viaro:

And how many times do we see atheists reharshing their retired strawman fallacies for their atheism? Is it any wonder that even in the matrix of modern philosophy, atheists are generally spectators and never able to attempt any discussion on philosophy?

And what is philosophy beside endless opinions and counter opinions which mostly involves and relies on flawed and tricky reasoning?

toneyb:

And what is philosophy beside endless opinions and counter opinions which mostly involves and relies on flawed and tricky reasoning?

That is not philosophy but rather your own idea of what you don't know nor can handle. If that is what philosophy is to atheists, then no atheist should be found claiming to be a Philosopher, yes?

viaro:

That is not philosophy but rather your own idea of what you don't know nor can handle. If that is what philosophy is to atheists, then no atheist should be found claiming to be a Philosopher, yes?

I really don't care much about philosophy and all that it entails, To me it is nothing other than endless opinions and counter opinions that are usually flawed and tricky(not always). There are atheist that are really interested in it and are good philosophers(good for them). But I don't like it and I don't care much about it.

toneyb:

I really don't care much about philosophy and all that it entails, To me it is nothing other than endless opinions and counter opinions that are usually flawed and tricky(not always). There are atheist that are really interested in it and are good philosophers(good for them). But I don't like it and I don't care much about it.

No problem. I noted that your opinion about philosophy is your own - it does not mean that is what Philosophy is in itself.

Toneyb.U no nothing about my discussion with thehomer&what prompted my response which u quoted.U just jumped into posting.
Why dnt u tell me how many gods that exists since u know them all? I only know d creator of heaven&earth.Kindly oblige me with the numbers of gods&tell me ur source of information.

If you want to know whether God exists( and you didn't clarify what you meant by God exactly, since it's different things to different people) go look yourself, arrive at your conclusions, and keep them to yourself

How can one go look for God himself, is there a particualr venue where we can find God? Maybe thats why the OP is here, maybe someone will say something that will give him a clue to the evidence of Gods existence,
but so far, so bad,

toba:

U ve alleged dat information is superior to data.God gave vivid info about his existence.

And how did he give the vivid information of his existence?

toba:

He doesnt need any data.

Of course he needs at least if he still does anything here on earth.

toba:

But as a doubting researcher u can generate data for urself/be given a data to substantiate your claim.

No my friend you're making the claim you provide the evidence to back it up.

toba:

Like i said information cant come from non information.Theists are informed about Gods existence&their information came from information provided by God,nature&man.

Well before we go further, what is "non-information"?

Deep Sight:

thehomer your arguments surprise me.

the very existence of information excludes the the possibility of a pre-existent state of absolute void - except you are willing to further entertain teh absurdity that even the smallest block of information may emerge from non-information. Thus that pre-existence can only be conceived in terms of a permanent and non-contingent element which itself is, contains and spawns the infinite series of all conceivable information.

You see what you've done is to devolve the discussion into another cosmological argument for the existence of a God which is simply not good enough.

@viaro

viaro:

My statement was not pointless - please stay on course. In science, it is not a matter of one-size-fits all; and the link I provided shows that same thing. You do not pretend that deductiive is the same thing as inductive - and you cannot just jump on any approach willy-nilly. They are pointing to 'scientific method', and I didn't argue against that; but you cannot just keep saying "scientific method" without knowing what exactly in that method you want to employ.

It was pointless because the 'sub-method" I will use will depend on the sort of evidence you present.

viaro:

I did not "do it again" nor assume anything. If you can read, is it my fault? If you find metaphysics too much to your flavour, is that my fault, too? Why, if I may ask, have you been complaining about the metaphysics all along?

But you have done it again. You requested for any other means capable of demonstrating the existence or non-existence of God and I gave you "the scientific method" with reasons why it is perfectly suited for it. You start asking for a metaphysical basis when the God you wish to present evidence for already is supposed to carry out physical activities here on earth. Though you've refused to give any other examples other than miracles. Do you think these physical activities would not be demonstrable by science?
You gave an option of using logic to which I've also acquiesced you're still yet to do so.
I've not been complaining about metaphysics. I already said you could give your evidence using metaphysics you've still not done so.

viaro:

I got bored already seeing the way you negotiate the issue of "information" and "non-information". I tried to see the sort of discussant you were by taking up that issue - and up until now, you have done nothing but present fallacy after fallacy. . . at the end of the day, we still don't have your example of "non-information". If that simple issue was far way out of your league, would I be surprised you can't habdle metaphysics? Please.

I guess I should have asked this in the beginning since the simple issue is so obvious. What would you define as "non-information"? With examples.

thehomer:

And how did he give the vivid information of his existence?

vivid information is perceived&felt with immediate experience.God gave us wind which is felt with immediate experience

thehomer if i made a claim of Gods existence,u have also made a counter claim of his non existence.It just doesnt make sense to make a statement without substantially backing it up logically.Myself&viaro have substantiated our claims anyhow,metaphysically,unempirical etc. The onus is now u to back up ur counter claims reasonably&not rhetorically as commonly done by lazy atheists

This thread is nine pages long so far and i havent been following all of it. However, I have just two questions.

Has anyone given one piece of significant evidence of a god yet?

And if so, which god (of the hundreds that people worship) has the most evidence so far?

thehomer.The data provided by God is d wind&air

Mantraa.What in ur opinion is significant evidence?

thehomer:



Well before we go further, what is "non-information"?

Im sure dis questn is a rhetoric,u should av directed it to ur self.U would recall my asking u on d previous page if 'information could come from non information' you said yes&gave an eg of data&climate which viaro flawed completly.Your response presumes ur knowing what non information is.Asking again will make me assume dat atheists are confused folks dat knows d TRUTH but ignorantly want to avoid it

Any evidence will do, so long as it is specific to the god that you believe in and cannot be attributed to any other god.



Respects

mantraa:

Any evidence will do, so long as it is specific to the god that you believe in and cannot be attributed to any other god.



Respects

Ok then i will give u evidence since anyone would do

mantraa:

Any evidence will do, so long as it is specific to the god that you believe in and cannot be attributed to any other god.



Respects

Ok then i will give u evidence since anyone would do

mantraa:

Any evidence will do

Eye witness account is an eg.

theres one thing i have always said

Christians believe and are expected to practice peace, compassion, respect and love. . . . loads of it!

we are taught to love each other and be loved, we are taught not to hurt anybody!!

why do people have a problem with it?- if i was a non christian i would join quickly!

the evidence of God is shown through the holy spirit, miricles and wonders we see everyday and the testemonies of his children

the evidence of satan are the atheists and people that make sense out of evolution and philosophy

im baffled by the fact humans coming from monkeys is more believable than a perfect God

big bang and evolution- THEORIES i might add of which there is ABSOLUTELY no proof!!

my point anyways- if its not bothering you leave it alone!!!!

ayettymama:

theres one thing i have always said

Christians believe and are expected to practice peace, compassion, respect and love. . . . loads of it!

we are taught to love each other and be loved, we are taught not to hurt anybody!!

why do people have a problem with it?- if i was a non christian i would join quickly!

the evidence of God is shown through the holy spirit, miricles and wonders we see everyday and the testemonies of his children

the evidence of satan are the atheists and people that make sense out of evolution and philosophy

im baffled by the fact humans coming from monkeys is more believable than a perfect God

big bang and evolution- THEORIES i might add of which there is ABSOLUTELY no proof!!

my point anyways- if its not bothering you leave it alone!!!!

You have just displayed your ignorance about things you know absolutely nothing about. If you don't know anything please keep quite and stop displaying your ignorance.

toneyb:

You have just displayed your ignorance about things you know absolutely nothing about. If you don't know anything please keep quite and stop displaying your ignorance.

@toneyb, how much of what others know do you know? When atheists make noise the way you do, I feel very sorry for them. If you have no clue what they are saying, just zip it - or you yourself would actually be showing your own ignorance.

Simply proof. The hierachy of being. Plant > animal > humans > smthing. That something which is greater than human (not withstanding its features and quality) is God. Man cannot be d highest because man can't control smthings e.g nature. Also, it cant be infinite since it is serial.

Simply proof. The hierachy of being. Plant > animal > humans > smthing. That something which is greater than human (not withstanding its features and quality) is God. Man cannot be d highest because man can't control smthings e.g nature. Also, it cant be infinite since it is serial.

Simply proof. The hierachy of being. Plant > animal > humans > smthing. That something which is greater than human (not withstanding its features and quality) is God. Man cannot be d highest because man can't control smthings e.g nature. Also, it cant be infinite since it is serial.

toneyb:

You have just displayed your ignorance about things you know absolutely nothing about. If you don't know anything please keep quite and stop displaying your ignorance.

You re also displaying ignorance by not being able to prove ur claim about d non existence of God.
As an atheist u belive theres no God,then go ahead to prove ur belief,if im convinced 'beyond reasonable doubt',i may abandom my theism&come to join ur 'atheistic belief'

Simply proof. The hierachy of being. Plant > animal > humans > smthing. That something which is greater than human (not withstanding its features and quality) is God. Man cannot be d highest because man can't control smthings e.g nature. Also, it cant be infinite since it is serial.

toba:

As an atheist u belive theres no God,then go ahead to prove your belief,

That's one of the simplest of things to do in propositional logic. Belief or non-belief in what is called 'universals' is subjective. As such, when someone posits that something does not exist within a domain of certain defined perimeters, then they have proven their postulations as far as that belief is subjective. It does not mean that the direct opposite proposition (that such a thing exists) is wrong - it only means that as far as 'universals' are concerned, the negative claim can indeed be proven within a certain domain.

Ok. Viaro.Since we accept objectivity as 'non bias& non subjective', the onus of proof still lies with d claimer/counter claimer to objectivly&logically back up the claim/counter claim with evidence&relevant examples naturally,scientifically,materially or supernaturally in order to convince d non deluded souls paying attention to what is being said.

toba:

Ok. Viaro.Since we accept objectivity as 'non bias& non subjective', the onus of proof still lies with d claimer/counter claimer to objectivly&logically back up the claim/counter claim with evidence&relevant examples naturally,scientifically or supernaturally in order to convince d non deluded souls paying attention to what is being said.

I like the way you put it, but that may present us with a whole range of problems that will take us nowhere.

You see, in presenting 'proofs' of any kind, one has first to determine the kind of postulations and claims that are being made. Either way, depending on the kinds of claims that are being made, each claimant is required to provide 'proof'.

Take an example:
(a)  the universe had a beginning
(b)  the universe had no beginning

The burden rests on either party to proffer 'proof' for what they claim - in this case, a 'universal' question. Consider that neither claimants for (a) or (b) were at the "beginning" of the Universe; nor do they know the extent of the Universe - but then, each one is responsible to proffer 'proof' for what they have claimed.

While at it, other properties will be involved, such as would define the domain and perimeters of their 'proofs'. Examples:

(a)    did the universe create itself in the 'beginning'?
(b)    was there ever a 'beginning'?
(c)     why is there a 'beginning' at all?
(d)    what happened at that particular 'beginning'?
(e)     how do we 'explain' the events from any particular 'beginning'
         . . . . etc.

These questions are not useless in themselves, for they help to contextualise the propositions between either claims.

That is only an example, and does not establish anything. However, the implications of that example is that either way, the claimants are each responsible to proffer proof for whatever claims they have made between (a) and (b).

Viaro we re saying samething.I mean as a theist i must provide proof for my theism&an atheist must do same simple.
If i said shade is a girl&u say shade is not.The 2 of us must prove our contradictory statements with facts to a logical point