MrPresident1:


Oh, I see.

Rational and reasonable, hmm..., not foolish and unreasonable, lol.

When knowledge came, you treated it with scorn, lol. You are unworthy.

Is it all those your fake prophecies you are calling knowledge? LoL.

MrPresident1:


You are now his spokesdriver?

Yes

LordReed:


Keep forming obtuse. An attack on my motives is an ad hominem attack but you want to cry when I give it back to you. Keep crying you twåt, I will keep giving it to you.

If I didn't want to be challenged I wouldn't bother responding to you.

I think that you should know by now that I am not troubled by insults and abuse. I would prefer civility, yes, but I don't expect everyone to be civil, so I am not trying to alter your behavior at all, only making sure that I am understood. At this point, I am not sure that I am but I don't see anything that I can do anymore about it.

Your arguments were dishonest. Call me whatever you like for saying so. But if you really think I am wrong about that, your time and energy may be better spent explaining how I am.

LordReed:
Where in all of that negates the need to prove evidence? Even the Britannica you quoted says its ineptitude to use it so what point are you making bring it up?

I'm not sure I can answer your first question given both articles from Wikipedia and Britannica.

As for your second, the point was this: if the premise is already rejected, the conclusion will be equally rejected. That does not mean that the argument is wrong. It just means that it was rejected. As I find I have occasion to tell you every time we discuss, I don't expect to persuade you or convince you of the Truth of Christ. It is not something that anyone can be philosophically or emotionally persuaded about. It is something that all of us must make a free will choice about. So, when I engage in apologetics, it is to keep the Truth (that is, what we Christians believe and are taught in the Bible) clear, not clouded by deliberate or accidental misinformation.

So, my arguments were not to convince you but to make a position clear. And the arguments were neither fallacious nor necessarily false, as both Wikipedia and Britannica show you. Unless you have some strong reason to doubt the premises of my argument and therefore prove them false, the fact that my argument does not work against me.

LordReed:
Keep revealing how much of a mind reader you are. You know my mind better than me and can say for sure what will convince me or not. It seems you are even better than the god you profess.

As I said, I was only judging from the words you actually said, not from the thoughts in your heart which are unknown to me. I have no desire after all for you to persist in unbelief.

LordReed:
LoL! You don't get to flip this, provide evidence for your god not bullshit circular arguments and arguments from ignorance.

I don't understand what you mean by "flip this".

And I don't see how I owe you any debt of evidence in this discussion. I have offered arguments to you. If you actually engage them in the right attitude, perhaps we can determine whether I owe you anything more.

LordReed:
LoL, I guess I can take it you are merely speculating? Ah good then that clears a lot of things. You should have just said that from the beginning.

If there is a god I expect it to provide unequivocal proof of itself and its godhood claims, not some deliberately obtuse human acting as a gatekeeper giving me bullshit as arguments for its existence.

As I said right there, "of course I was not speculating".

And as I asked before, if there is a God, would He owe you anything?

LordReed:
Yes the deliberately obtuse dunderhead who is acting like he doesn't understand the meaning of speculation.

Exactly, a creator god speculation is not any different from a collapse to singularity speculation, they are speculations, no proof available.

Although I disagree with you about that, I will ignore that disagreement and ask this:

Since both are equally speculations devoid of proof, why is Christianity illogical and a fairy tale unworthy of human intellect while your speculations are more desirable?

LordReed:
The evidence maybe more involved than I can provide here. Rather than delay my response till I can gather all of it I decided to give you an idea where to look if you are interested. I can always come back to it at a latter time.

Who said individual members of society do not have a moral compass? Here is what I wrote:



Morality develops in societies by reinforcing behaviors that are determined to be of survival benefit to the society or to the individuals that make it up. At no point is it suggested that people have no moral compass, what is being argued is that it is developed by interaction with other members of society. What every creature we have observed is born with is an instinctive drive towards survival behavior, for instance a baby is not taught how to suck but it is not making a moral judgement as to whether it is good to suck breast or not, it is following an instinctive routine evolution has baked in as essential to survival. A child does not know that taking what does not belong to you is bad until it is taught by it's parents or society that that is an undesired behaviour.

That would be fine. We might even discuss it on a separate thread if you like.

You are actually begging the question now (as you accused me of doing with the creation evidence argument). You argued that nobody is born knowing anything about God or "have all morality built in". Now unless by the part in quote you mean that we are born with some morality built in - in which case you would need to explain the difference between "some" and "all" since I conceive of morality as an absolute quantity and only understand it as something people have or don't have not something they can have some of but not all of) - that means that in your worldview individuals do not come into the world possessing an innate morality. If this is so, how then can interacting with anyone result in the development of any morality at all?

We cannot rightly assume that the need to survive drove groups of individuals to develop a morality because the very need to survive would not exist unless they had a basic morality to tell them that survival is a good and desirable thing for which certain behaviors should be discouraged in order for it to be achieved. Survival is an instinct but we can only seek to codify behavior to enable survival if we actually think that survival is good. Otherwise, if I feel that killing and eating you would be good for my survival, I have no reason to yield to any law or custom that prevents me from doing so. To cohere in a community, something must make us all want to act uniformly and submit to some authority.

LordReed:
That's a question best answered by the god, I on the other hand am quite content to live without disturbing myself about a god since no one has provided unequivocal evidence for one.

The sophistry you indulge in.

Contemporary actions that substantiate any god claims, not reports from books laden with ignorance.

If you are content to live without disturbing yourself about a God, you really should not be starting threads demanding that that God prove His existence to you.

I was aware that you were accusing me of being a sophist. I was asking for your proof of that.

And as I said, why would you believe any contemporary actions if you will not believe the reports? Have you tested every single claim you have heard in your life before believing it? Will you find no other explanation for any contemporary actions that God performs for you? Will you choose not to ignore them if they insist on God's Existence? That is, you will still have a free will even if God were to do something specific that you wish outside of all that He does everyday. Will you not decide to reject even that special action as proof?

LordReed:


Is it all those your fake prophecies you are calling knowledge? LoL.

The reward for sin is death. Continue your descent to hades

Unworthy you

MrPresident1:


The reward for sin is death. Continue your descent to hades

Unworthy you

LoL! Fake prophet, your stories are hogwash so go peddle them else where, I ain't buying. LMFAO!

rame18:






OK o! ask and you shall receive is what the Bible says. let the deliverance of this person be like that of Paul of tarsus and may he also preach your word on an exalted altar. Mark yeah this day.

Amen oooh.

Ihedinobi3:

I think that you should know by now that I am not troubled by insults and abuse. I would prefer civility, yes, but I don't expect everyone to be civil, so I am not trying to alter your behavior at all, only making sure that I am understood. At this point, I am not sure that I am but I don't see anything that I can do anymore about it.

Your arguments were dishonest. Call me whatever you like for saying so. But if you really think I am wrong about that, your time and energy may be better spent explaining how I am.

Yes keep showing what a deceitful piece of shit you are. An attack on my motives is a clear ad hominem attack but here you are pretending it was my argument you have a problem with.

I'm not sure I can answer your first question given both articles from Wikipedia and Britannica.

As for your second, the point was this: if the premise is already rejected, the conclusion will be equally rejected. That does not mean that the argument is wrong. It just means that it was rejected. As I find I have occasion to tell you every time we discuss, I don't expect to persuade you or convince you of the Truth of Christ. It is not something that anyone can be philosophically or emotionally persuaded about. It is something that all of us must make a free will choice about. So, when I engage in apologetics, it is to keep the Truth (that is, what we Christians believe and are taught in the Bible) clear, not clouded by deliberate or accidental misinformation.

So, my arguments were not to convince you but to make a position clear. And the arguments were neither fallacious nor necessarily false, as both Wikipedia and Britannica show you. Unless you have some strong reason to doubt the premises of my argument and therefore prove them false, the fact that my argument does not work against me.

What is clear is your argument is inept, its lack of supporting evidence sinks it totally so why you feel I need to pay any attention to it is funny.

I don't understand what you mean by "flip this".

And I don't see how I owe you any debt of evidence in this discussion. I have offered arguments to you. If you actually engage them in the right attitude, perhaps we can determine whether I owe you anything more.

Your arguments are not evidence so what is your point in presenting them? Did I at any point tell you that arguments are what didn't convince me about the existence of god?

As I said right there, "of course I was not speculating".

And as I asked before, if there is a God, would He owe you anything?

If there is a god asking me to believe it then yes it needs to provide evidence. If it is satisfied with my unbelief then it is welcome to sit back and relax.

Although I disagree with you about that, I will ignore that disagreement and ask this:

Since both are equally speculations devoid of proof, why is Christianity illogical and a fairy tale unworthy of human intellect while your speculations are more desirable?

More than what can be said here. You can open a new thread to discuss this. I am sure you will get all the answers you need.

That would be fine. We might even discuss it on a separate thread if you like.



You are actually begging the question now (as you accused me of doing with the creation evidence argument). You argued that nobody is born knowing anything about God or "have all morality built in". Now unless by the part in quote you mean that we are born with some morality built in - in which case you would need to explain the difference between "some" and "all" since I conceive of morality as an absolute quantity and only understand it as something people have or don't have not something they can have some of but not all of) - that means that in your worldview individuals do not come into the world possessing an innate morality. If this is so, how then can interacting with anyone result in the development of any morality at all?

We cannot rightly assume that the need to survive drove groups of individuals to develop a morality because the very need to survive would not exist unless they had a basic morality to tell them that survival is a good and desirable thing for which certain behaviors should be discouraged in order for it to be achieved. Survival is an instinct but we can only seek to codify behavior to enable survival if we actually think that survival is good. Otherwise, if I feel that killing and eating you would be good for my survival, I have no reason to yield to any law or custom that prevents me from doing so. To cohere in a community, something must make us all want to act uniformly and submit to some authority.

You can go ahead, might be better. These are beyond what this thread is about.

If you are content to live without disturbing yourself about a God, you really should not be starting threads demanding that that God prove His existence to you.

I was aware that you were accusing me of being a sophist. I was asking for your proof of that.

And as I said, why would you believe any contemporary actions if you will not believe the reports? Have you tested every single claim you have heard in your life before believing it? Will you find no other explanation for any contemporary actions that God performs for you? Will you choose not to ignore them if they insist on God's Existence? That is, you will still have a free will even if God were to do something specific that you wish outside of all that He does everyday. Will you not decide to reject even that special action as proof?

I do like thought experiments though so I combine a good laugh with a thought experiment, voila a thread on religion.

You are sophist because your arguments are just full of hot air with no substance at all, especially as they are not based on reality but on fairytales.

Really what I will do or not do if solid unequivocal evidence is provided is not your business. Its not like it is gonna cost you anything so your questions are irrelevant but for closure, I have expressed here and elsewhere that I am willing to be convinced of a existence of a god is this evidence is provided.

LordReed:


Yes keep showing what a deceitful piece of shit you are. An attack on my motives is a clear ad hominem attack but here you are pretending it was my argument you have a problem with.

You are welcome to your opinions however false they may be.

LordReed:
What is clear is your argument is inept, its lack of supporting evidence sinks it totally so why you feel I need to pay any attention to it is funny.

Perhaps in your imagination it is clear. What is clear objectively is that the argument does not convince you.

LordReed:
Your arguments are not evidence so what is your point in presenting them? Did I at any point tell you that arguments are what didn't convince me about the existence of god?

Your thread listed a set of proofs that you demand that God should give so that you will believe. My argument has been that God gave better proofs than those and that if those proofs were not good enough for you, the ones you demand will make no difference. So, my engagement here has not been to offer you any evidence but to examine your claim that there are better proofs that God could have given. So far, your claim has not held up to scrutiny.

LordReed:
If there is a god asking me to believe it then yes it needs to provide evidence. If it is satisfied with my unbelief then it is welcome to sit back and relax.

The very definition of "god" makes it rather ridiculous that any such "thing" would serve your wishes. God decrees and commands. Then we obey or not and are rewarded or punished accordingly.

LordReed:
More than what can be said here. You can open a new thread to discuss this. I am sure you will get all the answers you need.

It's your defense to make, Lord Reed. You should open the thread. You are responsible to defend the position that you have taken. Whether you do it here or on another thread is equally fine with me.

LordReed:
You can go ahead, might be better. These are beyond what this thread is about.

See above. Still, they are not beyond the scope of this thread. The thread claimed that God could have provided certain proofs. I asked why those proofs would be more convincing than the evidence of creation, human conscience and death. Those are exactly what you were explaining as being due to some Cause that need not be God. So, yes, they fall squarely within the scope of this thread.

LordReed:
I do like thought experiments though so I combine a good laugh with a thought experiment, voila a thread on religion.

You are sophist because your arguments are just full of hot air with no substance at all, especially as they are not based on reality but on fairytales.

Really what I will do or not do if solid unequivocal evidence is provided is not your business. Its not like it is gonna cost you anything so your questions are irrelevant but for closure, I have expressed here and elsewhere that I am willing to be convinced of a existence of a god is this evidence is provided.

Thought experiment plus humor, is why you start these threads, you say. How then was I wronging you in saying that your arguments are dishonest. You obviously don't think there is any possibility that God exists so what is the point of demanding answers except to laugh at them as you have so eloquently said here?

So, basically, I am a sophist because you say so? That is a ridiculous argument.

I completely agree with you that it is entirely your business whether you believe or don't. Each of us is responsible for our individual choices. I am not responsible for yours. That is why I don't try to persuade you of anything. I will tell you the Truth I know but it is entirely your choice what to do with it. However, those questions are my response to your thread.

Ihedinobi3:


Your thread listed a set of proofs that you demand that God should give so that you will believe. My argument has been that God gave better proofs than those and that if those proofs were not good enough for you, the ones you demand will make no difference. So, my engagement here has not been to offer you any evidence but to examine your claim that there are better proofs that God could have given. So far, your claim has not held up to scrutiny.

Oh please, what better prove has God given that are better than the Op's demand.

frank317:

Oh please, what better prove has God given that are better than the Op's demand.

In his mind simply just stating that god created everything should be enough to convince everybody.

Ihedinobi3:

You are welcome to your opinions however false they may be.

What remains pathetic is you never prove anything false in anything I have written. You just lie and act deliberately obtuse as though there is something you desperately need to prove.

Perhaps in your imagination it is clear. What is clear objectively is that the argument does not convince you.

LoL! You quoted a definition that calls your argument inept and say it is my imagination, how deluded can you get?.

The very definition of "god" makes it rather ridiculous that any such "thing" would serve your wishes. God decrees and commands. Then we obey or not and are rewarded or punished accordingly.

Ahh yes the threat of punishment if you do not comply. I was wondering when that card would be played. Played and unswayed.

It's your defense to make, Lord Reed. You should open the thread. You are responsible to defend the position that you have taken. Whether you do it here or on another thread is equally fine with me.



See above. Still, they are not beyond the scope of this thread. The thread claimed that God could have provided certain proofs. I asked why those proofs would be more convincing than the evidence of creation, human conscience and death. Those are exactly what you were explaining as being due to some Cause that need not be God. So, yes, they fall squarely within the scope of this thread.

No they do not but you can wait till I decide to open one.

Thought experiment plus humor, is why you start these threads, you say. How then was I wronging you in saying that your arguments are dishonest. You obviously don't think there is any possibility that God exists so what is the point of demanding answers except to laugh at them as you have so eloquently said here?

So, basically, I am a sophist because you say so? That is a ridiculous argument.

So I am not allowed to have my entertainment because it pains you? LoL. How is my humor now equal to dishonesty? More of your mind reading I suppose. LMFAO!

Do you read to comprehend or is being deliberately obtuse like a default setting now? I wrote:

You are sophist because your arguments are just full of hot air with no substance at all, especially as they are not based on reality but on fairytales.

Tomorrow you'll say its my argument you are attacking when you completely ignore the argument and hold on to the fantasy in your head.

Ihedinobi3:

Honest atheists that I have encountered even here on Nairaland have admitted straight out that their problem is not evidence, that rather they don't like God and don't want to submit to Him. I expect you to get there soon although I hope you turn around before you do.

Creation itself is very vivid testimony to great power and there is no honest way to explain it than God. The same is true of the human conscience that has prevented the human race from destroying itself and of physical death which no human being has ever managed to escape.

Anyone can claim to see no evidence even when surrounded by it in preponderance. So, I don't believe that there is any problem of evidence at all.

This is the problem with Christians. Too many lies. Mention 2 Nairaland atheists that have admitted this. I am not even an atheist but I am well acquainted with most atheists arguments here and elsewhere. If no one will call out this shameless lie I will.

LordReed:


What remains pathetic is you never prove anything false in anything I have written. You just lie and act deliberately obtuse as though there is something you desperately need to prove.

Like I said, you are welcome to your opinions however false they may be.

LordReed:
LoL! You quoted a definition that calls your argument inept and say it is my imagination, how deluded can you get?.

Britannica alluded to an ineptitude if one had to resort to circular arguments for the simple reason that if a circular argument has to ever be deployed, the cause is already lost. Anyone who doubts the premises of a circular argument will not accept its conclusion either.

Now, since I was not trying to convince you of anything, it wasn't ineptitude on my part to use a circular argument. It was necessary to deploy it to show that there was a hypocrisy in your claims. That was all.

LordReed:
Ahh yes the threat of punishment if you do not comply. I was wondering when that card would be played. Played and unswayed.

All right then. The point though was that if a God does exist, it would be foolishness to expect Him to grovel before you. That would make no sense.

LordReed:
No they do not but you can wait till I decide to open one.

And once again, the only truth merchant speaks. They do not because you say so?

LordReed:
So I am not allowed to have my entertainment because it pains you? LoL. How is my humor now equal to dishonesty? More of your mind reading I suppose. LMFAO!

Do you read to comprehend or is being deliberately obtuse like a default setting now? I wrote:

You are sophist because your arguments are just full of hot air with no substance at all, especially as they are not based on reality but on fairytales.

Tomorrow you'll say its my argument you are attacking when you completely ignore the argument and hold on to the fantasy in your head.

You may not have noticed but you love very much to address yourself to my unstated motives (although you continually accuse me of doing it to you but with no proof whatsoever). Now I am disallowing your entertainment because it pains me? How would you know that it pains me? Did I say so anywhere? I made an inference on the basis of your very statements and pointed out a hypocrisy and you arrogate to yourself the powers to read my mind? I don't care what you choose to enjoy. As I told you, we all individually earn our rewards and punishments. I won't have yours and you won't have mine. So, my concern with you is really limited to what you want for yourself. I only said that you cannot be whining about being called out for making dishonest arguments when you make threads to bait Christians and have fun at their expense while claiming to be genuinely looking for some pie-in-the-sky evidence that will make you believe.

I read what you said. But it may be that you do not understand what you yourself wrote. You actually said that I am a sophist because you say so. Your reason for saying so is: "your arguments are just full of hot air with no substance at all, especially as they are not based on reality but on fairytales". Says who? You. Is there any proof that you have offered for my arguments being full of hot air with no substance at all? No. Just your say-so. How have you demonstrated that they are not based on reality but on fairy tales? You haven't. You just say that they are and therefore it must be true. And you think I'm the one who may not be reading to comprehend?

What argument have you made here which I have ignored? In fact, go through our last two or three posts and note how many arguments you yourself have unilaterally decided not to bother to answer anymore.

NPComplete:


This is the problem with Christians. Too many lies. Mention 2 Nairaland atheists that have admitted this. I am not even an atheist but I am well acquainted with most atheists arguments here and elsewhere. If no one will call out this shameless lie I will.

Does your not being an atheist give you some kind of exclusive licence on truth? You joined this forum in 2014. I joined it early in 2012. Don't assume that the world began when you first noticed it. Here's the link:

https://www.nairaland.com/1025408/quick-question-those-dont-believe

Ihedinobi3:

Does your not being an atheist give you some kind of exclusive licence on truth? You joined this forum in 2014. I joined it early in 2012. Don't assume that the world began when you first noticed it. Here's the link:

https://www.nairaland.com/1025408/quick-question-those-dont-believe

OMFG! As far back as 2012 people were calling you a liar and a mind reader. LMFAO! This is just too funny.

Ihedinobi3:

Does your not being an atheist give you some kind of exclusive licence on truth? You joined this forum in 2014. I joined it early in 2012. Don't assume that the world began when you first noticed it. Here's the link:

https://www.nairaland.com/1025408/quick-question-those-dont-believe

You are being dishonest and u know it. Your initial argument was that the main arguments of "honest" atheists on Nairaland is that they don't care for evidence that God doesn't exist. They just won't submit.
But the thread there shows that many people will be happy to see evidence. Submitting is another different matter. Some even rightly pointed out that evidence for one is evidence for more than one so they will rather follow the one that they agree with.
No atheist or irreligious person I ever met has claimed they don't care about evidence for God.

NPComplete:


You are being dishonest and u know it. Your initial argument was that the main arguments of "honest" atheists on Nairaland is that they don't care for evidence that God doesn't exist. They just won't submit.
But the thread there shows that many people will be happy to see evidence. Submitting is another different matter. Some even rightly pointed out that evidence for one is evidence for more than one so they will rather follow the one that they agree with.
No atheist or irreligious person I ever met has claimed they don't care about evidence for God.

Well, for someone as arrogant as you showed yourself to be with your introductory post, dishonesty is not particularly surprising. Here's the comment that you were talking about. Compare that to the text I put in bold in your post above:

Honest atheists that I have encountered even here on Nairaland have admitted straight out that their problem is not evidence, that rather they don't like God and don't want to submit to Him.

Source: https://www.nairaland.com/post/72845504

That is all that needs to be said in response to your claims above. The link to the thread is available to all and sundry. I don't need to interpret it like you evidently believe that you do.

LordReed:


OMFG! As far back as 2012 people were calling you a liar and a mind reader. LMFAO! This is just too funny.

Incidentally, they were all atheists like you. As I told Frank317 elsewhere, our perceptions of reality are diametrically opposed, atheists and Christians so, of course, you all would sound the same way about somebody like me.

Ihedinobi3:

Well, for someone as arrogant as you showed yourself to be with your introductory post, dishonesty is not particularly surprising. Here's the comment that you were talking about. Compare that to the text I put in bold in your post above:

Honest atheists that I have encountered even here on Nairaland have admitted straight out that their problem is not evidence, that rather they don't like God and don't want to submit to Him.

Source: https://www.nairaland.com/post/72845504

That is all that needs to be said in response to your claims above. The link to the thread is available to all and sundry. I don't need to interpret it like you evidently believe that you do.

That's like saying they said we don't care about evidence for God. And u know u are lying.
The major argument all atheist make is that there is no evidence for God. And when u tell them there is, they ask u to show them. I know this because I have had many arguments with them about it. And many honest one I know admit they will reconsider once they see an unimpeachable evidence. But u have decided to lie and call the minority that said they won't submit, not that they don't care for the evidence, after they see evidence "honest". Because that relieves u of the burden of actually trying to prove your God exists. Something u could have done in the first page if u actually have any real evidence instead of all the pointless text u have been writing from page 1.

NPComplete:


That's like saying they said we don't care about evidence for God. And u know u are lying.
The major argument all atheist make is that there is no evidence for God. And when u tell them there is, they ask u to show them. I know this because I have had many arguments with them about it. And many honest one I know admit they will reconsider once they see an unimpeachable evidence. But u have decided to lie and call the minority that said they won't submit, not that they don't care for the evidence, after they see evidence "honest". Because that relieves u of the burden of actually trying to prove your God exists. Something u could have done in the first page if u actually have any real evidence instead of all the pointless text u have been writing from page 1.

Oga, there is such a thing as inference. One can draw conclusions from what else one knows.

If you ask a number of atheists if they will submit to God if He actually shows up and presents Himself to them so that they have undeniable proof of His existence and they say no, then regardless whatever else they say, evidence for God's Existence is not their problem.

Again, I will tell you: you and your experience are not the sum total of knowledge. There is much more happening than you have experienced. Assuming some kind of intellectual superiority in each and every encounter you have just because of what history you have is folly in the extreme.

Finally, you quoted me. Go and read what I said again so that you can actually address it correctly.

Ihedinobi3:

Oga, there is such a thing as inference. One can draw conclusions from what else one knows.

If you ask a number of atheists if they will submit to God if He actually shows up and presents Himself to them so that they have undeniable proof of His existence and they say no, then regardless whatever else they say, evidence for God's Existence is not their problem.

Again, I will tell you: you and your experience are not the sum total of knowledge. There is much more happening than you have experienced. Assuming some kind of intellectual superiority in each and every encounter you have just because of what history you have is folly in the extreme.

Finally, you quoted me. Go and read what I said again so that you can actually address it correctly.

Let me even let that argument go and bring up another argument. How does atheists not submitting to your god stop you or your god from proving his existence especially since he has been shown in the bible to be very keen on that especially.
It is like saying because I don't believe a platypus is a good pet, there is no need for u to prove that a platypus exists.

NPComplete:


Let me even let that argument go and bring up another argument. How does atheists not submitting to your god stop you or your god from proving his existence especially since he has been shown in the bible to be very keen on that especially.
It is like saying because I don't believe a platypus is a good pet, there is no need for u to prove that a platypus exists.

To begin with, does God or do I owe you any such proof? What difference does it make to me whether or not you believe? And in what way can God, assuming He exists, be obligated to anybody for anything?

Next, on this thread, I have stated what proof God has given to all mankind. Did you not see it while you browsed the thread? Why is that proof not sufficient?

Ihedinobi3:


If you ask a number of atheists if they will submit to God if He actually shows up and presents Himself to them so that they have undeniable proof of His existence and they say no, then regardless whatever else they say, evidence for God's Existence is not their problem.

Oga, where did u get this? This is dishonest of u. Atheists have always been insisting on evidence for Gods existence... Seems u have not been listening

God has a cloud of witnesses that are proving his existence... You might have decided not to pay attention to them...Bible prophecies that are being fulfilled before our very eyes more than proves that Bible information is reliable...Look at Bible predictions about the end time Church and world and then read the news...That is proof of the authenticity of Bible information...

A PROPHECY OF THE LAST DAYS BEING FULFILLED HERE ON THIS THREAD...

3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2 Peter

Scoffers shall come in the last asking where is this, where is that? Scoffers are atheists... Asking where is this and where is that?

frank317:

Oga, where did u get this? This is dishonest of u. Atheists have always been insisting on evidence for Gods existence... Seems u have not been listening

Refer to the link I shared.

felixomor:

Lol
The irony is that without religious people who believed in God and championed science
You wont even know jack....

Abeg stop throwing tantrums jare.
The word of God remains
Even long after you are dead and rotten

It will still remain.

God told you he has words where and when? Men like you wrote down books and you believe them when they tell you that it is some word of some God they imagined abi? Felixmoron. . .

Ihedinobi3:
Perhaps. But God did preserve creation, your conscience and the reality of physical death and none of those things convince you despite their ubiquity in the Bible. Why would any of these other subjective proofs you desire make any difference that these aren't making?

Your evidence that God created all we see is what? When did any God personally appear to you and told you that she created anything? Where is God's signature in any thing that was created? If you were not indoctrinated with the Yahweh stories, how will you be able to know that Yahweh and not Brahma created the universe? So the bible which is the words of men is your evidence for God? Why not the Koran or the Hindus Verdes? Thesent books are also evidence for Allah and Brahma.

Even in the bible God was all over the place using miracles and physical proof of himself just to force the people and make them believe in him. .

dalaman:


God told you he has words where and when? Men like you wrote down books and you believe them when they tell you that it is some word of some God they imagined abi? Felixmoron. . .

Hehehe the f00lish animal is out again

felixomor:


Hehehe the f00lish animal is out again

Yahweh and Jesus are foolish animals.

dalaman:


[s]Yahweh and Jesus are foolish animals. [/s]

Gibberish

felixomor:


Gibberish

Yahweh is a fool, so also is Jesus. Both uselse and foolish imaginary idiots you've been indoctrinated with by ancient fools to believe in their fictional stories. Even you know that they are imaginary fools that can't do anything. If it were before you'll be telling me to insult Yahweh and see if he doesn't kill me . Yahweh and Jesus are foolish animals.