hupernikao:

Dark/darkness is not nothing. Darkness is an entity, nothing is not.

okay

Tamaratonye1:

Of course not. The more we learn, the more we learn we have a lot more to learn. For example, Perlmutter did his study to determine the expansion rate of the universe. The results were the complete opposite of what was expected, that the universe was accelerating in it's expansion.That result lead to the dark energy hypothesis, basically a completely new field of research.


For science, you need something to study, to examine, to measure. One can not do that with an imaginary friend (with the exception of psychology and how the brain works).


The more we learn, the more we learn we have more to learn. Science is not static, and a scientific theory may be overturned at any moment. For example, the ancient Greeks postulated on the nature of gravity. Later on, such scientists as Galileo added to the learning on what gravity is. Newton finally offered an explanation on the effects of gravity, and Einstein finally explained how it worked. But the discovery of dark energy and dark matter may require another Einstein, one who can come up with a new way of understanding the universe.

But science offers the best explanation at that time, based on our knowledge base.



NO

Theists have made the god claim, it is incumbent on them to prove their imaginary friend.

Observe my response to Professorcplus. thought it was your second account, so i responded to it.

The summary is this.

All your response above affirmed the fact that science is good and has helped humanity but not perfect. Imperfection will implies, it is fallible and can be revised.

Science simply cant boast of knowing all about how the world functions and all entity that functions around it. But it seems atheist know all. If science claimed not to be perfect and still continuously depends on tools exposed to it to make more research, i asked you earlier, HAS SCIENCE DONE WITH RESEARCHING? Of course not. metaphysics, teleportation etc are all scientific work trying to find answers more and more. If there are minute success in matter transfer (teleport) dont you think science still have a long way to go in discovering the essence of this earth and even man itself?

When you arent done researching, you dont make conclusions. It will be a scientific folly to make conclusion that something doesnt exist when you arent done researching. Non existence is relative to understanding not fact.

See, science today is still in its embryo, developing gradually, we are yet to see the full power of science and may never see it in our time. That seems good but also that is the limitation of science. Hence, you have no ground on concluding the non existence of God using scientific tools which prides in the journey of time. Let science continue its researching, its answers are far embedded in the centuries of events ahead of us.


Let me chip this in for a good thinker!

The probability of measure of success of scientific theories accuracy over past centuries when measured together will amazed you how unstable science has been. In modern term you will term it as failure due to its unpredictability. Though its understandable but also a food for thought on its assumptions today about the supernatural that may all changed centuries to come.

Michellekabod2:
why self service?am I allergic to di¢ks?

I must say I'm impressed by your confidence, if you're this open minded in real life as you are here online then the sky is not just your limit but a stepping stone to the heavens

Tamaratonye1:

[1] Please define "mind".
[2] Please supply your best evidence for a "spiritual realm". Not just a repeat of your factless bluster.
[3] There is no reason to assume existence without evidence. You do not get to imagine possibilities into existence.

The attached video is obviously very dated. The Professor discusses the similarities of Jesus Christ, Hare Krishna and Ahuro Mazda/Zooroster. The immaculate conception, good versus evil spirits...etc. The video is 12 minutes long and straightforward.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7_DsBoTQ-Y


That almost did make me laugh out loud....well I tried, I just couldn't help but be disdainfully amused at your complete Muppetness.

I will say it and keep saying it, you are ignorant and speaking from the limitness of your knowledge

1. A human Mind , is the energy body or software that Enable the brain to function and perfrom mental activities, such as thinking, Visualization, and Conscious decision making.

2. Your dream is the best evidence for spirtual realm,,. You dream yet you can provide evidence for it

3. Evidence is useless when it comes to mystery,,.

Possibilities are imagined,. Into existence.. I have seen it before and I have done it before.., so you don't know what you are talking about

Alot of people has once encounter spirit yet they can provide evidence,. Does that mean spirit doesn't exist,,


You are just trying to use physical science to explain things

My dear , go and learn quantum physics..

Then you will be worthy to argue with me


For now,. You are not just a match for me


You said Science is not Static,. Fine

Then why do you conclude there is no God,,,



Science deals with what they can measure And test because all physical material has limit hence they can be measure

Spirtuality has no limit, hence it can't be measure

= hupernikoa
There is a singular message in the bible and that is Man's salvation in Christ Jesus. It is not a book to argue or dis-argue science, or a book of creation (though it contained creation story), it is not a book for everything. Where many miss it, including you is trying to see the bible fighting or standing to contradict science. That will be an error, Like i told you before, science is still very young and would lack the standing to fully comprehend the essence of the scriptures.


The Bible is a book to show man's true condition, salvation in Christ alone. No other story, no other essence, no other light. Hence you should seek biblical explanation as an entity in its context of its right interpretation.

To the bolded. There are several religion in the world such as Judaism, Christianity ,Islam , Bahá'í Faith , Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Sikhism , Slavic neopaganism , Celtic polytheism, just to mention a few each having their own version of religious books. What makes the Christianity Holy Bible a special standout book I should seek explanation from among others?

We good back to the default position.. Where we Were before we call to enjoy this physical world.. Life is a circle any death is just a point on it.. Some circles are small, others are Large....

We are spiritual beings dwelling or enclosed in a body made of dust.. When we die we just go to sleep with our ancestors.

hupernikao:

All your response above affirmed the fact that science is good and has helped humanity but not perfect. Imperfection will implies, it is fallible and can be revised.

Of course scientific theories are being constantly revised. That is not because the scientific process is flawed, but that new discoveries add to our knowledge base, and sometimes old theories are discarded.

In science, when you learn something new, you say "OK, we got it wrong, so we will revise our proposals". That is a challenge all scientific researchers face, that the results of their studies may be embarrassing or definitely not what they desire.

hupernikao:

Science simply cant boast of knowing all about how the world functions and all entity that functions around it. But it seems atheist know all.

Atheism does not make that claim, although your ignorance makes many atheists look like Einstein. Once again, there is just one definition of atheism, a lack of belief in a god or gods. If religion and superstition is so appealing to you, why has it failed to convince us atheist of the existence of any god?

hupernikao:

The probability of measure of success of scientific theories accuracy over past centuries when measured together will amazed you how unstable science has been.

Says the guy using a computer and/or smart phone to send that message around the globe over the internet.... *rolling eyes*... Yep, those damn bumbling scientist idiots lol.

Two more unevidenced claims, and one of them assuming to know what others will think, you've excelled yourself. Now, how many scientific facts do you deny that don't contradict your religious beliefs in any way?

Buussssttteddd....

hupernikao:
See, science today is still in its embryo, developing gradually, we are yet to see the full power of science and may never see it in our time.

Science is a methodology, well developed and consistently producing results.

Our human knowledge base in in it's embryo stage, because we have just come out of the dark ages (thanks to religion inhibiting human progress) and over the next few millennium, will continually add to the knowledge.

hupernikao:

When you arent done researching, you dont make conclusions.

The results of scientific research are never presented as hard conclusions, but at best, a tentative explanation until new information is revealed.

NOW,

First of all, proof is the remit of pure mathematics and formal axiomatic systems derived therein. Science deals in correspondence with observational data.

Second, if an asserted entity is bereft of accompanying evidence, the requisite assertions about that entity can be safely discarded.

Third, your attempt to dismiss reliable methods of testing assertions, just because your assertions are vacuous and probably untestable even in principle, is not merely lame, but duplicitous.

Fourth, if you want to support the implicit assertion that there exist other reliable methods for testing assertions, then the ball is in your court to demonstrate that [1] the requisite methodologies exist, and [2] that they produce verifiably reliable results. Your failure to do so will merely reinforce the vacuity of your position.

Scientific claims can be trusted to the extent their are supported by objective evidence, as can all claims, thus your religious claims are utterly meaningless, as you cannot demonstrate a shred of objective evidence. Evolution for instance is manifestly and objectively true as the rotundity of the earth, and they are both as likely to be wrong.

ElidaxZiel:

I will say it and keep saying it, you are ignorant and speaking from the limitness of your knowledge

Limitness (sic), another hilarious own goal, for your sake I do hope this was an attempt at irony lol.

ElidaxZiel:
1. A human Mind , is the energy body or software that Enable the brain to function and perfrom mental activities, such as thinking, Visualization, and Conscious decision making.

That's bollocks.

ElidaxZiel:

2. Your dream is the best evidence for spirtual realm,,. You dream yet you can provide evidence for it

Nope. It's just a dream.

ElidaxZiel:
3. Evidence is useless when it comes to mystery,,.

Even by the standards you and your cult have previously set, this has to be hands down one of the most idiotic asinine claims I've seen a theist make. Do you even know what a dictionary is?

evidence
noun
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

mystery
noun
Something that is difficult or impossible to understand or explain.

So Bullwinkle thinks facts can't help explain things that are difficult to explain, priceless.

Is this just how you convince yourself that what makes you feel warm and fuzz has some merit? .... It's rank intellectual dishonesty.

Plus, Sherlock Holmes might disagree with you on that one. Also, you must have never watched any Scooby Doo, or read any Agatha Christie novels. And having helped in investigations of countless real-life "mysteries", I would say evidence is extremely USEFUL in regards to mysteries.

As you can see, all your claims are unevidenced. If you can't be bothered to even pretend to evidence them, then in the bin they go, it's no loss as even by theistic standards your verbiage is mind numbingly stupid.

ElidaxZiel:
My dear , go and learn quantum physics..

You're about as much an authority on quantum physics as Stephen Hawkins was an authority on Olympic snowboarding.

Mythology fanboys like you don't have any "research", all you have is mythological assertions and ex recto apologetic fabrications.

You should take your output to a stand up comedy venue lol. You'll have them rolling in the aisles.

ElidaxZiel:

Then why do you conclude there is no God,,,

This is the heart of the matter, the antecedent on your behavior. You have been asked to provide proof of a god or gods, and since you understand that there is no valid method to provide any proof, you have decided that attacking science and attempting to discredit science, somehow makes your inability to provide any proof of a god as rational since (to you) science is not a valid tool.

Everything follows patterns of natural causality, from us how we currently are, to evolution from primate relatives, to the formation of the earth from an accretion disc and all the way to the big bang. There is no sign... not even 0.00000001% of evidence of anything outside of the laws of nature and physics

And that is good enough!

Most of us do not need some clutch of sinister, child raping virgins to guide us morally. Most of us realise that religion and all its bullshit books, verses, psalms etc... explain absolute Bleep all.

Most of us realise we live in a material universe and that science as a tool can actually offer cogent, proven answers that are testable and demonstrable... we don't need to invoke our imaginary friends simply because we dont understand how certain phenomena exist or occur.

Give your head a wobble you plank.

Why do I not conclude that any god exists? Because I have zero proof or reason to believe in this imaginary friend. If you truly desire to score points in this forum, then provide proof. My ears are open, I am listening, convince me with a rational dialogue.

Tamaratonye1:

Limitness (sic), another hilarious own goal, for your sake I do hope this was an attempt at irony lol.


That's bollocks.


Nope. It's just a dream.


Even by the standards you and your cult have previously set, this has to be hands down one of the most idiotic asinine claims I've seen a theist make. Do you even know what a dictionary is?

evidence
noun
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

mystery
noun
Something that is difficult or impossible to understand or explain.

So Bullwinkle thinks facts can't help explain things that are difficult to explain, priceless.

Is this just how you convince yourself that what makes you feel warm and fuzz has some merit? .... It's rank intellectual dishonesty.

Plus, Sherlock Holmes might disagree with you on that one. Also, you must have never watched any Scooby Doo, or read any Agatha Christie novels. And having helped in investigations of countless real-life "mysteries", I would say evidence is extremely USEFUL in regards to mysteries.

As you can see, all your claims are unevidenced. If you can't be bothered to even pretend to evidence them, then in the bin they go, it's no loss as even by theistic standards your verbiage is mind numbingly stupid.


You're about as much an authority on quantum physics as Stephen Hawkins was an authority on Olympic snowboarding.

Mythology fanboys like you don't have any "research", all you have is mythological assertions and ex recto apologetic fabrications.

You should take your output to a stand up comedy venue lol. You'll have them rolling in the aisles.


This is the heart of the matter, the antecedent on your behavior. You have been asked to provide proof of a god or gods, and since you understand that there is no valid method to provide any proof, you have decided that attacking science and attempting to discredit science, somehow makes your inability to provide any proof of a god as rational since (to you) science is not a valid tool.

Everything follows patterns of natural causality, from us how we currently are, to evolution from primate relatives, to the formation of the earth from an accretion disc and all the way to the big bang. There is no sign... not even 0.00000001% of evidence of anything outside of the laws of nature and physics

And that is good enough!

Most of us do not need some clutch of sinister, child raping virgins to guide us morally. Most of us realise that religion and all its bullshit books, verses, psalms etc... explain absolute Bleep all.

Most of us realise we live in a material universe and that science as a tool can actually offer cogent, proven answers that are testable and demonstrable... we don't need to invoke our imaginary friends simply because we dont understand how certain phenomena exist or occur.

Give your head a wobble you plank.

Why do I not conclude that any god exists? Because I have zero proof or reason to believe in this imaginary friend. If you truly desire to score points in this forum, then provide proof. My ears are open, I am listening, convince me with a rational dialogue.

You seem signs Nd evidence to believe God exist

But none will be given you

God exist , you know It deep o inside

You are only fighting your shadow



Answer this


If energy can neither be Created nor destroyed

How did does Energy got into the system

I want you tro logical explain this to me

No story just answer straight

# you are a learner

ElidaxZiel:


You seem signs Nd evidence to believe God exist

But none will be given you

God exist , you know It deep o inside

You are only fighting your shadow


Answer this


If energy can neither be Created nor destroyed

How did does Energy got into the system

I want you tro logical explain this to me

No story just answer straight

# you are a learner

I'm not aware that your imaginary friend exists "deep inside". Your pretending to know what I believe is futile. What you have here is a failed attempt to convince yourself (not me) that your favourite imaginary friend exists, even when it looks like your fantasy bubble is being rudely bursted on an online chat forum. You can't handle it, and are now attempting desperately to shut down the argument with this old chestnut.

Now to your question,

When you say, "how does energy get into the system", this is asking the question in completely the wrong way , in my opinion. The universe is all that there is, unless you can offer evidence to the contrary.

If the total energy of the universe is zero (which is a highly valid hypothesis, based on what we know about the universe), you have your answer, which is that it didn't - what we see is just perturbations around the zero-energy mean. And your argument is of little or no practical relevance. Whether this is true or not is something we might never know. But at least it is based on observations and logic, as opposed to the supernatural claims of the followers of the petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; the vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; the misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully(*). Or, as you might know "him": God.

Plus, the first law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with what happened before the rapid expansion. And please don't pull out all the stops just to lie to yourself. NO ONE knows what happened before the rapid expansion.

I once asked a physicist acquaintance "what was there before the big bang? Sorry, rapid expansion. His answer: 'there was no before". Stephen Hawking said that when the universe was a singularity, the size of a single atom, time and space did not exist.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH5ukK7ngL8

Lawrence Krauss also has an interesting video on the notion of a universe from nothing . I can't claim to understand all of it. I'm actually more interested in the fact that competent scientists are seriously discussing the topic; to me that means the matter is not settled.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46sKeycH3bE

Your questions seem to me to be a sneaky attempt at shifting the burden of proof . I for one have made no claims of scientific expertise nor about the existence of god. I need prove nothing. It is up the the theist to prove his claim of the existence of god, or any claims about science.

The internet is loaded with scientific papers by (Steinhardt & Turok for example), in which they postulate a mechanism for energy being donated to the incipient universe. But I suspect you have been too busy pretending that apologetics dictates how reality behaves, to bother with such inconvenient interruptions to your fantasy as actually reading the extant cosmological physics literature. Instead you come over here to embarrass your cult members with your false claims and nasty, bogging, appalling, unspeakable, unbelievable, nightmarish use of English.

I mean, for a second I squinted my face trying to understand the question "How did does Energy got into the system". Couldn't you read before posting this eyesore? Do you have problems constructing sentences? Anyways, I digress...

Now riddle me this... can you demonstrate how we get causally to 'God'?

For example, we know we can follow natural causal links all the way back to a second after the big bang... everything has a naturalistic cause.

What is the preceding natural cause before you specifically invoke your god?


(*) Credit to Richard Dawkins, for this magnificent rant.

Tamaratonye1:


Now riddle me this... can you demonstrate how we get causally to 'God'?

Inb4 his long rambling answer, the gist of which will be intuition; everything has a creator, something cannot come from nothing and other supercilious jazz talk.

Tamaratonye1:



I once asked a physicist acquaintance "what was there before the big bang? Sorry, rapid expansion. His answer: 'there was no before". Stephen Hawking said that when the universe was a singularity, the size of a single atom, time and space did not exist.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH5ukK7ngL8

Lawrence Krauss also has an interesting video on the notion of a universe from nothing . I can't claim to understand all of it. I'm actually more interested in the fact that competent scientists are seriously discussing the topic; to me that means the matter is not settled.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46sKeycH3bE

I mostly agree with you, but with due all respect Krauss was wrong.
Stephen Hawkin was right when he said ' when the universe was a singularity, space did not exist'.
However Krauss went a step further and claimed
'the universe itself comes from nothing'. That's a huge difference.
He has been called out on this multiple times. He misused [b]the idea of an 'empty space' [/b]to argue that the universe itself came out of nothing.

But the space is never empty. It can't even be ever empty. It always contains energy, leading to pair of particles having the ability to always form.
Nothing is the absence of any 'thing' and pure nothing has no power to cause itself to persist.

To be honest, we still know very little about the space and the universe to come up with an accurate answer, but one thing is for sure "Ex nihilo nihil fit" - "Nothing Comes from Nothing".

That itself means God, as he's being displayed- the one and only creator, the beginning and the end, if he truly had existed, (which I don't believe anyway) could have not come out of nothing.

The Righteous go to Where CHRIST Resurrected to. Bokoharam go to Hell.

We go back to where we were before we were born...

fieryy:


I mostly agree with you, but with due all respect Krauss was wrong.
Stephen Hawkin was right when he said ' when the universe was a singularity, space did not exist'.
However Krauss went a step further and claimed
'the universe itself comes from nothing'. That's a huge difference.
He has been called out on this multiple times. He misused [b]the idea of an 'empty space' [/b]to argue that the universe itself came out of nothing.

But the space is never empty. It can't even be ever empty. It always contains energy, leading to pair of particles having the ability to always form.
Nothing is the absence of any 'thing' and pure nothing has no power to cause itself to persist.

To be honest, we still know very little about the space and the universe to come up with an accurate answer, but one thing is for sure "Ex nihilo nihil fit" - "Nothing Comes from Nothing".

That itself means God, as he's being displayed- the one and only creator, the beginning and the end, if he truly had existed, (which I don't believe anyway) could have not come out of nothing.

From my understanding Krauss is indulging in a bit of word play. He is not saying there was an absolute nothing, in fact I have heard him say several times that such a nothing does not exist but a nothing into which quantum fluctuations birth virtual particles could in fact be the basis for the universe.

After death? D only tin we are sure of is burial nothing else can be proven.

fieryy:


I mostly agree with you, but with due all respect Krauss was wrong.
Stephen Hawkin was right when he said ' when the universe was a singularity, space did not exist'.
However Krauss went a step further and claimed
'the universe itself comes from nothing'. That's a huge difference.
He has been called out on this multiple times. He misused [b]the idea of an 'empty space' [/b]to argue that the universe itself came out of nothing.

But the space is never empty. It can't even be ever empty. It always contains energy, leading to pair of particles having the ability to always form.
Nothing is the absence of any 'thing' and pure nothing has no power to cause itself to persist.

To be honest, we still know very little about the space and the universe to come up with an accurate answer, but one thing is for sure "Ex nihilo nihil fit" - "Nothing Comes from Nothing".

That itself means God, as he's being displayed- the one and only creator, the beginning and the end, if he truly had existed, (which I don't believe anyway) could have not come out of nothing.

Thanks for that.

I took care not to make any claims about Krauss's claim because I don't understand it. It was my intention only to post the claim. Apologies if I unintentionally mislead.

On the bald face of it , Hawkin's explanation makes sense to me. Again I can make no claim because I don't fully understand the physics. So far haven't heard of another explanation ,expressed simply enough that I can understand it.

True enough, "God did it" is an idiot simple claim ,and I want to be open minded. If I was open minded enough to believe that, my brains would fall out.

----As A youth of about 14, I stumbled upon the concept that time and space came into being when God created the world. I asked one of the sisters at the Catholic school I attended. She changed the subject.

Pity really, because Catholicism accepts evolution**. I think it would be pretty simple for a Jesuit apologist to slip the Big Bang/ great expansion into Catholic theology. (assuming that has not already bene done)

**I was taught that the church has no problem with evolution because we don't know the duration of each 'day' of creation. Could be billions of years for all we know. When I heard that at age 14 or 15, I remember thinking that explanation was pretty cunning and it left me with a feeling of unease.

Question: If heaven is real and its a place to go and enjoy. Then why are people afraid to die?
Even your pastors who preach about heaven don't want to die. When they are sick... They secretly go abroad for treatments. They will lie to you that they can't never fall sick.

Scammers.

In Nigeria even when you have a PhD, once an illiterate calls himself pastor stands in front of you... You immediately become foolish.

Tamaratonye1:

Of course scientific theories are being constantly revised. That is not because the scientific process is flawed, but that new discoveries add to our knowledge base, and sometimes old theories are discarded.

In science, when you learn something new, you say "OK, we got it wrong, so we will revise our proposals". That is a challenge all scientific researchers face, that the results of their studies may be embarrassing or definitely not what they desire.


Atheism does not make that claim, although your ignorance makes many atheists look like Einstein. Once again, there is just one definition of atheism, a lack of belief in a god or gods. If religion and superstition is so appealing to you, why has it failed to convince us atheist of the existence of any god?

Hello Tamaratonye1

Trust you are good.

I want you and i focus on the science that you embrace and let us see if truly science is what it is. Because the foundation of science or atheist denying God is because there is no physical prove that he exist. That is, we cant see any scientific record or experiment that can fully justify it right?

Now do we conclude that what ever science couldnt detect or know or observe doesnt exist? Do we?

But, I can give you over 100 things that science has failed to observe or test or prove but exist. Science itself knows its limit, area of function but its people who want to test and observe God via science that is pushing science beyond its limit.

It is an abuse of use, to want to observe supernatural things with the natural tool. Every claim of God has reside in the supernatural domain, yet atheist kept asking that God should be proved in the natural via natural tools. Isnt that lack of knowledge in itself?

NOTE THIS, scientific tool cannot prove the existence of anything, it only discover it. For example science says there is no flying horses, but ask science how did you know. It will say, i have never seen anyone before nor be able to prove with my tools that any exist. very silly answer. Is that a prove that it doesnt exist? Can we accept that as a prove that it doesnt exist? Cant that also be a limitation of your knowledge and research? Very overrated.

Think on this:
Is "i havent seen or detect it with all my tools around the world, so i can conclude it doesnt exist" acceptable in itself as scientific methods or law for determining existence?

A guy once ask an athiest here to use science to prove dreams, and the atheist disappeared into the air without response till date. Do dream exist? yes. Can science tool test dreams? i mean do you have scientific method to tell me why a fellow ate jollof rice without meat and water in his dream or why another wasnt served in the same dream. Do you have a scientific tool for that? No, but does those events happens? Yes. So how do you know they happen? YOU MUST EXPERIENCE IT, not use tool to test it. You must experience it as dream, in dream to know it happens. same as supernatural things.

What about EVIL or GOOD? Do we have scientific tool or theory to prove evil or good exist? A guy was shot by gun and died, you can use scientific theories and tools to know how and why he died (by gun) but can the tool prove that the action was evil or good? Do you know evil/good by scientific truth or by moral truth? I can go on and on but let me give you a few categories of things scientific truth cannot prove.

- Moral Truth: science cant tell us evil or good, cant measure how evil a man can be by observation or testing him in the lab. Even if you pieces heart, your tool will still fail you.

- Experiential Truth: I just gave you an instant of a dream. Somethings are only known to exist because it was experienced by the individual or set of people but not by tools.

Just in this two categories alone i can give you 50 things science wont prove. This isnt a limitation, its only that you are trying to use science tool to solve what it wasnt design to handle. It is sad most times when i see people struggling to deny or accept God existence based on scientific ground. It is a wrong tool. Dont see everything as nail just because the only tool in your hand is hammer.

Can i ask you? How does science or you know that Unicorn doesnt exist? Please i need proper explanation, more importantly, how science arrived at their conclusion. Please i need answers.

fieryy:
To be honest, we still know very little about the space and the universe to come up with an accurate answer, but one thing is for sure "Ex nihilo nihil fit" - "Nothing Comes from Nothing".

Just wanted to add, is that a hard rule with no exceptions?

Because if you can propose special pleading for a god, then if that one rule can be broken, it can also be broken concerning the origin of this known universe.

hupernikao:

I want you and i focus on the science that you embrace and let us see if truly science is what it is.

I'm sorry but this is hands down the stupidest thing you've said so far, no mean achievement either. Science is amply defined form a cursory Google search, and no one has to embrace anything, it's success as a method is manifest to anyone with an ounce of integrity.

hupernikao:
Because the foundation of science or atheist denying God is because there is no physical prove that he exist.

From rank stupidity to rank dishonesty.

[1] The foundation of science is objective evidence, and open minded rigour.
[2] Atheism is not synonymous with science, atheists just have no biased reason to deny scientific facts the way you superstitious theists do.
[3] Atheism doesn't deny anything, it is just the absence of belief in any deity or deities.
[4] You mean proof not prove, and the lack of proof for deity, scientific or otherwise, is not the basis of atheism of anyone I have met here. They disbelieve because, as do I, because no religious apologist can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, nor produce a single rational argument to support their belief.
[5] If something beyond the physical or material exists then demonstrate some objective evidence for this claim, otherwise I will continue to disbelieve your claim for a deity.

Science can't detect non existent or fictional things, that is an objective fact, this is not a limit of science, and each time you place your deity in the category of things science cannot detect you score a spectacular own goal, it is rank stupidity that compels you to keep repeating this fatuous own goal even after it's been explained to you people?

hupernikao:

Every claim of God has reside in the supernatural domain, yet atheist kept asking that God should be proved in the natural via natural tools. Isnt that lack of knowledge in itself?

It is your claim that a supernatural deity exists, so the burden of proof is entirely yours, and you can piss and moan about that all you want, I don't care. Just what you hope to achieve with this nonsensical facile claim is unclear, but it seems little more than puerile trolling to me.

hupernikao:

A guy once ask an athiest here to use science to prove dreams, and the atheist disappeared into the air without response till date.

Whoever he was I sympathise, as most of you are pretty stupid anyway, which makes educating you guys on even basic facts almost impossible, and pretty thankless. But I will try one more time anyway, what that "guy" produced there is an argument based on two known logical fallacies, the first is a false equivalence fallacy by making a specious analogy between dreams and a fictional deity. The second is a poisoning of the well fallacy, by making a puerile suggestion that if science is fallible it is unreliable, which is almost as hilarious as it is stupid, it is definitely logically fallacious.

hupernikao:

What about EVIL or GOOD? Do we have scientific tool or theory to prove evil or good exist?

Already covered in the last response, it is another repetition of the same logical fallacies, and evil and good are also subjective terms quite obviously.

hupernikao:

- Moral Truth: science cant tell us evil or good,

Sigh, it can't tell us which is best colour either, what a truly asinine non-sequitur.

hupernikao:

Can i ask you? How does science or you know that Unicorn doesnt exist? Please i need proper explanation, more importantly, how science arrived at their conclusion. Please i need answers.

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that is real? Dear oh dear, do you seriously think repeatedly lying about what atheism is, is impressive? I don't believe claims unless they are sufficiently supported by objective evidence, contrary proofs or evidence are not necessary, and demanding this as you have suggested here, is of course the very definition of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Science is not relevant to this basic epistemological requirement.

I don’t think you really need answers. I think you believe you have all the answers. Your ideas and fall back to “god” give you all the answers you need.

When you get to the point of “...I need truth (or at least a way to distinguish fact from fiction)”... then perhaps you’ll engage in a more rational manner.

WHAT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE CAN YOU DEMONSTRATE FOR ANY DEITY?

That question is all you need to concern yourself with, as it is the beginning and the end of all claims for a deity.

tartar9:
Jollof Rice

and very big meat

Tamaratonye1:

I'm sorry but this is hands down the stupidest thing you've said so far, no mean achievement either. Science is amply defined form a cursory Google search, and no one has to embrace anything, it's success as a method is manifest to anyone with an ounce of integrity.

You will need to calm down. Emotional outburst won't be a way for you to properly explain and analyse your claims or facts. Don't let my questioning press your provocative button. We still have a long way to go o. The energy is good for this argument, but calm down.

Leave name calling like stupid, dull and all these subjective emotions out of these. I have passed such distraction and diversion in discussion. Let's face the reality of our discussion.
--------------------------------------------------
I can summarised all you said above in two facts. Mention it if am wrong.

1. Atheism believes in what can be proven even if it's beyond scientific tool or its truth, they believe in objective evidence which can either be proved by scientific methods or any method you deemed fit.

2. Quoting you, You said to one of my questions earlier: Science is not relevant to this basic epistemological requirement.
Hence you agreed that there are things that exist beyond scientific tools and observations or testable by science, (you may need to educate your beliefs new joiners who carry science on their head all around Nairaland as proof of determining existence). That's by the way.

So, since we have made clear that scientific rules are wrong tools or are limited to observing some other elements of life that exist, Which I laid out in my last post about dreams, evil and on concluding a non existence because it cant be tested or found.
---------------------------------------------
Now, what seems objective to you, or as you said to atheists,is that it must be provable or logical. Hence if objective evidence doesn't exist then there is no need to believe in it.

I will raise another poser to you. Bearing in mind the definition of objective evidence

Objective evidence refers to information based on facts that can be proved by means of search like analysis, measurement, and observation.

So,
1. What objective evidence do you have that dream exist. Of course it exist but how do you know? Is it by analysis, measurements, observations or by experience Or what?

2. What objective evidence do you have that Evil exist? Bearing in mind you mentioned earlier that evil is subjective. So how do we know evil, that this is evil, is it by analysis, measurements, observations, conscience or what? Can I subject evil to objective evidence and be able to conclude that this is evil? Surely we know evil exist, but how do we know?

3. Is objective evidence an absolute evidence for proof of existence?, or does the lack of objective evidence enough to deny experiential evidence?

Bearing in mind that experiential evidence can be subjective based on individuals. Dreams are experiential, trance are, evil are etc. So does the lack of objectivity in them enough to deny them?

Hope you know we are looking at the core foundation of atheism (objectivity), so I will need a well explained response if such objectivity of evidence is enough to prove or explain all that exist or all that we should accept as existing.

After death is reincarnation

hupernikao:




1. Atheism believes

Anytime you use this phrase it proves you've not been paying attention and anything you say after it will just be wrong.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s), can that simple fact get through to you?

You will go to a place of rest depending on how you live your life that place will either be a place called Paradise or to a place called Spirit Prison until Judgment Day. On Judgment day we will go to the Judgment seat of Christ and ultimately will judge ourselves with Jesus as our advocate with the Father who will determine where we will dwell. We will then go to one of 4 places. The Celestial Kingdom like that of the Sun, The Terrestrial Kingdom like unto the moon, The Telestial Kingdom compared to the glory of the stars or to Outer Darkness where Satan dwells. Each Kingdom has it's varying degree of glory compared to how righteous we were here on earth we will attain that glory that we worked for. If we attain the highest degree of glory we can inherit all that our Father in Heaven has for us to inherit and can become like him and take part in his eternal work. To find out more go to http://mormon.org There is so much to learn it is really an amazing wonderful glorious plan that our Father in Heaven has in store for us. I forgot to mention the resurrection. We will all be resurrected and will be reunited with a perfect body that will then be immortal like our Father in Heaven.

Tamaratonye1:

I'm sorry but this is hands down the stupidest thing you've said so far, no mean achievement either. Science is amply defined form a cursory Google search, and no one has to embrace anything, it's success as a method is manifest to anyone with an ounce of integrity.


From rank stupidity to rank dishonesty.

[1] The foundation of science is objective evidence, and open minded rigour.
[2] Atheism is not synonymous with science, atheists just have no biased reason to deny scientific facts the way you superstitious theists do.
[3] Atheism doesn't deny anything, it is just the absence of belief in any deity or deities.
[4] You mean proof not prove, and the lack of proof for deity, scientific or otherwise, is not the basis of atheism of anyone I have met here. They disbelieve because, as do I, because no religious apologist can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, nor produce a single rational argument to support their belief.
[5] If something beyond the physical or material exists then demonstrate some objective evidence for this claim, otherwise I will continue to disbelieve your claim for a deity.

Science can't detect non existent or fictional things, that is an objective fact, this is not a limit of science, and each time you place your deity in the category of things science cannot detect you score a spectacular own goal, it is rank stupidity that compels you to keep repeating this fatuous own goal even after it's been explained to you people?


It is your claim that a supernatural deity exists, so the burden of proof is entirely yours, and you can piss and moan about that all you want, I don't care. Just what you hope to achieve with this nonsensical facile claim is unclear, but it seems little more than puerile trolling to me.


Whoever he was I sympathise, as most of you are pretty stupid anyway, which makes educating you guys on even basic facts almost impossible, and pretty thankless. But I will try one more time anyway, what that "guy" produced there is an argument based on two known logical fallacies, the first is a false equivalence fallacy by making a specious analogy between dreams and a fictional deity. The second is a poisoning of the well fallacy, by making a puerile suggestion that if science is fallible it is unreliable, which is almost as hilarious as it is stupid, it is definitely logically fallacious.


Already covered in the last response, it is another repetition of the same logical fallacies, and evil and good are also subjective terms quite obviously.


Sigh, it can't tell us which is best colour either, what a truly asinine non-sequitur.


Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that is real? Dear oh dear, do you seriously think repeatedly lying about what atheism is, is impressive? I don't believe claims unless they are sufficiently supported by objective evidence, contrary proofs or evidence are not necessary, and demanding this as you have suggested here, is of course the very definition of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Science is not relevant to this basic epistemological requirement.

I don’t think you really need answers. I think you believe you have all the answers. Your ideas and fall back to “god” give you all the answers you need.

When you get to the point of “...I need truth (or at least a way to distinguish fact from fiction)”... then perhaps you’ll engage in a more rational manner.

WHAT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE CAN YOU DEMONSTRATE FOR ANY DEITY?

That question is all you need to concern yourself with, as it is the beginning and the end of all claims for a deity.

@bolded, this is gold! Couldn't have put it any better.

hupernikao:


You will need to calm down. Emotional outburst won't be a way for you to properly explain and analyse your claims or facts. Don't let my questioning press your provocative button. We still have a long way to go o. The energy is good for this argument, but calm down.

Leave name calling like stupid, dull and all these subjective emotions out of these. I have passed such distraction and diversion in discussion. Let's face the reality of our discussion.

If you maintain honesty in your argument, nobody's going to have your hide. Unfortunately, you're not giving me that impression

[1] You just made up your own definition for the word "atheism." If you can not stick to commonly accepted and agreed upon definitions, you begin to erode the ability to even communicate basic ideas to other people.

[2] Just because an idea is not testable by science, does not suddenly makes it true. I really hope you know at least that. All it means when science tools are unable to investigate is: simply that is outside the purview of science. Your (and any other) god idea falls within that, by design. Guess where that puts your god idea? On the same level as the idea that I, Tamaratonye1, is your god. You cannot scientifically prove that I am not your god. By your reasoning and your requirements to believe your current god idea, you cannot refute that means I am your god based on the same standards.

hupernikao:

1. What objective evidence do you have that dream exist. Of course it exist but how do you know? Is it by analysis, measurements, observations or by experience Or what?

They have multiple tools to detect dream states already. We can use a tool and tell when someone is dreaming or not. Furthermore some progress has been made on even detecting what sort of dream someone is having. Even with out any tools to aid me, I can typically tell if hubby is having a bad dream, especially if he wakes up with a shout.

hupernikao:

2. What objective evidence do you have that Evil exist?

hupernikao, you cant objective evidence on a strictly subjective idea.

hupernikao:

Surely we know evil exist, but how do we know?

Evil is a human created descriptor of certain types of actions measured in strictly subjective ways. We decide that evil exist. We can just as easily decide it doesn't. Because it is all subjective and has no bearing on reality. It is just a word, a descriptor, of a shared idea humans have, but "evil" does not actually exist. Put another way, if all humans disappeared tomorrow, there would be no "evil" tomorrow, because there would be no humans around to talk about/think about this strictly subjective idea.

hupernikao:

3. Is objective evidence an absolute evidence for proof of existence?, or does the lack of objective evidence enough to deny experiential evidence?

No. But objective evidence certainly does help move a simple human created idea, to the realm of actionable reality.

Depends what kind of objective evidence we are comparing to experimental evidence.

Evidence based on "experiential" (I assume you mean evidenced experienced first hand by our senses,) can be better or worse than other types of objective evidence. But this is a whole different subject, that really has nothing to do with the rest of what you have been talking about. We can discuss further if you want, but I will keep it on topic for now.

hupernikao:

Hope you know we are looking at the core foundation of atheism (objectivity), so I will need a well explained response if such objectivity of evidence is enough to prove or explain all that exist or all that we should accept as existing.

It is statements like this that make me conclude your level of comprehension leaves much to be desired. I strongly counsel you to get someone competent to explain the posts in this thread to you.

You obviously are incapable of absorbing the simplest of concepts.

Atheism is just one thing, defined as a lack of belief in a god or gods. In almost every example, it is because theists have not produced a compelling argument or valid proof.

Be honest with yourself for once! You are the one making the god claim, so first you must convince us that your god exists.

That a was a pathetic attempt at reversing the burden of proof.

No atheist has to prove anything to you, instead you must provide proof of a god.

LordReed:


Anytime you use this phrase it proves you've not been paying attention and anything you say after it will just be wrong.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s), can that simple fact get through to you?

Why does phrase like that troubles you? It shows how unstable your definition of atheism is. If atheism lack belief in God does that make them lack belief in every other things that exist?

I said atheism believes in what can be proven, is the word believe causes you to shrink? It is an English word that mean you "have confidence in". So calm down and possibly pay more attention to how you can defend your what you hold dear.

hupernikao:


Why does phrase like that troubles you? It shows how unstable your definition of atheism is. If atheism lack belief in God does that make them lack belief in every other things that exist?

I said atheism believes in what can be proven, is the word believe causes you to shrink? It is an English word that mean you "have confidence in". So calm down and possibly pay more attention to how you can defend your what you hold dear.

You don't seem to get the simple fact that atheism has no other subject than belief in god(s). Atheism requires no belief not even in science. Can this get through to you? 1 subject and one subject only.

Tamaratonye1:

If you maintain honesty in your argument, nobody's going to have your hide. Unfortunately, you're not giving me that impression

Above is based on false logic and assumption. You should point out the lack of honesty not give a bogus expression.

[1] You just made up your own definition for the word "atheism." If you can not stick to commonly accepted and agreed upon definitions, you begin to erode the ability to even communicate basic ideas to other people.

You said i made it up. it wasnt. Somethings have different textbook definition and real life definition/application. Such is atheism.

Atheism textbook definition, is about believe in God (disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.)
Atheism real life (as repeatedly display on NL and anyother forum) is lack of believe in anything that can not be objectively proven. Dont shy away from such reality. You want to confined the meaning of Atheism to textbook, yet want to expand your view and contribution beyond lack of believe in God. Is Unicorn God? Flying horses? Jazz? Supernatural elements? Do you believe in them? Or you see all things unproven as God/god?

It will take lack of confidence in what you truly stand for to be changing ground on definition or scope of your belief. Atheism in practice have shown over time that the scope of their disbelief is beyond a deity but include this can doesnt have proven evidence or facts. So stay on that.

[2] Just because an idea is not testable by science, does not suddenly makes it true. I really hope you know at least that. All it means when science tools are unable to investigate is: simply that is outside the purview of science. Your (and any other) god idea falls within that, by design. Guess where that puts your god idea? On the same level as the idea that I, Tamaratonye1, is your god. You cannot scientifically prove that I am not your god. By your reasoning and your requirements to believe your current god idea, you cannot refute that means I am your god based on the same standards.

Good, it doesnt change my point in showing that scientific scope has limit or confined to handle certain facts and not all facts. I emphasize this so that we can rest on NL from words like "it cannot be scientifically proven, so it doesnt exist" This is very fundamental. Hence needed to be knocked off. Your other statement of you being God still falls in that, that it cant be scientifically proven. This is the essence of this very section of discussion.

They have multiple tools to detect dream states already. We can use a tool and tell when someone is dreaming or not. Furthermore some progress has been made on even detecting what sort of dream someone is having. Even with out any tools to aid me, I can typically tell if hubby is having a bad dream, especially if he wakes up with a shout.

This did not answer by question. We know there are tools to know if one is dreaming, even by simple physical observation we can detect in few occasions. My question is premised on the content of the dream, the served rice, not yam, the rice without meat, why, the very events in dreams. No such tool exist, not even logical truth. So leave that.

you cant objective evidence on a strictly subjective idea.

Good, doent forget this. Very key to our discussion. A second facts you have agreed on this discussion. So there are things that are strictly subjective. I will get to this soon.

Evil is a human created descriptor of certain types of actions measured in strictly subjective ways. We decide that evil exist. We can just as easily decide it doesn't. Because it is all subjective and has no bearing on reality. It is just a word, a descriptor, of a shared idea humans have, but "evil" does not actually exist. Put another way, if all humans disappeared tomorrow, there would be no "evil" tomorrow, because there would be no humans around to talk about/think about this strictly subjective idea.
No. But objective evidence certainly does help move a simple human created idea, to the realm of actionable reality.

Depends what kind of objective evidence we are comparing to experimental evidence.
Evidence based on "experiential" (I assume you mean evidenced experienced first hand by our senses,) can be better or worse than other types of objective evidence. But this is a whole different subject, that really has nothing to do with the rest of what you have been talking about. We can discuss further if you want, but I will keep it on topic for now.

Dont assume yet that a concept or things are outside what we are discussing, I am only developing our argument gradually. Hence, we are building up systematically. Experiential issues cant be neglected in this.

Now, to two key things we agreed on:
1. We cant use science to prove all things as it wasnt design to handle some certain things (i have shown you examples overtime in our previous discussions). Science at its best will produce accuracy when applied to events, facts and existence that its designed to handle. Somethings are obviously outside the purview of science.

2. We cant rely on objective evidence on a strictly subjective idea.
For example, you spoke about evil being subjective. But you made a very wrong assumption as below:

"evil" does not actually exist. Put another way, if all humans disappeared tomorrow, there would be no "evil" tomorrow, because there would be no humans around to talk about/think about this strictly subjective idea.

This is premised on the fact that what defines evil is human. Since it is subjective, how do you know animals dont know evil, experience it and feel it? how do you know that when all men died, then evil died? Better still, if you say no man will experience/know evil again when all men died, fine.

On subjective matters, it is known that experiential truth cannot always be subjected to objective evidence. For example, you we spoke about evil, subjective, and experiential.

Experiential Truth
Truth gained through experience. Most times are usually subjective. When experiential truth are objectively proven they can only be done accurate by the one who had the experience not by external measure. For example, how do you know color blue? you experienced it. A blind cannot have such truth even if it was well detailed and explained. Such has to be experienced to know.

Now, This shows us that experiential truth are subjective issues and can be objectively discussed based on experience. That means objective evidence will be premised on experiential truth when most things fails. This is where objective evidence lack strength.

- Then can we conclude a non existence of Unicorn because it cant be objectively proven? Are there claims of its existence? Yes. Have we seen one? No. Do we now, throw away and conclude such never exist or it should call for further studies, continued research?

There is different between these three statement:
I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE, SO I AM NOT SURE IT EXIST
I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE, HENCE IT DOESNT EXIST
I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE BUT I HAVE EXPERIENCED IT, I KNOW IT EXIST

The First: I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE, SO I AM NOT SURE IT EXIST
This is much more of an open minded than lack of knowledge. It opens for further study, thinking, research and explanation. Not conclusive or rash ending of thought. So, i am not sure it exist >>> it might and it might not. THIS IS OBJECTIVITY OF THOUGHT

The Second: I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE, HENCE IT DOESNT EXIST.
Even science in its valor, hardly make such statement. It is a conclusion, a finality and absoluteness of thought. It is best described as closed minded. Such wont survive, if applied to other natural issues that discoveries unveiled overtime. THIS IS FINALITY OF THOUGHT

The Third: I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE BUT I HAVE EXPERIENCED IT. I KNOW IT EXIST
This though might not be objective but absolutely experiential and cannot be thrown away but explained the events or call for further studies.
THIS IS SUBJECTIVITY OF THOUGHT

Now, let me ask you ,
1. Where does Atheism or your opinion falls in these three
2. How reliable can such opinion stand considering human history of discoveries through research, experiences and thought expansion.

LordReed:



You don't seem to get the simple fact that atheism has no other subject than belief in god(s). Atheism requires no belief not even in science. Can this get through to you? 1 subject and one subject only.

Do you believe angels exist?
Do you believe supernatural power exist?
What of flying horses?

These are not God/god. Quit using textbook definition. Atheism is known and defined by your line of thought.

Read this and disprove that as not true.

Atheism textbook definition, is about believe in God (disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.)
Atheism real life (as repeatedly display on NL and anyother forum) is lack of believe in anything that can not be objectively proven. Dont shy away from such reality. You want to confined the meaning of Atheism to textbook, yet want to expand your view and contribution beyond lack of believe in God. Is Unicorn God? Flying horses? Jazz? Supernatural elements? Do you believe in them? Or you see all things unproven as God/god?