Dudugirl01: How do you explain your existence then?

Nobody truly knows and its not a shame to admit

tobechi74:

i disagree. Atheist also hav faith. They havent seen a monkey chang to a human yet they bliv.

Guy your apparent lack of scientific knowledge is worrying..

Mr_Anony:
here he goes again.....I left that thread because I got tired of dancing around in circles with you. The answer i gave you there was very sufficient.
Anyway, my point here was to show you that you equally reject God on blind faith and I think I have done that. let's see how Jay goes.

You no want make I sleep. You have not demonstrated that in any way. Where do I use faith? There's no faith involved when facts play around, you know that, yes? You make demonstrably false or illogical claims they are then objectively false. There is no chance that they are true, no faith was used in deeming the claims false. 1 = 2, charlize theron is in my bed, I can jump over the moon, all these can be shown to be false. Even most unfalsifyable claims can have their odds judged.
Those answers in that thread were terribly insufficient as well..

Mr_Anony:
Yes of course I can decide to not believe it.....but then to talk about "justification for my unbelief" means that there is something I believe based upon which I disbelieve another. What I am saying essentially is that you cannot just disbelieve in a vacuum.

It depends on what you mean by disbelieving in a vacuum. If you mean you must have a reason to disbelieve, then I agree with you. However I will disagree if you think that that reason must be a positive negation of the offending statement (by which I mean you disbelieve because you hold a contrary view which you hold to be correct).

One may disagree simply because the assertion is put in terms that do not stand up to scrutiny.

your statement x=y may be true or false.

This is correct.

If I try to prove it false and I fail, it is either the statement has no logical true/false value or it is true. The best practice would be to accept it as true until I can reasonably falsify it.

I strongly disagree here.

You may try to prove a statement false and fail, but that will not make the statement true (assuming here that the statement can be evaluated to a true or false conclusion).

You are familiar with Russel's teapot. You wouldnt be able to disprove it, yet I doubt your failure to disprove it would make you believe it.

There are a great many assertions one can make which cannot be immediately proven (or even, at all) and yet prudence calls for suspension of belief until evidence can be shown. Basically, if you fail to falsify a statement it doesnt render something true automatically.

that's why the phrase: "....prove beyond all reasonable doubt."

See here my pink unicorn argument with macdaddy: https://www.nairaland.com/1053917/pink-unicorn-argument-against-religion/2

I read it up to a point. I'll check on it later.


PS:
Russel's teapot is just an example. Its the first thing that came to mind.

wiegraf:
Anyways I want to see where @jay is going with this,

I'm not really going anywhere, Im just reacting to this:

Mr_Anony:

To say that something is a lie, you must provide a truth from which it deviates.

wiegraf:
I can jump over the moon, all these can be shown to be false.

If I keep giving all sorts of varying excuses for why I cant jump over the moon on demand, I can claim that I can indeed jump over the moon and it would not be possible to falsify it. I would be wise to use subjective criteria like faith.

@jay, that's just beautiful...

mkmyers45: Guy your apparent lack of scientific knowledge is worrying..

So, you're a product of science?

Dudugirl01:
So, you're a product of science?

Thats a loaded word..what do you mean?

wiegraf: @jay, that's just beautiful...

Well, thanks. Lets see what Mr Anony thinks.

tobechi74:

i disagree. Atheist also hav faith. They havent seen a monkey chang to a human yet they bliv.

Lool!! Those are scientists. And they believe similarities btw species suggest a relationship.

Dudugirl01: Each time someone says there's no God, I wonder why someone would boldly claim there's no God! My question then is, how do you butress your point? I need answers,

Depends on which God you're talking about. And yeah, there are so many "Almighty One and Only God" out there.

But the response typically is like "I don't believe there's a God", which is quite different from "There is no God!"

To buttress that point, I'd simply say, "Because there's no evidence." The beautiful skies, trees, oceans and whatnot are no evidence. We could as well talk about earthquakes, tsunamis, diseases, etc.

tobechi74:

i disagree. Atheist also hav faith. They havent seen a monkey chang to a human yet they bliv.

Being an atheist does not automatically translate to being an evolutionist. And besides, scientific ideas are not "beliefs".

Mr_Anony:

your statement x=y may be true or false. If I try to prove it false and I fail, it is either the statement has no logical true/false value or it is true. The best practice would be to accept it as true until I can reasonably falsify it.

So if you tell me that you can fly, or you can disappear into thin air, or that your God can restore severed limbs or [insert any other wild claims], the "best practice" would be for me to accept your claim as TRUE until I can reasonably falsify it? What happened to you bringing EVIDENCE for your claim first? Are you trolling?

That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. - C. Hitchens

So, if someone killed ur sister and there's no proof, would you say he didn't? Besides, there's proof everywhere you just have to open ur eyes to see

Dudugirl01: So, if someone killed ur sister and there's no proof, would you say he didn't? Besides, there's proof everywhere you just have to open ur eyes to see

that's a lame analogy

Dudugirl01: So, if someone killed ur sister and there's no proof, would you say he didn't? Besides, there's proof everywhere you just have to open ur eyes to see

Commonsense.

How do you know that he killed the sister in the first place without evidence?

Dudugirl01: So, if someone killed ur sister and there's no proof, would you say he didn't? Besides, there's proof everywhere you just have to open ur eyes to see

Proof like what? Give us examples. What proof is there everywhere that u can see with your two naked eyes that I would need forensic evidence DNA and science to findout?

Dudugirl01: So, if someone killed ur sister and there's no proof, would you say he didn't? Besides, there's proof everywhere you just have to open ur eyes to see

How did you manage to mention proof and faith together in one sentence? God is validated only by faith and religion renders faith unquestionable, so also God.

But atheists don't accept such presumptions.

@Jayriginal, wiegraf and purist.

I'll ask that you be gracious to me and properly read my argument, follow it and get to the meat of it before you start breaking it into bits and shooting off refutations.


[size=14pt]Part 1[/size]

Let's start from where you strongly disagree shall we?

I said:

If I try to prove it false and I fail, it is either the statement has no logical true/false value or it is true. The best practice would be to accept it as true until I can reasonably falsify it.

You replied:

jayriginal:
I strongly disagree here.

You may try to prove a statement false and fail, but that will not make the statement true (assuming here that the statement can be evaluated to a true or false conclusion).

You are familiar with Russel's teapot. You wouldnt be able to disprove it, yet I doubt your failure to disprove it would make you believe it.

There are a great many assertions one can make which cannot be immediately proven (or even, at all) and yet prudence calls for suspension of belief until evidence can be shown. Basically, if you fail to falsify a statement it doesnt render something true automatically.


PS:
Russel's teapot is just an example. Its the first thing that came to mind.

Now believing something or not believing it has nothing to do with whether it is true or false, However I get what you mean (also Purist and Wiegraf).
If for instance I claim that I can fly, you will immediately reject it until I actually fly and even if you actually see me flying, you will not still believe that I can fly until you have investigated properly and assured yourself that I am using no tricks to fly.

Notice that your disbelief here is based on the belief that people cannot fly. Without that belief, you would have no problem with my flying. Also, if you were able to check me properly and make sure I was not using any tricks but natural ability, your belief would change to "some people can fly".

This illustrates the point I have been making. You cannot disbelieve in a vacuum.
[size=14pt]
Part 2[/size]

To look at something slightly different, let's now come to Russell's teapot:

[b]Russell:[/b]If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time

Note: Russell's teapot illustrates something slightly different, but I want you to note something. If Russell hadn't said there was a teapot but a little rock, he would be more readily believed (because that is more plausible and compatible with our belief of what sort of things exist in space).
What if Russell had equally said that this little rock was necessary because it had some function in the solar system. It becomes even more believable. Notice that at this point, it becomes irrelevant whether information about this special rock was written in an ancient book or not.
Let's call this Russell's little rock.

The components that russell's teapot lacks are plausiblity and necessity. That's what makes a story believable.

Russell's little rock however has plausibility and necessity. It would have to be accepted as true until it has been sufficiently disproved i.e, we get better telescopes or we find something else that performs it's function. Do you agree?


[size=14pt]Part 3[/size]

Now about God. . . . .
Remember that Dudugirl's argument (and mine also) is that God is the ultimate creator of all things and the explanation for existence.

Now whenever we see order, we infer an intelligence and we immediately seek one who gives order. When we look at the universe and nature and ourselves, we see order and a very sophisticated intelligence because of this, we infer that there must be an intelligent designer that gives order. It is even more fascinating when we find out that the universe has not always existed but has a beginning. This tells us that whatever made the universe to begin must itself not be subject to the laws within the universe i.e. it is eternal and of immense power.

Note that unlike russell's teapot, this entity is both plausible and necessary. To not believe that such an entity exists, one must believe something more sufficient that better explains what it is out to explain.

Now, when wiegraf was asked. "How do you explain your existence?" he replied "I don't".

This immediately tells me that he doesn't reject God based on reason, he only rejects God based personal bias (i.e. he finds the idea of God to be absurd). If he had a reason to reject God, he would have provided it.

As I have shown earlier, you cannot disbelieve in a vacuum. It is either you hold unto an incompatible belief which you ought to state and then we can weigh it's merits ........or you are just being irrational.

Mr_Anony: @Jayriginal, wiegraf and purist.

I'll ask that you be gracious to me and properly read my argument, follow it and get to the meat of it before you start breaking it into bits and shooting off refutations.

Let's start from where you strongly disagree shall we? I said:

Nonsense, they were correctly refuting your failed logic.

Mr_Anony:
Now believing something or not believing it has nothing to do with whether it is true or false, However I get what you mean (also Purist and Wiegraf).
If for instance I claim that I can fly, you will immediately reject it until I actually fly and even if you actually see me flying, you will not still believe that I can fly until you have investigated properly and assured yourself that I am using no tricks to fly.

Notice that your disbelief here is based on the belief that people cannot fly. Without that belief, you would have no problem with my flying. Also, if you were able to check me properly and make sure I was not using any tricks but natural ability, your belief would change to "some people can fly".

This illustrates the point I have been making. You cannot disbelieve in a vacuum.

As usual, you ignore basic biology and facts to make your points.


People can not fly and that is a basic fact due to the structure of the human body. It is not a belief about flying but a statement of fact.

Stop this intellectual dishonesty

Mr_Anony:
[size=16pt]
Part 2[/size]

To look at something slightly different, let's now come to Russell's teapot:


Note: Russell's teapot illustrates something slightly different, but I want you to note something. If Russell hadn't said there was a teapot but a little rock, he would be believed (because that is more plausible and compatible with our belief of what sort of things exist in space).
What if Russell had equally said that this little rock was necessary because it had some function in the solar system. It becomes even more believable. Notice that at this point, it becomes irrelevant whether information about this special rock was written in an ancient book or not.
Let's call this Russell's little rock.

The components that russell's teapot lacks are plausiblity and necessity. That's what makes a story believable.

Russell's little rock however has plausibility and necessity. It would have to be accepted as true until it has been sufficiently disproved i.e, we get better telescopes or we find something else that performs it's function. Do you agree?

If Russel had said a rock, then he would be saying something that was already known to exist. Rocks fell from space as meteors. Rocks were in space

If Russel went further to say that the rocks had a special function, he would have been debunked so quick because then, he is entering a proper scientific realm in Astronomy. A rock that has a special function can easily be provable or disprovable



However, Russels teapot highlights the dishonesty among theists. They pick characteristics that would make their god disprovable. Invisble, metaphysical and the explanation of anything unexplainable.

Can you disprove the celestial teapot? no.

Mr_Anony: @Jayriginal, wiegraf and purist.

Now believing something or not believing it has nothing to do with whether it is true or false, However I get what you mean (also Purist and Wiegraf).
If for instance I claim that I can fly, you will immediately reject it until I actually fly and even if you actually see me flying , you will not still believe that I can fly until you have investigated properly and assured yourself that I am using no tricks to fly.

Notice that your disbelief here is based on the belief that people cannot fly. Without that belief, you would have no problem with my flying. Also, if you were able to check me properly and make sure I was not using any tricks but natural ability, your belief would change to "some people can fly".

This illustrates the point I have been making. You cannot disbelieve in a vacuum.

You make a basic mistake here in your rebuttal analogy. Using a flying man that actually did achieve flight by some method (whatever method) is completely different in believing in something/someone with no iota of evidence. The act of flying alone gives him evidence to support his claim.

If a man comes to claim he can fly and then leaps up into the sky and starts flying, he then as achieved his claim. The onus is now on me to disprove his flying as some sort of trickery. All forms of traditional logic will be suspended for the moment until I/we can prove that he has faked it in some way.

Using this analogy for the defence of a god is a major failure cos your god has been giving immunity from provability by you guys.

MacDaddy01:


Nonsense, they were correctly refuting your failed logic.


As usual, you ignore basic biology and facts to make your points.


People can not fly and that is a basic fact due to the structure of the human body. It is not a belief about flying but a statement of fact.

Stop this intellectual dishonesty


If Russel had said a rock, then he would be saying something that was already known to exist. Rocks fell from space as meteors. Rocks were in space

If Russel went further to say that the rocks had a special function, he would have been debunked so quick because then, he is entering a proper scientific realm in Astronomy. A rock that has a special function can easily be provable or disprovable



However, Russels teapot highlights the dishonesty among theists. They pick characteristics that would make their god disprovable. Invisble, metaphysical and the explanation of anything unexplainable.

Can you disprove the celestial teapot? no.

Lol, enter illogicboy, perhaps you should stick to what the argument is about and understand the difference between when something is used as a metaphor to explain a point and the point itself

Mr_Anony:
Lol, enter illogicboy, perhaps you should stick to what the argument is about and understand the difference between when something is used as a metaphor to explain a point and the point itself

the words of a debunked man

Mr_Anony:

[size=14pt]Part 3[/size]

Now about God. . . . .
Remember that Dudugirl's argument (and mine also) is that God is the ultimate creator of all things and the explanation for existence.

Now whenever we see order, we infer an intelligence and we immediately seek one who gives order. When we look at the universe and nature and ourselves, we see order and a very sophisticated intelligence because of this, we infer that there must be an intelligent designer that gives order. It is even more fascinating when we find out that the universe has not always existed but has a beginning. This tells us that whatever made the universe to begin must itself not be subject to the laws within the universe i.e. it is eternal and of immense power.

Note that unlike russell's teapot, this entity is both plausible and necessary. To not believe that such an entity exists, one must believe something more sufficient that better explains what it is out to explain.

Now, when wiegraf was asked. "How do you explain your existence?" he replied "I don't".

This immediately tells me that he doesn't reject God based on reason, he only rejects God based personal bias (i.e. he finds the idea of God to be absurd). If he had a reason to reject God, he would have provided it.

As I have shown earlier, you cannot disbelieve in a vacuum. It is either you hold unto an incompatible belief which you ought to state and then we can weigh it's merits ........or you are just being irrational.

Basically, this is where you and your apologetic cohorts get it completely wrong.

There is no order in the universe!!The order you see is an illusion. We perceive order because our brains are programmed to see order. How difficult is it for you guys to get? I can go on and list all the reasons to show disorder in the universe and even ourselves as human beings but I'm frankly tired of reposting myself on this forum.

Area_boy:

You make a basic mistake here in your rebuttal analogy. Using a flying man that actually did achieve flight by some method (whatever method) is completely different in believing in something/someone with no iota of evidence. The act of flying alone gives him evidence to support his claim.

If a man comes to claim he can fly and then leaps up into the sky and starts flying, he then as achieved his claim. The onus is now on me to disprove his flying as some sort of trickery. All forms of traditional logic will be suspended for the moment until I/we can prove that he has faked it in some way.

Using this analogy for the defence of a god is a major failure cos your god has been giving immunity from provability by you guys.

You should really read my argument in full.

The evidence provided for God is creation itself. I would like you to note that in matters of evidence, evidence is only as valuable as it's explanation. I.e. a fact is only evidence depending on how it is read.

I look at the intelligence in the universe and say that it is evidence of an intelligent being, you look at the same universe and say that it is not.
The question now arises: How else do you explain the intelligent order of the universe?

Edit: Never mind, I have just seen your explanation.

MacDaddy01:
the words of a debunked man

Not really, you just didn't provide a rebuttal worthy of an intelligent reply

Mr_Anony:

You should really read my argument in full.

The evidence provided for God is creation itself. I would like you to note that in matters of evidence, evidence is only as valuable as it's explanation. I.e. a fact is only evidence depending on how it is read.

I look at the intelligence in the universe and say that it is evidence of an intelligent being, you look at the same universe and say that it is not.
The question now arises: How else do you explain the intelligent order of the universe?

Creation?


The earth is evidence of a formed solar system

Humans are evidence of evolution. We are transitional fossils ourselves. We are evolving.

There is no evidence for your god. Why do you call it faith if there was evidence?


Anony, you lose

Area_boy:

Basically, this is where you and your apologetic cohorts get it completely wrong.

There is no order in the universe!!The order you see is an illusion. We perceive order because our brains are programmed to see order. How difficult is it for you guys to get? I can go on and list all the reasons to show disorder in the universe and even ourselves as human beings but I'm frankly tired of reposting myself on this forum.

According to you, everything is an illusion and we percieve order because our brains are programmed to see order.

two questions for you,

How are our brains programmed if there is no order to be programmed to or programmed from?
Being a part of the illusion yourself, how can you know for sure that you are perceiving an illusion?

Mr_Anony:

You should really read my argument in full.

The evidence provided for God is creation itself. I would like you to note that in matters of evidence, evidence is only as valuable as it's explanation. I.e. a fact is only evidence depending on how it is read.

I look at the intelligence in the universe and say that it is evidence of an intelligent being, you look at the same universe and say that it is not.
The question now arises: How else do you explain the intelligent order of the universe?

Edit: Never mind, I have just seen your explanation.

Evidence for what we see around is evidence for the environment. . .Its funny how when religious people talk to them selves they use things like miracles and answered prayers as evidence of god in their lives, when aruing with atheist they quickly abandon that cause and start with the god is the creator of all things. . .Mr anony assuming the universe has a creator pls what is your evidence to show that the entire universe was created by one entity alone, that speaks the human language and wants people to worship it? Go ahead and show it with credible evidence, if you point to the mythical writings of ancient men then be prepared to me ridiculed and mocked for not knowing what you are talking about. . .

MacDaddy01:
Creation?
The earth is evidence of a formed solar system
Humans are evidence of evolution. We are transitional fossils ourselves. We are evolving.
There is no evidence for your god. Why do you call it faith if there was evidence?
Anony, you lose

Lol, of course you chant your mantra and proclaim victory, nothing new there.

The question posed by me was: How do you explain the intelligent order of the universe?

Please be so nice as to answer it.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, of course you chant your mantra and proclaim victory, nothing new there.

The question posed by me was: How do you explain the intelligent order of the universe?

Please be so nice as to answer it.

Intelligent order is the workings of nature which is constantly manifest and evolving..

mazaje:

Evidence for what we see around is evidence for the environment. . .Its funny how when religious people talk to them selves they use things like miracles and answered prayers as evidence of god in their lives, when aruing with atheist they quickly abandon that cause and start with the god is the creator of all things. . .Mr anony assuming the universe has a creator pls what is your evidence to show that the entire universe was created by one entity alone, that speaks the human language and wants people to worship it? Go ahead and show it with credible evidence, if you point to the mythical writings of ancient men then be prepared to me ridiculed and mocked for not knowing what you are talking about. . .

This is good, Anony is getting hammered left, right and center.


The beginning of the end. I always said it, your escape tactics will come to an end whenatheists stop playing nice. Even houdini could not escape from a buried coffin 6 foot deep.