UserX18:


It can be asked. The law of gravity exists, but a fool will fill a baloon with Helium and say the law of gravity doesn’t exist.

The scientist are not able to prove so many things.

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

They were also confused, delusional, and are a great evidence of Folly!
Thinking the can understand God with their wisdom of Men. Thinking they are intelligent, but though foolish.

It's not that I don't understand God it's that I don't believe in it, as there is no need to explain things with a God, we've come a long way in science to know that, time and time again attributing something to a divine agent has been proven false....Lightning, blood circulation, diseases , origins of the universe etc.

UserX18:
You say you don’t believe God, and you’re intermeddling with scriptures.
Yes I lack your knowledge, you work to acquire the knowledge that makes you know your God exists.
— now you want to understand God’s wisdom, with your own Wisdom, which God has told you is foolish.
Because you think you’re smart. What great folly

budaatum:
I don't believe Alice in Wonderland, or Harry Potter or Plato's writings either X18,
but that wouldn't stop me reading and learning from them.
I take it that works of writing are inspiring, including yours.
And it's not because you preach God that I include yours, but because you seem to discourse with intelligence.

I do not agree that your own wisdom is foolish.
Please look upon the writings of some on here and give yourself credit!
As to having wisdom, or being smart, you say so, not me.

Wisdom that's at variance with God's is foolish
meaning, any judgement or decision reached by reasoning, that doesnt agree with God's, lacks sound and good sense or judgement

MuttleyLaff:


Wisdom that's at variance with God's is foolish
meaning, any judgement or decision reached by reasoning, that doesnt agree with God's, lacks sound and good sense or judgement.

How silly. Sometimes, I just wonder if people think they are talking to children or if they tell this stuff to their kids!

Is it not common for people to adjust God's reasoning to suit their's? Or is it the case that God itself adjusts its own reasoning to suit their's?

One common example I found lately is ati owo ęni, a ti owo ęni ęlęni, Ọlọrun ma fi kankan won wa (whether na my money, or someone else's money, God no let me lack either). Is that not a twisted 'God given' justification to steal?

I can't but wonder people's gods are puppets, or at least, often treated as one!

I still have not received verses for where Jesus met or decided not to meet with a gay person muttley. I am beginning to wonder if you are failing to find God's reasoning that suits!

budaatum:
[s]How silly.
Sometimes, I just wonder if people think they are talking to children or if they tell this stuff to their kids![/s]

Is it not common for people to adjust God's reasoning to suit their's?
Or is it the case that God itself adjusts its own reasoning to suit their's?

Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD:...
- Isaiah 1:18a

budaatum:
One common example I found lately is
ati owo ęni, a ti owo ęni ęlęni, Ọlọrun ma fi kankan won wa
(whether na my money, or someone else's money, God no let me lack either)

Despite Isaiah 1:18a above, for sure, God's reasoning won't align itself with "ati owo ęni, a ti owo ęni ęlęni, Ọlọrun ma fi kankan won wa"?

budaatum:
Is that not a twisted 'God given' justification to steal?

I know the suitable word for describing that badness, is, covetousness

budaatum:
I can't but wonder people's gods are puppets, or at least, often treated as one!

Its true that people , in a sense, often attribute God and gods as puppets and/or something they have wrapped around the finger

budaatum:
I still have not received verses for where Jesus met or decided not to meet with a gay person muttley.
I am beginning to wonder if you are failing to find God's reasoning that suits!

I am beginning to wonder if you really want to receive it, as if/when you're ready, you surely know where I am, what to do and how to holler at me

The law of gravity will become true of an independent person or group of persons have consistently gotten the stated result when the principles where followed. Any one who wishes to declare the testimony of testifiers wrong would have to perform the experiment, following the laws and principles of the author. Only when he gets a false result after abiding by the rules can he declare it false or void. Also, if a man has listened to two contrasting testimony of the same object and wishes to TRULY take sides or become a professor of one of these sides, just like every professors, you have to go through the rudiments of proving these principles.

You cannot become a TRUE professor without witnessing the subject you're professing, otherwise you will just be a FALSE PROFESSOR.

The metric of judging the existence of God and who a True Christian is, is the word of God.

If you don’t believe in God you cannot understand Him.

Choose whether to believe Him and He’ll give you the wisdom to understand him more and more, choose to reject him, and he’ll forsake you.
It’s simple - He is a rewarder of those who Diligently seek him.

He is a merciful God. His ways are not your ways.

Note: A terrorist is a person who uses unlawful violence.
Telling you, What God has given you, Eternal life, peace and joy just because you reject it, does not make me a wanna-be terrorist.

budaatum:
What you've said below is what you see through your Christian eyes. It reminds me of a phrase, "is this not Joseph's son?" They asked because they were the teachers, and Joseph's son had not been to their school to be taught by them, so how could he possibly know to talk such "great wisdom"? I too have not been to church school to be taught, yet I see some of the words I strung together make "great wisdom" to some.

The point is that some of what is written in the Bible can be found in other books too. Paul was very well know for plagiarism for instance, and because he did and put it in the Bible does not reduce the merit of what is said, even to an atheist. Even so, it is still available in other books and without the veil of gods wrapped over it. Though we do not expect the majority to delve that deep. As Christ put it, "the lame walk, the blind see and to some is the gospel preached". Everyone has a level.

What James is saying is that faith and belief that is untested is worthless essentially, and his faith, at least has been tested by the works he has accomplished by it. And you think by 'faith', one might mean faith in God, but 'faith' is not limited to Gods. Jesus even said one should have faith in one's fellow human being! It is the lesson of turning the other cheek after all, and, "in as much as you have done unto those here that you see" , the idea being, you slap me twice, shame on you, and "know ye not that your fellow humans are gods?" And one does not have to believe it either because one can test it and know, as opposed to just having faith that it might be true and work.

You write for your own sake X18, but might not quite know that yet. The words are the beginning, and then follows the creation of things. I advise you to lift your head out of a loaf of bread and read more widely. It will immensely improve your understanding. Meanwhile, thanks for the intelligently had conversation. Not many on here make me resort to the style you've provoked in me.

Oh! You telling me about Faith?

Do you not know that you even talking about Faith(From the Holy Bible) is unreasonable.

Just like a child (age -3) who has refused to learn(believe) a,b,c,d -> z, is telling you about words like “lackadaisical” “psychological” or even “alphabetical”. This is the best description I’m able to point to.

UserX18:


Oh! You telling me about Faith?

Do you not know that you even talking about Faith(From the Holy Bible) is unreasonable.

Just like a child (age -3) who has refused to learn(believe) a,b,c,d -> z, is telling you about words like “lackadaisical” “psychological” or even “alphabetical”. This is the best description I’m able to point to.

Pity you think faith is a bible word. As I said, "you see through your Christian eyes". Seems you think non-Christian's eyes don't work. Guess you wouldn't understand either if I said my faith in passing my exams was based on the intensive study I did before hand too, or my faith in not being hit while crossing a road is based on looking left and right before crossing.

O, and learning and believing are not synonyms. And for your information, most three year olds use words long before they learn the alphabets.

budaatum:

Pity you think faith is a bible word. As I said, "you see through your Christian eyes". Seems you think non-Christian's eyes don't work. Guess you wouldn't understand either if I said my faith in passing my exams was based on the intensive study I did before hand too, or my faith in not being hit while crossing a road is based on looking left and right before crossing.

O, and learning and believing are not synonyms. And for your information, most three year olds use words long before they learn the alphabets.

Ok

Evangkatsoulis:


Nope, nothing in mind. And I don't ask for evidence,

you sent me an email to an email address that am no longer using. please whatsapp me on +447743937309

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.

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.

On point bro!. just the way gravity existed before it was made revealed by newton. what parameters did he use. he started by applying proposition of an apple falling from a tree, even without no empirical evidence "at first" to prove it beyond the natural cause of a fruit falling down from a tree. if newton were to tell it to someone then that theres a force behind the falling of an apple from the tree, he will be considered insane same way a theist to an atheist. so the burden of proof lies with newton to vindicate himself not to prove them wrong, since they believed the occurrence is just a natural phenomenon. meanwhile @butterflyleo. gravity has been existing for eons of years until newton found out the principles behind it. he didnt discover gravity, neither did you theist discovered your god. but he showed them why an apple will fall down from a tree. atheist are not asking for you to prove them wrong, they are only asking, what do I need to convince me of your "belief" in god, with or without believing in it myself. thank you

johnydon22:
So atheists, what do you consider to be the thesis that must be confirmed for the theory of God to make sense?

If, within five minutes after a specific prayer by a theist, the stars in the sky were rearranged to spell I AM GOD: I EXIST, and it could be seen by everybody, and it could be scientifically confirmed by every astronomer that that the stars had indeed been moved around and it wasn't just an optical illusion, then I might be convinced that there exists a great mind out there which is capable of moving stars around in response to prayer.

Can any theist make this happen? (cc: winner01)

Seun:

If, within five minutes after a specific prayer by a theist, the stars in the sky were rearranged to spell I AM GOD: I EXIST, and it could be seen by everybody, and it could be scientifically confirmed by every astronomer that that the stars had indeed been moved around and it wasn't just an optical illusion, then I might be convinced that there exists a great mind out there which capable of moving stars around in response to prayer.

Can any theist make this happen? (cc: winner01)

#welldonesir

Seun:

If, within five minutes after a specific prayer by a theist, the stars in the sky were rearranged to spell I AM GOD: I EXIST, and it could be seen by everybody, and it could be scientifically confirmed by every astronomer that that the stars had indeed been moved around and it wasn't just an optical illusion, then I might be convinced that there exists a great mind out there which is capable of moving stars around in response to prayer.

Are Atheist able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is no spiritual force and religions such as Christianity are made up?

Seun:

If, within five minutes after a specific prayer by a theist, the stars in the sky were rearranged to spell I AM GOD: I EXIST, and it could be seen by everybody, and it could be scientifically confirmed by every astronomer that that the stars had indeed been moved around and it wasn't just an optical illusion, then I might be convinced that there exists a great mind out there which capable of moving stars around in response to prayer.

if this are the way law proceedings works in court of law, We will never arrive at any conclusion. Let me put your logic into another perspective.......assuming abacha family decide to sue the presidency that the money claimed to be stolen by the ex head of state was actually not his money because there is no data that credit his name to any account in Switzerland bank. Will that alone be tenable in court of law when there are evidence that links him to several account overthere......

It seems you are asking for too low evidence....seeking for a star to declare that he is God....if such a scenario work.i will deny that God and worship stars....because that is less sufficient and not even up to the wonders of evolution. I can only agree on evidence that links him to every creation...

vaxx:
if this are the way law proceedings works in court of law, We will never arrive at any conclusion. Let me put your logic into another perspective.......assuming abacha family decide to sue the presidency that the money claimed to be stolen by the ex head of state was actually not his money because there is no data that credit his name to any account in Switzerland bank. Will that alone be tenable in court of law when there are evidence that links him to several account overthere......

It seems you are asking for too low evidence....seeking for a star to declare that he is God....if such a scenario work.i will deny that God and worship stars....because that is less sufficient and not even up to the wonders of evolution. I can only agree on evidence that links him to every creation...

I don't understand u guys,each scenario that someone brings u people keep making excuses and excuses why we would not believe,let it happen first
Seun has told u the evidence he needs to believe in god,what you need to do to convince him if you are interested in doing so is providing the evidence he demanded for and not making up excuses that he or some other atheist would not believe if his evidence is provided which implies that u are aware that such won't happen

Look if god exists as u claim and yet is not ready to reveal himself in a discernable way to everyone then that means that he is not interested in us acknowledging and worshipping him

darkchild64:


I don't understand u guys,each scenario that someone brings u people keep making excuses and excuses why we would not believe,let it happen first
Seun has told u the evidence he needs to believe in god,what you need to do to convince him if you are interested in doing so is providing the evidence he demanded for and not making up excuses that he or some other atheist would not believe if his evidence is provided which implies that u are aware that such won't happen

Look if god exists as u claim and yet is not ready to reveal himself in a discernable way to everyone then that means that he is not interested in us acknowledging and worshipping him

This!

These theists seem not to understand the question at all

the question is what would convince the atheist - being asked the question - of god's existence

somewhere down the line there's been a mixup and the question was changed to "What would convince you (an atheist) together with all atheists that god exists?" by dubious theists

the original question is individual and makes sense while the latter is collective and borders on stupidity because I can't speak for other atheists. I can only speak for myself. even a Christian can't speak for other Christians despite the fact that they all claim to be led by the same fictional holy spirit and book let alone atheists that don't have anything else in common asides their unbelief in god's existence

TOSIN116:


Are Atheist able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is no spiritual force and religions such as Christianity are made up?

This is burden of proof reversal. The onus is on you to prove there is. Your lack of proof speaks louder

vaxx:
if this are the way law proceedings works in court of law, We will never arrive at any conclusion. Let me put your logic into another perspective.......assuming abacha family decide to sue the presidency that the money claimed to be stolen by the ex head of state was actually not his money because there is no data that credit his name to any account in Switzerland bank. Will that alone be tenable in court of law when there are evidence that links him to several account overthere......

It seems you are asking for too low evidence....seeking for a star to declare that he is God....if such a scenario work.i will deny that God and worship stars....because that is less sufficient and not even up to the wonders of evolution. I can only agree on evidence that links him to every creation...

I think this is strawman because this argument misrepresents his argument.

There is a difference between God rearranging the stars to spell out 'I am God; i exist' in ths sky

And

A star declaring it is God.

Seun's comment was hinged on the former, i don't know where you got the later from.

johnydon22:


I think this is strawman because this argument misrepresents his argument.

There is a difference between God rearranging the stars to spell out 'I am God; i exist' in ths sky

And

A star declaring it is God.

Seun's comment was hinged on the former, i don't know where you got the later from.

you don't even get the oxymoron .....the former statement made by seun that he want to see stars rearranging itself in a statement that will validate the existence of God.....which literally means seun is indicating that if God exist he should let the stars arrranged itself in such a way that will tell everyone he God exist.....and I do reply that if such scenario work ,I will rather worship the stars rather than the God because it is an insufficient evidence.....you need to read up again dude.

darkchild64:


I don't understand u guys,each scenario that someone brings u people keep making excuses and excuses why we would not believe,let it happen first
Seun has told u the evidence he needs to believe in god,what you need to do to convince him if you are interested in doing so is providing the evidence he demanded for and not making up excuses that he or some other atheist would not believe if his evidence is provided which implies that u are aware that such won't happen

Look if god exists as u claim and yet is not ready to reveal himself in a discernable way to everyone then that means that he is not interested in us acknowledging and worshipping him

if atheism is synonymous to critical reasons and logic... then I expect seun to ask a thought provoking question and not low based evidence question such as this. I found it impressive when thought provoking questions are asked and not when question like this are asked .

It made me wonder if the root to atheism is actually intelligent enough....A good question should be the reasoning and explanation on what he is and what he wants. This are research based question....you don't ask question as if you already know the outcome.....that is terrible academically.

And likewise it is ridiculous to ask for empirical and scientifical evidence that he exists, because as an all powerful, that theist claim he is. It is obvious this rules “don't apply” to him. It's not a matter of science.



I like it when question are asked within the parameter of which theist claim God operate and not when it is below the standard.

johnydon22:


This is burden of proof reversal. The onus is on you to prove there is. Your lack of proof speaks louder

I don't buy the idea

For you to say God do not exist or christianity is false you should have enough evidence.

Or you claim is just a simple assumption.

vaxx:
I like it when question are asked within the parameter of which theist claim God operate and not when it is below the standard.

So, asking for evidence for the existence of a thing is not "within the parameter", and "below the standard"? Are we talking about the God that theists claim created the parameters called the heavens and the earth, and that operates in their daily lives, and for which they give evidence of it's existence on a rather daily basis? I doubt they'd agree with you on this, but then I guess you don't always get what you like either.

vaxx:
And likewise it is ridiculous to ask for empirical and scientifical evidence that he exists, because as an all powerful, that theist claim he is. It is obvious this rules “don't apply” to him. It's not a matter of science.

Why is it "ridiculous to ask for empirical and scientifical evidence that he exists"? Do the rules of existence not apply to a thing that people claim exists just because they claim it is "all powerful" too, and invisible, apparently? Is it's "all powerfulness" in fact not the reason why one should ask for evidence of it's existence if one has no evidence it does already, with the next question being, "give me some please", if it is found to be as beneficial as it is claimed it is?

vaxx:
A good question should be the reasoning and explanation on what he is and what he wants. This are research based question....you don't ask question as if you already know the outcome.....that is terrible academically.

I think it is a good question to ask "where it is", actually, especially when I am told it is invisible and can't be seen. And the fact that I ask that question is sufficient evidence for intelligent people to know that I do not already know the answer to my question, or for them to point to what I already know and show me how foolish I am being.

The imaginary million pounds in my bank account shares an equally invisible nature which is why I still ride a bike and not the spanking brand new red Ferrari that I keep dreaming of purchasing with it. If only the bloody Ferrari salesman too would not ask for evidence of it's existence! I'd be vroom vrooming around in spanking brand new red one by now, I tell you.

vaxx:
you don't even get the oxymoron .....the former statement made by seun that he want to see stars rearranging itself in a statement that will validate the existence of God.....which literally means seun is indicating that if God exist he should let the stars arrranged itself in such a way that will tell everyone he God exist.....and I do reply that if such scenario work ,I will rather worship the stars rather than the God because it is an insufficient evidence.....you need to read up again dude.

I still think you do not grasp or misrepresenting what he said.

TOSIN116:

I don't buy the idea

For you to say God do not exist or christianity is false you should have enough evidence.

Or you claim is just a simple assumption.

Evidently you don't understand how logic works then ...

johnydon22:


I still think you do not grasp or misrepresenting what he said.

I don't know how I can made myself clearer better than what i put up....he said he wants God to rearrange the stars in such a way that will spell ""I am God and he exist"" and I said if such scenario play out, I will deny such God because that evidence is too low in comparison to say '"wonder of evolution"" for an
Example.....

budaatum:

So, asking for evidence for the existence of a thing is not "within the parameter", and "below the standard"? Are we talking about the God that theists claim created the parameters called the heavens and the earth, and that operates in their daily lives, and for which they give evidence of it's existence on a rather daily basis? I doubt they'd agree with you on this, but then I guess you don't always get what you like either.


Why is it "ridiculous to ask for empirical and scientifical evidence that he exists"? Do the rules of existence not apply to a thing that people claim exists just because they claim it is "all powerful" too, and invisible, apparently? Is it's "all powerfulness" in fact not the reason why one should ask for evidence of it's existence if one has no evidence it does already, with the next question being, "give me some please", if it is found to be as beneficial as it is claimed it is?


I think it is a good question to ask "where it is", actually, especially when I am told it is invisible and can't be seen. And the fact that I ask that question is sufficient evidence for intelligent people to know that I do not already know the answer to my question, or for them to point to what I already know and show me how foolish I am being.

The imaginary million pounds in my bank account shares an equally invisible nature which is why I still ride a bike and not the spanking brand new red Ferrari that I keep dreaming of purchasing with it. If only the bloody Ferrari salesman too would not ask for evidence of it's existence! I'd be vroom vrooming around in spanking brand new red one by now, I tell you.

this is disappointing budah

vaxx:
if atheism is synonymous to critical reasons and logic... then I expect seun to ask a thought provoking question and not low based evidence question such as this. I found it impressive when thought provoking questions are asked and not when question like this are asked .

It made me wonder if the root to atheism is actually intelligent enough....A good question should be the reasoning and explanation on what he is and what he wants. This are research based question....you don't ask question as if you already know the outcome.....that is terrible academically.

And likewise it is ridiculous to ask for empirical and scientifical evidence that he exists, because as an all powerful, that theist claim he is. It is obvious this rules “don't apply” to him. It's not a matter of science.



I like it when question are asked within the parameter of which theist claim God operate and not when it is below the standard.

So....what would count as a thought provoking question to You?

boringnigerian:


So....what would count as a thought provoking question to You?

Go thru my comment again.....i gave an example....

vaxx:
I don't know how I can made myself clearer better than what i put up....he said he wants God to rearrange the stars in such a way that will spell ""I am God and he exist"" and I said if such scenario play out, I will deny such God because that evidence is too low in comparison to say '"wonder of evolution"" for an
Example.....

ok

vaxx:
this is disappointing budah

As I said, you don't always get what you like. That means you would sometimes be disappointed. Especially when making statements you claim you don't need provide evidence for! With some of the stuff I've been reading from you lately, do change that "sometimes" to "pretty often"!

vaxx:
I don't know how I can made myself clearer better than what i put up....he said he wants God to rearrange the stars in such a way that will spell ""I am God and he exist"" and I said if such scenario play out, I will deny such God because that evidence is too low in comparison to say '"wonder of evolution"" for an
Example.....

And as op said, "provide evidence that will convince you as an individual", which is what Seun provided, the stars saying 'God', and not, provide evidence that would convince everyone, including you, vaxx!!

budaatum:

As I said, you don't always get what you like. That means you would sometimes be disappointed. Especially when making statements you claim you don't need provide evidence for! With some of the stuff I've been reading from you lately, do change that "sometimes" to "pretty often"!

I never claim there is no evidence.....i never put up this claim in any of my written.....i only debunked the evidence the atheist are requesting before they can establish their fact....