thehomer:



Before I leave you, you may want to try reviewing my argument and this thread maybe after a few weeks. Hopefully, you'd have gained some perspective. Oh and please avoid logical fallacies and self contradiction whenever you wish to come back.

Says the Master of Ignorance and Contradiction.

YOU may want to review everything said on this forum on this matter when you are 80 years old. Hopefully, you would have gained some perspective.

thehomer: This is the exact reason why I say you don't know the difference between logical possibilities and physical possibilities.

You're just misusing words left and right. I didn't agree that they can differ, I agreed that it is logically possible that they could be different. This doesn't mean it is physically possible. I don't know how else to tell you that you don't know what you're saying. How can it be moot when you're saying what you're saying?

Lololol, you keep claiming that I don't understand the difference between physical and logical possibilities. You would do well to define them both and point out the difference between the two in your own words.

Explain what you mean by existence. E = mc² is measured. The things being measured there are energy, mass and the speed of light. How do we measure your 2 and four?

Not so fast my friend you said that you can measure the law itself. Please show us the measurement of the physical law.
It is the relationship between energy, mass and the speed of light that you claimed could be measured or are you saying that such a relationship does not exist?

The mass being referred to in that equation has a cubic volume and I'm sure you know it can be measured.

How can the cubic volume of E=mc² be measured? I'd like to here you tell me.

Hmm you're projecting already.

Hahahaha, nah, I'm only pointing out your frustration. You have proved a good source of amusement so far.

Wow. This is another reason why I say you don't know what you're talking about. What is the conclusion of my argument?

Lol, it's your argument why don't you tell me.

Secondly, you've successfully placed your in the category of numbers. Since numbers don't cause anything, your God doesn't cause anything. Well done.

Hahahahahaha, you are really getting desperate. Not everything that exists has causal ability. The question of causality and existence are two separate questions. Another poor attempt at throwing out a red herring. But sorry once again, I've already had breakfast.

Deep Sight:

Says the Master of Ignorance and Contradiction.

YOU may want to review everything said on this forum on this matter when you are 80 years old. Hopefully, you would have gained some perspective.

Hey welcome back to the adult table. You're welcome to lay out your argument if you have one. Otherwise, just wander away.

Deep Sight:

Says the Master of Ignorance and Contradiction.

YOU may want to review everything said on this forum on this matter when you are 80 years old. Hopefully, you would have gained some perspective.

thehomer:
Not really. You just continued in your confusion.



Yes. The specific complexity. I wonder what the specific complexity of information the sun, viruses, vacuum, sand, water, electrons, the moon and black-holes point to.

Lololol, I wonder how this addresses the point that specific complexity is evidence for design.

Nah. Maybe you will but it is more likely that you've lost your way. Let me know when you're on the right track by answering clearly.

Yawn

Err the moon is a part of the universe isn't it?

Of course it is just like a brick is part of a house. Yet one doesn't need to prove that a brick is designed in order to prove that a house is designed

Nice to see you're well fed. Though the arbitrary God you presented isn't doing so well though.

Lololol, thehomer's rule book: when your red herring fails, try, try again

Again, you have no idea what you're doing. You've made two different arguments.
1. The universe is designed.
2. It's constituent parts are designed (code for your own phrase that you quote-mined).

What I just quoted you as saying above is different from your own two points I just clearly listed which weren't fallacious. It in fact is a text book example of the fallacy of composition because if you take everything in the universe to be designed, it doesn't actually follow that the universe itself was designed.

I made argument(1), argument(2) is your strawman.

No I'm not. My argument is on the first page of the thread. I simply asked how you knew it was designed and you plead ignorance and that some parts of the universe weren't designed while at the same time, everything in the universe was designed. That is a logical contradiction that kills your entire line of reasoning.

...and I told you over and over again that I inferred design because it consisted of components that worked according to a specific set of instructions. What you did next was to zealously beat up your straw man.

You don't know whether or not everything in the universe is designed, you don't know that they all work according to what you're saying and you accuse me of a strawman after quote-mining yourself? Sheesh.

Have you been paying any attention at all?

Anyway, since you're unable to show where your argument is going, I see no need to continue with you on this thread. When you become scared of answering direct questions because you're afraid of the concessions it implies that you've made, then it appears to me that you're no longer in the discussion to actually review ideas.

When you have these issues clarified in your mind, just let me know so I can show you where you've gone wrong as usual. My initial argument still awaits your serious response to any of the premises.

Before I leave you, you may want to try reviewing my argument and this thread maybe after a few weeks. Hopefully, you'd have gained some perspective. Oh and please avoid logical fallacies and self contradiction whenever you wish to come back.

Happy reading.

C'mon now don't run away, I'm not done playing with you yet. Don't be such a coward.

Lolololol, You asked for God to be shown to you then proceeded to pluck out your eyes and then vehemently reject eye replacement surgery.

The argument proposed in this thread of yours has been comprehensively refuted. You might want to come back after a few years and go through the arguments again. Hopefully you would have gained some intellectual maturity . . . .or better you would have grown an honest bone in your body by then.

Ah, some things (and people) never change!

Oh, and intellectual dishonesty (and/or chicanery) is still a most terrible disease.

I enjoyed this thread to certain point being someone in between (atheism & theism)till the parties started going round and round in circles like sheep without shepherd.

Left with no option but to agree with the below postulations

striktlymi:


I am so not taking this thread to the 15th page.

https://www.nairaland.com/1312454/argument-against-reasonable-knowledge-god#16057919

striktlymi:


Enjoy your thread o! I don comot! This ya plan to take this thread to the 15th page shall not work.

https://www.nairaland.com/1312454/argument-against-reasonable-knowledge-god/1#16063103

striktlymi:

That is exactly where this is heading if we continue the 'merry-go-round'.



I have done that but you decided not to see the points I have raised. Judging by your last response I am beginning to think that you might be doing this deliberately, though I might be wrong.

https://www.nairaland.com/1312454/argument-against-reasonable-knowledge-god#16058966

I'm believing parties wouldn't drag this thread unnecessarily

davodyguy: I enjoyed this thread to certain point being someone in between (atheism & theism)till the parties started going round and round in circles like sheep without shepherd.

Left with no option but to agree with the below postulations

https://www.nairaland.com/1312454/argument-against-reasonable-knowledge-god#16057919

https://www.nairaland.com/1312454/argument-against-reasonable-knowledge-god/1#16063103

https://www.nairaland.com/1312454/argument-against-reasonable-knowledge-god#16058966

I'm believing parties wouldn't drag this thread unnecessarily

Do you believe it's the fault of both parties ? What do you think are the best arguments for atheism ?

ok,so this is my first post on NL,although I joined a month back. Was going through thehomer profile and found out he really wants to disprove the existence of God almighty,dude,u are most probably older than me,so I'll try to be polite. STOP HARRASING US. If you don't blive and refuse to blive then plzzz stop all d arguments,u shudnt force your opinion on us Religious people(Christianity aint a religion though) same applies to the Christians in here,even Jesus said if you arnt welcome,dust your feet and leave,not try and force it down on em.The last day shall reveal it all. тнαηχ!

destiny said: ok,so this is my first post on NL,although I joined a month back. Was going through thehomer profile and found out he really wants to disprove the existence of God almighty,dude,u are most probably older than me,so I'll try to be polite. STOP HARRASING US. If you don't blive and refuse to blive then plzzz stop all d arguments,u shudnt force your opinion on us Religious people(Christianity aint a religion though) same applies to the Christians in here,even Jesus said if you arnt welcome,dust your feet and leave,not try and force it down on em.The last day shall reveal it all. тнαηχ!

Who is this punk? You pop up on a thread I created to tell me not to harass you? If you were feeling harassed, why did you bother going through my profile? If you're not a child, how can I force my opinion on you?

The last day has been running away for centuries now and will continue running.

Mr anony:
Lololol, you keep claiming that I don't understand the difference between physical and logical possibilities. You would do well to define them both and point out the difference between the two in your own words.



Not so fast my friend you said that you can measure the law itself. Please show us the measurement of the physical law.
It is the relationship between energy, mass and the speed of light that you claimed could be measured or are you saying that such a relationship does not exist?



How can the cubic volume of E=mc² be measured? I'd like to here you tell me.


Hahahaha, nah, I'm only pointing out your frustration. You have proved a good source of amusement so far.


Lol, it's your argument why don't you tell me.


Hahahahahaha, you are really getting desperate. Not everything that exists has causal ability. The question of causality and existence are two separate questions. Another poor attempt at throwing out a red herring. But sorry once again, I've already had breakfast.

Saved.

Mr anony:
Lololol, I wonder how this addresses the point that specific complexity is evidence for design.


Yawn


Of course it is just like a brick is part of a house. Yet one doesn't need to prove that a brick is designed in order to prove that a house is designed


Lololol, thehomer's rule book: when your red herring fails, try, try again




I made argument(1), argument(2) is your strawman.



...and I told you over and over again that I inferred design because it consisted of components that worked according to a specific set of instructions. What you did next was to zealously beat up your straw man.




Have you been paying any attention at all?


C'mon now don't run away, I'm not done playing with you yet. Don't be such a coward.

Lolololol, You asked for God to be shown to you then proceeded to pluck out your eyes and then vehemently reject eye replacement surgery.

The argument proposed in this thread of yours has been comprehensively refuted. You might want to come back after a few years and go through the arguments again. Hopefully you would have gained some intellectual maturity . . . .or better you would have grown an honest bone in your body by then.

Saved.