ednut1:
If adam and eve were the first humans. How come Asians red indian white black chinese came to be. Bearing in mind that since my village started no man der has giving birth to an Asian or white .oya come explain bros

non sequitor fallacy, try again !

DeSepiero:

I hope you know how to use a dictionary.

stop dodging, is Zero a word, yes or no?

Blogthug:


created in this sense is synonymous with caused, now do u believe that the universe is eternal or it began to exist?

You didn't answer my question.

How did you KNOW that the universe/life was created/caused?

Blogthug:

stop dodging, is Zero a word, yes or no?

Yes! Zero is a word for nothing. Zero means nothing. Zero is naught (nothing).
Can't you see that zero is something and nothing at once? SMH

Blogthug:

stop dodging, is Zero a word, yes or no?

I see you never wished to convert an open minded atheist at all?

akintom:


You didn't answer my question.

How did you KNOW that the universe/life was created/caused?

because all available scientific evidence shows that the universe (time space matter) began to exist after the Big Bang as singularity before expansion began (hawkings, vilenkins et al ) and applying the cosmological argument " everything that begins to exist has a cause " it means the universe would need a cause , now answer mine

DeSepiero:


Yes!
Zero is a word for nothing.
Zero means nothing.
Zero is naught (nothing).

Can't you see that zero is something and nothing at once? SMH

strawman! if zero exists as a word with a meaning then it exists as something and not nothing because the fact is Nothing doesn't exist, can u think of a new colour in your mind?

DeSepiero:


I see you never wished to convert an open minded atheist at all?

the open minded ones are adding me on whatsapp, the incredulous ones with poor logic cannot be saved they rather keep their atheism like its some kind of new cool

Blogthug:


because all available scientific evidence shows that the universe (time space matter) began to exist after the Big Bang as singularity before expansion began (hawkings, vilenkins et al ) and applying the cosmological argument " everything that begins to exist has a cause " it means the universe would need a cause , now answer mine

thats why philosophical posturings are useless in this God argument. If everything has a beginning or a cause, what is the beginning or cause of God? Why is God exempt from the law? Give us evidence instead of parroting well worn arguments...

Blogthug:


because all available scientific evidence shows that the universe (time space matter) began to exist after the Big Bang as singularity before expansion began (hawkings, vilenkins et al ) and applying the cosmological argument " everything that begins to exist has a cause " it means the universe would need a cause , now answer mine

0/100 that's your score, on a simple question of HOW did you KNOW, that the universe/life was created/caused?

little godist, no rational mind rely on theory to make a statement of fact.

Wait until we scientists, come up with the laws that governs the origin of life precursor.

Assuming life has cause, who/what is the cause?

Blogthug:


because all available scientific evidence shows that the universe (time space matter) began to exist after the Big Bang as singularity before expansion began (hawkings, vilenkins et al ) and applying the cosmological argument " everything that begins to exist has a cause " it means the universe would need a cause , now answer mine

lots of (probably) false assumptions that have been repeated many times

Vilenkins said he thinks the universe is probably eternal

again, the law that everything needs a cause is a law IN the universe and may not necessarily apply as law FOR the universe

you can watch WLC debate with Sean Carroll on YouTube, watch all three hours and get a bit of education cuz you're just regurgitating guesses that they have repeated to you many times

gabe:
thats why philosophical posturings are useless in this God argument. If everything has a beginning or a cause, what is the beginning or cause of God? Why is God exempt from the law? Give us evidence instead of parroting well worn arguments...

great question, now we all know that based on available scientific Nobel Prize winning evidences, the universe began to exist and therefore has a cause, but how about God? except God began to exist himself only then that logic would apply . but that's not the case , since time began to exist it's quite logical to think that the cause of time will be timeless and eternal, so that answers your question, God is without beginning or end and won't need a cause

akintom:


0/100 that's your score, on a simple question of HOW did you KNOW, that the universe/life was created/caused?

little godist, no rational mind rely on theory to make a statement of fact.

Wait until we scientists, come up with the laws that governs the origin of life precursor.

Assuming life has cause, who/what is the cause?

cheap Ad futuris fallacy! look it up lol, your faith in Scientism has made you gullible just like the religious people indoctrinated atheists like u mock.

for the fact that it's absurd to think that random processes of mindless atoms can give rise to intelligence is proof that 1st life form is a product of an intelligence mind. the law of biogenesis states that life can only arise from life, the odds of life beginning randomly is mathematically impossible,

expand your knowledge alil Stephen Meyers peer reviewed paper here http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

hopefulLandlord:


lots of (probably) false assumptions that have been repeated many times

Vilenkins said he thinks the universe is probably eternal

again, the law that everything needs a cause is a law IN the universe and may not necessarily apply as law FOR the universe

you can watch WLC debate with Sean Carroll on YouTube, watch all three hours and get a bit of education cuz you're just regurgitating guesses that they have repeated to you many times

lol, u atheist say u don't have faith but we now know that's false, u guys have alot of faith faith that science would answer all the questions, faith in an eternal universe, multiveverse theory, abiogenesis, faith faith! blind faith! are u aware scientist that discovered evidences for the Big Bang actually won Nobel prizes? look it up.

mind u as for that popular debate that u online atheists hold on to like your purposeless lives depended on it, it has been debunked, awwn don't cry, Sean Caroll admitted to have inputed his baseless personal opinions in that debate which makes Craig right after all.

read about it here http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-iv-quantum-eternity-theorem/

Blogthug:


lol, u atheist say u don't have faith but we now know that's false, u guys have alot of faith faith that science would answer all the questions, faith in an eternal universe, multiveverse theory, abiogenesis, faith faith! blind faith! are u aware scientist that discovered evidences for the Big Bang actually won Nobel prizes? look it up.

Big bang doesn't prove anything, cosmologists build models and there are models that fit the data which doesn't need any god, Carroll-Chen is one such many models anyone of the numerous models could be wrong and anyone could be right; that makes it still up for debate

mind u as for that popular debate that u online atheists hold on to like your purposeless lives depended on it, it has been debunked, awwn don't cry, Sean Caroll admitted to have inputed his baseless personal opinions in that debate which makes Craig right after all.

I'm now doubting your intelligence, what does inputting personal opinion have to do with this? didn't WLC also do the same? I respect you too much to watch you embarrass yourself like this

BTW, how many atheists on Nairaland have brought up Carroll Craig debate asides me? try get sense small, its not sin against your deist god or is it

read about it here http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-iv-quantum-eternity-theorem/

cosmologists build models that fit the data, Theologists build arguments that fit their preconceived conclusions; that was why WLC was no match for Carroll in the debate cuz Carroll challenged one of WLC Kalam premise and he couldn't defend his premise properly and spent the rest of the debate attempting to invalidate Carroll-chen model and failing woefully at it cuz Carroll never for once claimed his model is the be all and end all; any cosmologist that puts "god" in his data should never be taken seriously

most importantly, it should be pointed out that Carroll made it clear that whatever discoveries are made does not in anyway disprove the possibility of the existence of god

I see deism as just a weaker form of atheism, someone too afraid to admit ignorance but not deluded enough to believe in an interventionist god

CatfishBilly:
What proof is more than a DNA test in a parental conflict? Pray, do tell.

Have you at anytime gone for the DNA test to ascertain your parents? If not, then you believed the stories you were told ba?

Pastafarian:

Big bang doesn't prove anything, cosmologists build models and there are models that fit the data which doesn't need any god, Carroll-Chen is one such many models anyone of the numerous models could be wrong and anyone could be right; that makes it still up for debate



I'm now doubting your intelligence, what does inputting personal opinion have to do with this? didn't WLC also do the same? I respect you too much to watch you embarrass yourself like this

BTW, how many atheists on Nairaland have brought up Carroll Craig debate asides me? try get sense small, its not sin against your deist god or is it


cosmologists build models that fit the data, Theologists build arguments that fit their preconceived conclusions; that was why WLC was no match for Carroll in the debate cuz Carroll challenged one of WLC Kalam premise and he couldn't defend his premise properly and spent the rest of the debate attempting to invalidate Carroll-chen model and failing woefully at it cuz Carroll never for once claimed his model is the be all and end all; any cosmologist that puts "god" in his data should never be taken seriously

most importantly, it should be pointed out that Carroll made it clear that whatever discoveries are made does not in anyway disprove the possibility of the existence of god

I see deism as just a weaker form of atheism, someone too afraid to admit ignorance but not deluded enough to believe in an interventionist god

are u aware that the Big Bang was postulated by a Belgian priest? a theist?

2ndly did u go through the link I posted ? it showed that Caroll made baseless assumptions during the debate which he later admitted to after he was called out by a physicist. the universe began to exist and until that has been refuted it implies that the universe must have a cause because Something can not come from nothing, that's common logic, well except u are kraus lol

You neva start you don dey flop.. Nothing like capital g whatever... In Polytheism when a certain people believe in one god, its regarded with the capital G... Soooo In India, China and many other places, your god Jehova abi wetin be he name will be written with small g... Oya continue
.
.
.

Blogthug:


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

Atheism might not be new, but its cool.!
Oh and it frees the mind from all those religious mental slavery.!
.
.
.
.

Blogthug:


the open minded ones are adding me on whatsapp, the incredulous ones with poor logic cannot be saved they rather keep their atheism like its some kind of new cool

Well said my Broda... I dont even need to add anything to what you said
.
.
.
.
.

hopefulLandlord:
I would gladly take you up IF you also adhere by these

1. don't argue from ignorance eg "We don't know, therefore god" aka Argumentum ad ignorantum

2. don't argue for a god devoid of claims aka deistic god because most atheists like me feel there's no need arguing against the existence of one and if it does exist, there's no difference in believing it does or it doesn't as it's more of an indifferent god
If this god doesn't intervene in the universe, he is indistinguishable from a God that just doesn't exist in the first place.

You neva start you don dey flop.. Nothing like capital g whatever... In Polytheism when a certain people believe in one god, its regarded with the capital G... Soooo In India, China and many other places, your god Jehova abi wetin be he name will be written with small g... Oya continue
.
.
.

Blogthug:


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