KingEbukasBlog:


Are existence and nature two different things , yes or no ?

KingEbukasBlog:


Show me where I said God is like abstract objects .

KingEbukasBlog:


There is no exception here . The premise only focuses on things that came into existence

There is a big difference between Whatever begins to exist has cause and Everything has cause . Assuming I had said 'everything has a cause' and made the creator an exception then it becomes special pleading

I gave examples of other things that are uncreated Eg abstract objects .

JackBizzle:


Read the last sentence in your post below

KingEbukasBlog:


It means that an abstract object is an example of an uncreated thing .

JackBizzle:



Special pleading for God?

What if science disproves God tomorrow?

JackBizzle:


Meaning that all uncreated things are abstract?

Is there any uncreated thing that isn't abstract? You are just proving that your God doesn't exist

KingEbukasBlog:


Because abstract objects are an example of uncreated things does not mean all uncreated things are abstract .

I just tire for you oo bro honestly .

Good night jare .

May sense fall on you in your dreams because Im sure it can never happen in reality

felixomor:


Science has already confirmed the intelligence of God bro
.......
And even without it, we know God exists......
So

JackBizzle:



What a silly comment

felixomor:

Oh
Of course Jack is a dull boy that calls fact "silly"

felixomor:

So the topic u raised is an argument between the deist and theist on the nature of God
because both already agree that God's existence is undisputable.

And also for side note,
There is nothing like "proven reality" in science.
Science can change its opinion at any time. What is wrong today can be right tomorrow in science.

KingEbukasBlog:


Leave these ignorant atheists .

Most arguments for God's existence were created by theists . The cosmological argument , teleological argument , ontological and moral arguments were all arguments for God's existence in theism .

Craig also talks about evidence for the resurrection of Christ . He can also teach Christian philosophy in his podcasts on youtube channel .

dalaman:


Craig only LIES about the evidence for the ressurectuion of Christ. There is no such evidence any where.

hopefulLandlord:


I once challenged Kingebukasblog to tell us those "evidence" that he claims Craig has and he went on a rant, I rebutted his rants and he replied later only for me to realise his post is hidden and he's been banned, I couldn't see the post

maybe he can rephrase the post and repost it

dalaman:

LOL!

hopefulLandlord:


https://www.nairaland.com/3799778/sub-saharan-africans-intellectually-inferior-other/5#56582764

ScepticalPyrrho:
Theists claim to know God. Deist give reasons for believing in the existence of God. The later I respect. The Deist God doesn't give credence to petty Gods like Yahweh.

I'm speaking as a trained philosopher, forgive my language. Any claim to any reality different from this one without proofs doesn't exist.

"What is wrong today can be right tomorrow in science." Yes! When proven to be right/true.

Scientific knowledge are accepted facts verifiable by all. So, you can't argue against such claims; unlike religious claims. We've come to trust scientific research and discoveries, but many have failed to realize how we arrived here in the first place...

Philosophy started with rejection of claims that were dogmatic, incoherent, unverifiable, and myopic. Explanations which were presented as a result of critical reflections and experimentation were the only acceptable methods. I find it embarrassing that in the 21st century people still make claims without properly defining what it is, for lack of learning. Deist can only claim to believe in the existence of God, and always willing to present their thought processes (logic) on how they arrived at the believe. Theists, are the dogmatic lots, myopic and those who believe in fairy-tales, folklores, myths, and fables without reasons(logic).

JackBizzle:


So God existing is a proven fact?

Proven by what? Science? Lol

felixomor:

Which "deist " present their thought "process?
How many can u mention?

Theists have far more reasons than any argument group for the existence of God. No matter your twisting.

Besides, you are the one who says things must be proven, you are the one who knows what a folklore, and myth is without proving.
That was how Dawkins ignorantly wrote in his best-selling book that Jesus never existed, until historians fooled him publicly.
Sorry atheism is more than dogmatic, considering those who fell for that book.

felixomor:


Jack has no business with proven facts.....
For Jack is a dull boy.

JackBizzle:


Atheism is dogmatic because of Richard Dawkins book that a majority of atheists haven't read?

Wow

JackBizzle:


Atheism is dogmatic because of Richard Dawkins book that a majority of atheists haven't read?

Wow

hopefulLandlord:


you know the funniest part?

in the book "God Delusion", Richard Dawkins actually admitted the possibility of a deist god many times

KingEbukasBlog:


There is no exception here . The premise only focuses on things that came into existence

There is a big difference between Whatever begins to exist has cause and Everything has cause . Assuming I had said 'everything has a cause' and made the creator an exception then it becomes special pleading

I gave examples of other things that are uncreated Eg abstract objects .

LightandDarkness:


How can you affirm the existence of something without knowledge or awareness of an aspect of it's nature. Something exists could mean everything exists and is not specific to anyone thing, to even justify the existence of a thing you must've observed something that made you think the thing exists-that would be a proposed quality, property, feature, functions-essentially something pertaining to it's nature.

dalaman:


Your God is an abstract object .

realtem:
yes, this is what i was saying @spacetacular

JackBizzle:


Atheism is dogmatic because of Richard Dawkins book that a majority of atheists haven't read?

Wow

spacetacular:


Jack oh Jack why is it that you struggle to grasp the message in simple sentences?

This is an extract from the comment made by Felix:

"Sorry atheism is more than dogmatic, considering those who fell for that book."

Did you even see the word in bold text? He said considering those who fell for the book. He was focused on those who read and ran with the content of the book and are still running with it. He was not referring to ALL atheists.

Please sir Jack oh Please think before you type. I have told you this repeatedly already but you seem unable to learn.

spacetacular:


Oh yes you are right! God is abstract to those who try to physically look for his evidence yet would not believe any evidence they already see.

To the fleshly God can never be an external reality. But to the spiritual he is as real as I kiss my daughter goodnight every night.

You can term God as abstract if you wish especially since that fits your perception of him.

TLuzzie:
JackBizzle, hopefulLandlord, CatfishBilly, Deicide, LightandDarkness, scepticalpyrrho......

I agree with KingEbukasBlog that Something coming from nothing is a LOGICAL ABSURDITY and the most IMPOSSIBLE thing conceivable. It is a category error. It cannever happen under any circumstances. Either EXISTENCE is all there has ever been and will ever be [FOREVER] or NONEXISTENCE is all there has ever been and will ever be [ETERNALLY]. Neither can come from the other. It is absolutely impossible. And since we exist, it is absolutely certain that there was NEVER a time in the past when there was nonexistence, and nonexistence is never going to be possible, for all eternity.

I also agree that since the physical universe had a beginning, it is therefore contingent, unnecessary, and noneternal, which automatically implies that it must have sound, necessary, noncontigent, eternal foundations. This ipso facto makes infinite regress an impossible idea that shouldn't even be entertained in logical discussions. There must be a first, eternal, uncreated, noncontingent, necessary CAUSE [or set of causes] on which the physical universe depends for its existence. This conclusion flows inevitably from impeccable logic. It is IRREFUTABLE, unless one is prepared to venture into the madhouse.

Having said that, I have quite a little bit of problem with the definition of atheism being thrown around. I don't expect any atheist to deny the first cause. It's insane. If the physical universe had a beginning in time, it must definitely have sure foundations that have always existed prior to its emergence - because, like I earlier pointed out, existence CANNOT come from nonexistence. But I completely disagree with the claim that anyone who accepts this fact automatically becomes a deist, and whoever claims to be an atheist has denied the first cause. This rubbish flows from the fact that the first cause has been labelled with the word "GOD", and anyone who denies God has effectively denied the first cause and is therefore a lunatic.

I accept a first cause or a first set of causes that serve as the foundation of the physical universe, but I do not make any assertions about what it is. The deist already made the claim that it is a supreme being, so we're not in the same camp. I know for a FACT that the Abrahamic God, as well as every other God humanity has conjured up among different cultures is FALSE, mythical and imaginary. Denying all these deities is what should be meant by "atheism" not the denial of the first cause.

As for the Deists, I have a question for them...... Did your conjured up supreme being create the physical universe out of ALREADY EXISTING RAW MATERIAL or out of ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS, NONEXISTENCE?