budaatum:

I often suspect that when believers are asking one to believe, they actually do not mean "believe in God" , but believe them! Why should anyone believe God revealed himself to you? Of what business is it of anyone whether God revealed himself to you or not? In fact, why are you here telling anyone that God revealed himself to you? Is it because you are more worthy of being revealed to?

If God revealed himself to me, he'd probably be doing kso for a reason, and I suspect that reason would be way more than my merely proclaiming it on Nairaland. I'd expect something like "buda go and cure the world from poverty, or death" in fact. And if I were to ask for the power to do so, which I would, I expect to be given a rod and an Aaron to assist me. Anything less is probably me hallucinating or blatantly lying! And if I am asking people to believe in my lies, then my intention can only be so I can make them stupid and exploitable.

Imagine the creator revealing himself to them yet there is nothing more special in them than me. This revealing process must be one of Yahweh's unless ventures that yields absolutely nothing to humanity.

UserX18:



Good thought, you see this is what I stand by, this is what I hold on, The Word of God. It stands true, it always stand true. There’s no lie in it. So I’m different from you, i do not believe in a nonsensical thing. It makes absolute sense.

And why exactly should I believe u if u will continue using only words to prove urself?

Talk is cheap bro.. Saying some words makes sense does not mean those words make sense... U must show it.

What if u are lying? What if u are making things up to make urself look special or feel good?

UserX18:


There’s something you’re not getting, I do not ask for you to believe me. His word is there. God has revealed himself to everyone, it is left for you to choose to believe it or reject it. You’re to believe his word not mine. His word stands true. Because you do not even believe nor understand the God, for this selfsame reason will you bring such examples. I didn’t tell a lie to you. God has revealed himself to me, I believed, that made me a believer, he revealed himself to you, and you reject it and even say he doesn’t exist, that makes you an Unbeliever.
His word is true, since there’s no lie in it, I have no reason to reject it.

So if u and ur fellow Christians do not want people to believe them why preach? Why ask me to come to their church, why ask me to repent or perish?
Lies Gods word is not anywhere... Which word? When did he write these word? Why should I believe things written by men and call it Gods words?
And if he revealed himself to everyone including me, why do I still doublet his existence? Why haven't I GM felt him?
Lol.. U are now a psychic.. U also know he revealed himself to me? See ur life.. If I say u are lying and even question ur sanity u will still be asking me why I am challenging u... How do I even believe someone who I am not sure is sane? U even have the boldness to lie and tell me to my face that this God that I seriously doubt his existence revealed himself to me. So u felt nothing like I did and u are busy proclaiming God revealed himself to u.

UserX18:


I do not understand if you’re talking about the bible, please make me understand.
If yes, have you seen an inconsistency? If yes please point it out.

If (no) End;

The bible is made up of 2 parts..The first part was written by the jews for their religion called Judaism.. They call it the Tanakh and it contains a lot more books in it, dealing with subjects ranging from reincarnation, death, birth etc.

The Romans stole or borrowed it from the jews, they removed some books from it and called it the old testament and added their own books at the end of it and calls it the new testament.. Together is what they call the Bible... The so called new testament has been proven to be forgery as it is not a continuation of the Tanakh..

In the Tanakh God is responsible for everything, both good and evil, not somethings like it is claimed in the new in the new, and certainly does not need a saviour..

My second point is that, it is same message In the stories.. Whether some decide to use Abraham, Isaac, Joseph or moses and some decide to use ogun, oromila or olokun... The message is consistent..

budaatum:

It's your "Please Be REASONABLE HERE!" That makes me jump in. I assume that if you can ask others to be reasonable then you are capable of reasonableness so please consider the following.

If say you do not believe in the existence of other planets and I told you there were 196, I expect you to ask me where they are and what are they called, despite your not believing in their existence. I also expect you to go do some further research too. My reason for thinking so is that I do not believe you are stupid enough to think that what you believe is the whole truth. And besides, you'd wish to correct my error, or won't you?

So yes, I would expect you to ask me about the 196 planets I claim exist. And if I insist, I expect to be challenged about my claim. If you don't challenge me, I might go and place my 196 planet claim on the school curriculum and teach my stupidity to your children. Trust me, you'd see the detriment of your not challenging me when your child starts repeating my 196 planet claim amongst intelligent people who know better. They may not correct your child, but they sure would form an opinion of said child based on an unverifiable 196 planet claim.


I think the issue here is your need to "argue" . Can I ask you to do me a temporary favour and consider that I am not arguing with you here, but "discussing" ? You are more likely to benefit me more by doing the latter rather than the former, and I thank you in advance. I'd also have wished to ask you to consider what you mean by "believe" , but I assume that's too much to ask. Consider the following however.

Imagine that when you asked me for evidence of my 196 planet claim, I answered with "I believe there are 196 planets", perhaps because I read about them in some book, would you not look at me funny? Now imagine you asked me to name them and I started with Earth, Mars, Ganymede, Jupiter, Callisto, Io, Amalthea, Elara, Saturn, Metise, Sinope, Europa etc, and name 196 bodies that I claim are heavenly. Wouldn't you see where my error lay if you knew where I got those 'planets' from?

One "discusses" with others in order to 'learn about', is my point here. "Believing" however, is the closing off of one's senses to contradictory evidence without considering whether any validity lay in the claim made. It is my opinion that if I were to behave in that way - not consider the opinion of others - then I must indeed be, or end up becoming, a stupid person.

That is true. If I knew where you got the ‘planets’ from and they are not planets, then Of course you’re wrong.
Now let us reason, I have the word of God, it stands true, there’s no lie in it. None can prove it false to me, if none can prove something false to you. Then it stands true until it fails, especially when none can prove it false, and i totally understand God’s character. And I see the word has never contradicted itself. If one is able to prove it false then I’ll know it is false. It’s all about reasoning and understanding.

Butterflyleo:



For something not to exist it means it is totally erased from ones subconscious and not even to be thought about but these guys spend the bulk of their time demanding for evidence all over the place yet claiming God does not exist at the same time. So if something does not exist, what evidence would they then recognise as coming from that non existent God?

this does not make any sense.

unicorns/fairies don't exist, yet they are in our consciousness.

logical contradictions don't exists yet it is in our consciousness.
I'm thinking of a square circle now.
...

the imagination brings about all these things even when they don't exist.

sonmvayina:

The bible is made up of 2 parts..The first part was written by the jews for their religion called Judaism.. They call it the Tanakh and it contains a lot more books in it, dealing with subjects ranging from reincarnation, death, birth etc.

The Romans stole or borrowed it from the jews, they removed some books from it and called it the old testament and added their own books at the end of it and calls it the new testament.. Together is what they call the Bible... The so called new testament has been proven to be forgery as it is not a continuation of the Tanakh..

In the Tanakh God is responsible for everything, both good and evil, not somethings like it is claimed in the new in the new, and certainly does not need a saviour..

My second point is that, it is same message In the stories.. Whether some decide to use Abraham, Isaac, Joseph or moses and some decide to use ogun, oromila or olokun... The message is consistent..

Mr Userx18 read the above. There are rumors like this all over the internet and libraries about the so called word of God u so cherish so much yet u wonder why I doubt u when u say things about this creator was supposedly wrote this book men are falsifying.

Since u are fond of believing everything why my exactly don't u believe the Koran is God's words?

Gggg102:


this does not make any sense.

unicorns/fairies don't exist, yet they are in our consciousness.

logical contradictions don't exists yet it is in our consciousness.
I'm thinking of a square circle now.
...

the imagination brings about all these things even when they don't exist.

Don't even mind that guy.. He is just busy wishing we can disappear from the face of the earth just because we don't believe in the nonsense he holds so dear

Gggg102:


this does not make any sense.

unicorns/fairies don't exist, yet they are in our consciousness.

logical contradictions don't exists yet it is in our consciousness.
I'm thinking of a square circle now.
...

the imagination brings about all these things even when they don't exist.

Unicorns , fairies don't exist and due to this, they are not in my consciousness to the extent of me constantly seeking evidence for their existence since I know they do not exist already.

Get it?

Imaginations do not work without a precursor. If something isn't there then it isn't there. Period!

felixomor:


So what you know is different what you believe?

Eiya.
Anyway.
For us, we believe what we know
And we know what we believe.
Sad to know your case is different.

You are correct Felix, what I know is very different to what I believe, sad as that may appear to you. Please note that I understand that religious people use 'knowing' and 'believing' interchangeably, but that is not my way. Whenever you read me say "I believe a thing to be so or not so", I am saying that I am not quite certainly sure that it is so or not, and hence limit myself by claiming that I choose to believe, or not believe whether it is so or not. The things that I believe are believed because I have insufficient knowledge to know, and the things I know are known by me because I actually have sufficient evidence to know.

I would, for instance, not claim to believe it is raining if water were dropping on my head from the sky unless I happen to think, for some reason, that it is not rain water dropping on my head. It would be rather odd to claim, "I believe the water dropping on my head were rain", if I knew it was rainwater dropping on my head. I expressed this same sentiment when I said God made me dumb, but you called it pride. After my super super pride, I would not believe God made me dumb and might make me dead at 12 noon because I would know that God made me dumb twice and would most likely make me dead at 12 noon. If I merely 'believed', then I am not quite sure.

If I were a 'Christian', I would be the sort who would boldly assert that "I know my God exists" and I would be insulting my God by not claiming so. For by stating that "I believe my God exists", I would be claiming that I am not quite certain because I do not have sufficient evidence perhaps, and just choose to believe my God exists regardless. It is this rather weak sentiment some express when they claim to know by faith. That may well be the case when I am a Christian child, but when I grow up into a Christian adult I believe I should have abandoned my childish beliefs because I would have sufficient evidence to claim actual knowledge about the existence of my God, and to hell with anyone who claims my knowing is in error. In fact, I would be insulting my God and myself if I argued with some stupid atheist whom my God has not proven his existence to, as I would be admitting, knowingly or not, that my evidence is rather unconvincing even to myself.

The only limit to my knowing is my desire to go do research to acquire actual knowledge, as opposed to mere believing, which can hardly be a virtue as it would make me no different to a child who has no knowledge, or the devil who also believes.

Butterflyleo:


Unicorns , fairies don't exist and due to this, they are not in my consciousness to the extent of me constantly seeking evidence for their existence since I know they do not exist already.

Get it?

1. Can you prove that unicorns do not exist?

2. No human being judges or punishes you for not believing in unicorns. Say that you don't believe in God and watch how you are automatically hated by some religious people.

superhumanist:



1. Can you prove that unicorns do not exist?

2. No human being judges or punishes you for not believing in unicorns. Say that you don't believe in God and watch how you are automatically hated by some religious people.

I don't need to prove they do not exist because I KNOW THEY DONT! Do note the difference here.

Why would I dwell on the non existent which I already know is so?

For point 2 is just nonsense. Nobody hates you for not believing in God. That is now your own imagination working over time aka playing tricks on you.

Perhaps you should refer that to Muslims .

frank317:


And why exactly should I believe u if u will continue using only words to prove urself?

Talk is cheap bro.. Saying some words makes sense does not mean those words make sense... U must show it.

What if u are lying? What if u are making things up to make urself look special or feel good?

Good! I said let me try and see the words if the are true, because the word tells me that, if I try this, I’ll see this, if I do this, this will happen.
Yes the word shows the evidence. But I just have to try it. How can you prove charle’s law makes sense, You have to try and follow the procedures, if I don’t try and follow the procedures and I say charle’s law is senseless, then I’m the one Senseless.

Butterflyleo:


Unicorns , fairies don't exist and due to this, they are not in my consciousness to the extent of me constantly seeking evidence for their existence since I know they do not exist already.

Get it?

Imaginations do not work without a precursor. If something isn't there then it isn't there. Period!

How many times to people preach to u in the bus that unicorns exist?

frank317:


How many times to people preach to u in the bus that unicorns exist?

Will preaching to you in the bus 1 billion times about a thing that you already KNOW and declare does not exist suddenly make it exist?

OR

Suddenly make you take such serious enough to constantly 24/7 demand for proof for what you ALREADY KNOW does not exist?

If you can read and understand the above then the folly in which you wallow in would dawn on you.

UserX18:


Good! I said let me try and see the words if the are true, because the word tells me that, if I try this, I’ll see this, if I do this, this will happen.
Yes the word shows the evidence. But I just have to try it. How can you prove charle’s law makes sense, You have to try and follow the procedures, if I don’t try and follow the procedures and I say charle’s law is senseless, then I’m the one Senseless.

I tried it and found out there is nothing like any creator who reveals himself to anyone... Even the so called people who claim they have tried and it revealed himself to them have absolutely nothing to show for it

frank317:


So if u and ur fellow Christians do not want people to believe them why preach? Why ask me to come to their church, why ask me to repent or perish?
Lies Gods word is not anywhere... Which word? When did he write these word? Why should I believe things written by men and call it Gods words?
And if he revealed himself to everyone including me, why do I still doublet his existence? Why haven't I GM felt him?
Lol.. U are now a psychic.. U also know he revealed himself to me? See ur life.. If I say u are lying and even question ur sanity u will still be asking me why I am challenging u... How do I even believe someone who I am not sure is sane? U even have the boldness to lie and tell me to my face that this God that I seriously doubt his existence revealed himself to me. So u felt nothing like I did and u are busy proclaiming God revealed himself to u.

Yes of course, I can decide to doubt the existence of gravity. True christians preach the word for you to believe the word of God, not to believe their own words, nor come to their church,(when your heart is right, his word will lead you) I cannot force you to believe God’s word.
Even you denying the existence is a good proof that he exist, because Of his mercies, he still gives you a chance to proclaim your folly. (That God doesn’t exist)
He revealed himself to all men through His word. But you as a person decided to reject him.

frank317:


I tried it and found out there is nothing like any creator who reveals himself to anyone... Even the so called people who claim they have tried and it revealed himself to them have absolutely nothing to show for it

Now how did you try?
I can boldly tell you, you tried it the wrong way, just like you going to carry out the pendulum ball experiment in wanting to verify boyle’s law. My fellow, it is folly. You tried it the wrong way. Let us try it together and then If it fails then we’ll agree that there’s no creator.

Butterflyleo:


Your entire thread and question is a non sequitor.

How can you be asking ATHEISTS what they would consider as evidence for Gods existence?

Have you forgotten what atheism is?



So if atheists declare that absolutely no deities exist and God is a deity then where would evidence for a non existent deity come from? Shouldn't such evidence also be non existent?

This thread is an embarrassment to logic.

you don't seem to understand atheist disbelieve due to lack of evidence.

but you talk about atheists who became theists. how do you think they believed?
they found evidence that convinced them that god exists.

to atheists god is an hypothesis, before an hypothesis is confirmed as a theory or law, there has to be evidence that supports the hypothesis. that someone doesn't believe an hypothesis does not mean he wouldn't acknowledge the evidence that would prove it is correct. it is the evidence that in facts makes an hypothesis believable.

e.g many people believed the earth was flat, they could never imagine a round earth. according to your logic, there should be no possible evidence that would support a round earth if it existed to these people.

they changed their minds when evidence was found.

lamarck suggested use and disuse theory of evolution. the evidence of his theory would be that after chopping the tails of rat for some generations, subsequent generations would be tailess. according to experiments, there was no evidence. the rats kept having tails.

he proposed an evidence even though in reality, his theory was wrong.

that there is no evidence for something doesn't mean that proposals that would serve as evidence can't be made.

you can propose evidence for any theory even if that theory is completely false. it is when evidence is proposed and is not found/found we know a theory is false/true respectively.

sonmvayina:

The bible is made up of 2 parts..The first part was written by the jews for their religion called Judaism.. They call it the Tanakh and it contains a lot more books in it, dealing with subjects ranging from reincarnation, death, birth etc.

The Romans stole or borrowed it from the jews, they removed some books from it and called it the old testament and added their own books at the end of it and calls it the new testament.. Together is what they call the Bible... The so called new testament has been proven to be forgery as it is not a continuation of the Tanakh..

In the Tanakh God is responsible for everything, both good and evil, not somethings like it is claimed in the new in the new, and certainly does not need a saviour..

My second point is that, it is same message In the stories.. Whether some decide to use Abraham, Isaac, Joseph or moses and some decide to use ogun, oromila or olokun... The message is consistent..

So you’re saying the message is consistent, but you believe it is a forgery, do you have the continuation of the old message and it is consistent, and contradicts the new testament. And does the old testament, say you do not need a savior, do you believe in the bible?

Gggg102:


you don't seem to understand atheist disbelieve due to lack of evidence.

but you talk about atheists who became theists. how do you think they believed?
they found evidence that convinced them that god exists

Atheists do not REJECT God due to unbelief! They reject God due to knowledge they acquired which they think contradicts Gods existence. Their assertion to the non existence of God is based on knowledge and not a disbelief.

Atheists who become theists also did this based on knowledge. You do not believe in "nothing" and you also cannot disbelieve "nothing". The premise for belief or disbelief is KNOWLEDGE and this is for an unbeliever. But for a believer it is different, we believe then we see. For you, you see then you believe. WHAT YOU SEE becomes the knowledge you acquire which triggered a belief.

BUT the entire position of FIRST saying God does not exist then negates your quest to want to see anything because what you wish to see does not exist along with the God you say does not exist.

to atheists god is an hypothesis, before an hypothesis is confirmed as a theory or law, there has to be evidence that supports the hypothesis. that someone doesn't believe an hypothesis does not mean he wouldn't acknowledge the evidence that would prove it is correct. it is the evidence that in facts makes an hypothesis believable.

Please stop twisting things. To atheists God is not a hypothesis. NEVER WAS, NEVER WILL! To atheists THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOD. PERIOD!

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A DEITY!

e.g many people believed the earth was flat, they could never imagine a round earth. according to your logic, there should be no possible evidence that would support a round earth if it existed to these people.

they changed their minds when evidence was found.

Those people FIRST BELIEVED the earth existed before even talking about it being flat or a sphere. How can you begin trying to ask for proof of how a non existent thing is? How can you want to talk about what does not exist to you? On what foundation?

lamarck suggested use and disuse theory of evolution. the evidence of his theory would be that after chopping the tails of rat for some generations, subsequent generations would be tailess. according to experiments, there was no evidence. the rats kept having tails.

he proposed an evidence even though in reality, his theory was wrong.

that there is no evidence for something doesn't mean that proposals that would serve as evidence can't be made

Before you seek for evidence there is always a foundation on which such evidence is demanded. You say something does not exist as an assertion so why would you seek evidence for what YOU KNOW doesn't exist?.

You can propose evidence for any theory even if that theory is completely false. it is when evidence is proposed and is not found/found we know a theory is false/true respectively.

Nobody is proposing anything. You already discarded all propositions even before seeing them when you made your GOD DOES NOT EXIST assertion.

Again I repeat, God is not a hypothesis or a theory to an atheist. To an atheist THERE IS NO SUCH THINF AS GOD. This is A STATEMENT OF FACT for an atheist so don't get it twisted.

frank317:


Mr Userx18 read the above. There are rumors like this all over the internet and libraries about the so called word of God u so cherish so much yet u wonder why I doubt u when u say things about this creator was supposedly wrote this book men are falsifying.

Since u are fond of believing everything why my exactly don't u believe the Koran is God's words?

Now what did you say rumors, have they been proven to be true, you see for so many years, simpletons and professors have tried to prove the word of God false, and it lead to nowhere. You doubt because you do not hold on to anything, then you fall for anything, I hold on to the word of God, and since they can’t prove it wrong, I still hold on to it and cherish it before it stands true, unlike the words of men, that today if it’s true, tomorrow it becomes false and they tell you, Oh it was an error and they upgrade/update it. But this word has stood and is still standing true and upright. So what evidence do i gave against it? None.

Butterflyleo:


Unicorns , fairies don't exist and due to this, they are not in my consciousness to the extent of me constantly seeking evidence for their existence since I know they do not exist already.

Get it?

Imaginations do not work without a precursor. If something isn't there then it isn't there. Period!

but there are evidence if found that could prove their existence. e. g if fossils of unicorns and fairies were found, it would be evidence of their existence.

the reason we know they don't exist is that we know the evidence we should find if they existed but we did not find such evidence.

in order to seek evidence, you have to know what you are looking for. that's the prediction aspect of a theory.

when atheists ask what evidence would prove god's existence, they are asking for what to look for.

you can't search if you don't know what you are looking for.

you know the evidence that would prove unicorns and fairies exist before you search for those evidence. you already know what to look for.

atheists in this thread are asking what to look for.
when they know what to look for, they can now search if they find it, they realize they were wrong, if they don't find it they know they are right.

that unicorns and fairies don't exist does not mean that we don't know the evidence that would prove their existence.

budaatum:

You are correct Felix, what I know is very different to what I believe, sad as that may appear to you. Please note that I understand that religious people use 'knowing' and 'believing' interchangeably, but that is not my way. Whenever you read me say "I believe a thing to be so or not so", I am saying that I am not quite certainly sure that it is so or not, and hence limit myself by claiming that I choose to believe, or not believe whether it is so or not. The things that I believe are believed because I have insufficient knowledge to know, and the things I know are known by me because I actually have sufficient evidence to know.

I would, for instance, not claim to believe it is raining if water were dropping on my head from the sky unless I happen to think, for some reason, that it is not rain water dropping on my head. It would be rather odd to claim, "I believe the water dropping on my head were rain", if I knew it was rainwater dropping on my head. I expressed this same sentiment when I said God made me dumb, but you called it pride. After my super super pride, I would not believe God made me dumb and might make me dead at 12 noon because I would know that God made me dumb twice and would most likely make me dead at 12 noon. If I merely 'believed', then I am not quite sure.

If I were a 'Christian', I would be the sort who would boldly assert that "I know my God exists" and I would be insulting my God by not claiming so. For by stating that "I believe my God exists", I would be claiming that I am not quite certain because I do not have sufficient evidence perhaps, and just choose to believe my God exists regardless. It is this rather weak sentiment some express when they claim to know by faith. That may well be the case when I am a Christian child, but when I grow up into a Christian adult I believe I should have abandoned my childish beliefs because I would have sufficient evidence to claim actual knowledge about the existence of my God, and to hell with anyone who claims my knowing is in error. In fact, I would be insulting my God and myself if I argued with some stupid atheist whom my God has not proven his existence to, as I would be admitting, knowingly or not, that my evidence is rather unconvincing even to myself.

The only limit to my knowing is my desire to go do research to acquire actual knowledge, as opposed to mere believing, which can hardly be a virtue as it would make me no different to a child who has no knowledge, or the devil who also believes.

Once again.
Sorry.
For believing what you are not sure of.

Another reason we are different from atheists

Gggg102:



but there are evidence if found that could prove their existence. e. g if fossils of unicorns and fairies were found, it would be evidence of their existence.

Have you demanded for evidence for unicorns and fairies? Have you embarked on a fact finding mission? Has any evidence for them been found to trigger your curiosity enough to demand for more as you do here with God 24/7?

the reason we know they don't exist is that we know the evidence we should find if they existed but we did not find such evidence

This is a fallacy. You cannot know the evidence you would find for a thing when you already know it does not exist. So what evidence would you then recognise as being of that thing when it never existed to begin with?

in order to seek evidence, you have to know what you are looking for. that's the prediction aspect of a theory.

when atheists ask what evidence would prove god's existence, they are asking for what to look for.

How can you seek evidence for what does not exist? Why look for such evidence despite making your assertion of its non existence? Its like saying you are looking for evidence of the existence of yuriiiffkallsooeba

Does yuriiiffkallsooeba exist? NO
Would you know what to look for as evidence of a non existent yuriiiffkallsooeba? NO and its just silly when I even read this again.

you can't search if you don't know what you are looking for

You cannot also search if something does not exist..

you know the evidence that would prove unicorns and fairies exist before you search for those evidence. you already know what to look for.

You do not know such evidence. Where did such non existent evidence appear from? Or have you forgotten that they don't exist?

atheists in this thread are asking what to look for.
when they know what to look for, they can now search if they find it, they realize they were wrong, if they don't find it they know they are right

You keep making the same error.

ATHEISTS SAY GOD DOES NOT EXIST. What non existent evidence can a non existent God provide?

that unicorns and fairies don't exist does not mean that we don't know the evidence that would prove their existence

.

Smh let me show you how illogical you are with all you have written. Especially this one.

If you know that a creature called gggopeelannsme does not exist can you tell me the evidence you would need to prove it exists?

Give me just one evidence that would prove to you that a creature named gggopeelannsme exists. I am waiting.

UserX18:


That is true. If I knew where you got the ‘planets’ from and they are not planets, then Of course you’re wrong.
Now let us reason, I have the word of God, it stands true, there’s no lie in it. None can prove it false to me, if none can prove something false to you. Then it stands true until it fails, especially when none can prove it false, and i totally understand God’s character. And I see the word has never contradicted itself. If one is able to prove it false then I’ll know it is false. It’s all about reasoning and understanding.

If I know my God exists, I do not see how I would be attempting to reason with a person who lacks my knowledge X18, after all, I possibly did work to acquire the knowledge that makes me know my God exists, work I am likely to assume they have not bothered to do. Or do I think so little of myself by expecting everyone to have been as diligent as I was and acquire the knowledge I have? Should I lack consideration for the effort I put in to acquire such knowledge and assume any Tom, Dick or atheist could just stumble on it? Should I go about insulting myself by thinking the opinion of some atheist who lacks knowledge I have matters? What would be the intention of casting my very worthy diligently acquired pearls in front of atheist swines?

Personally, the only reasons I would be arguing about the existence of my God would be because I either don't value my God who has bothered to convince me with sufficient evidence that it exists, or I do not value myself and the effort that I might have put in to ensure I know my God exists, or because I am not quite sufficiently certain that my God exists, or my understanding of my God is limited.

If I am certain, and have understanding of my God, it would not matter to me much whether some atheist knows or believes my God exists. I might feel the need to place my lamp where everyone shall see it, but I would understand that some seeds fall along the path and get trampled on, and some fall on rocky ground and wither because they get no moisture, and some fall among thorns and get choked, while some fall on good soil and yielded a crop a hundred times more than was sown. So my attitude towards my dead seeds would be se la vie, and "Oh, but for the grace of my God go I". For it is possible that I too might have been like those unbelieving atheists, though such thoughts might be tempered by me not wishing to behave like the Pharisee who thinks he's better than a tax collector. And as I dust their dust off myself as I leave their presence, I would under my breath mutter, "My Lord my God, please forgive them for they know not what the heck they say". I would hardly be on Nairaland wasting my seeds by dropping them where they would get trampled, wither or choked by arguing that my God exists or not because I would be elsewhere doing the work that is most likely more pleasing to my Lord my God.

Butterflyleo:



BUT the entire position of FIRST saying God does not exist then negates your quest to want to see anything because what you wish to see does not exist along with the God you say does not exist.

the fact that something does not exist doesn't mean that we don't know the evidence that would prove its existence if it existed.

the quest is not negated. even if what they wish to see does not exist, they have to know what they wish to see.

they can't even start the search if they don't know what they wish to see.

it is when you know what you are looking for that you can know if you find it or not.


they have to know the evidence to look for. even if that evidence does not exist.

it goes like this.

1. proposition.

2. what evidence would support this proposition ?

3. acknowledge this evidence.

4. start search for evidence.

5. if evidence is found, proposition is correct.
or
5. if evidence is not found, proposition is incorrect.

in this case.

1. God

2. what evidence would prove god's existence. (purpose of this thread)

3. accept proposed evidence would prove god's existence if found.

4. start search for this evidence.

5. if this evidence is found, then god exists hence theism.
or

5. evidence is not found, then god does not exist hence atheism.

the process is followed by those who don't know.(agnostic)

this thread is stage two of the process where we still don't know the outcome.

I see your point where this is meaningless to atheists as they would have passed through the process before they get to atheism, so they would have searched and not found.

for atheists the question should have been what were the evidences you searched for and did not find before you became atheists.

Gggg102:



the fact that something does not exist doesn't mean that we don't know the evidence that would prove its existence if it existed.

the quest is not negated. even if what they wish to see does not exist, they have to know what they wish to see.

Amazing! So you can know the evidence to look for when looking a non existent thing? You must then be either going through a paranormal episode or an alien.

they can't even start the search if they don't know what they wish to see.

it is when you know what you are looking for that you can know if you find it or not.

You still don't get it. Are they suddenly in doubt about their assertion that God does not exist? It is only doubt about an assertion that would demand a contrary evidence to the first premise of non existence.

they have to know the evidence to look for. even if that evidence does not exist.

This is just laughable. So even when such an evidence does not exist they still want to know what to look for? Amazing and mind blowing illogicality right here.

[s]it goes like this.

1. proposition.

2. what evidence would support this proposition ?

3. acknowledge this evidence.

4. start search for evidence.

5. if evidence is found, proposition is correct.
or
5. if evidence is not found, proposition is incorrect[/s].

in this case.

1. God

2. what evidence would prove god's existence. (purpose of this thread)

3. accept proposed evidence would prove god's existence if found.

4. start search for this evidence.

5. if this evidence is found, then god exists hence theism.
or

5. evidence is not found, then god does not exist hence atheism.

the process is followed by those who don't know.(agnostic)

this thread is stage two of the process where we still don't know the outcome

Ogbeni THERE IS NO GOD FOR AN ATHEIST. Period.

I see your point where this is meaningless to atheists as they would have passed through the process before they get to atheism, so they would have searched and not found.

for atheists the question should have been what were the evidences you searched for and did not find before you became atheists.

cc Johnydon22

UserX18:


There’s something you’re not getting, I do not ask for you to believe me. His word is there. God has revealed himself to everyone, it is left for you to choose to believe it or reject it. You’re to believe his word not mine. His word stands true. Because you do not even believe nor understand the God, for this selfsame reason will you bring such examples. I didn’t tell a lie to you. God has revealed himself to me, I believed, that made me a believer, he revealed himself to you, and you reject it and even say he doesn’t exist, that makes you an Unbeliever.
His word is true, since there’s no lie in it, I have no reason to reject it.

And for fear of repeating myself, God has not revealed himself to me, and by your admission, neither has he to you, for all you have is what you read in a book that was written about God, and which you chose to believe.

If you bother to ask atheists, you would find that they tend to not live by bread alone but have read quite a lot of books that have been claimed to have been written by one god or another. It is why some would ask which god should be believed in.

Still, read my previous. I discuss not with you because I want you to abandon what you hold as true. My words about the regard I have for myself and the work I have put in to enable me to hold the stance that I hold is not just acquired by any Tom, Dick or Harry who has not done any work.

I so love how James put it. "Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds". My seeds are cast and those which will choke, wither and die will do so, while those that will yield a crop a hundred times will do so too.

Butterflyleo:


I don't need to prove they do not exist because I KNOW THEY DONT! Do note the difference here.

Why would I dwell on the non existent which I already know is so?

For point 2 is just nonsense. Nobody hates you for not believing in God. That is now your own imagination working over time aka playing tricks on you.

Perhaps you should refer that to Muslims .

1. How can you just know that unicorns do not exist? Were you born with that knowledge? How did you gain such knowledge?

2. Really? So all the Christians that have killed unbelievers are in my imagination? They don't hate abi?

Butterflyleo:


Have you demanded for evidence for unicorns and fairies? Have you embarked on a fact finding mission? Has any evidence for them been found to trigger your curiosity enough to demand for more as you do here with God 24/7?




This is a fallacy. You cannot know the evidence you would find for a thing when you already know it does not exist. So what evidence would you then recognise as being of that thing when it never existed to begin with?



How can you seek evidence for what does not exist? Why look for such evidence despite making your assertion of its non existence? Its like saying you are looking for evidence of the existence of yuriiiffkallsooeba

Does yuriiiffkallsooeba exist? NO
Would you know what to look for as evidence of a non existent yuriiiffkallsooeba? NO and its just silly when I even read this again.




You cannot also search if something does not exist..



You do not know such evidence. Where did such non existent evidence appear from? Or have you forgotten that they don't exist?



You keep making the same error.

ATHEISTS SAY GOD DOES NOT EXIST. What non existent evidence can a non existent God provide?
.

Smh let me show you how illogical you are with all you have written. Especially this one.

If you know that a creature called gggopeelannsme does not exist can you tell me the evidence you would need to prove it exists?

Give me just one evidence that would prove to you that a creature named gggopeelannsme exists. I am waiting.

well, people have searched for evidence and did not find. this shows unicorns don't exist so it does not make sense to demand for any evidence except you want to begin the process again and search because they might have missed the evidence previously.

I choose to believe what people have done, but there are still others searching for evidence( or at least evidence of mermaids)
because they do not trust the search of their predecessors. they know what to look for even if it turns out it doesn't exist.


no fallacy here. it is the other way around. we know things don't exist because we never found the evidence we know we should have found if they existed.

can you search if you don't know what you seek?
they knew the evidence to look for before they searched, before they concluded that they don't exist.

they knew the evidence to look for before they knew those things don't exist.



you keep putting the cart before the horse.

is it not when you search and do not find you know something doesn't exist?

how would you know something doesn't exist if you don't search first?

you search before you conclude if it exist or not, and before you search, you need to know what you are looking for.
so you know what to look for(the evidence) before you know if it exists or not.


first you need to describe yuffndgjjkssgamoeba. yuffbbfxxvbamoeba is just an empty word on its own.

you did not describe it before you asserted it doesn't exist. for all we know, it could be the name of a specie of goose in a language spoken in an island in the middle of the pacific.

you have to define what a yuffbbcdgjamoeba is first. what you have there now is an empty word.

again cart before horse.

it is after you search you know if it exists or not.


that it doesn't exist does not mean you don't know what it is.
you have to know what it is before you know if it exists or not. you have to know WHAT IT IS that doesn't exist.


you are making the error
it is like this; evidence can be associated with a god that if not found would show it is inexistent. e. g for mermaids, if fossils are found showing anatomy of half human half mermaid. we know the evidence that would prove a mermaid's existence even when mermaids don't exist.


if I knew gogopeelfdddnme does not exist, it is because I knew what a gogopeelhffffme would look like and searched for it and never found it. same way we know what a unicorn would look like but know it doesn't exist since we never found it.

e. g let's say a gogopeelffffme is a reptile that is covered with fur and has faeces that is golden brown at both ends and purple in the middle.

the evidence of its existence is if reptile tracks are found with bits of fur on it and a few steps from it, we see purple faeces that is golden brown at the ends. or if we find a dead animal that fits its description then we have proof of its existence.

I know the creature I described above doesn't exist but I gave evidence that would prove its existence if it did exist.

note that you also did not describe what a gogopeelvgfffgme is you just wrote an empty word.

gogopeelgfxbbme could also be what people call oranges in a native language.

I could find a new specie of duck in yankari and call it a gogopeelgfdvme.
then next edition Oxford dictionary would read:

gogopeelffffme: a specie of duck found exclusively in yankari, Nigeria.

I just defined what it was which you did not.
words on their own are empty. you have to define what those words mean.

[quote author=superhumanist post=68755932]


1. How can you just know that unicorns do not exist? Were you born with that knowledge? How did you gain such?

To know means to have knowledge! Learn words and their meanings please.

Atheism declares there is no God (based on a knowledge they have which they believe contradicts the existence of God)

I say unicorns and fairies do not exist also based on the same reason atheists have and both are based on knowledge. Now that I am aware that such does not exist why then would I foolishly be running around wasting my energy and time STILL SEEKING for evidence of WHAT I KNOW does not exist?

Feel free to relate this to atheism and this thread.

2. Really? So all the Christians that have killed unbelievers are in my imagination? They don't hate abi?

Christians do not kill. Anyone who kills is not a christian.

Christian MEANS TO BE LIKE CHRIST. And Christ did not kill, He loved, healed, cured, comforted, never hated. Anybody who claims to be a christian and kills unbelievers isnt a Christian. Like I told the OP, your comment is a non sequitur.