KingEbukasBlog:


INTJs are really good . As an INTP I pursue knowledge for the sake of knowing - I detest ignorance and obscurantism . INTJs seek knowledge for the sake of materializing an idea or thought . They are so organized and keep to time . But INTPs procrastinate a lot , I had to buy Brian Tracy's 'Eat that frog' to know if I could get ideas to counteract procrastination .

ENTJs are the big bosses , many believe Mark Zukerberg has this personality type but with the way he manages Facebook it is apparent that he is future oriented , a salient trait in INTPs . Bill Gates is an INTP though even Albert Einstein . INTPs if we can control so many aspects of our lives , we can rule the world .

INTPs are very rare on this side of the world. I don't think I've ever met any.

And I understand the procrastination problem all too well. It's so much easier to link surf on Wikipedia for hours than get up to do basic chores.

Teempakguy:

1. Your personal experiences are NOT cogent. Especially to others who did not experience it .It's common knowledge that human experience cannot be logically relied on as it is riddled with bias from various psychological lenses.

You obviously didn't go through the link I posted . I was expecting something much better than this .

2. Personal Discoveries that cannot be independently discovered by others or otherwise confirmed equally count as faulty evidence or at best, incomplete evidence that must be supplemented by more concrete evidence.

Again . You don't understand what I posted . Read again .

3. If you claim that the existence of God is axiomatic, it follows that proof for this would be impersonal in nature. The fact that you have to resort to personal experience as proof questions the validity of your claims.

@ The emboldened text . You seriously don't understand what I'm saying . And that's the problem with you atheists . You guys have little or no understanding of what you actually argue against .

4. With the exception of ad hominems, which I do indulge in from time to time(as any INTP would) all my arguments are logical. They seem illogical to you because you refuse to accept my premises as true. If it makes you feel any different, I feel the same way about your arguments too.

Your arguments are too weak and have been refuted countless times .You are an atheist , there is no different argument you would present now right now that is new , all you guys do is rehash arguments and even though they are rebutted you keep repeating the same rebutted arguments over and over again of course to stay relevant .

shadeyinka:


A little knowledge of quantum physics tells you that a certainty /probability of 0 or 1 is impossible to guarantee.

The law of conservation of energy says energy can neither be created nor destroyed but can only be changed from one form into another.

All laws of physics are still approximations. How about the 0.000001% deviation/perturbation, what do they contain?

Death is the beginning of a new existence with a Body not of Flesh and Blood.

I was flowing with what you said then you just killed it with the bolded

Teempakguy:
INTPs are very rare on this side of the world. I don't think I've ever met any.

And I understand the procrastination problem all too well. It's so much easier to link surf on Wikipedia for hours than get up to do basic chores.

Nailed it .

KingEbukasBlog:


You obviously didn't go through the link I posted . I was expecting something much better than this .




Again . You don't understand what I posted . Read again .



@ The emboldened text . You seriously don't understand what I'm saying . And that's the problem with you atheists . You guys have little or no understanding of what you actually argue against .



Your arguments are too weak and have been refuted countless times .You are an atheist , there is no different argument you would present now right now that is new , all you guys do is rehash arguments and even though they are rebutted you keep repeating the same rebutted arguments over and over again of course to stay relevant .

1. I read your posts but chose to disregard them due to obvious confirmation bias. You admitted on the same post that anecdotal evidence is problematic: "And yes anecdotal evidence are susceptible to logical fallacies - cum hoc ergo propter hoc , the post hoc fallacy , hasty generalizations etc . There are so many other factors that could fault anecdotal evidence such as cognitive bias . "

Yet you went on to declare it as valid evidence: "
Notwithstanding anecdotal evidence can still be empirical and verifiable"

Effectively contradicting yourself. The example you used to justify this, levitation;
1. Does not help your cause since there is no proof that the particular God you're arguing for is the cause of this
2. Can be easily faked.

The Wikipedia article you linked to as additional proof describes these as "claims" and attributions. Simon Magus is described as such in a book written in 150+ AD, several generations after the event in a time shrouded in superstition. Compared to the regular anecdotal evidence, this is even worse. The other two people mentioned on that page are described as having levitation "attributed" to them. In fact, On their personal pages, there is no mention of them flying or levitating. Seems rather absurd if there was concrete evidence of them doing so. On Joseph's page, my work has been done for me. Just look in the 'sceptical reception' paragraph.

2. In the second post, you argued that since Boston dynamics robodog was designed by humans, then humans themselves must have been designed by something more intelligent and that refusal to accept this was 'blatant denial' . This line of thinking is not new to either you nor I. So it's pretty obvious what I think about that. This is you rehashing the famous "complex Creation requires complex creator." Argument.

3. Saying that my arguments are weak, and that atheists are rehashing old arguments to stay relevant is called a "claim" and claims need to be backed up by evidence and/or logical justification. An attempt to present a claim as an argument can lead to ad hominem. As in this case. Meanwhile:

1. Atheist arguments have never been logically refuted. Take for example, the famous "complex Creation requires complex creator." Argument.
The standard theist reply is that God is eternal and therefore does not require any complex creator(s). This reply is however, a claim. And it cannot be used to refute the atheist side because you can't claim that god exists and also claim that he is eternal without first proving that he exists.

2. Every single day, new discoveries arise in the field of science and that of technology that arms atheists with more tools to argue with. This results in fresh arguments coming up every decade. However, theists have to rely on the bible which literally doesn't change. So fundamentally, it is the theists that have to rehash arguments in order to stay valid.

I'm loving this discussion between Teempakguy and KingEbuka

jonbellion:
I was flowing with what you said then you just killed it with the bolded

I didn't change your topic. I responded to your statement!

CeoMYN:

Did you even read my post? Bro when we die we die!

I just showed that the physical laws you hinged on so much to arrive at your conclusion is not absolute.

If you can proof that only Physical Laws exist in the Universe, then you may have a point. However, if physical laws are not precise (with unknowns and approximations) AND other laws exist then you are like a man who dipped his hands in a pot labeled "poisonous snake inside" and your argument is "there is no one around who saw when the snake entered the pot"

The normal intelligent stance should be, " there is a snake inside until absolutely proved that there isn't". Stupidity is putting your hands in as a sign of bravery and academics in Harvard.

shadeyinka:


I didn't change your topic. I responded to your statement!


I just showed that the physical laws you hinged on so much to arrive at your conclusion is not absolute.

If you can proof that only Physical Laws exist in the Universe, then you may have a point. However, if physical laws are not precise (with unknowns and approximations) AND other laws exist then you are like a man who dipped his hands in a pot labeled "poisonous snake inside" and your argument is "there is no one around who saw when the snake entered the pot"

The normal intelligent stance should be, " there is a snake inside until absolutely proved that there isn't". Stupidity is putting your hands in as a sign of bravery and academics in Harvard.

No law made me to say that. Are the rest replies meant for me??

Teempakguy:

1. I read your posts but chose to disregard them due to obvious confirmation bias. You admitted on the same post that anecdotal evidence is problematic: "And yes anecdotal evidence are susceptible to logical fallacies - cum hoc ergo propter hoc , the post hoc fallacy , hasty generalizations etc . There are so many other factors that could fault anecdotal evidence such as cognitive bias . "

Yet you went on to declare it as valid evidence: "
Notwithstanding anecdotal evidence can still be empirical and verifiable"

"Notwithstanding" "Can still" - in spite of.

These two words I used show that though they are susceptible to the aforementioned logical fallacies that there are cases whereby these fallacies do not affect these anecdotes especially when they are verifiable .

And example is in Law : Testimonies are used as evidence and these testimonies can still be verified to be true - they can be tested and assessed for reliability.

And personal testimonies can still be verified to be true .

Let's say a cripple from birth started to walk at a prayer crusade . There is cogent evidence that indeed the cripple who can now walk indeed had the condition from birth . And there are medical records to prove that he and his family went in search of solution his problem .There are pictures , there are family members and his parents and doctors that actually are witnesses . Now the cripple receives his healing at a crusade , the witnesses in the crusade include the cripple himself , his family members and the members of the church . These witnesses - his family members and friends - can verify that he was once a cripple from birth , they have evidence which can be tested and assessed for reliability . So to this once crippled man has anecdotal evidence which is empirical and verifiable .

Teempakguy:
Effectively contradicting yourself. The example you used to justify this, levitation;
1. Does not help your cause since there is no proof that the particular God you're arguing for is the cause of this

And finally , this right here proves that you had no knowledge of what you are arguing against . The cases of levitation actually validate the belief in the immanence of personal gods . My argument was based on how to prove the immanence of God not his existence . Those skeptics who criticized the experiences did not do so logically , they resorted to making assumptions , and not objective scrutiny because as it were , they never had the experience themselves .

Teempakguy:
2. Can be easily faked.

It behoves you as the one who contravened the story to prove that any of those experiences of levitation were indeed faked .

The Wikipedia article you linked to as additional proof describes these as "claims" and attributions. Simon Magus is described as such in a book written in 150+ AD, several generations after the event in a time shrouded in superstition.

I'm not sure why you brought this up , it does invalidate the "claims" . Seeing that stories of his actions can be found in numerous sources too .
And what do you see as superstition ?

Teempakguy:
Compared to the regular anecdotal evidence, this is even worse. The other two people mentioned on that page are described as having levitation "attributed" to them. In fact, On their personal pages, there is no mention of them flying or levitating.

Here : http://www.miraclesofthesaints.com/2010/10/levitation-and-ecstatic-flights-in.html

You can go on Youtube and search for those names I gave you . You can watch documentaries too .

Teempakguy:
. On Joseph's page, my work has been done for me. Just look in the 'sceptical reception' paragraph.

They never experienced Joseph's levitation . So its more of assumptions nothing more .

Teempakguy:
2. In the second post, you argued that since Boston dynamics robodog was designed by humans, then humans themselves must have been designed by something more intelligent and that refusal to accept this was 'blatant denial' . This line of thinking is not new to either you nor I. So it's pretty obvious what I think about that. This is you rehashing the famous "complex Creation requires complex creator." Argument.

More like a complex creation is an evidence of intelligent design . And I'm yet to see any worthy rebuttal against it

Teempakguy:
3. Saying that my arguments are weak, and that atheists are rehashing old arguments to stay relevant is called a "claim" and claims need to be backed up by evidence and/or logical justification. An attempt to present a claim as an argument can lead to ad hominem. As in this case.
Meanwhile:

1. Atheist arguments have never been logically refuted. Take for example, the famous "complex Creation requires complex creator." Argument.
The standard theist reply is that God is eternal and therefore does not require any complex creator(s). This reply is however, a claim. And it cannot be used to refute the atheist side because you can't claim that god exists and also claim that he is eternal without first proving that he exists.2. Every single day, new discoveries arise in the field of science and that of technology that arms atheists with more tools to argue with. This results in fresh arguments coming up every decade. However, theists have to rely on the bible which literally doesn't change. So fundamentally, it is the theists that have to rehash arguments in order to stay valid.

The theists/deists say that the evidence of God lies in Reason , Science and Nature itself . So no matter what discoveries made , they do not question the evidence for God . Wake up man .

Here is one that I refuted not too long ago - The Argument of Poor Design . This is basically an appeal to common sense fallacy . The arguer is simply saying I can't imagine how an omnipotent , omniscient being could create a flawed design therefore the existence of Nature can't serve as evidence for God . And I also showed that the argument is limited to a particular perspective and has insufficient knowledge of the perspective .

KingEbukasBlog:


Another good example is the "Argument of poor design " . To a panentheist who believes God is neither omniscient nor omnibenevolent , the argument is false because according to the proposition the universe serves as a source of knowledge to God .

To a theistic evolutionist , this argument is also false because he believes that as time goes on the so called design flaws would be corrected since God used natural selection as a mechanism for creation .

And of course to a Christian , God will make everything new - a new universe , a new earth according to Revelation 21:5 . If the world were perfect there won't be any need for re-creation . So the omniscient and omnipotent being has a new plan to revamp the universe

CeoMYN:

No law made me to say that. Are the rest replies meant for me??

All atheists anchor their disbelieve of God to logic and science (laws) to which I assume you are no exception.

shadeyinka:


All atheists anchor their disbelieve of God to logic and science (laws) to which I assume you are no exception.

Well then I'm an exception. Your God (Yahweh) don't exist.

CeoMYN:

Well then I'm an exception. Your God (Yahweh) don't exist.

You are an exception?

CeoMYN:

Well then I'm an exception. Your God (Yahweh) don't exist.

Prove it

shadeyinka:


You are an exception?

Not all atheists are the same. I live in reality. I don't know about those science laws, I would love to know about them someday. That's why I'm not very much active in arguments in this section because it's more like science vs religion. And I don't know about those laws. Only a little about evolution and that was not what made me an atheist.

KingEbukasBlog:


Prove it

O.O.O and reality!

CeoMYN:

O.O.O and reality!

Wetin you dey yarn

CeoMYN:

Not all atheists are the same. I live in reality. I don't know about those science laws, I would love to know about them someday. That's why I'm not very much active in arguments in this section because it's more like science vs religion. And I don't know about those laws. Only a little about evolution and that was not what made me an atheist.

So, if it wasn't science, then it is logics!
So, what's your rational?

KingEbukasBlog:




Wetin you dey yarn

A God should be O.O.O right? Ominipresent, Ominiscient and Ominipotent.

KingEbukasBlog:




Wetin you dey yarn

that one confuse me too oo

KingEbukasBlog:


"Notwithstanding" "Can still" - in spite of.

These two words I used show that though they are susceptible to the aforementioned logical fallacies that there are cases whereby these fallacies do not affect these anecdotes especially when they are verifiable .

And example is in Law : Testimonies are used as evidence and these testimonies can still be verified to be true - they can be tested and assessed for reliability.

And personal testimonies can still be verified to be true .

Let's say a cripple from birth started to walk at a prayer crusade . There is cogent evidence that indeed the cripple who can now walk indeed had the condition from birth . And there are medical records to prove that he and his family went in search of solution his problem .There are pictures , there are family members and his parents and doctors that actually are witnesses . Now the cripple receives his healing at a crusade , the witnesses in the crusade include the cripple himself , his family members and the members of the church . These witnesses - his family members and friends - can verify that he was once a cripple from birth , they have evidence which can be tested and assessed for reliability . So to this once crippled man has anecdotal evidence which is empirical and verifiable .




And finally , this right here proves that you had no knowledge of what you are arguing against . The cases of levitation actually validate the belief in the immanence of personal gods . My argument was based on how to prove the immanence of God not his existence . Those skeptics who criticized the experiences did not do so logically , they resorted to making assumptions , and not objective scrutiny because as it were , they never had the experience themselves .



It behoves you as the one who contravened the story to prove that any of those experiences of levitation were indeed faked .



I'm not sure why you brought this up , it does invalidate the "claims" . Seeing that stories of his actions can be found in numerous sources too .
And what do you see as superstition ?



Here : http://www.miraclesofthesaints.com/2010/10/levitation-and-ecstatic-flights-in.html

You can go on Youtube and search for those names I gave you . You can watch documentaries too .



They never experienced Joseph's levitation . So its more of assumptions nothing more .



More like a complex creation is an evidence of intelligent design . And I'm yet to see any worthy rebuttal against it



The theists/deists say that the evidence of God lies in Reason , Science and Nature itself . So no matter what discoveries made , they do not question the evidence for God . Wake up man .

Here is one that I refuted not too long ago - The Argument of Poor Design . This is basically an appeal to common sense fallacy . The arguer is simply saying I can't imagine how an omnipotent , omniscient being could create a flawed design therefore the existence of Nature can't serve as evidence for God . And I also showed that the argument is limited to a particular perspective and has insufficient knowledge of the perspective .

in my first post, I noted that anecdotal evidence are limited and almost useless unless they can be corroborated with other forms of evidence. This hold true in law, science, and philosophy. The leading problem in rape cases is that the court is often presented with pure anecdotal evidence. And hastily accepting the evidence without totally verifying them often leads to Innocent people being jailed.

In your case, first you try to push to me that anecdotal evidence is good evidence, stating in passing that once they are verified, they can be of use. However, personal experiences of the supernatural cannot be verified Because there are always alternative explanations for what happened. A person who sees God could have been hallucinating. A person who witnesses a miracle may have been tricked by clever magicians. A person who was miraculously healed usually also went for medical treatment and even if they didn't, their body could have overcome the disease. Not everyone dies from fatal diseases. How do we prove that this is not the case? No way! And yet you adamantly cling to anecdotal evidence. Could this be because there is no other kind of evidence that would support your claim(s)?

2. You are the one that claimed that they could fly. You're the one that is supposed to prove that this indeed happened. I can easily prove that they definitely didn't fly as if they did, they would have broken all of Newton's laws. Laws which have never been observed to be broken. It's now up to you to prove me wrong.

3. Wikipedia defines superstition quite accurately for me: Superstition is the belief in supernatural causality—that one event causes another without any natural process linking the two events—such as astrology and certain aspects linked to religion, like omens, witchcraft, and prophecies, that contradict natural science.

Superstition is believing that ancient saints moved above ground without a jet pack or a glider. Apparently by supernatural power. All this based on anecdotal evidence. You, my friend, are superstitious. A sad quality for any that would call himself an INTP.

4. I only go to YouTube to watch Ted talks, science videos, and Mike Rosenberg in all his awesomeness. Anything else is stumble upon as I definitelyexperiencedberately go YouTube to search for documentaries of "levitating saints" just as I won't search for documentaries of "moon splitting" and "peleus' wedding". This is for obvious reasons.

5. Isn't it ironic that despite the fact that you also never experienced Joseph's levitation, you assume it's true because of what some people said, despite the unwavering laws of physics that dictate its impossibility. It's very unlike an INTP to give credence to ancient superstition at the expense of verified science.

6. A complex creation is evidence of intelligent design: can be refuted with reductio ad absurdum. The only way to refute that refutation is to use special pleading. Special pleading is a logical fallacy. So epic fail for the theist side.

7. Your statement that no matter what discoveries are made, they do not question the evidence for God reveals your fundamental problem. You already have a theory without collecting all the facts. You are already convinced that God exists and you leave no room for any other possibility. With this sort of mind set, everything you say reeks of confirmation bias. This is also very un-INTP like as we are natural skeptics.

8. You didn't refute anything. The argument is based on the fact that the supposed creator describes himself as perfect and flawless. It's pure logic that a flawed design would question the validity of these claims. So he is either a liar or doesn't exist. It's interesting that you had to argue for deists and pantheists because they're the only ones who can successfully refute the argument. Christians such as yourself don't stand a chance so you resort to saying God will 'repair' things while refusing to wonder why a perfect being would make flawed things in the first place.

Anyway, it is possible that I may not reply your next reply as I am getting bored of an argument that seems to go nowhere. However, I will leave you with a quote to ponder on. It's from Sherlock Holmes.


“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

shadeyinka:


So, if it wasn't science, then it is logics!
So, what's your rational?

About why Yahweh isn't God?

CeoMYN:

About why Yahweh isn't God?

Yes!
I want to know how you came to that conclusion. I hope I can also tell you after how I came to the conclusion that He is the One.

shadeyinka:


Yes!
I want to know how you came to that conclusion. I hope I can also tell you after how I came to the conclusion that He is the One.

The bible itself is one of the reasons, an Ominipotent, Ominipresent, Ominiscient God will not be jealous, order mass murder.
Some humans can't be that bad.
Some humans have better hearts than Yahweh.
And you call him God.

Teempakguy:
in my first post, I noted that anecdotal evidence are limited and almost useless unless they can be corroborated with other forms of evidence. This hold true in law, science, and philosophy. The leading problem in rape cases is that the court is often presented with pure anecdotal evidence. And hastily accepting the evidence without totally verifying them often leads to Innocent people being jailed.

In your case, first you try to push to me that anecdotal evidence is good evidence, stating in passing that once they are verified, they can be of use. However, personal experiences of the supernatural cannot be verified Because there are always alternative explanations for what happened. A person who sees God could have been hallucinating. A person who witnesses a miracle may have been tricked by clever magicians. A person who was miraculously healed usually also went for medical treatment and even if they didn't, their body could have overcome the disease. Not everyone dies from fatal diseases. How do we prove that this is not the case? No way! And yet you adamantly cling to anecdotal evidence. Could this be because there is no other kind of evidence that would support your claim(s)?

2. You are the one that claimed that they could fly. You're the one that is supposed to prove that this indeed happened. I can easily prove that they definitely didn't fly as if they did, they would have broken all of Newton's laws. Laws which have never been observed to be broken. It's now up to you to prove me wrong.

3. Wikipedia defines superstition quite accurately for me: Superstition is the belief in supernatural causality—that one event causes another without any natural process linking the two events—such as astrology and certain aspects linked to religion, like omens, witchcraft, and prophecies, that contradict natural science.

Superstition is believing that ancient saints moved above ground without a jet pack or a glider. Apparently by supernatural power. All this based on anecdotal evidence. You, my friend, are superstitious. A sad quality for any that would call himself an INTP.

4. I only go to YouTube to watch Ted talks, science videos, and Mike Rosenberg in all his awesomeness. Anything else is stumble upon as I definitelyexperiencedberately go YouTube to search for documentaries of "levitating saints" just as I won't search for documentaries of "moon splitting" and "peleus' wedding". This is for obvious reasons.

5. Isn't it ironic that despite the fact that you also never experienced Joseph's levitation, you assume it's true because of what some people said, despite the unwavering laws of physics that dictate its impossibility. It's very unlike an INTP to give credence to ancient superstition at the expense of verified science.

6. A complex creation is evidence of intelligent design: can be refuted with reductio ad absurdum. The only way to refute that refutation is to use special pleading. Special pleading is a logical fallacy. So epic fail for the theist side.

7. Your statement that no matter what discoveries are made, they do not question the evidence for God reveals your fundamental problem. You already have a theory without collecting all the facts. You are already convinced that God exists and you leave no room for any other possibility. With this sort of mind set, everything you say reeks of confirmation bias. This is also very un-INTP like as we are natural skeptics.

8. You didn't refute anything. The argument is based on the fact that the supposed creator describes himself as perfect and flawless. It's pure logic that a flawed design would question the validity of these claims. So he is either a liar or doesn't exist. It's interesting that you had to argue for deists and pantheists because they're the only ones who can successfully refute the argument. Christians such as yourself don't stand a chance so you resort to saying God will 'repair' things while refusing to wonder why a perfect being would make flawed things in the first place.

Anyway, it is possible that I may not reply your next reply as I am getting bored of an argument that seems to go nowhere. However, I will leave you with a quote to ponder on. It's from Sherlock Holmes.


“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

Permit me to interject here will a little illustration.

You were witted in your room one day eating your plate of rice. A handsome man literally passes through your TV and joined you at the table.

He ate one piece of the two pieces of meat in your plate and drank all your water. Then he says to you, "I am an alien from Mars". I want to speak with you.

You pinch yourself but you know that this is reality: you are not hallucinating. He walked out through your door.

The next day, you meet some guys from Harvard University discussing that Aliens don't exist.
1. Would you agree with them?
2. If they ask you for physical proof, what can you show them?
3. Since your experience is subjective, does it mean it isn't true?
4. If this alien told you that Martians live underground in cites, would you believe? Wouldn't it sound like foolishness?

The point is that Atheism would like to bring God to the terrain of physical science and that is a big mistake.

@ Teempakguy

Your arguments are easily refutable . But since you want to live in denial , I'll let you be . Making irrelevant assumptions isn't skepticism , its more of denial . And using words like "cannot" shows that you made preconceived conclusion and apparently close-minded , refusing to see possibilities . You do exactly the same thing you accuse me of .

Anyway you claim to be a natural skeptic yet you don't question atheism . Like I said in my post , there are so many INTPs that acknowledge the existence of God . I devoted so much time in the past seeking answers , so now its more of acknowledging the existence of God. I have found my evidence for God , better look for yours .

Teempakguy:

8. You didn't refute anything. The argument is based on the fact that the supposed creator describes himself as perfect and flawless. It's pure logic that a flawed design would question the validity of these claims. So he is either a liar or doesn't exist. It's interesting that you had to argue for deists and pantheists because they're the only ones who can successfully refute the argument.

@ emboldened texts You made contradictory statements . The argument is half baked apparently that's why other theological/philosophical propositions which I mentioned could easily confute it .

Christians such as yourself don't stand a chance so you resort to saying God will 'repair' things while refusing to wonder why a perfect being would make flawed things in the first place.

1 . There are so many examples of impeccable design in Nature like the snowflakes - this is a counterexample thereby refuting the argument

2. Some Christians believe that some of these flawed designs are part of a fallen world

3. It proves that God has a plan .

Teempakguy:
3. Wikipedia defines superstition quite accurately for me: Superstition is the belief in supernatural causality—that one event causes another without any natural process linking the two events—such as astrology and certain aspects linked to religion, like omens, witchcraft, and prophecies, that contradict natural science.

Superstition is believing that ancient saints moved above ground without a jet pack or a glider. Apparently by supernatural power. All this based on anecdotal evidence. You, my friend, are superstitious. A sad quality for any that would call himself an INTP.

Natural Science is limited to physical things . I'm currently making researches on Astral Projection and Reincarnation and failure of science to validate these experiences shows its limitation . There are several ways of reaching logical conclusions . And INTPs are driven to understand a discussion from all relevant angles , I don't see you doing this .

CeoMYN:

A God should be O.O.O right? Ominipresent, Ominiscient and Ominipotent.

Yes and how does this prove Yahweh does not exist

KingEbukasBlog:


Yes and how does this prove Yahweh does not exist

can an O.O.O become jealous, make mistake, order mass murder?

CeoMYN:
can an O.O.O become jealous,

Please ooo abeg

https://gotquestions.org/jealous-God.html

make mistake,

God does not make mistakes . He has an ultimate plan that can be achieved thousands of ways , changing course does not mean he made a mistake .

order mass murder?

Murder according to the dictionary is the the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

God is not human , so technically God didn't commit murder.

KingEbukasBlog:


Natural Science is limited to physical things . I'm currently making researches on Astral Projection and Reincarnation and failure of science to validate these experiences shows its limitation . There are several ways of reaching logical conclusions . And INTPs are driven to understand a discussion from all relevant angles , I don't see you doing this .

About astral projection a research has already been done. It's mind travel.

KingEbukasBlog:


Please ooo abeg

https://gotquestions.org/jealous-God.html



God does not make mistakes . He has an ultimate plan that can be achieved thousands of ways , changing course does not mean he made a mistake .



Murder according to the dictionary is the the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

God is not human , so technically God didn't commit murder.

Your Yahweh did all this things but you don't want to admit.