Uyi Iredia:

Obversion is a well-known fact of logic. By obversion any affirmative statement can be asserted negatively. Example: logicboy is a fool. Its obverse: logicboy is not an unfoolish person. Now let's see if your obversion of the proposition that:

Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.

is correct.

The obverse is

Atheism is not the belief (the disbelief) that God exists.

logicboy states: "Atheism is not the belief that God does not exist." Put obversely: "Atheism is the belief that God exists."

Clearly, the positive obverse of logicboy's FALSE statement contradicts the previous and valid definition of atheism and its obverse. The right thing for him to say is: Atheism is not the belief that God exists. Trying to state otherwise via logicboyism has made him contradict his sorry a$$.

Wallow in your logicboyism my dear friend, wallow in it.

i'm almost sure logicboy didnt mean it

Uyi Iredia:

Obversion is a well-known fact of logic. By obversion any affirmative statement can be asserted negatively. Example: logicboy is a fool. Its obverse: logicboy is not an unfoolish person. Now let's see if your obversion of the proposition that:

Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.

is correct.

The obverse is

Atheism is not the belief (the disbelief) that God exists.

logicboy states: "Atheism is not the belief that God does not exist." Put obversely: "Atheism is the belief that God exists."

Clearly, the positive obverse of logicboy's FALSE statement contradicts the previous and valid definition of atheism and its obverse. The right thing for him to say is: Atheism is not the belief that God exists. Trying to state otherwise via logicboyism has made him contradict his sorry a$$.

Wallow in your logicboyism my dear friend, wallow in it.

double negative.

There is a reason we do not use double negative in grammar.

A belief requires a faith in something.

You dont believe in a negative. Atheism is not a belief.

Deep Sight:

Not only is this remarkably foollish, it is also a blatant lie.

Oya, go ahead and explain how and why the big b.ang occurred.

Ignorance is a disease.

Have you seen any scientific paper on the big bang or evolution containing the word "God"?

Silly old man

Logicboy03:

double negative.

There is a reason we do not use double negative in grammar.

A belief requires a faith in something.

You dont believe in a negative. Atheism is not a belief.

Why is it hard for you to accept your mistake ? I just showed you the illogic behind your statement and you bring in a red herring. You do believe in a negative, and as my post shows, any negative can be positively stated. eg Tolu does not believe in fairies = Tolu believes there are no fairies.

Uyi Iredia:

Why is it hard for you to accept your mistake ? I just showed you the illogic behind your statement and you bring in a red herring. You do believe in a negative, and as my post shows, any negative can be positively stated. eg Tolu does not believe in fairies = Tolu believes there are no fairies.

Go back to school bro!

Tolu does not believe in fairies = Tolu has a disbelief in fairies.


A disbelief is not a belief in reverse.


You forget that grammar does not always follow logic


Tolu does not have money = Tolu has no money

Is it literally possible to actually have zero Naira? To hold no money? Think about it- do you actually hold zero naira the same way you hold 5 naira in your hand?

You're good I admit. Wallow in your logicboyism. Twisting logic is your forte.

You guys kill me. I think you just like to argue...I love it. Whenever I see any of these monikers, I'm in! Ya'll are fun to follow. LOLz I may have to stop though. I find myself picking everyone's posts apart in my head, and have to stop myself from dissecting it and regurgitating it back at them. No offense. I truly enjoy the debate.

texanomaly: You guys kill me. I think you just like to argue...I love it. Whenever I see any of these monikers, I'm in! Ya'll are fun to follow. LOLz I may have to stop though. I find myself picking everyone's posts apart in my head, and have to stop myself from dissecting it and regurgitating it back at them. No offense. I truly enjoy the debate.

@Texanomaly, just saw this book and thought you might like it. Its titled Dad is Fat by Jim Gaffigan. The dude is funny, thought I should share..

BTW, nice picture though. Are you sure you're a Nigerian?

Would be back on this topic soon.

druid06:

@Texanomaly, just saw this book and thought you might like it. Its titled Dad is Fat by Jim Gaffigan. The dude is funny, thought I should share..

BTW, nice picture though. Are you sure you're a Nigerian?

Would be back on this topic soon.

Thanks, I'll check it out. I'm not Nigerian btw.

Logicboy03:

Ignorance is a disease.

Have you seen any scientific paper on the big bang or evolution containing the word "God"?

Silly old man

Dishonesty is a disease.

You claimed that science fully explains the big ban.g and evolution without the need for a God.

Fact is, Science does not explain the Big b.ang without the need for a God.

Because, science does not explain how or why the big b.ang occurred.

If it does, please man up and show me the explanation. A link will suffice.

You are either a pathological liar or just plain ignorant of what you discuss.

[Post Edited]

Deep Sight:

Dishonesty is a disease.

You claimed that science fully explains the big ban.g and evolution without the need for a God.

Fact is, Science does not explain the Big b.ang and evolution without the need for a God.

Because, science does not explain how or why the big b.ang occurred, or how or why first life occurred.

You are either a pathological liar or just plain ignorant of what you discuss.

You are really silly. Where do God and science meet?


1) Science explains how the big bang occured by retracing an expansion of the universe.
2) Evolution is not about the first life


And most importantly;
Just because science doesnt explain something, it means that it needs God? How silly

Uyi Iredia: You're good I admit. Wallow in your logicboyism. Twisting logic is your forte.

Wow, I know. I have always been to intelligent for you.

Logicboy03:




You are really silly. Where do God and science meet?


1) Science explains how the big bang occured by retracing an expansion of the universe.

Show me, just show me. A link will suffice.

Besides, I did not just say how, I also said why. Science does not explain this.

2) Evolution is not about the first life

I know that, and knew that you would raise that, and in fact was editing my post in that regard when you responded.

But you must know that when talking about the origin of things, you cannot then throw in evolution since it is not about first life!

When you throw in evolution in such a discussion, then I am entitled to point out that evolution does not explain first life!

And most importantly;
Just because science doesnt explain something, it means that it needs God? How silly

O no, I did not say that: i simply pointed out that it is wrong to say that science explains it: it does not!

NB: Previous post edited.

Deep Sight:

Show me, just show me. A link will suffice.

Besides, I did not just say how, I also said why. Science does not explain this.



I know that, and knew that you would raise that, and in fact was editing my post in that regard when you responded.

But you must know that when talking about the origin of things, you cannot then throw in evolution since it is not about first life!

When you throw in evolution in such a discussion, then I am entitled to point out that evolution does not explain first life!



O no, I did not say that: i simply pointed out that it is wrong to say that science explains it: it does not!

NB: Previous post edited.

You were foaming at the mouth with anger (instead of logic) that is why you had to edit your post. when you calmed down.


I claimed that science explains the big bang and evolution without God. Either my statement is true or false.

You are shifting the argument and I wont indulge you. Is my statement true or false?

@ LB, re: the BB, in showing me how it happened, remember that I speak not just of watching the expansion in reverse: tell me how science explains the dynamics of the pre-existing singularity that therefore caused the expansion: how those dynamics caused the expansion. Thank you.

What you are explaining is the motion of a car from one point to another. You reverse the motion and say that the movement of the wheels explains how the car moved from one point to another. However that misses the question! The question is how the car got powered up and started in the first place. How the batteries got their power. How the ignition was started. That is the question - since we speak about origin.

Show me where science has explained this.

Deep Sight:
@ LB, re: the BB, in showing me how it happened, remember that I speak not just of watching the expansion in reverse: tell me how science explains the dynamics of the pre-existing singularity that therefore caused the expansion: how those dynamics caused the expansion. Thank you.

What you are explaining is the motion of a car from one point to another. You reverse the motion and say that the movement of the wheels explains how the car moved from one point to another. However that misses the question! The question is how the car got powered up and started in the first place. How the batteries got their power. How the ignition was started. That is the question - since we speak about origin.

Show me where science has explained this.

Shifting the argument to hide your silliness.


Science explains the big bang and evolution without God. Yes or no? You have already said "no" then shifted when I exposed your fallacious thinking.



(Just to indulge your deviation, your analogy with a car is foolish. We existed before cars and know the full details of their origin. Evolution and the big bang are more akin to a murder with no witness.....a scientist is working with the evidence backwards from the present to the past)

Logicboy03:


You were foaming at the mouth with anger (instead of logic) that is why you had to edit your post. when you calmed down.


I claimed that science explains the big bang and evolution without God. Either my statement is true or false.

You are shifting the argument and I wont indulge you. Is my statement true or false?

See my above 2 posts. I only edited my post to avoid wasting my time on your mis understanding of how evolution applies to the the first life issue: to wit: you cannot say that science explains evolution without God, when you are discussing the origin of life exactly because evolution does not address the origin of life! But I knew this is something that will take you up till your extreme old age to get your head around, and so I decided to cut it out and focus on the Big B.ang.

Now, you did say that science explains the BB without needing God. Please show me how it does this.

Deep Sight:

See my above 2 posts. I only edited my post to avoid wasting my time on your mis understanding of how evolution applies to the the first life issue: to wit: you cannot say that science explains evolution without God, when you are discussing the origin of life exactly because evolution does not address the origin of life! But I knew this is something that will take you ua till your old age to get your head around, and so I decided to cut it out and focus on the Big B.ang.

Now, you did say that science explains the BB without needing God. Please show me how it does this.

How did you get to know about the big bang in the first place? Scientific articles/journals. Did they mention God?

You dont even see how silly you are. You take somthing from science and claim that your "deist god" explains it better. Did your deist God tell you?

You cant even see the contradiction and foolishness of your stance. You read about the big bang from science who didnt mention God. You then went to put your false narrative that God did the big bang.

Logicboy03:

(Just to indulge your deviation, your analogy with a car is foolish. We existed before cars and know the full details of their origin. Evolution and the big bang are more akin to a murder with no witness.....a scientist is working with the evidence backwards from the present to the past)

This is just an admission that indeed, science does not explain either the how or the why of the Big B.ang!

Now focus: you said the science explains the Big Bang without the need for God.

This implies that scientists know exactly how it occurred and more importantly why it occurred and thus know that there is no need for any external transcendental input in its occurrence.

This is what I say is completely false.

Scientists do not know either how or why it occurred, and so you cannot claim that "science explains the BB without the need for God.'

It does not.

If it does, educate my ignorance and kindly show me where. As I said, a link will suffice.

Deep Sight:

This is just an admission that indeed, science does not explain either the how or the why of the Big B.ang!

Now focus: you said the science explains the Big Bang without the need for God.

This implies that scientists know exactly how it occurred and more importantly why it occurred and thus know that there is no need for any external transcendental input in its occurrence.

This is what I say is completely false.

Scientists do not know either how or why it occurred, and so you cannot claim that "science explains the BB without the need for God.'

It does not.

If it does, educate my ignorance and kindly show me where. As I said, a link will suffice.

So, a murder with no witness is unsolvable? Working something based on evidence from present to past doesnt make sense to you?


I heard that you were a lawyer. I hope you arent

Logicboy03:




How did you get to know about the big bang in the first place? Scientific articles/journals. Did they mention God?

You dont even see how silly you are. You take somthing from science and claim that your "deist god" explains it better. Did your deist God tell you?

You cant even see the contradiction and foolishness of your stance. You read about the big bang from science who didnt mention God. You then went to put your false narrative that God did the big bang.

My ignorant friend, it my interest you to know that the Big Bang theory was propounded by a physicist who was a Catholic Priest.

That aside, and notwithstanding, the fact remains that no one knows how or why it happened. You therefore cannot claim that "science explains it".

It does not.

#Fact.

If indeed, it is known, please show me. Thanks.

Logicboy03:



So, a murder with no witness is unsolvable? Working something based on evidence from present to past doesnt make sense to you?


I heard that you were a lawyer. I hope you arent

This is just further admission that you do not know, and no one knows, how or why the Big B.ang occured!

A wholesale admission.

As such, your statement that science explains it, is proven to be false, by your own admission.

Good morning.

Deep Sight:

My ignorant friend, it my interest you to know that the Big Bang theory was propounded by a physicist who was a Catholic Priest.

That aside, and notwithstanding, the fact remains that no one knows how or why it happened. You therefore cannot claim that "science explains it".

It does not.

#Fact.

If indeed, it is known, please show me. Thanks.

Paradox- if the scientists do not know how it happened, then how are they able to explain it with their theory?


See the contradiction you are getting yourself into?

"What caused the big bang" is a different question from "how the big bang works"

Deep Sight:

This is just further admission that you do not know, and no one knows, how or why the Big B.ang occured!

A wholesale admission.

As such, your statement that science explains it, is proven to be false, by your own admission.

Good morning.

Cut and run


See dubious douchebag!

Which admission? I am explaining how science solved the case of our universe's past but no, feel free to make false claims about my admission!

Why not answer the simple question- how is a murder with no witness solved? I ask this because that is how science works to unravel past events

Logicboy03:


Cut and run


See dubious douchebag!

Which admission? I am explaining how science solved the case of our universe's past but no, feel free to make false claims about my admission!

Why not answer the simple question- how is a murder with no witness solved? I ask this because that is how science works to unravel past events

Just show me where science explains the how and why of the BB.

Good morning.

Logicboy03:


Paradox- if the scientists do not know how it happened, then how are they able to explain it with their theory?


See the contradiction you are getting yourself into?

"What caused the big bang" is a different question from "how the big bang works"

So you admit that the cause is unknown. Wholesale admission again.

Now, as per how the b.ang works, this is also not known. All that is observed is after the bang - the continuing expansion.

Now one knows how that b,ang itself happened or worked. All that is observed is the after effect - the continuing expansion.

Good morning!

Deep Sight:

Just show me where science explains the how and why of the BB.

Good morning.

"Why" is not a scientific question. "How" is.


Basic knowledge about science that you consistently lack


I have explained the "how".


I will leave you to your pseudoscientific deist God to explain the big bang since you supernatural physics explains the "why" and "how" better than science

Deep Sight:

So you admit that the cause is unknown. Wholesale admission again.

Now, as per how the b.ang works, this is also not known. All that is observed is after the bang - the continuing expansion.

Now one knows how that b,ang itself happened or worked. All that is observed is the after effect - the continuing expansion.

Good morning!

Or better yet, "cause" doesnt apply to the big bang.

Hmmn.

JOIN THE NEW WORLD ORDER OF ILLUMINATI AND HAVE ALL YOUR DESIRES IN LIFE. "NO HUMAN SACRIFICE".

THE OCCULT FESTIVAL IS HERE AGAIN! Join the ILLUMINATI BROTHERHOOD online today for Riches, Fame, Power and all round Success. Every new member(s) receive undeniable rewards of $950000 U.S dollars plus other material benefits immediately after initiation. This is to succor or help the new member fit the class and status of the club members. New member(s) also receive $72500 U.S dollars as monthly salary. Note that the higher you go in the society, the better your life becomes. Join us today and become rich, famous and successful. For more information, Contact us with the email or the cell phone number displayed below. Contact us today as we prepare you for your initiation.
Make good use of this great opportunity and have all your desires in life.

Email : illuminatitempleofrichesandfame@yahoo.com
Contact 1: +2349093589155
WhatsApp: +2349093589155
Cont act 2: +447958220162