shadeyinka:

Are you saying Yes to both questions?

It was a typo, the post has been modified.,kindly refer to it...my response is for both questions

Michellekabod2:

It was a typo, the post has been modified.,kindly refer to it...my response is for both questions

A big FAT No for both questions!?
And you want a rebuttal!?

My questions had been: You!
1. Do you personally believe that everything came out of nothing (according to Dawkins, Hawkins and Krause)
2. Do you believe that order can come out of chaos?

I am finding it difficult to believe your NO answer: hence I need a confirmation. And then, I can be sure of what rebuttal to give you.

First as a confirmation, are you saying Dawkins, Hawkins and Krauss are wrong?
Secondly, would you affirm that the Big Bang didn't occur?

After this, I will make my rebut.

Good morning sis

shadeyinka:

In other words, Atheists come to their conclusion of disbelief in God with no justification!?

I don't know an atheist with not justification for their choice of Atheism perhaps you know some.

You are just jumping from one extreme to the other and not paying attention to what I write. The question atheism posits is the justification, where is the evidence for a god or gods?

Like I said: stop hiding!
disprove or accent to the justification I proposed as a question for you

17 different kinds of Atheism. I posted videos of your evangelist/pastors. Do you agree with them or disagree?

The things you wrote are not justifications for atheism. People were atheist even before we knew anything about modern cosmology or evolution.

LordReed:


You are just jumping from one extreme to the other and not paying attention to what I write. The question atheism posits is the justification, where is the evidence for a god or gods?

The things you wrote are not justifications for atheism. People were atheist even before we knew anything about modern cosmology or evolution.

Why do you have the fear of being Quizzed. I am being specific of "what LordReed believes" and not what Atheists generally believes.

Like, it is illogical to say: "Theists believe in God/Creator" and then refuse to entertain any questions different from this.

Like you can ask me if I believe in "Talking Snake" but you can't ask a Muslim the same question because it isnt in their quran.

So, LordReed, I ask you this personal question since you dont have an atheist "scripture" or "docrine" that I can refer to:
1. Do you agree or disagree that the Universe came out of Nothing?
ref: Hawkins, Dawkins and Krauss
2. Do you believe that Chaos can result into order and systems?

These questions are easy!

And by the way, the things I wrote are not to prove atheists justification for rejecting God. No! Most intelligent and educated Atheists hold these beliefs and I want to deal with you based on that.

shadeyinka:


Why do you have the fear of being Quizzed. I am being specific of "what LordReed believes" and not what Atheists generally believes.

Like, it is illogical to say: "Theists believe in God/Creator" and then refuse to entertain any questions different from this.

Like you can ask me if I believe in "Talking Snake" but you can't ask a Muslim the same question because it isnt in their quran.

So, LordReed, I ask you this personal question since you dont have an atheist "scripture" or "docrine" that I can refer to:
1. Do you agree or disagree that the Universe came out of Nothing?
ref: Hawkins, Dawkins and Krauss
2. Do you believe that Chaos can result into order and systems?

These questions are easy!

And by the way, the things I wrote are not to prove atheists justification for rejecting God. No! Most intelligent and educated Atheists hold these beliefs and I want to deal with you based on that.

Glad you now realise these are not the justifications for atheism.

As to what I agree with on the subject of cosmology, I have said it on this forum several times and I will repeat it here again, I reserve any judgement on the subject because knowledge is still coming in. While I do like the the BBT model because it explains quite a bit of our observed universe, I do not hold it as the end all be all of cosmology simply because of the aforementioned influx of knowledge.

The other question needs clarification, are you saying natural processes are unable to bring about the things we see?

I trust that there is nobody here, taking this scientifically illiterate "chwistain" seriously on this thread!!!


A topic that I have personally treated countless number of times here on Nairaland? Professor Lawrence Krauss said that the Universe came from nothing? Abi that was the title of his book?

In Lawrence Krauss' book, the "nothing" that he was referring to was simply quantum foam, virtual particles that pop in and out of existence!!!!

It is only the confused chwistain, who has never read the book, that will come out here to be making noise about what he "feels" Professor Krauss was talking about, without reading the book to find out what Professor Krauss was really talking about!!!

Once again, "chwistainity" has been exposed as a congregation of the confused, the demented and the super illiterate!!!

Niflheim:
I trust that there is nobody here, taking this scientifically illiterate "chwistain" seriously on this thread!!!


A topic that I have personally treated countless number of times here on Nairaland? Professor Lawrence Krauss said that the Universe came from nothing? Abi that was the title of his book?

In Lawrence Kruass' book, the "nothing" that he was referring to was simply quantum foam, virtual particles that pop in and out of existence!!!!

It is only the confused chwistain, who has never read the book, that will come out here to be making noise about what he "feels" Professor Krauss was talking about, without reading the book to find out what Professor Krauss was really talking about!!!

Once again, "chwistainity" has been exposed as a congregation of the confused, the demented and the super illiterate!!!

Krauss has repeatedly said a nothing will be unstable because a something (virtual particles) will always occur but we humor the questions because it gives a chance to rub minds.

LordReed:


Glad you now realise these are not the justifications for atheism.

As to what I agree with on the subject of cosmology, I have said it on this forum several times and I will repeat it here again, I reserve any judgement on the subject because knowledge is still coming in. While I do like the the BBT model because it explains quite a bit of our observed universe, I do not hold it as the end all be all of cosmology simply because of the aforementioned influx of knowledge.

I can see that you take an agnostic stance (expecting knowledge to grow with time-coming in the future)

There are two things to note from your stance
1. You have no proof or evidence or empirical scientific deductions.
Your agnosticism stems from hope and NOT verifiable facts.
2. As you claim: God doesn't exist because He can not be Explicitly, Scientifically proved.

If you have let's have it

How are you different from the Christians you accuse based on lack of verifiable explicit evidence.

LordReed:

The other question needs clarification, are you saying natural processes are unable to bring about the things we see?

It is an undisputable scientific fact that the universe is expanding very fast. This let to the conclusion that the expansion originated from a pin point origin. This expansion was sudden and massive showing that it could be likened to an extremely powerful thermo-nuclear bomb.

In the laboratory, it is possible to generate a controlled/constrained explosion: and we have several instances of an uncontrolled explosion.

Uncontrolled explosion is at best chaotic.

If I would help you out: protons, neutrons, electrons and other sub atomic particles did not exist on or before the big bang.

Small Orders like fairly equal number of protons and neutrons, number of electrons to keep an atom neutral, gravitational constant, electric constant etc. Planets moving in elliptic orbits in good precision

So, what's your conclusion about this: Can a chaos caused by a bang technically result to the kind of order spelt out above.


So, can chaos result into order?
It's a personal question to you: please be kind enough to oblige.

Cheers

shadeyinka:

I can see that you take an agnostic stance (expecting knowledge to grow with time-coming in the future)

There are two things to note from your stance
1. You have no proof or evidence or empirical scientific deductions.
Your agnosticism stems from hope and NOT verifiable facts.
2. As you claim: God doesn't exist because He can not be Explicitly, Scientifically proved.

If you have let's have it

How are you different from the Christians you accuse based on lack of verifiable explicit evidence.

Huh? It's like you didn't understand what I wrote. Nowhere did I say there wasn't scientific evidence for the cosmological explanations scientists have put forth. Nowhere did I say I am reserving judgement based on a hope and not verified facts. I don't know how you are reading these things into my statement. Are you engaging with a set agenda or are you conversing to actually learn what I think?

It is an undisputable scientific fact that the universe is expanding very fast. This let to the conclusion that the expansion originated from a pin point origin. This expansion was sudden and massive showing that it could be likened to an extremely powerful thermo-nuclear bomb.

In the laboratory, it is possible to generate a controlled/constrained explosion: and we have several instances of an uncontrolled explosion.

Uncontrolled explosion is at best chaotic.

If I would help you out: protons, neutrons, electrons and other sub atomic particles did not exist on or before the big bang.

Small Orders like fairly equal number of protons and neutrons, number of electrons to keep an atom neutral, gravitational constant, electric constant etc. Planets moving in elliptic orbits in good precision

So, what's your conclusion about this: Can a chaos caused by a bang technically result to the kind of order spelt out above.


So, can chaos result into order?
It's a personal question to you: please be kind enough to oblige.

Cheers

These are 2 different things you are attempting to conflate. The BB was not not an explosion so comparing it to an explosion already means you have the wrong understanding of what BBT postulates. Maybe you should take a look at the wiki for a better understanding of what it is.

On the other hand, we see natural processes "create" things all the time. For instance once hydrogen gas and oxygen gas mix they "create" water, same with the formation of amino acids from less complicated molecules. The results of these reactions are more complex than the ingredients and will occur even in a chaotic environment.

shadeyinka:


First as a confirmation, are you saying Dawkins, Hawkins and Krauss are wrong?

I'm enjoying the discourse but do not see how this is relevant. It's like asking a Christian if the Pope or Adeboye or TBJ are wrong!

LordReed:


Huh? It's like you didn't understand what I wrote. Nowhere did I say there wasn't scientific evidence for the cosmological explanations scientists have put forth. Nowhere did I say I am reserving judgement based on a hope and not verified facts. I don't know how you are reading these things into my statement. Are you engaging with a set agenda or are you conversing to actually learn what I think?

In order words, there are sufficient evidence but you choose not to agree with them. This doesn't make sense for when there is sufficient evidence that 2 apples + three apples give five apples. We accept it as true.

If a set of arguments and propositions seem logical but not convincing intelligent people take the stance of agnosticism. Why is the evidence not compelling? Because it isn't verifiable.

If you are rooting for answers in the future, then you are an Agnostic... irrespective of what you like to call yourself.

Your Quote:

I reserve any judgement on the subject because knowledge is still coming in.

What is an incomplete knowledge?
It's a set of data that cannot be trusted to give the correct answers.

Are you now saying you believe the BBT if you don't completely believe then what do you at present believe?

LordReed:

These are 2 different things you are attempting to conflate. The BB was not not an explosion so comparing it to an explosion already means you have the wrong understanding of what BBT postulates. Maybe you should take a look at the wiki for a better understanding of what it is.

Please explain how BB is not an option explosion to a lay man. Is the doctrine of the origin of the universe hidden from people with no PhD in physics?

I put a link for you her:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Was the expansion SLOW?
Was the expansion a FLUID?
Was the expansion probably associated with heat?


What do we call an extremely fast expansion.

However you twist the language: it is an explosion (speaking for the lay man).

Can you demonstrate this expansion in the laboratory?
Where did the singleton come from. It must surely contain vast amount of energy!
No! They are hidden in complex equations that mean little to ordinary people. Everyone of you is depending on what the learned scholars have written.

Is that not equivalent to prophets of old who claim that they heard God speak to them?


[quote author=LordReed post=81980516]

On the other hand, we see natural processes "create" things all the time. For instance once hydrogen gas and oxygen gas mix they "create" water, same with the formation of amino acids from less complicated molecules. The results of these reactions are more complex than the ingredients and will occur even in a chaotic environment.

I am surprised that your point of origin is several million years after the initial origin of BB.
How did the Chaos at BB origin resulted into Protons, Neutrons and electrons with other subatomic particle coming together to form elements. Protons and electrons should Repel each other, what force kept them in such a way that Heisenberg uncertainty principle still held.

I still remember the Scientific community during YEAR2000 saga. All computers were supposed to crash, airplane lost and all other unprintable evil. Money was committed to it only for it to be a hoax. Trust these same people at your own peril.


Finally, if BBT is verifiable, what are the results?
Show us God: Show us creation
Show us miracles: Create atoms for us to see.

budaatum:

I'm enjoying the discourse but do not see how this is relevant. It's like asking a Christian if the Pope or Adeboye or TBJ are wrong!

The average Christian has his views on so many things. And you can see lengthy swords fights among them:
It's a great question to ask a "Christian" what he believes.

Not all Christians believe in tithes!
Not all Christians believe in firstfruits!
Not all Christians believe in tongues!
Not all Christians believe in restitution!

However, most Christians believe in God as Trinity(some reject this)
However, most Christians believe in Man being a Trinity(some reject this) of body, soul and spirit.

I think it is fair if Atheists don't hide under general believe. A person who doesn't have his on opinion about his theism or his Atheism does not have any value


One can only challenge a Christian on what he personally believes rather that what the other thesist believe.

Can one ask a Muslim if he believes in a talking snake?


Most intelligent and educated Atheists hold these beliefs and I want to deal with them based on that.

shadeyinka:

In order words, there are sufficient evidence but you choose not to agree with them. This doesn't make sense for when there is sufficient evidence that 2 apples + three apples give five apples. We accept it as true.

If a set of arguments and propositions seem logical but not convincing intelligent people take the stance of agnosticism. Why is the evidence not compelling? Because it isn't verifiable.

If you are rooting for answers in the future, then you are an Agnostic... irrespective of what you like to call yourself.

Lemme attempt to illustrate the point to you. Newton's gravitational theory was sufficient to explain certain phenomena well but then it encountered significant challenges when it came to explaining others. Einstein's General Theory and Special Theory of Relativity was able to explain those things Newton's couldn't. Now if a person have made a judgement based on Newton's it could become an issue when attempting to reconcile the difference and knowing humans, we are not always willing to give up an entrenched ideological position. I don't want to fall into that rut, I want to remain flexible enough in my reasoning to make the jump when the time comes.

Also you seem to think that this must be some sort of binary position, if you don't agree with something then it means you disagree with it. That is not correct, reserving judgement means I am waiting to properly weigh the presentations. The way a judge does not pronounce guilt or innocence before he has had the chance to examine the evidence, it doesn't mean the judge believes the accused is innocent or guilty.

How can you know whether the evidence is not compelling when you've not heard it yet?

Your Quote:

What is an incomplete knowledge?
It's a set of data that cannot be trusted to give the correct answers.

Are you now saying you believe the BBT if you don't completely believe then what do you at present believe?

You are using language that doesn't describe what I am telling you. I do not believe BBT or any other scientific theory, I accept the findings especially when I have taken the time to understand what it is about.

I accept BBT as the tentatively best explanation for our universe. Does it explain everything? No it doesn't which is why I am reserving judgement.

shadeyinka:
Please explain how BB is not an option explosion to a lay man. Is the doctrine of the origin of the universe hidden from people with no PhD in physics?

I put a link for you her:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Was the expansion SLOW?
Was the expansion a FLUID?
Was the expansion probably associated with heat?


What do we call an extremely fast expansion.

However you twist the language: it is an explosion (speaking for the lay man).

Can you demonstrate this expansion in the laboratory?
Where did the singleton come from. It must surely contain vast amount of energy!
No! They are hidden in complex equations that mean little to ordinary people. Everyone of you is depending on what the learned scholars have written.

Is that not equivalent to prophets of old who claim that they heard God speak to them?

Is the rapid expansion of a balloon an explosion? Does a lay man not know the difference between the inflation of a balloon and an explosion?

The scientists made observations which they then turned into models from which they attempt to give coherent explanations for the observations. There is nobody coming to declare a revelation from out of the blue which is why their results are checked by other scientists so no it's not like prophets of old.

I am surprised that your point of origin is several million years after the initial origin of BB.
How did the Chaos at BB origin resulted into Protons, Neutrons and electrons with other subatomic particle coming together to form elements. Protons and electrons should Repel each other, what force kept them in such a way that Heisenberg uncertainty principle still held.

I still remember the Scientific community during YEAR2000 saga. All computers were supposed to crash, airplane lost and all other unprintable evil. Money was committed to it only for it to be a hoax. Trust these same people at your own peril.


Finally, if BBT is verifiable, what are the results?
Show us God: Show us creation
Show us miracles: Create atoms for us to see

I don't know how subatomic particles formed and gave rise to atoms and so on. What you asked me is if I think chaos can create order and I gave you an example.

I don't know why you are bring up Y2K. That was a prediction and effort to forestall any negative occurrences, at no time did any scientist say they knew what was going to happen with 100% certainty.

Where did scientists ever lay claim to be able to do miracles or show you god? Creation is not a scientific theory so how can you expect scientists to show you that?

LordReed:


Lemme attempt to illustrate the point to you. Newton's gravitational theory was sufficient to explain certain phenomena well but then it encountered significant challenges when it came to explaining others. Einstein's General Theory and Special Theory of Relativity was able to explain those things Newton's couldn't. Now if a person have made a judgement based on Newton's it could become an issue when attempting to reconcile the difference and knowing humans, we are not always willing to give up an entrenched ideological position. I don't want to fall into that rut, I want to remain flexible enough in my reasoning to make the jump when the time comes .

Also you seem to think that this must be some sort of binary position, if you don't agree with something then it means you disagree with it. That is not correct, reserving judgement means I am waiting to properly weigh the presentations. The way a judge does not pronounce guilt or innocence before he has had the chance to examine the evidence, it doesn't mean the judge believes the accused is innocent or guilty.

How can you know whether the evidence is not compelling when you've not heard it yet?



You are using language that doesn't describe what I am telling you. I do not believe BBT or any other scientific theory, I accept the findings especially when I have taken the time to understand what it is about.

I accept BBT as the tentatively best explanation for our universe. Does it explain everything? No it doesn't which is why I am reserving judgement.

I believe you know that Newtonian Mechanics and Einstein's Special theory of relativity are BOTH approximations. This means that both are inadequate to completely describe interactions of Mater. It simply means they are both inadequate to prove the origin of the universe. I will submit that it is misapplication to extend the theory of relativity to time t =0.

All the Scientific constant used in theory of relativity assumes atoms, mass and electromagnetism, di-electrics have existed. This is not true.

This means we can't even trust the theory not to break down massively as we approach time t=0.

"Being flexible" is another way of saying "I am not sure".
This means you are not certain.

Do you think a person who is not certain has the right to ask theists to provide physical evidence for God?


I am not insinuating a binary position. There is the agnostic position. When a judge is sure, he passed judgment. When he is not sure, he stalls.

Unfortunately, I think you have passed judgement already even though you don't have enough evidence.

Michellekabod2:
, I have identified with being an agnostic atheist before on NL with my moniker....I am sure if they are classifications of Christian's you will fall into the ones gifted with meagre brains

LMAO.

shadeyinka:

I believe you know that Newtonian Mechanics and Einstein's Special theory of relativity are BOTH approximations. This means that both are inadequate to completely describe interactions of Mather. It simply means they are both inadequate to prove the origin of the universe. I will submit that it is misapplication to extend the theory of relativity to time t =0.

All the Scientific constant used in theory of relativity assumes atoms, mass and electromagnetism, di-electrics have existed. This is not true.

This means we can't even trust the theory not to break down massively as we approach time t=0.

"Being flexible" is another way of saying "I am not sure".
This means you are not certain.

Do you think a person who is not certain has the right to ask theists to provide physical evidence for God?


I am not insinuating a binary position. There is the agnostic position. When a judge is sure, he passed judgment. When he is not sure, he stalls.

Unfortunately, I think you have passed judgement already even though you don't have enough evidence.

You come out saying you know there is a god and when I ask how do you know, you say I have no right to ask you? Is it my uncertainty on trial or your certainty? I do not believe that your god exists until it can be proved, how is it an issue of what I have a right to? If your god cannot be proved then why should I believe it?

Passed judgement on what? Enough evidence for what?

LordReed:


Is the rapid expansion of a balloon an explosion? Does a lay man not know the difference between the inflation of a balloon and an explosion?

The scientists made observations which they then turned into models from which they attempt to give coherent explanations for the observations. There is nobody coming to declare a revelation from out of the blue which is why their results are checked by other scientists so no it's not like prophets of old.



I don't know how subatomic particles formed and gave rise to atoms and so on. What you asked me is if I think chaos can create order and I gave you an example.

I don't know why you are bring up Y2K. That was a prediction and effort to forestall any negative occurrences, at no time did any scientist say they knew what was going to happen with 100% certainty.

Where did scientists ever lay claim to be able to do miracles or show you god? Creation is not a scientific theory so how can you expect scientists to show you that?

Of course the BBT cannot be likened as an expansion it's more of an explosion. There is no way planetary orbits will form if it is a expansion.

I think I have explained why the model would be very wrong at time t=0.

Sorry, I didn't see your example of how chaos can lead to order and systems.

I brought in the example of Y2K to show that sometimes it appears like there is a conspiracy to move the world into a certain direction. For example anything that would make Homosexuality right should make bestiality ok. Aren't they both sexual attraction?. In school, I already knew that the Y2K was a fraud!


In other words except by choice you have no verifiable reason to reject God

shadeyinka:

Of course the BBT cannot be likened as an expansion it's more of an explosion. There is no way planetary orbits will form if it is a expansion.

I think I have explained why the model would be very wrong at time t=0.

Sorry, I didn't see your example of how chaos can lead to order and systems.

I brought in the example of Y2K to show that sometimes it appears like there is a conspiracy to move the world into a certain direction. For example anything that would make Homosexuality right should make bestiality ok. Aren't they both sexual attraction?. In school, I already knew that the Y2K was a fraud!


In other words except by choice you have no verifiable reason to reject God

You are funny. The scientists who came up with the model call it the inflationary model, I wonder why you would persist in calling it an explosion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Y2K did not move the world to any "certain direction", that is conspiracy theory talk.

I have no verifiable reason to accept god either.

LordReed:


You come out saying you know there is a god and when I ask how do you know, you say I have no right to ask you? Is it my uncertainty on trial or your certainty? I do not believe that your god exists until it can be proved, how is it an issue of what I have a right to? If your god cannot be proved then why should I believe it?

Passed judgement on what? Enough evidence for what?

You accuse theists that they cannot Physically prove the existence of God but can you also empirically prove the origin of the universe.

I think it's a case of the kettle calling frying pan black.

The problem of Atheists is that they want to bring the immaterial God to the Physical Realm.

Christians have been consistent to say a Being who existed before the BB made everything. Since He is not Physical nor subject to physical laws except He wills, you can't bring Him into Physical subjection.

And this makes sense for the BB cannot initiate itself, order can only be when an external force control what should have been a chaos.

An aeroplane is an assemblage of system. Given a trillion-trillion years of all the constituent elements colliding, do you think a plane can result?

The multiplicity of systems in the universe is a witness against you.

shadeyinka:

The problem of Atheists is that they want to bring the immaterial God to the Physical Realm.
.

indeed, that's were their problem lie. you just say the Right word to the Right person. God bless you.

shadeyinka:

You accuse theists that they cannot Physically prove the existence of God but can you also empirically prove the origin of the universe.

I think it's a case of the kettle calling frying pan black.

The problem of Atheists is that they want to bring the immaterial God to the Physical Realm.

Christians have been consistent to say a Being who existed before the BB made everything. Since He is not Physical nor subject to physical laws except He wills, you can't bring Him into Physical subjection.

And this makes sense for the BB cannot initiate itself, order can only be when an external force control what should have been a chaos.

An aeroplane is an assemblage of system. Given a trillion-trillion years of all the constituent elements colliding, do you think a plane can result?

The multiplicity of systems in the universe is a witness against you.

Did I claim I know the origins of the universe? You claim to know something and cannot demonstrate it any meaningful way except with squinty eyed rationalizations. That you persist in asserting a god is not a criteria for establishing a matter, you can be persistently wrong. The burden remains on you to show how we can be certain a god exists. I will not accept the excuse that this god is beyond space and time, your book records it as interacting with this world in very visible and measurable ways.

The multiplicity of systems are not evidence for a god, all we see are physical systems continuing on their way with no intervention from supernatural forces.

LordReed:


You are funny. The scientists who came up with the model call it the inflationary model, I wonder why you would persist in calling it an explosion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Y2K did not move the world to any "certain direction", that is conspiracy theory talk.

I have no verifiable reason to accept god either.

The inflation theory did not invalidate the BB

The inflationary epoch lasted from 10power−36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to some time between 10power−33 and 10power−32 seconds after the singularity.

Look at the time taken and tell me they didn't just replaced explosion for inflation. Inflation connotes the idea of constrained expansion. I didn't see where any form of constraint is mentioned. It's just a play of words. Can there be an inflation without a constraint?

The detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is unknown.

This theory is still a theory: unverifiable!

The known physical laws of nature can be used to calculate the characteristics of the universe in detail back in time to an initial state of extreme density and temperature

How can the known laws of nature apply accurately when the universe has not stabilised.?

At the time of the so called inflation, mass has not been formed for the universe has to first cool down. If mass has not been formed,


Reading the inflation theory, I cannot help but ask for the empirical evidence: it doesn't exist

LordReed:


Did I claim I know the origins of the universe? You claim to know something and cannot demonstrate it any meaningful way except with squinty eyed rationalizations. That you persist in asserting a god is not a criteria for establishing a matter, you can be persistently wrong. The burden remains on you to show how we can be certain a god exists. I will not accept the excuse that this god is beyond space and time, your book records it as interacting with this world in very visible and measurable ways.

The multiplicity of systems are not evidence for a god, all we see are physical systems continuing on their way with no intervention from supernatural forces.

The implication of Atheism is that the universe created itself. And this is without any evidence!

If the multiplicity of systems are not enough prove of an intelligent design, then provide verifiable evidence of how things came to be.

Your argument is like the multiplicity of systems if a car does not require a designer!

malvisguy212:
indeed, that's were their problem lie. you just say the Right word to the Right person. God bless you.

You're welcome sir!

shadeyinka:

The average Christian has his views on so many things. And you can see lengthy swords fights among them:
It's a great question to ask a "Christian" what he believes.

Not all Christians believe in tithes!
Not all Christians believe in firstfruits!
Not all Christians believe in tongues!
Not all Christians believe in restitution!

However, most Christians believe in God as Trinity(some reject this)
However, most Christians believe in Man being a Trinity(some reject this) of body, soul and spirit.

I think it is fair if Atheists don't hide under general believe. A person who doesn't have his on opinion about his theism or his Atheism does not have any value


One can only challenge a Christian on what he personally believes rather that what the other thesist believe.

Can one ask a Muslim if he believes in a talking snake?


Most intelligent and educated Atheists hold these beliefs and I want to deal with them based on that.

I just think asking if they agree with particular people is not the same as asking for their "personal beliefs" as you've asked above. And I agree they should tell you their "personal beliefs", so they can't accuse you of arguing what they never said. Though I think they already did, something to do with "no evidence", my Lord said.

shadeyinka:


In other words except by choice you have no verifiable reason to reject God

What rubbish is this!? He said he has seen no evidence but you want him to say what, exactly? Lie that he sees what he is too blind to see?

You are very funny!

shadeyinka:

The implication of Atheism is that the universe created itself. And this is without any evidence!

No. You are incorrect. The above makes the universe a creator which many atheists have repeated said they have no evidence for.

More correct is, "The implication of Atheism from your perspective is that the universe created itself."

Ironically, you're both accusing the other of, "And this is without any evidence!"

budaatum:

No. You are incorrect. The above makes the universe a creator which many atheists have repeated said they have no evidence for.

More correct is, "The implication of Atheism from your perspective is that the universe created itself."

Ironically, you're both accusing the other of, "And this is without any evidence!"

I am going to modify it a little and irrespective of whether Atheists agree with it or not, it is the truth. We all know that the universe had a beginning and before it there was nothingness.

Modified:
The implication of Atheism is that the universe created itself from NOTHING.
And from my perspective, this is without any evidence!

Atheists are the one who is quick to say theists have no Physical Evidence for God.
I think it's a case of the kettle calling the frying pan black.

budaatum:

What rubbish is this!? He said he has seen no evidence but you want him to say what, exactly? Lie that he sees what he is too blind to see?

You are very funny!

What I accuse him of is him concluding that there is no God with no evidence to back it up.

How then is he better than the Christians he accuses so much of believing in God with no verifiable evidence!

budaatum:

I just think asking if they agree with particular people is not the same as asking for their "personal beliefs" as you've asked above. And I agree they should tell you their "personal beliefs", so they can't accuse you of arguing what they never said. Though I think they already did, something to do with "no evidence", my Lord said.

Atheists can be classified into three major classes
1. The intellectual Atheists
These try to justify there Atheism from logics, science, mathematics, philosophy etc
2. Emotional Atheists:
These are mostly those who used to believe in God but feel let down or disappointed by Him eg because of the loss or painful illness of a loved one. Hence they reject this God who was powerless to help.
3. Ignorant Atheists:
These are ones who don't know why they are Atheists. Usually, they are born into an atheist family or they live in a predominantly atheist society.

There is usually no 100% intellectual Atheist, nor 100% emotional Atheist. An atheist could be 80% intellectual, 18% emotional and 2% ignorant.

Now, these said, most of the Atheists on NL who are vocal in defending Atheism and condemning Theists are predominantly intellectual Atheist and as such they use the instruments of science, philosophy, logics etc.

Based on that, I bring out the teachings of usually "Atheist Pastors". I expect them to either accept or reject these teachings with reasons. From this, I know what they truly really believe.

It's like someone giving me a teaching of Rev Chris Oyakilome. I don't agree with all his teachings and a lot of his teachings are fantastic. When someone grills me on the one I don't agree with, I will have to say why I don't agree with such teachings: then, that person can really know what I personally believe.

I think Atheists generalize too much especially when things involve what they believe. The way to go is treating each atheist as an individual. Atheists will not generally tell you their beliefs except you get it out.

budaatum:

I'm enjoying the discourse but do not see how this is relevant. It's like asking a Christian if the Pope or Adeboye or TBJ are wrong!

If the Pope, Adebol and TBJ taught the same thing concerning restitution for instance, I could either agree or disagree with reasons.

Either way, you will know what I personally believe: this was my aim