AnonyNymous:

I argue with KingEbukaNaija a lot but that post is reasonable and there's no 'attack' there. Agnosticism means 'I dont know' and atheism means 'no god' when crudely translated.

Don't mind him abeg

KingEbukasBlog:


How does this stop the creator of the universe from existing ?

It can't stop it from existing because it doesn't exist

hahn:


It can't stop it from existing because it doesn't exist

The creator of the universe certainly exists because the universe has a cause . Its cause is its creator . Its not rocket science

Pr0ton:



If a friend tells you a tree is right in front of your door and you go out to check it out and can't find one, then you can reasonably say there is no tree in front of your door.

Yes indeed - although I will allow that perhaps it is either not the sort of tree I expected to see, or it is not a tree I can see at all.

If he says the tree is invincible or can't be perceived by any of your sense organs you are not wrong to call him stupid and feel right about your judgement. This is the stand of atheists.

Now here is the problem. You said "can not be perceived by any of your sense organs" -

Let me ask you a question. Do human beings only perceive things through their defined sensory organs?

In this instance, there indeed is a Tree - This Tree is GOD.

However GOD is an un-embodied, eternal, self existent and complete mind - It is the Mind that is the wellspring of all realities.

To expect to be able to perceive such a thing with your sensory organs is more bizzare than a speck of sand expecting to be able to perceive all the sand in the universes or a drop of water expecting to perceive the entirely of the ocean. Worse than these actually, because God, as I have described IT - is not of the same species in terms of planes as you are and what you have therefore asked will amount to asking the universes to give you a personal handshake, perhaps with a plaque at a personal ceremony for you - before you recognize that God exists.

My friend - the existence of God is an OBVIOUS AND SELF EVIDENT FACT.

Aside that the evidence rests everywhere in legion forms - any sentient being need only observe its own reality for a heartbeat to cognize God. If anything, it is the very perverted reasoning of the reverse position that ought to be condemned as being intrinsically dim - and even illogical and counter-intuitive: the view that there is either no God - and even the agnostic (but more balanced view) that one cannot know - are both most self deceptive - Because:

- - - - > One may not know all the colors of God - but the existence of that permanent element is philosophically, logically, scientifically and intuitively beyond cavil.
It cannot be reasonably disputed by anything that calls itself a human being.

PS: The correct word highlighted in red up there in your post should be "invisible" - something one cannot see - and not "invincible" - something one cannot defeat/ overcome: although it is touche for us to note that this also applies to God.

DeepSight:


Yes indeed - although I will allow that perhaps it is either not the sort of tree I expected to see, or it is not a tree I can see at all.



Now here is the problem. You said "can not be perceived by any of your sense organs" -

Let me ask you a question. Do human beings only perceive things through their defined sensory organs?

In this instance, there indeed is a Tree - This Tree is GOD.

However GOD is an un-embodied, eternal, self existent and complete mind - It is the Mind that is the wellspring of all realities.

To expect to be able to perceive such a thing with your sensory organs is more bizzare than a speck of sand expecting to be able to perceive all the sand in the universes or a drop of water expecting to perceive the entirely of the ocean. Worse than these actually, because God, as I have described IT - is not of the same species in terms of planes as you are and what you have therefore asked will amount to asking the universes to give you a personal handshake, perhaps with a plaque at a personal ceremony for you - before you recognize that God exists.

My friend - the existence of God is an OBVIOUS AND SELF EVIDENT FACT.

Aside that the evidence rests everywhere in legion forms - any sentient being need only observe its own reality for a heartbeat to cognize God. If anything, it is the very perverted reasoning of the reverse position that ought to be condemned as being intrinsically dim - and even illogical and counter-intuitive: the view that there is either no God - and even the agnostic (but more balanced view) that one cannot know - are both most self deceptive - Because:

- - - - > One may not know all the colors of God - but the existence of that permanent element is philosophically, logically, scientifically and intuitively beyond cavil.
It cannot be reasonably disputed by anything that calls itself a human being.

PS: The correct word highlighted in red up there in your post should be "invisible" - something one cannot see - and not "invincible" - something one cannot defeat/ overcome: although it is touche for us to note that this also applies to God.

I couldnt have said it better myself. I salute you.

DeepSight:


Yes indeed - although I will allow that perhaps it is either not the sort of tree I expected to see, or it is not a tree I can see at all.



Now here is the problem. You said "can not be perceived by any of your sense organs" -

Let me ask you a question. Do human beings only perceive things through their defined sensory organs?

In this instance, there indeed is a Tree - This Tree is GOD.

However GOD is an un-embodied, eternal, self existent and complete mind - It is the Mind that is the wellspring of all realities.

To expect to be able to perceive such a thing with your sensory organs is more bizzare than a speck of sand expecting to be able to perceive all the sand in the universes or a drop of water expecting to perceive the entirely of the ocean. Worse than these actually, because God, as I have described IT - is not of the same species in terms of planes as you are and what you have therefore asked will amount to asking the universes to give you a personal handshake, perhaps with a plaque at a personal ceremony for you - before you recognize that God exists.

My friend - the existence of God is an OBVIOUS AND SELF EVIDENT FACT.

Aside that the evidence rests everywhere in legion forms - any sentient being need only observe its own reality for a heartbeat to cognize God. If anything, it is the very perverted reasoning of the reverse position that ought to be condemned as being intrinsically dim - and even illogical and counter-intuitive: the view that there is either no God - and even the agnostic (but more balanced view) that one cannot know - are both most self deceptive - Because:

- - - - > One may not know all the colors of God - but the existence of that permanent element is philosophically, logically, scientifically and intuitively beyond cavil.
It cannot be reasonably disputed by anything that calls itself a human being.

PS: The correct word highlighted in red up there in your post should be "invisible" - something one cannot see - and not "invincible" - something one cannot defeat/ overcome: although it is touche for us to note that this also applies to God.

OUTSTANDING!!

KingEbukasBlog:
Atheism = I dont know but its not God = close-mindedness

Agnosticism = I don't know , it could be God , it could anything = open-mindedness

Theism = I know, its God. = Close-mindedness

DeSepiero:


Theism = I know, its God. = Close-mindedness

May I ask you a few questions Sire? Just to understand you better.

DeepSight:


May I ask you a few questions Sire? Just to understand you better.

Go on

DeSepiero:


Go on

1. When the word "God" is used in a Theistic vs Atheistic discussion - what do you think that word means or connotes? What springs to mind as what is being discussed in such discussions as per the word "God"?

2. What is Time?

3. What is space?

4. What is a mind?

5. Are you a strict materialist? i.e: Do you believe that only physical things exist and that all things are physical?

These should do for now, much appreciated.

onetrack:


I am agnostic atheist. I don't believe in any god but I cannot say there is not one.

nobody can say for sure there is no god

KingEbukasBlog:


The creator of the universe certainly exists because the universe has a cause

If it's existence is so certain then why are there so many disagreements as regards, it's name, features, perversions, likes and dislikes?

Its cause is its creator . Its not rocket science

And it is a product of religious indoctrination fueled by the fear of the wrath of a vengeful, all punishing and all destroying god

DeepSight:


1. When the word "God" is used in a Theistic vs Atheistic discussion - what do you think that word means or connotes? What springs to mind as what is being discussed in such discussions as per the word "God"?

2. What is Time?

3. What is space?

4. What is a mind?

5. Are you a strict materialist? i.e: Do you believe that only physical things exist and that all things are physical?

These should do for now, much appreciated.

I'd answer question 1 & 5. The rest can be checked up in an English dictionary.

1. The word " God " in Theist-atheist discussions often connotes a "a supreme being, and creator of the universe".

2. I am not a strict materialist.

DeSepiero:


Theism = I know, its God. = Close-mindedness

Sure . I'm close minded on God's existence . It's certain -100 percent

hahn:


If it's existence is so certain then why are there so many disagreements as regards, it's name, features, perversions, likes and dislikes?



And it is a product of religious indoctrination fueled by the fear of the wrath of a vengeful, all punishing and all destroying god

Again , you can't do without religion . You atheists need religion to be relevant . I'm being logical here while you are clutching unto religion . Continue , you keep proving my point .

You made a non sequitur by the way . Your arguments do not logically follow mine

KingEbukasBlog:


Sure . I'm close minded on God's existence . It's certain -100 percent

Nice.

KingEbukasBlog:


Again , you can't do without religion . You atheists need religion to be relevant .

I disagree with this.
Kindly elucidate.

KingEbukasBlog:


Again , you can't do without religion . You atheists need religion to be relevant . I'm being logical here while you are clutching unto religion . Continue , you keep proving my point .

You made a non sequitur by the way . Your arguments do not logically follow mine

Lol. Guy

DeSepiero:


I disagree with this.
Kindly elucidate.

Let's do it this way . Be candid with your responses

Why did you abjure you belief in God or impugn the reality of God's existence ?

KingEbukasBlog:


Let's do it this way . Be candid with your responses

Why did you abjure you belief in God or impugn the reality of God's existence ?

I was expecting a response from you rather than a counter question.

DeSepiero:


I was expecting a response from you rather than a counter question.

Bro , I said : "Let's do it this way " .

KingEbukasBlog:


Bro , I said : "Let's do it this way " .

Fine.
Continue

DeSepiero:


I'd answer question 1 & 5. The rest can be checked up in an English dictionary.

1. The word " God " in Theist-atheist discussions often connotes a "a supreme being, and creator of the universe".

2. I am not a strict materialist.

Thank you for these, much appreciated.
However as regards the rest, perhaps I should be more clear, I inquire of your own understanding of these things with specific regard to same Theistic vs Atheistic discourses. I inquire because I believe those precepts Have cardinal bearing on the discussion. Dictionary definitions will thus not suffice in this context.

Will you oblige sire?

DeSepiero:


Fine.
Continue

So answer my question . You don forget shey

DeepSight:


Thank you for these, much appreciated.
However as regards the rest, perhaps I should be more clear, I inquire of your own understanding of these things with specific regard to same Theistic vs Atheistic discourses. I inquire because I believe those precepts Have cardinal bearing on the discussion. Dictionary definitions will thus not suffice in this context.

Will you oblige sire?

Let me quickly say that my perceptions don't differ from their dictionary meaning Sir.

KingEbukasBlog:


So answer my question . You don forget shey

I gradually lost believe in the human concept of a god because the more I seek knowledge of him, the less convinced I become, given the human accounts available.

DeSepiero:


Let me quickly say that my perceptions don't differ from their dictionary meaning Sir.

Very well. In that case, that's all. Thank you.

Please go ahead and make your point DeepSight.

DeSepiero:


I gradually lost believe in the human concept of a god because the more I seek knowledge of him, the less convinced I become, given the human accounts available.

What knowledge of Him ?

KingEbukasBlog:


What knowledge of Him ?

Any

DeSepiero:
Please go ahead and make your point DeepSight.

I can't really. The specific point I was trying to make will involve a philosophical take on Time, Space and Mind. Referring me to the dictionary cannot help that: as you know even the Dictionary will have multiple definitions of each word and of course multiple uses depending on the context or conversation. Thus only a personal philosophical take on the meaning of these words (at an existential level) would help me proceed in what I wanted to say. Its anyhow stuff I have discussed in detail in ancient threads of mine and those of others on this forum.

It doesn't really matter anyhow; everything in existence and every passing heartbeat bespeaks the ineluctable conclusion of the existence of God.

KingEbukasBlog:
Atheism = I dont know but its not God = close-mindedness

Agnosticism = I don't know , it could be God , it could anything = open-mindedness

Theism= you are closed minded for saying its not god, but u r open minded for saying its god