Pastor Kun:

This one na Jamb kwesun ooo!

@frosbel why are you trying to kill ants with a sledge hammer

I agree with the ants part , but if we can explain in great detail our beliefs, theories and evidence, surely they owe us the same favor.

Unfortunately most of them are confused and do not have a clue what they stand for.

frosbel: Some more questions for our atheists in Nairaland :


1. Does the universe have a beginning that requires a cause? If so, what was this cause?

2. Is materialistic determinism compatible with the intrinsically probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics?

3. How do you account for the physical parameters of the universe (the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, the mass and charge of a proton, etc.) being finely tuned for the existence of stars, planets, and life?

4. Why is the human mind naturally fluent in the language of mathematics, and how do you explain the eerie, seemingly unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the laws of nature?

5. Do you believe that DNA repair mechanisms, catalytically perfect enzymes, and phenomena such as substrate channeling are best explained by naturalism? If so, why are rational human scientists and engineers so woefully incapable of imitating the precision and complexity of cellular machinery that (presumably) arose via strictly irrational processes?

Source

1. Not necessarily. Proof needed.

2. The macro world being deterministic is debatable.

3. Finely tuned? You are begging the question. Given the chaos present in the universe, I can't go along with the notion of finely tuned.

4. Evolution has given man the ability to do high level math. And math is not 'unreasonably effective'. It is very reasonable. Once again you are begging the question.

5. Yes I do believe that naturalism explains these concepts. Just because science has not done such yet does not mean it will never be done.

If you want to say that I have 'faith' in science, I accept that, but only because science begins with the idea that it is capable of being proven wrong and self-correcting, unlike certain other beliefs which supposedly are eternal.

[quote author=onetrack]

1. Not necessarily. Proof needed.

blind faith then .

2. The macro world being deterministic is debatable.

Expatiate on why this is the case.

3. Finely tuned? You are begging the question. Given the chaos present in the universe, I can't go along with the notion of finely tuned.

what notion do you go along with ?

4. Evolution has given man the ability to do high level math. And math is not 'unreasonably effective'. It is very reasonable. Once again you are begging the question.

Describe how evolution gave man the ability to do high level math.

Describe reason and explain how MAN developed the concept of reasoning in his social interactions and productive activities.

5. Yes I do believe that naturalism explains these concepts. Just because science has not done such yet does not mean it will never be done.

So science has not done such, hmm, but they have been trying to do this for not a few millennia, how come we have no concrete proofs/results thus far.

If you want to say that I have 'faith' in science, I accept that, but only because science begins with the idea that it is capable of being proven wrong and self-correcting, unlike certain other beliefs which supposedly are eternal.

But it is still based on assumption and guess work , no ?

onetrack:

1. Not necessarily. Proof needed.

2. The macro world being deterministic is debatable.

3. Finely tuned? You are begging the question. Given the chaos present in the universe, I can't go along with the notion of finely tuned.

4. Evolution has given man the ability to do high level math. And math is not 'unreasonably effective'. It is very reasonable. Once again you are begging the question.

5. Yes I do believe that naturalism explains these concepts. Just because science has not done such yet does not mean it will never be done.

If you want to say that I have 'faith' in science, I accept that, but only because science begins with the idea that it is capable of being proven wrong and self-correcting, unlike certain other beliefs which supposedly are eternal.

What's the meaning of this?

cyrexx:


Okay,

we accept that intelligent design wins, now stand by for details here below...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6arhd4Kq1cI

I have correct the link error, you can now check it..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6arhd4Kq1cI

F00028:

so how do those unbelieving atheists think we got here then?

Personally as an Atheist, I don't know but if you tell me you know and quote the bible, then you are an ignorant man that doesn't want to learn about the unknown.

frosbel:
1. how did the process of evolution start ?
2. What is the initiating force behind the process of evolution
3. If human processes have a designer, why not evolution, why would something as organised as evolution not have an intelligent mind behind it.

1. If you are referring to the origin of life, no one knows. There are tonnes of ideas floating around without overwhelming evidence to support it (this includes you are your yaweh idea)

2. You cant keep asking me about evolution when you simply wouldn't read it for yourself.

3. I don't know where you learn your science from . In mathematics, what you are trying to say is If A=B, then C must be = B? (when you obviously ignore the fact that there is no link between C and A). Again, when you attribute organisation to evolution, it still exposes you as having no idea what it is.


I don't know why you cant get it in your head. Evolution is NOT the problem (there is overwhelming evidence to support it), rather the only problem is the origin of life itself. Accept evolution today and live a happier life

Area_boy:


1. If you are referring to the origin of life, no one knows. There are tonnes of ideas floating around without overwhelming evidence to support it (this includes you are your yaweh idea)

2. You cant keep asking me about evolution when you simply wouldn't read it for yourself.

3. I don't know where you learn your science from . In mathematics, what you are trying to say is If A=B, then C must be = B? (when you obviously ignore the fact that there is no link between C and A). Again, when you attribute organisation to evolution, it still exposes you as having no idea what it is.


I don't know why you cant get it in your head. Evolution is NOT the problem (there is overwhelming evidence to support it), rather the only problem is the origin of life itself. Accept evolution today and live a happier life

Like I predicted. Shift or come with something better.

Reyginus: Like I predicted. Shift or come with something better.

Go troll somewhere else

Reyginus: Like I predicted. Shift or come with something better.

see the video Cyrexx posted.. we give up!! you guys win

Logicboy03:

Go troll somewhere else

Are you afraid of me or what? I want to know why you try as much as possible to avoid me in any thread.

Area_boy:

see the video Cyrexx posted.. we give up!! you guys win

You're giving up on a battle that is yet to commence. How brave of you. Btw, I can't watch the video.

Area_boy:

see the video Cyrexx posted.. we give up!! you guys win

.....and what was the point of cyrexx's video again? lol, you guys just make me laugh

Reyginus: You're giving up on a battle that is yet to commence. How brave of you. Btw, I can't watch the video.

watch the video first before you start talking. It addresses the answers you demand.

.

cyrexx:


watch the video first before you start talking. It addresses the answers you demand.

Lol. I'm on mobile. 5530 if you care.

onetrack:

1. Not necessarily. Proof needed.

How so? Would you mind telling us about anything that began to exist but was not caused to exist?

2. The macro world being deterministic is debatable.

Again, how so?

3. Finely tuned? You are begging the question. Given the chaos present in the universe, I can't go along with the notion of finely tuned.

Given the chaos in the universe? Hmm, how come you are able to tell chaos and precision apart? Could it just be that there is an inferred order of how things are supposed to work that allows you to do so?

4. Evolution has given man the ability to do high level math. And math is not 'unreasonably effective'. It is very reasonable. Once again you are begging the question.

Evolution is merely change over time. It gives nothing. At best you can say that man's math ability evolved (changed) over time but this will not explain why mathematics explains natural laws because mathematics would still explain natural laws even if man's mind could not comprehend it. How come of all the ways man's mind could have changed, it changed into one able to do high level mathematics.

5. Yes I do believe that naturalism explains these concepts. Just because science has not done such yet does not mean it will never be done.

This is blind faith in what you don't know yet.

If you want to say that I have 'faith' in science, I accept that, but only because science begins with the idea that it is capable of being proven wrong and self-correcting, unlike certain other beliefs which supposedly are eternal.

It is actually illogical to have faith in doubt (which is what science is: a system of doubting and testing) however, it is a good idea to logically and scientifically test your premises rather than just dogmatically believe what so called "scientists" say.

frosbel:

I agree with the ants part , [b]but if we can explain in great detail our beliefs, theories and evidence, [/b]surely they owe us the same favor.

Unfortunately most of them are confused and do not have a clue what they stand for.

Don't be a liar Frosbel. You have not explained anything.
I asked you some simple questions about your beliefs and you ran away and never answered them.

let me repeat them here.

1. Describe how the universe was created in 7 days, with evidence , if any.

2. How was the sun created on the third day when we all know that the sun appearance is measure of day and night? How were the first two days noted without the sun , which was created on the third day?

3. Can you show us any evidence that a snake had the anatomic structures required to articulate vocal speech?

4. And lastly, since you cited the Neanderthal man earlier, to support your own arguments, I assume that you accept that they existed.
If so, did they exist before or after Adam and Eve?

I warn you, dont run away from me this time. You have done it twice already.
I am waiting.

This notion that an atheist must have all the answers is grossly silly.
Are you not giving far too much credit to atheists by insisting that they should provide you with clear answers to questions in quantum physics?.
Why do you think an atheist owes you that?
Are you not assuming that all atheist must be highly educated, high IQ scientists?
Is that a kind of requirement for taking an atheistic viewpoint?

So an ordinary lay person, cannot and should not adopt an atheistic viewpoint unless that person is sufficiently schooled in molecular biology as well as quantum physics?

All these questions that frosbel has posed to atheist, if the answers are "I dont know", can Frosbel himself offer us detailed scientific explainations on all the same issues he raised?

And all this is supposed to prove that.... god did what?

plaetton: This notion that an atheist must have all the answers is grossly silly.
Are you not giving far too much credit to atheists by insisting that they should provide you with clear answers to questions in quantum physics?.
Why do you think an atheist owes you that?
Are you not assuming that all atheist must be highly educated, high IQ scientists?
Is that a kind of requirement for taking an atheistic viewpoint?

So an ordinary lay person, cannot and should not adopt an atheistic viewpoint unless that person is sufficiently schooled in molecular biology as well as quantum physics?

All these questions that frosbel has posed to atheist, if the answers are "I dont know", can Frosbel himself offer us detailed scientific explainations on all the same issues he raised?

And all this is supposed to prove that.... god did what?

Same thing Anony is doing and the same thing I told him......is there a memo going around christians?


https://www.nairaland.com/1165701/laymans-question-multiverse-theory

Logicboy03: Thank god for this thread........


More and more threads have come up showing that christians have a fundamental misunderstanding and dislike for atheism;

atheism = science.




Furthermore, the moment science cant explain something, atheism is false and God is real (argument from ignorance). This is where the dubious christian comes ine.



Knowing that the multiverse theory is only a hypothesis with many versions, the dubious christian comes in and asks a question that has no solid answer. What sane reason could we give for asking such a question?



Should this question be here or in the science/technology section?

plaetton: This notion that an atheist must have all the answers is grossly silly.
Are you not giving far too much credit to atheists by insisting that they should provide you with clear answers to questions in quantum physics?.
Why do you think an atheist owes you that?
Are you not assuming that all atheist must be highly educated, high IQ scientists?
Is that a kind of requirement for taking an atheistic viewpoint?

So an ordinary lay person, cannot and should not adopt an atheistic viewpoint unless that person is sufficiently schooled in molecular biology as well as quantum physics?

All these questions that frosbel has posed to atheist, if the answers are "I dont know", can Frosbel himself offer us detailed scientific explainations on all the same issues he raised?

And all this is supposed to prove that.... god did what?

I will agree with you that it is silly to demand scientific answers from an atheist for why he/she rejects God's existence as long as you also agree that it is equally silly for an atheist cite scientific reasons for his/her claim that God does not exist.

If science led you to disbelief, then you must be able to give scientific answers to theist questions for which God is the answer e.g. "what is the cause of the universe?".. Failure to do this would suggest that you don't really have good scientific reasons to disbelieve.

Mr_Anony:

If science led you to disbelief, then you must be able to give scientific answers to theist questions for which God is the answer e.g. "what is the cause of the universe?".. Failure to do this would suggest that you don't really have good scientific reasons to disbelieve.

They are too dishonest to accept the quoted , for while they accuse others of possessing 'blind faith' , they actually practice an even blinder form of faith in unproven theories, wishy-washy hypotheses and wild assumptions.

frosbel:

well who did it ?

You keep dodging my questions.

Your questions are actually irrelevant. The ignorance of the answers does not suggest God.

frosbel:

They are too dishonest to accept the quoted , for while they accuse others of possessing 'blind faith' , they actually practice an even blinder form of faith in unproven theories, wishy-washy hypotheses and wild assumptions.

you are still running away from Plaetton's questions

plaetton:

Don't be a liar Frosbel. You have not explained anything.
I asked you some simple questions about your beliefs and you ran away and never answered them.

let me repeat them here.

1. Describe how the universe was created in 7 days, with evidence , if any.

2. How was the sun created on the third day when we all know that the sun appearance is measure of day and night? How were the first two days noted without the sun , which was created on the third day?

3. Can you show us any evidence that a snake had the anatomic structures required to articulate vocal speech?

4. And lastly, since you cited the Neanderthal man earlier, to support your own arguments, I assume that you accept that they existed.
If so, did they exist before or after Adam and Eve?

I warn you, dont run away from me this time. You have done it twice already.
I am waiting.

Mr_Anony:
I will agree with you that it is silly to demand scientific answers from an atheist for why he/she rejects God's existence as long as you also agree that it is equally silly for an atheist cite scientific reasons for his/her claim that God does not exist.

If science led you to disbelief, then you must be able to give scientific answers to theist questions for which God is the answer e.g. "what is the cause of the universe?".. Failure to do this would suggest that you don't really have good scientific reasons to disbelieve.

Ah, the dubious apologist enters!

The problem here is simple. Evolution/big bang are problematic for faith in God. Now does one need to know everything about evolution and the big bang to see the problems with science and faith? No!


So why then not focus on the fundamental underlying principles of these theories that relate to faith...rather than asking for the whole detailed origin of man (500 pages worth of detail asked by the pharisee Frosbel) or the multiverse hypothesis which cant be used against god or religion because it is a guess.



Furthermore, questions that make no sense or are dubious by dubious christians like Anony and Frosbel#

- Why is the human mind naturally fluent in the language of mathematics, and how do you explain the eerie, seemingly unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the laws of nature?


^^^^

really? eerie, seemingly unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics? Wow, what a foolish loaded phrase there!

Mr_Anony:
If science led you to disbelief, then you must be able to give scientific answers to theist questions for which God is the answer e.g. "what is the cause of the universe?".. Failure to do this would suggest that you don't really have good scientific reasons to disbelieve.

who say science is what lead to unbelief? The Bible is enough to lead to unbelief.

I doubt if you have ever read the entire bible for yourself. You only cherry pick some parts and ignore the rest. Read it entirely and read it properly...

And this is the one of the fairy tale from the book they believe over scientific facts.

These christians are indeed funny

Logicboy03:



Ah, the dubious apologist enters!

The problem here is simple. Evolution/big bang are problematic for faith in God. Now does one need to know everything about evolution and the big bang to see the problems with science and faith? No!


So why then not focus on the fundamental underlying principles of these theories that relate to faith...rather than asking for the whole detailed origin of man (500 pages worth of detail asked by the pharisee Frosbel) or the multiverse hypothesis which cant be used against god or religion because it is a guess.



Furthermore, questions that make no sense or are dubious by dubious christians like Anony and Frosbel#

- Why is the human mind naturally fluent in the language of mathematics, and how do you explain the eerie, seemingly unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the laws of nature?


^^^^

really? eerie, seemingly unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics? Wow, what a foolish loaded phrase there!

Lol I am not surprised, it has become a habit for you to call people "dubious" whenever they questions that you find difficult.

The problem here is simple. Evolution/big slam are problematic for faith in God. Now does one need to know everything about evolution and the big slam to see the problems with science and faith? No!

I would like to know exactly how the big bang & evolution theories suggest that there is no God.

cyrexx:

who say science is what lead to unbelief? The Bible is enough to lead to unbelief.

I doubt if you have ever read the entire bible for yourself. You only cherry pick some parts and ignore the rest. Read it entirely and read it properly...

Actually, I have read the entire bible and it surely didn't lead me to unbelief so what exactly is your point?

By "read it properly", do you mean "actively search for something to help you not believe"?

Mr_Anony:
Actually, I have read the entire bible and it surely didn't lead me to unbelief so what exactly is your point?

By "read it properly", do you mean "actively search for something to help you not believe"?

LOL,

you dont need to search for you to find so many unbelievably absurd claims contained therein, like the questions Plaetton earlier raised that you and frosbel are running away from.

You and your fellows are just good at turning blind eye to the unbelievable absurdities and bulls.h.it. contained therein..

Mr_Anony:


I would like to know exactly how the big bang & evolution theories suggest that there is no God.

First off, I said that they were problematic for faith in God and not that they suggest that there is no God;

Logicboy03:

The problem here is simple. Evolution/big bang are problematic for faith in God. Now does one need to know everything about evolution and the big bang to see the problems with science and faith? No!

The big bang and evolution say nothing God themselves. It is theists that want to hang their God on the big bang and evolution but many atheists and scientists tell the theists that these theories are not compatible with their definitions of God.


Evolution;
God cant create man straight from dirt/mud/water if man evolved from other animals.


The big bang;
-If the big bang is the beginning of time and space, how can God exist? He would have to exist beyond time and space but time and space define existence as far as we know.

Mr_Anony:
Actually, I have read the entire bible and it surely didn't lead me to unbelief so what exactly is your point?

By "read it properly", do you mean "actively search for something to help you not believe"?

The beginning of the bible is already problematic. "let there be light and there was light". The sun created in 4 seconds rather than the thousands of years for our solar system to develop