Blogthug:


please stay focused on our chat, u are everywhere, or are u their leader? that question is meant for him to ask me to prove it lol

just bring on the arguments and stop this digressing rigmaroles

johnydon22:
lol that is another way of saying i cannot hope to prove the negate that no cup is on that table - absence of evidence not evidence of absence is a mantra we hear everyday.

your task was simple, prove the negate, prove there is no cup on that table... stop jumping up and down.

we are heading to page 3 yet no argument presented, i am still patiently waiting for one

and I answered u beautifully, u just don't grasp the explanation, no evidence of red cup on the table isn't proof that there isn't

simply put, observing non existence of red cup isn't proof of nonexistence of red cup, but observing something contrary to what should be observed under existence is proof of nonexistence, if u are intelligent ud grasp this by now

Like I said, the guy is a troll, all huff and puff, no substance.
Later he will be shouting intelligence up and down.

CeoMYN:

Are you a Diest?

yes, I am, are u

CatfishBilly:
Like I said, the guy is a troll, all huff and puff, no substance.
Later he will be shouting intelligence up and down.

seems you are bored, let me give u an argument

if everything exists , then God exists

refute!

Blogthug:


seems you are bored, let me give u an argument

if everything exists , then God exists

refute!

Non-sequitur!!!

there is no relation between everything and God(and i mean God from your definition)

Blogthug:


yes, I am, are u

No. I don't care whether God exists or not.

Actually a diestic God don't have to prove his existence.

Blogthug:


pls try to answer my question directly , do u believe it's not a belief? u said u know the universe exists, and it's not a belief and I asked, do u believe it's not a belief? it's a logical question

In law, we call this a leading question.

When we ask a question we know would always lead to a single conclusion thereby cornering the other party.

It's a tactic used by dishonest people to win a court case.

johnydon22:
example - "prove there isn't a red cup on this table" adepeter26 watch closely, he will evade and dodge

i know you're smart that's why I'm taking my time to help u understand this

if u want to show that something doesn't exist, u cannot say showing it doesn't exist is evidence, that's a circular reasoning

A leading question is a question which subtly prompts the respondent to answer in a particular way. Leading questions are generally undesirable as they result in false or slanted information

This is a tactic used by blogthug

CeoMYN:


No. I don't care whether God exists or not.

Actually a diestic God don't have to prove his existence.

every claim needs to be proven which logically implies claim of existence and non existence

Jackofall:
A leading question is a question which subtly prompts the respondent to answer in a particular way. Leading questions are generally undesirable as they result in false or slanted information

This is a tactic used by blogthug

this not a leading question, it a logical question, is God something or nothing? if God is something then God cannot be nothing that will be a logical contradiction

OP you said "capital G, which I will define as Creator of universe and origin of life, any deity that's defined this way fits to be called God, eg Allah, Brahman, Yahweh".

This shows that you are hiding..... Saying you are a diest and using Allah, Yahweh and Brahman as examples.

Are you really a diest?

donnffd:


Non-sequitur!!!

there is no relation between everything and God(and i mean God from your definition)

is God something or nothing?

Blogthug:


every claim needs to be proven which logically implies claim of existence and non existence

Why is a God diestic?

People always abuse the word God.

SHALOM!

Blogthug:
if you are open minded and understand these basic fallacies such as:

If Atheists were open-minded, we would have no trouble with them at all.

Strawman

A False Example they can easily demolish, claiming to have demolished your point.

red herring

A pointless diversion from the actual issue.

non sequitor

An irrelevant point.

Ad hominem

An attack on the person raising an issue, in order to divert from the issue.

then let's get talking, if you don't, go google[b] and understand them, then we can get talking ait? if u won't then don't waste my time
[/b]

I doubt if any actual Atheists ever come online.

What you are dealing with are SHILLS- people posing as legitimate Posters, just to obstruct the free-flow of information, and abort enlightenment.

Blogthug:


is God something or nothing?

Something or nothing cannot be a property of a concept, Concepts are imaginary, they are not something neither are they nothing, those properties doesnt apply to concepts, so until you show that God is not a concept, your question is invalid!

CeoMYN:
OP you said "capital G, which I will define as Creator of universe and origin of life, any deity that's defined this way fits to be called God, eg Allah, Brahman, Yahweh".

This shows that you are hiding..... Saying you are a diest and using Allah, Yahweh and Brahman as examples.

Are you really a diest?

if God is believed to be the cause of the universe and Allah, Brahman, Yahweh , prime mover is believed to be the creator of the universe is means They are God. tho God can be given different personalities that may differ within religions, doesn't change the fact that they mean the same thing, God!

Blogthug:


every claim comes with a burden of proof,

now listen carefully to logic

the statement " you can't prove a negative " is by logic a negative claim lol, so it means u can't prove that u can't prove a negative claim, get it?

So if you cannot prove that u can't prove a negative,that must mean you can prove a negative.

OMG. This is weakening me.

Blogthug:


even if that's a baby logic let me let that slide.

now my prove for God's existence is because Nothing does not exists

Non sequitur.

You have broken all your rules over and over again.

donnffd:


Something or nothing cannot be a property of a concept, Concepts are imaginary, they are not something neither are they nothing, those properties doesnt apply to concepts, so until you show that God is not a concept, your question is invalid!

because you say so? lol

are u saying imaginary things are not something?

Blogthug:


if God is believed to be the cause of the universe and Allah, Brahman, Yahweh , prime mover is believed to be the creator of the universe is means They are God. tho God can be given different personalities that may differ within religions, doesn't change the fact that they mean the same thing, God!

Bro you are not a diest.

Blogthug:


because you say so? lol

are u saying imaginary things are not something?

is it that you cant read?... i just said those properties dont apply to concepts, its like asking 'what color is the air?', thats an invalid question because color is not a property of air!

Dude, i see your arguing skills are really weak.

Jackofall:



So if you cannot prove that u can't prove a negative,that must mean you can prove a negative.

OMG. This is weakening me.

you think we are playing here abi?

if u cannot prove that you can't prove a negative it means the claim "u can't prove a negative " by logic cannot itself be proven lol

Blogthug:


if u can't grasp a simple analogy, there is no point discussing with you, meet others for notes later

Ur nature analogy is pure strawman.

What's the correlation between nature and the different gods we have. Common u can do better than this.

donnffd:


is it that you cant read?... i just said those properties dont apply to concepts, its like asking 'what color is the air?', thats an invalid question because color is not a property of air!

Dude, i see your arguing skills are really weak.

see this baby logician lol

no! its not like saying what colour is air, it's like saying its air something or nothing ? use proper anology nxt time,

now lf concepts , ideas are not nothing or something, then what are they?

I'm enjoying u display ignorance by the way lol

Jackofall:


Ur nature analogy is pure strawman.

What's the correlation between nature and the different gods we have. Common u can do better than this.

how can an anology be a strawman? u people are wonderful here o lol

Blogthug:


lol primary school logic,

lacking evidence for a red cup is never evidence for No cup , observations contrary to what is expected if a red cup exists is evidence for No cup, I know this will be hard take time to understand it

This is so wrong.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I can't believe this is coming from a supposed intelligent being.

CeoMYN:


Bro you are not a diest.

Im actually the creator of Nigerian union of deists whatsapp group with over 40 members, I am a deist, u don't have to like it, add 07034362071 to join

[sup][/sup]

Blogthug:


are concepts nothing or something?

Yet another strawman.

Concept ofcourse are something, that doesn't mean that for example, the concept that humans are computer simulations is something. Whatever something means to you, it's just a strawman attempt by you.

Blogthug:


see this baby logician lol

no! its not like saying what colour is air, it's like saying its air something or nothing ? use proper anology nxt time,

now lf concepts , ideas are not nothing or something, then what are they?

I'm enjoying u display ignorance by the way lol

I think i am now believing you are a troll.

Air is something, it has the properties of something, it is perfectly valid to ask, is air something?

On the otherhand, concepts cannot be in the same category, it is in a different category

From what i am seeing, you are trying to say everything in the english language has to fall into either something or nothing...smh

Mehn this is just a waste of time...chaow

Jackofall:


This is so wrong.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I can't believe this is coming from a supposed intelligent being.

common bro, that's my point, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the Jonny dude thought it was, u are on my side