to definition.

Sense man . Source of Chelsea's profile , authentic , valid - Chelsea's official website

Definition of a word : Source of word's definition - the Dictionary

Define God : Source of God's description , authentic , valid - The Bible

Its about the source of the information , whether definition or profile
And I thought common sense was common !

PastorAIO, omonakonda and agentofallah,

is it just me or kingebukasblog loves being willfully ignorant when he loses the argument?

What I mean is- when his reasoning gets exposed as fallacious by a better argument, he then either goes personal or feigns ignorance at the logic of the better argument.

Finally, a definition! Now, let's examine its logical merits.

KingEbukasBlog:

God - the Supreme Conscious Eternal Creator . Creator of all things . And all things were made by Him . An EVERYTHING is Contained in Him/part of Him .

I don't know what "supreme conscious(ness)" means, but I know what a creator is, and it can be shown that all things aren't created by one single entity. Take my headphones for example, they are manufactured by Parrot. It can be said that the guys at Parrot are their creators. My shoes were created by Clarks, my computer; by Microsoft, the rocks outside; by volcanoes, water and air flux, my wristwatch; by Citizen. If I wish to be super meticulous, for added measure, I can disintegrate my wristwatch into its respective components, and you will readily find that even a single timepiece requires several creators. All these forementioned creators demonstrably have very little in common, and are probably located at distinct but finite points on the space-time continuum. As such, the only logical conclusion is that there are several creators in existence; some conscious, others not so much, but none of them is eternal as far as human knowledge goes.

In conclusion your definition only served to reaffirm my previous verdict that there is no logical basis for the belief in god.

Are you happy now ?

Not yet! When you succumb to the humbling but honourable path of intellectual honesty, and finally admit that you were wrong to suggest that belief in god (as per your definition) is logical, I will be happy.

Logicbwoy:
PastorAIO, omonakonda and agentofallah,

is it just me or kingebukasblog loves being willfully ignorant when he loses the argument?

What I mean is- when his reasoning gets exposed as fallacious by a better argument, he then either goes personal or feigns ignorance at the logic of the better argument.

Can you mention these "better argument" brought forward by any of the three ? I can see you really do want to embarrass yourself again . Drop the logic in your username , its completely at variance with the way you reason . I'm like the 100th person telling you this