I came across this video on Facebook so I went in search of it on YouTube.

Seun and other Atheists should please come and see this video and tell us what they think.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA-xrXBZGeU



Lalasticlala, Seun, Mynd44 please help put it in FP to know people's thought about it.

check out a review of the movie here www.nairaland.com/3425564/review-ray-comforts-atheist-delusion

hopefulLandlord:
check out a review of the movie here www.nairaland.com/3425564/review-ray-comforts-atheist-delusion

The review, doesnt answer a single question in the movie.
Not one.

Very Foolish video with semi-atheists who are unprepared.
If all was created by your God, then your God couldn't have come from nothing either.

this video's funny

Liveair:
Very Foolish video with semi-atheists who are unprepared.
If all was created by your God, then your God couldn't have come from nothing either.

What's a semi-atheist?

Liveair:
Very Foolish video with semi-atheists who are unprepared.
If all was created by your God, then your God couldn't have come from nothing either.

there are four possibilities

1. These atheists are paid actors

2. Their responses were edited. He probably removed any instances where they tried to argue.

3. These atheists are ignorant and haven't really debated or watched a debate before, I could pick a Nairaland atheist at random and they'll do a better job than those in that video lol

4. Arsenal

OP, please, go and sit down.


Ray Comfort the banana man? mtchew

rekinomtla:

What's a semi-atheist?

Those in that video.

hopefulLandlord:


there are four possibilities

1. These atheists are paid actors

2. Their responses were edited. He probably removed any instances where they tried to argue.

3. These atheists are ignorant and haven't really debated or watched a debate before, I could pick a Nairaland atheist at random and they'll do a better job than those in that video lol

4. Arsenal

Don't mind them with their high penchant for ignorance.

Liveair:


Those in that video.

What makes them semi-atheists? They just said they "atheists"

Jomoh, I'm an atheist, and your post/video has really made me think deep

I seriously agree with you and your Ray Comfort that something cannot exist out of nothing. Therefore, anything existing most probably should have a cause. But it disturbs me so much that when asked what caused god, we tend to try to define that problem away.

You can't just conclude without evidence that everything that comes into being must have a cause, except god. That is, of course, a special pleading fallacy.

What if god, if exists have a cause which supersedes his own and our own knowledge? Have you ever reasoned that way?

Or don't you think if a god exists, there should also exist a supergod who created this god, since our logic agrees god (which is something) can't just exist out of nothing?

Let's take a look at two logical ways to reason for real that something didn't just come out of nothing: ( ">" means "created by" ).

Case 1:
Printed book > Man > God > SuperGod > UltraSuperGod > HyperUltraSuperGod > (...till infinity!)

Case 2:
Printed book > Man > (...I don't really know because it is beyond my current reasoning and understanding of the world and hope someday I will find a logical answer)

The above would be a very logical and sincere way to reason.On the other hand, it is very illogical to say:

Printed book > Man > God > nothing

Or

Printed book > Man > God (The End!)

It would be irrational and insincere to create a logical progression and then truncate it at any point that pleases us while raising a special pleading for that purpose.

Whereas you have no evidence to prove why your answer is god and not something else that most probably isn't a supernatural being.

Truly it would be more honest and intellectually scrupulous to admit that we don't know why anything exists in the first place and decide to withhold judgment on claims of creators until some kind of evidence appears to substantiate their existence

chemystery:
Jomoh, I'm an atheist, and your post/video has really made me think deep

I seriously agree with you and your Ray Comfort that something cannot exist out of nothing. Therefore, anything existing most probably should have a cause. But it disturbs me so much that when asked what caused god, we tend to try to define that problem away.

You can't just conclude without evidence that everything that comes into being must have a cause, except god. That is, of course, a special pleading fallacy.

What if god, if exists have a cause which supersedes his own and our own knowledge? Have you ever reasoned that way?

Or don't you think if a god exists, there should also exist a supergod who created this god, since our logic agrees god (which is something) can't just exist out of nothing?

Let's take a look at two logical ways to reason for real that something didn't just come out of nothing: ( ">" means "created by" ).

Case 1:
Printed book > Man > God > SuperGod > UltraSuperGod > HyperUltraSuperGod > (...till infinity!)

Case 2:
Printed book > Man > (...I don't really know because it is beyond my current reasoning and understanding of the world and hope someday I will find a logical answer)

The above would be a very logical and sincere way to reason.On the other hand, it is very illogical to say:

Printed book > Man > God > nothing

Or

Printed book > Man > God (The End!)

It would be irrational and insincere to create a logical progression and then truncate it at any point that pleases us while raising a special pleading for that purpose.

Whereas you have no evidence to prove why your answer is god and not something else that most probably isn't a supernatural being.

Truly it would be more honest and intellectually scrupulous to admit that we don't know why anything exists in the first place and decide to withhold judgment on claims of creators until some kind of evidence appears to substantiate their existence

Let me first make a correction in the signs you used.

It should have been

Book < man < God (means that man is greater than book while God is greater than man) RIGHT

and not

Book > man > God. (Means Book is greater than Man and man is greater than god) WRONG.

To your reaponse.

You seem to be getting one thing wrong. The concept of what and who is God. You seem to be contexting God with the thinking and reasoning of man whereas God is above the reasoning of man.


The reason why ray comfort used a book is because for you to know that

1 you can see the universe and its enrichment (the book)
2 you know the attributes and design of the universe.
3 you know how complex the design and its enrichment is
4 you know how strategic and organized the design is.


So how is it possible that all that came from nothing?

Now let's apply the logic up there to God.

1 can you see the designer(God) and his enrichments?
2 do you know the attributes and design of the designer(God)?
3 do you know how and to what extent the complexity of the design of the designer(God) is?
4 do you know to what extent how strategic and organized God is?

Obviously your answers to the above is No. so how do you determined if He was created.

The purpose of the video is not to show that you cannot get something from nothing.

It is to show that you cannot get anything so well organized and complex in design like the universe and its enrichment from from absolutely nothing.

Yes the Big Bang theory is true. My Mom Iran tells me that but to say the Big Bang explosion that gave rise to this well structured and complex design is not preplanned by a supreme designer just because there's no physical prove of its existence is absolutely nonsense.

Because you cannot see the printer of a book it will be illogical for you to not acknowledge that the book was created by someone.

Your question now is that who then created God. Well that question is for God to answer and he already did that he was not created by anyone. If that is true or not is not enough reason for anyone to just believe he doesn't exist.

jomoh:


Let me first make a correction in the signs you used.

It should have been

Book < man < God (means that man is greater than book while God is greater than man) RIGHT

and not

Book > man > God. (Means Book is greater than Man and man is greater than god) WRONG.

Any how it should be, it is your problem not mine. For I clearly stated what I imply by the sign ">".

To your reaponse.

You seem to be getting on thing wrong. The concept of what and who is God. You seem to be contesting God with the thinking and reasoning of man whereas God is above the reasoning of man.

If you can reason on your own that god is above the reasoning of man, why hasn't it occurred to you that there might be a supergod whose reasoning is above that of god? Or is that above your reasoning?

The reason why ray comfort used a book is because for you to know that

1 you can see the universe and its enrichment (the book)
2 you know the attributes and design of the universe.
3 you know how complex the design and its enrichment is
4 you know how strategic and organized the design is.


So how is it possible that all that came from nothing?

Now let's apply the logic up there to God.

1 can you see the designer(God) and his enrichments?
2 do you know the attributes and design of the designer(God)?
3 do you know how and to what extent the complexity of the design of the designer(God) is?
4 do you know to what extent how strategic and organized God is?

Obviously your answers to the above is No. so how do you determined if He was created.

Your argument here shows you know nothing about this your designer but had to bring him into existence just to fill the gaps of your ignorance. Why must the designer be called god and wants to be worshiped in the first place and not something else?
You have not in any way proved this designer exists, or whether there is even any designer in the first place.

You are saying if your first logic is right, then the second one cannot be wrong.

OK let me apply your logic too


1 can you see the designer's designer(SuperGod) and his enrichments?
2 do you know the attributes and design of the designer's designer(SuperGod)?
3 do you know how and to what extent the complexity of the design of the designer's designer(SuperGod) is?
4 do you know to what extent how strategic and organized SuperGod is over God?

The purpose of the video is not to show that you cannot get something from nothing.

It is to show that you cannot get anything so well organized and complex in design like the universe and its enrichment from from absolutely nothing.

Yes the Big Bang theory is true. My Mom Iran tells me that but to say the Big Bang explosion that gave rise to this well structured and complex design is not preplanned by a supreme designer just because there's no physical prove of its existence is absolutely nonsense.

The purpose of the video still went further to tell us that a very intelligent and complex designer cannot just exists from the blues. He must also have a designer!

jomoh:


Let me first make a correction in the signs you used.

It should have been

Book < man < God (means that man is greater than book while God is greater than man) RIGHT

and not

Book > man > God. (Means Book is greater than Man and man is greater than god) WRONG.

Any how it should be, it is your problem not mine. For I clearly stated what I imply by the sign ">".

To your reaponse.

You seem to be getting on thing wrong. The concept of what and who is God. You seem to be contesting God with the thinking and reasoning of man whereas God is above the reasoning of man.

If you can reason on your own that god is above the reasoning of man, why hasn't it occurred to you that there might be a supergod whose reasoning is above that of god? Or is that above your reasoning?

The reason why ray comfort used a book is because for you to know that

1 you can see the universe and its enrichment (the book)
2 you know the attributes and design of the universe.
3 you know how complex the design and its enrichment is
4 you know how strategic and organized the design is.


So how is it possible that all that came from nothing?

Now let's apply the logic up there to God.

1 can you see the designer(God) and his enrichments?
2 do you know the attributes and design of the designer(God)?
3 do you know how and to what extent the complexity of the design of the designer(God) is?
4 do you know to what extent how strategic and organized God is?

Obviously your answers to the above is No. so how do you determined if He was created.

Your argument here shows you know nothing about this your designer but had to bring him into existence just to fill the gaps of your ignorance. Why must the designer be called god (and wants to be worshiped) in the first place and not something else?
You have not in any way proved this designer exists, or whether there is even any designer in the first place.

You are saying if your first logic is right, then the second one cannot be wrong.

OK let me apply your logic too


1 can you see the designer's designer(SuperGod) and his enrichments?
2 do you know the attributes and design of the designer's designer(SuperGod)?
3 do you know how and to what extent the complexity of the design of the designer's designer(SuperGod) is?
4 do you know to what extent how strategic and organized SuperGod is over God?

So it is not possible that god (if exists) came from nothing?

The purpose of the video is not to show that you cannot get something from nothing.

It is to show that you cannot get anything so well organized and complex in design like the universe and its enrichment from from absolutely nothing.

Yes the Big Bang theory is true. My Mom Iran tells me that but to say the Big Bang explosion that gave rise to this well structured and complex design is not preplanned by a supreme designer just because there's no physical prove of its existence is absolutely nonsense.

The purpose of the video still went further to tell us that a very intelligent and complex designer cannot just exists from the blues. He must also have a designer!

chemystery:

Any how it should be, it is your problem not mine. For I clearly stated what I imply by the sign ">".



If you can reason on your own that god is above the reasoning of man, why hasn't it occurred to you that there might be a supergod whose reasoning is above that of god? Or is that above your reasoning?


Your argument here shows you know nothing about this your designer but had to bring him into existence just to fill the gaps of your ignorance. Why must the designer be called god (and wants to be worshiped) in the first place and not something else?
You have not in any way proved this designer exists, or whether there is even any designer in the first place.

You are saying if your first logic is right, then the second one cannot be wrong.

OK let me apply your logic too


1 can you see the designer's designer(SuperGod) and his enrichments?
2 do you know the attributes and design of the designer's designer(SuperGod)?
3 do you know how and to what extent the complexity of the design of the designer's designer(SuperGod) is?
4 do you know to what extent how strategic and organized SuperGod is over God?

So it is not possible that god (if exists) came from nothing?


The purpose of the video still went further to tell us that a very intelligent and complex designer cannot just exists from the blues. He must also have a designer!

Your responses are rude to say the least. It lacks simple courtesy and human respect. The video also said one thing in the middle and I won't go further on it.

It says "If you fail to learn anything from that video, you're a fool".

And don't come here telling me your arguments are superior cos they are not. Just that your responses are subtle attack and veiled deception to attack. QED.

jomoh:



Your responses are rude to say the least. It lacks simple courtesy and human respect.

I really understand where you got me wrong - where I said you brought your designer into existence to fill the gaps of your ignorance. The ignorance I meant here is in the knowledge of how we came into existence. We are both faced with this ignorance but you only want to deny it by filling yours with "god" instead of admitting it is a problem we have to come into logical conclusion with evidence and facts.

You agreed with your reasoning that the concept of god is beyond human reasoning and I tried to make you also reason about the concept of a supergod which I believe it's existence and knowledge about its concept should also be beyond that of a god and also human. I wondered why you haven't reasoned that way, so I sincerely asked to confirm if that concept is beyond your reasoning. I think this is another place you also misinterpreted.

The video also said one thing in the middle and I won't go further on it.
It says "If you fail to learn anything from that video, you're a fool".

I learnt a lot from the video, especially that an intelligent designer like god cannot just come into existence by chance. Therefore, it must have a designer aka supergod

And don't come here telling me your arguments are superior cos they are not. Just that your responses are subtle attack and veiled deception to attack. QED.

Maybe you expected me to be nodding like lizard just like the atheist actors in your video, therefore any other action outside that would seem like an attack to you. I only attacked your argument not you. But since you failed to understand, I have broken words into smaller bits.
Anyway, do have a wonderful night.

chemystery:

I really understand where you got me wrong - where I said you brought your designer into existence to fill the gaps of your ignorance. The ignorance I meant here is in the knowledge of how we came into existence. We are both faced with this ignorance but you only want to deny it by filling yours with "god" instead of admitting it is a problem we have to come into logical conclusion with evidence and facts.

You agreed with your reasoning that the concept of god is beyond human reasoning and I tried to make you also reason about the concept of a supergod which I believe it's existence and knowledge about its concept should also be beyond that of a god and also human. I wondered why you haven't reasoned that way, so I sincerely asked to confirm if that concept is beyond your reasoning. I think this is another place you also misinterpreted.


I learnt a lot from the video, especially that an intelligent designer like god cannot just come into existence by chance. Therefore, it must have a designer aka supergod


Maybe you expected me to be nodding like lizard just like the atheist actors in your video, therefore any other action outside that would seem like an attack to you. I only attacked your argument not you. But since you failed to understand, I have broken words into smaller bits.
Anyway, do have a wonderful night.

I can point to other instances apart from the "ignorance" aspect. Telling someone is ignorant is not being rude but telling someone "that's your problem" is.

First you're an Atheist who doesn't believe in the existence of God(creator of all things) then somehow after watching the video, you felt compelled to change your narrative that the creator must have had a creator too but you didn't realize that for you to have this kind of thinking, you must have acknowledge the existence of a "first creator" which is against your Atheist believe that there was no creator in the first place.

Are you confused?

The video was to dispel your argument that there is no God the creator.

The argument that there was is a supergod stems from acknowledgement of an initial god.

My religion doesn't give me the the right and freedom to disturb my mind that there is a super god and logic doesn't support it. If you choose to reason that there's a super god beyond the real god then you should find group that gives you that freedom but make sure it is one that doesn't subscribe to the illogical reasoning that we came into existence by chance or accident and Atheism is not.

My Quran is over 1400 years old but has talked about the so much thrown around Big Bang theory hundreds of years even before scientists postulated the possibility of their being a Big Bang theory and it is not the only scientific fact it talked about.

It goes to show that the creator had given us a short manual to his creation but some people in the name of Atheism decided that the creator doesn't even exist. Then who wrote the Big Bang theory in the Quran.

jomoh:


It is to show that you cannot get anything so well organized and complex in design like the universe and its enrichment from from absolutely nothing.

1. can you please define what you mean by "absolutely nothing"?

2. when you're through with that, can you also tell us how unorganized and simple in design our universe has to be compared to this one in order to be able to have come from "absolutely nothing'?

Edited

hopefulLandlord:


1. can you please define what you mean by "absolutely nothing"?

2. when you're through with that, can you also tell us how unorganized and simple in design our universe has to be in order to be able to have come from "absolutely nothing'?

Edited

Define "absolutely nothing"? Are you kidding me.

No wonder your Atheist Professor (Dawkins) made a fool of himself trying to define it.

So after trying to make everyone believe that you have a better reasoning capacity because you question the existence of God, you can still ask someone to define "Absolutely Nothing". Isn't that ridiculous.

jomoh:


Define "absolutely nothing"? Are you kidding me.

absolutely not, its a very direct and clear question

No wonder your Atheist Professor (Dawkins) made a fool of himself trying to define it.

I'm not Dawkins, answer the question

So after trying to make everyone believe that you have a better reasoning capacity because you question the existence of God,

this is fallacy of composition
I've never claimed to have a better reasoning capacity just because I question the existence of gods, stop painting all atheists with the same brush

you can still ask someone to define "Absolutely Nothing". Isn't that ridiculous.

all you've done with this post is dodge, dodge and dodge the question

here's the question again in case you missed it

1. can you please define what you mean by "absolutely nothing"?

2. when you're through with that, can you also tell us how unorganized and simple in design our universe has to be compared to this one in order to be able to have come from "absolutely nothing'?

jomoh:


I can point to other instances apart from the "ignorance" aspect. Telling someone is ignorant is not being rude but telling someone "that's your problem" is.

First you're an Atheist who doesn't believe in the existence of God(creator of all things) then somehow after watching the video, you felt compelled to change your narrative that the creator must have had a creator too but you didn't realize that for you to have this kind of thinking, you must have acknowledge the existence of a "first creator" which is against your Atheist believe that there was no creator in the first place.

Are you confused?

The video was to dispel your argument that there is no God the creator.

The argument that there was is a supergod stems from acknowledgement of an initial god.

My religion doesn't give me the the right and freedom to disturb my mind that there is a super god and logic doesn't support it. If you choose to reason that there's a super god beyond the real god then you should find group that gives you that freedom but make sure it is one that doesn't subscribe to the illogical reasoning that we came into existence by chance or accident and Atheism is not.

My Quran is over 1400 years old but has talked about the so much thrown around Big Bang theory hundreds of years even before scientists postulated the possibility of their being a Big Bang theory and it is not the only scientific fact it talked about.

It goes to show that the creator had given us a short manual to his creation but some people in the name of Atheism decided that the creator doesn't even exist. Then who wrote the Big Bang theory in the Quran.

I said that was your problem cos you chose to argue over insubstantial things like ">" .

You are the one confused here. Your post was to convince atheists that a God exists else how is the world intelligently designed. I was only trying to make you see how flawed your argument by pointing out your fallacy of special pleading

If I should go by your logic, then you also must have acknowledge there is no creator for you to initiate a discussion with an atheist in the first place.

If you don't accept the fact that if there is a god, there must be a supergod, you are only being dishonest with yourself. You only want to solve one problem and throw the rest away over the window. And that is a very irrational thing to do.

It is a bigger crime for god who is perceived as very mighty and intelligent not to have designer than for relatively microscopic and less intelligent being like man not to have. Therefore, if it is logical for god not to have a designer, it is millions of times more logical for man not to have too.

chemystery:

I said that was your problem cos you chose to argue over insubstantial things like ">" .

You are the one confused here. Your post was to convince atheists that a God exists else how is the world intelligently designed. I was only trying to make you see how flawed your argument by pointing out your fallacy of special pleading

If I should go by your logic, then you also must have acknowledge there is no creator for you to initiate a discussion with an atheist in the first place.

If you don't accept the fact that if there is a god, there must be a supergod, you are only being dishonest with yourself. You only want to solve one problem and throw the rest away over the window. And that is a very irrational thing to do.

It is a bigger crime for god who is perceived as very mighty and intelligent not to have designer than for relatively microscopic and less intelligent being like man not to have. Therefore, if it is logical for god not to have a designer, it is millions of times more logical for man too not to have too.

The problem is that theists use what they call "induction" and "causality" and other philosophical ideas (backed with no evidence) to conclude that the universe Must have been created by a supreme being, because the universe is very complex etc...
The Atheist simply continues in the same line of thought: Then since the Creator is also complex, and apparently more complex than his creation, and using the exact same logic, Then who created the creator... It's simple... But the theists decides to stop at this point, because it is enough for him to back up his narrative. Continuing in the same logic is inconvenient.

Liveair:
Very Foolish video with semi-atheists who are unprepared.
If all was created by your God, then your God couldn't have come from nothing either.

If you are intelligent you dont need to be prepare ... that goes to show that most atheist are just noise maker

study to show yourself approved

To those asking who created God, here is a nice thread to discuss with Winner01
https://www.nairaland.com/4029569/created-god-invalid-question

GoodMuyis:


If you are intelligent you dont need to be prepare ... that goes to show that most atheist are just noise maker

study to show yourself approved

Therein lays the Crux. In your acertion, it infers that an Intelligent student needs not study, right?
Am sure people can see the folly there...yet you quote, 'study to show thyself approved'. Lol

Liveair:

Therein lays the Crux. In your acertion, it infers that an Intelligent student needs not study, right?
Am sure people can see the folly there...yet you quote, 'study to show thyself approved'. Lol

If you have being an atheist most of your life-time and did not prepare to answer basic question, you are nothing but a noise-maker, an empty-barrel.

Sometime do wonder if argument have block reasoning. SMH

GoodMuyis:


If you have being an atheist most of your life-time and did not prepare to answer basic question, you are nothing but a noise-maker, an empty-barrel.

Sometime do wonder if argument have block reasoning. SMH

Pls next time type legibly, you may get a response.