hopefulLandlord:


of course no! the question is loaded as far as this discussion goes though

However I just answered you so what next?

Oh I asked someone the question, and you answered too. Good. Do you believe in the existence of God?

UserX18:


Oh I asked someone the question, and you answered too. Good. Do you believe in the existence of God?

I want you to tell us how your question pertains to the discussion though

that's why I asked what point you're tryna prove with that question

UserX18:


Oh now Good, the three headed red elephant under the earth is not a supreme being, it created a design he doesn’t have preeminence over, now has the elephant given us rules, and regulations, procedures and instructions to follow, because if it created us, it is to know all about us, what it demands from us. What our purpose in life is. Where is it, or what has it given to us, or written to us, that this is what you’re supposed to follow, to achieve the purpose I have designed you for.
Then if peradventure, it has, has anyone tried it, and it never failed, have there been witnesses of old, so many things, to prove that yes, it’s instructions works, and what it has told us to know that yes it created the design, have they been proven to be true. Has it ever failed?

All these questions u are what u are supposed to ask urself when u say God is the designer...

Now u can confidently ask the questions because I said a three headed red elephant is the designer.

Bit if I had ask u the same questions when u said God is the designer u would say I am foolish.

Now if God is the designer how come none of these questions u asked has been answered by him?

hopefulLandlord:


I want you to tell us how your question pertains to the discussion though

that's why I asked what point you're tryna prove with that question

Oh if I’m not mistaken, the discussion here is about the existence of God. Am I correct?

UserX18:


Oh if I’m not mistaken, the discussion here is about the existence of God. Am I correct?

Yes! and that's why I asked how your question pertains to the topic

I want you to connect it to the topic

frank317:


All these questions u are what u are supposed to ask urself when u say God is the designer...

Now u can confidently ask the questions because I said a three headed red elephant is the designer.

Bit if I had ask u the same questions when u said God is the designer u would say I am foolish.

Now if God is the designer how come none of these questions u asked has been answered by him?

Oh it has been answered thoroughly by him. In his word. So you see if I ask myself these questions it would be absolutely foolish.

Now ponder on this.
Charles’ law, boyle’s law, law of gravity.
Persons have tested and prooved this to be true. Now if I come out and say Charles’ law and boyle’s law does not exist or they are false without trying it, what is that called?
Folly, and I’m being delusional..

And to y’all out there, who profess that God doesn’t exist, now why are you deliberating on it. If trully he doesn’t exist to you. Something you do not believe in because of your reasoning, you’re meddling with it. What confusion!

hopefulLandlord:


Yes! and that's why I asked how your question pertains to the topic

I want you to connect it to the topic

It has been discussed earlier. I will plead with you to read messages..

UserX18:


It has been discussed earlier. I will plead with you to read messages..

Would you be so kind to answer how the question "Can a design exist without a designer?" connects to the existence of whatever you call god/God?

Martinez19:
The is no design without a designer. The question is who or what is the designer?

I think asking him "What is the design?" is better. the question he asked is loaded

UserX18:


Have you tried God, and He didn’t prove himself to you?
Do you know his instructions, his laws and his statutes, to know if really he doesn’t intervene?
Do you know His character? And if you do wish not to care about his existence, do you use your own reasoning to judge other people’s reasoning. Is that Even REASONABLE?
Judging a matter, even before knowing about it, I perceive foolishness in this kind of judgement.

- So I need to try a God to know if he/she exist?

- Which God and his/her laws are you talking about?

- I'm talking about deist God that doesn't intervene.

UserX18:

Every reasonable person can perceive all around, that everything we see today is actually of a design, because we ourselves have made designs from what we see, or from our imaginations.

Flawed argument.

You are basing your premise on assumptions that humans are designed therefore see design in everything.

- It is not established that humans are designed
- Designing things from other inspirations does not mean the inspiring piece is designed - Pos hoc.
- Seeing patterns is different from purposeful design - Fallacy of false equivalence.
-There is no relationship between seeing design and being designed or vise versa - you must demonstrate from whence the conclusion is derived.

Conclusions have been drawn even from the “greatest scientists” that these are designs..

Also Please give me an example of a design without a designer.

Snow flake

Design in definition used a decorative pattern

Note: if there is no designer, how did it become a design on its own..

Through natural process.

Snow formation is a common knowledge

Please reason, and give proofs and facts for your reason. (Give what you’re basing your reasons on)

Up there

I will be waiting for you to substantiate the quality of design (one that requires a designer) your argument up there is quite based on a false premise.

hopefulLandlord:


I think asking him "What is the design?" is better. the question he asked is loaded

Yes, I would agree with you and johnydon22 here.

hopefulLandlord:


Would you be so kind to answer how the question "Can a design exist without a designer?" connects to the existence of whatever you call god/God?

If there’s a design, that means someone created the design, and from the passing of time, the carnal man has not been able to prove so many things correctly, and does not fully understand some things, this means the creator the designer, must be a supreme being, whose knowledge surpasses without limit the knowledge and wisdom of carnal men.

tintingz:
- So I need to try a God to know if he/she exist?

- Which God and his/her laws are you talking about?

- I'm talking about deist God that doesn't intervene.

I’m talking about the God who created the heavens and the earth.
Do you believe in the God, and he doesn’t intervene. Have you called on him and he didn’t intervene?

Martinez19:
Yes, I would agree with you and johnydon22 here.

The word design is used in many ways and not all of these instances means a design that requires to be designed.

We refer to symmetry or patterns as design.

But people most often apply anthropomorphic meaning.

Take for instance when we use instances like "The river wants to go down hill"

These makes the downhill flow of the river as some form of deliberate effect by the river and not a strict effect of the laws of physics"

So I think the teleogical argument is from our anthromophic descriptions most often, often mistaking "reason" as in "how" for reason as in "why"

UserX18:


If there’s a design, that means someone created the design, and from the passing of time, the carnal man has not been able to prove so many things correctly, and does not fully understand some things, this means the creator the designer, must be a supreme being, whose knowledge surpasses without limit the knowledge and wisdom of carnal men.

Wow! carry on, don't mind me

UserX18:


If there’s a design, that means someone created the design,

No it doesn't.

- How do you recognize a design that requires a designer

- How do you ascribe design in patterns as designs by reason?

- What is designed?

- How can this designed be judged or derived?

and from the passing of time, the carnal man has not been able to prove so many things correctly, and does not fully understand some things,

fallacy of Argumentum ad ignoratum.

This argument only makes God a replacement for ignorance

this means the creator the designer, must be a supreme being, whose knowledge surpasses without limit the knowledge and wisdom of carnal men.

Another flawed conclusion.

Not being able to understand something does not connote the originator is supreme (assuming there is an originator)

I do not understand engines in vehicles do not make engine designers supreme beings.

It simply means you don't understand it yet

johnydon22:

Flawed argument.

You are basing your premise on assumptions that humans are designed therefore see design in everything.

- It is not established that humans are designed
- Designing things from other inspirations does not mean the inspiring piece is designed - Pos hoc.
- Seeing patterns is different from purposeful design - Fallacy of false equivalence.
-There is no relationship between seeing design and being designed or vise versa - you must demonstrate from whence the conclusion is derived.






Snow flake

Design in definition used a decorative pattern




Through natural process.

Snow formation is a common knowledge



Up there

I will be waiting for you to substantiate the quality of design (one that requires a designer) your argument up there is quite based on a false premise.

If humans are not “designed” i guess you need to look up the meaning of a “design”.
If the inspiring piece is not designed, from where did you get the inspiration of the design from? Again “look up the meaning of design“

`There is no relationship between seeing design and being designed or vise versa - you must demonstrate from whence the conclusion is derived.` what is the disconnectedness between seeing design and being designed?

SnowFlake ❄️, natural process, now you are diverging to “natural” what is natural? What controls natural?

You’re still not able to prove it false.
Be reasonable.

johnydon22:


The word design is used in many ways and not all of these instances means a design that requires to be designed.

We refer to symmetry or patterns as design.

But people most often apply anthropomorphic meaning.

Take for instance when we use instances like "The river wants to go down hill"

These makes the downhill flow of the river as some form of deliberate effect by the river and not a strict effect of the laws of physics"

So I think the teleogical argument is from our anthromophic descriptions most often, often mistaking "reason" as in "how" for reason as in "why"

If it doesn’t require to be designed, then it is not a design. Let us be reasonable.

“Take for instance when we use instances like "The river wants to go down hill"

These makes the downhill flow of the river as some form of deliberate effect by the river and not a strict effect of the laws of physics" —- This is a theory, if reasoned proves false, because it is evident that it is a strict effect of the laws of physics.

hopefulLandlord:


I think asking him "What is the design?" is better. the question he asked is loaded

Everything physical.

UserX18:


I’m talking about the God who created the heavens and the earth.
Do you believe in the God, and he doesn’t intervene. Have you called on him and he didn’t intervene?

Which God are you talking about, is it Yahweh, Allah, Brahma, Odin, Zeus, Ukulunkulu, Olorun, RA etc which one?

Abeg make I celebrate Nigeria super eagles first.

tintingz:
Which God are you talking about, is it Yahweh, Allah, Brahma, Odin, Zeus, Ukulunkulu, Olorun, RA etc which one?

Abeg make I celebrate Nigeria super eagles first.

First of All, do you believe in God?
If yes, tell me the God you believe in?
If no, then why are inquisitive about what you do not believe in.?

UserX18:


First of All, do you believe in God?
If yes, tell me the God you believe in?
If no, then why are inquisitive about what you do not believe in.?

I don't believe in any God and I'm not inquisitive, and even if I'm inquisitive, God is a public matter and open to any debate, argument etc.

Your question is like asking why are Christians arguing with Muslims about their God they(Christians) don't believe in or why are over millions of people interested in Black Panther they believe doesn't exist.

You ask if I've called on God and intervene, my question is which God are you talking about, is that question so difficult to answer?

UserX18:


Oh it has been answered thoroughly by him.

Cool... Pls answer them one by one for me according to all the questions u asked me when I said a 3 headed red elephant is God

In his word. So you see if I ask myself these questions it would be absolutely foolish.

I am asking u... I have not the answer to anyone of them so I am asking... No one is saying u should ask urself bro.

Now ponder on this.
Charles’ law, boyle’s law, law of gravity.
Persons have tested and prooved this to be true. Now if I come out and say Charles’ law and boyle’s law does not exist or they are false without trying it, what is that called?
Folly, and I’m being delusional..

If u say to a scientist that Charles law does nonexistent... He will simply prove it to u. U guys have failed to prove God to us... Rather most theist are asking atheist to prove God none existence to them... Isnt that laughable?

And to y’all out there, who profess that God doesn’t exist, now why are you deliberating on it. If trully he doesn’t exist to you. Something you do not believe in because of your reasoning, you’re meddling with it. What confusion!

So u if u don't believe in something and someone tells u it exists... U will not tell the person it's false? If u can't tell the person it's false what then is the poibt of not believing?

If God exists, then this question wouldn't even have to be asked, because God would be as common knowledge as the fact that there is a sky above.

There's yet to be any scientific evidence of the supernatural, let alone a God, so the odds for a god existing is looking pretty slim, practically non- existent.

felixomor:

For example,
Even if God appears in person to an atheist,
He can say to himself out of pride; "its a hallucination"
And that's it.

I beg to differ! It's a God, for Christ sake. After I allow my so called pride to make me stubbornly unreceptive to evidence I demanded and that is provided, the God can just strike me dumb and tell me to return after I lose my pride. Of course I'd most likely run to a doctor and ask for a cure, but after being seen by numerous doctors and not getting my voice back, I'm sure I'd eventually go, "ok God, if you are really real, give me my voice back" , and if on saying so I immediately become able to speak, then fear, if nothing else, would surely make me proclaim that there is a God.

But if perchance my pride is super pride and still stops me proclaiming the existence of the God who gave me evidence which I refused to accept, then took my voice and gave it back, then that God can just take my voice away again. By then, I would most certainly go about writing, "There is a God o" since I wouldn't be able to speak. I assure you, at that point, no one would be begging God in my mind and writing more than I would.

But just in case I have a super super dose of this pride you speak of, the God can always add some death at the next 12 noon to it. Let's see if my pride would help me last till 11:59 before I capitulate and say "ok God, you indeed exist".

Of course, any sensible person would wonder what the heck I was talking to in the first place if not God. So evidence, for me, after checking that I am of sound mind, would be the fact that there is something that I am asking to provide evidence for it's existence, in the very first place.

The fact that there is an entity to ask to provide evidence that that entity exists is evidence that that entity exists, provided I am of sound mind of course.

budaatum:

I beg to differ! It's a God, for Christ sake. After I allow my so called pride to make me stubbornly unreceptive to evidence I demanded and that is provided, the God can just strike me dumb and tell me to return after I lose my pride. Of course I'd most likely run to a doctor and ask for a cure, but after being seen by numerous doctors and not getting my voice back, I'm sure I'd eventually go, "ok God, if you are really real, give me my voice back" , and if on saying so I immediately become able to speak, then fear, if nothing else, would surely make me proclaim that there is a God.

But if perchance my pride is super pride and still stops me proclaiming the existence of the God who gave me evidence which I refused to accept, then took my voice and gave it back, then that God can just take my voice away again. By then, I would most certainly go about writing, "There is a God o" since I wouldn't be able to speak. I assure you, at that point, no one would be begging God in my mind and writing more than I would.

But just in case I have a super super dose of this pride you speak of, the God can always add some death at the next 12 noon to it. Let's see if my pride would help me last till 11:59 before I capitulate and say "ok God, you indeed exist".

Of course, any sensible person would wonder what the heck I was talking to in the first place if not God. So evidence, for me, after checking that I am of sound mind, would be the fact that there is something that I am asking to provide evidence for it's existence, in the very first place.

The fact that there is an entity to ask to provide evidence that that entity exists is evidence that that entity exists, provided I am of sound mind of course.

Even if God strikes you dumb.
Other atheists will still call it coincidence.
So whats the use?

An atheist professor died and came back to life and now believes in God.
The moment he came back, his fellow atheist professors denounced him and Called him "mad".

So thats how your story will be if God strikes you dumb,
Its evidence to u.
But Your fellow atheists will still call u stupid.

tintingz:
I don't believe in any God and I'm not inquisitive, and even if I'm inquisitive, God is a public matter and open to any debate, argument etc.

Your question is like asking why are Christians arguing with Muslims about their God they(Christians) don't believe in or why are over millions of people interested in Black Panther they believe doesn't exist.

You ask if I've called on God and intervene, my question is which God are you talking about, is that question so difficult to answer?

If you don’t believe in any God, why are you now asking “Which God” please is that reasonable, oh i don’t believe the earth is round.. I dont believe there are other planets, then I’ll ask you questions about “which planet”? Is that reasonable please?
Is it wise and reasonable to debate something that you absolutely do not believe exists.? Please Be REASONABLE HERE!

The Muslims have their own faith, they are serving something of course, I will not want to argue about their faith, because I do not believe in the Q’uran. Anyone who will want to argue or debate about their faith, and that person does not believe in the Q’uran, it will be folly.

The God that created the Heavens and the Earth.

UserX18:


If you don’t believe in any God, why are you now asking “Which God” please is that reasonable, oh i don’t believe the earth is round.. I dont believe there are other planets, then I’ll ask you questions about “which planet”? Is that reasonable please?
Is it wise and reasonable to debate something that you absolutely do not believe exists.? Please Be REASONABLE HERE!

The Muslims have their own faith, they are serving something of course, I will not want to argue about their faith, because I do not believe in the Q’uran. Anyone who will want to argue or debate about their faith, and that person does not believe in the Q’uran, it will be folly.

The God that created the Heavens and the Earth.

At your words in bold, I have been saying the same thing over and over to them but they are always unable to see how unreasonable and illogical they look whenever they say such things.

Even Mahatma Ghandi made the same observation and I quote


"It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists." --mahatma Gandhi

frank317:

Cool... Pls answer them one by one for me according to all the questions u asked me when I said a 3 headed red elephant is God


I am asking u... I have not the answer to anyone of them so I am asking... No one is saying u should ask urself bro.


If u say to a scientist that Charles law does nonexistent... He will simply prove it to u. U guys have failed to prove God to us... Rather most theist are asking atheist to prove God none existence to them... Isnt that laughable?


So u if u don't believe in something and someone tells u it exists... U will not tell the person it's false? If u can't tell the person it's false what then is the poibt of not believing?

You don’t believe God exists, and I should answer how he has proved Himself to me?
If you don’t believe that God exists, how will you believe, the proofs He has given me?
If you don’t believe Charle’s law exist, how will you believe it’s procedures?
No, it isn’t laughable, how will the scientist prove Charle’s law to you, won’t you be present, your mind, and heart must be there present with the scientist, you’ve also taken part in the experiment..
Yes you can tell the person it’s false. And when the person proves to you, that it is true, you still believe it doesn’t exist it is folly, but when the person proves to you that it is true. And you decide not to believe it is okay. But note, He exists.

Heathen777:
If God exists, then this question wouldn't even have to be asked, because God would be as common knowledge as the fact that there is a sky above.

There's yet to be any scientific evidence of the supernatural, let alone a God, so the odds for a god existing is looking pretty slim, practically non- existent.

It can be asked. The law of gravity exists, but a fool will fill a baloon with Helium and say the law of gravity doesn’t exist.

The scientist are not able to prove so many things.

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

They were also confused, delusional, and are a great evidence of Folly!
Thinking the can understand God with their wisdom of Men. Thinking they are intelligent, but though foolish.

Butterflyleo:



At your words in bold, I have been saying the same thing over and over to them but they are always unable to see how unreasonable and illogical they look whenever they say such things.

Even Mahatma Ghandi made the same observation and I quote


"It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists." --mahatma Gandhi

This is the definition of Folly.
It is the evidence of God’s existence. They are foolish, God is very mercify, to even allow them which proclaim there is no God to be alive, unto this day.
“Only a fool says in his heart, there is no God”

That is why the wisdom of man, is absolutely foolishness is the eyes of God.
What we are getting wrong is that, they are not really intelligent, they represent folly and cowardice.

Do you not know it takes great Courage to believe in God..