shadeyinka:




No sir!
The burden of proof still rest with the challenger.

Let me give an example:
Established Notion:
It was long thought that lightning and the accompanying thunder is as a result of Tor smashing his hammer on the anvil.
1. It was a belief
2. It was not a fact
3. It was an established notion
Challenging Claim:
Lightning is a natural phenomenon

NOW came Faraday and Coy to challenge this established notion by proving that lightning was electrical discharge in the sky. They even simulated it with high voltage discharges in air. Calculations were done to correlate the voltage and breakdown voltage of air.

Result:
The earlier established notion is permanently overturned and now, the current established notion is that lightning is an electrical discharge.

But dear sir...you have made a grave error. These notions were indeed thought as facts. What we take for granted and call belief today, was referred to as facts, before. You call them beliefs because science has forced that label on things that cannot be proven but still has a lot of following.

So in order to prove an established "fact" wrong, faraday et al had to provide an alternative, which they did, by demonstrating it.
The scene then is different from now. Belief in god is no longer an established "fact" but rather an established notion....you cannot demonstrate that s/he exists...why should others demonstrate that s/he doesnt exist?

If i told you my mom could dance like MJ you wud ask me for proof. Now imagine if i asked you to prove she couldn't dance like MJ...how does that make sense to you.

shadeyinka:

Not true for human beings because man is not purely a logical creature. Man is emotional, logical, spiritual and relational.

Because of this, we don't expect a physical scientific proof of emotion, spirituality or relation.

Agreed. That's where we err. Funny that we should advocate for proponents that make us all kinds of terrible (sometimes kind, i admit) beings and extremely inefficient. People who have put logic first on the pyramid are efficient at dealing with real world issues...otherwise, print ("africa and latin america".

Again you misunderstood my post. A notion NEEDS to be proven as fact. If not at all, a notion needs to atleast be demonstrated. If not then it remains a notion. One needs to demonstrate their "facts" before tasking others to prove to them otherwise. You havent done that, how can you task others to demonstrate otherwise?

shadeyinka:

What is scientifically logical in a soldier obeying an order that statistically could lead to his death?.

Because logically he assures the continuation of his generation in a much better world which is kind to them if he fights to protect his country or cause.

shadeyinka:

How can one scientifically demonstrate love?

By carefully observing behaviours defined as such and demonstrated consistently over a wide range of circumstances or situations.

shadeyinka:

What is scientifically logical for a Christian to die for his faith.

No my friend, life is not LINEAR!

Risk and reward evaluation. Heaven is a far greater reward to some christians vrs death. They have been indoctrinated to believe in the spiritual as the all important realm. Why wud that not be demonstrably logical to you?

shadeyinka:

I wonder who is more clownish:
The one who says electron has mass and the one who demands to know the mass with his spring balance!
If you can decode this, you become free!
Goodnight!!

Smart post i must commend you for this post.

I will bite.

What do you suggest we use to measure the existence of god and hell?

Also have you seen any of the two using your method?

If yes, please describe them for us. From your own experience.

If no, why not?

kimco:


Smart post i must commend you for this post.

I will bite.

What do you suggest we use to measure the existence of god and hell?

Also have you seen any of the two using your method?

If yes, please describe them for us. From your own experience.

If no, why not?

No one can measure the existence of God with any instrument. It was a fallacy developed by athiests even when they know the answer.

The complexity of creation attest to the fact that it couldn't have existed by accident.

From this same inference, two choices are presented
1. God the creator must exist. Everything in creation cannot be a statistical accidental coincidence!
2. No need for any god. Everything in creation is just a statistical accidental coincidence!

After a man makes his choice does he care about knowing this God or rejection of any knowledge of Him.

There is no instrument a person can use to objectively default himself either to the first or second Notion about God's existence!

kimco:


But dear sir...you have made a grave error. These notions were indeed thought as facts. What we take for granted and call belief today, was referred to as facts, before. You call them beliefs because science has forced that label on things that cannot be proven but still has a lot of following.

So in order to prove an established "fact" wrong, faraday et al had to provide an alternative, which they did, by demonstrating it.
The scene then is different from now. Belief in god is no longer an established "fact" but rather an established notion....you cannot demonstrate that s/he exists...why should others demonstrate that s/he doesnt exist?

If i told you my mom could dance like MJ you wud ask me for proof. Now imagine if i asked you to prove she couldn't dance like MJ...how does that make sense to you.

Any established notion can be true or False. I have used the case of an established notion that is indeed had been proven false by a challenging notion. If there is an established fact, such cannot be proved wrong for a fact cannot be argued against. Every established notion was assumed to be a fact UNTIL they are proven otherwise by a challenging notion.

Your Mum being able to dance better than MJ is not an established fact. It is at best your personal opinion and you are entitled to it.
But I am not referring to a personal opinion BUT an established notion

The burden of proof still rest with the challenger of an established notion.

kimco:

Agreed. That's where we err. Funny that we should advocate for proponents that make us all kinds of terrible (sometimes kind, i admit) beings and extremely inefficient. People who have put logic first on the pyramid are efficient at dealing with real world issues...otherwise, print ("africa and latin america".

Human beings will be robots if we function solely as logical beings. For no one will experience emotions like love, anger, betrayal, fear, hate etc. A Pure Logical existence will completely remove emotion.

kimco:

Again you misunderstood my post. A notion NEEDS to be proven as fact. If not at all, a notion needs to atleast be demonstrated. If not then it remains a notion. One needs to demonstrate their "facts" before tasking others to prove to them otherwise. You havent done that, how can you task others to demonstrate otherwise?

An established notion is accepted as true until it is proven otherwise. There was a time Ether was thought by the scientific community as occupying the whole space of the universe. But such notion was disproved at the advent of research on electromagnetism.

An established notion remains a fact until it is proven otherwise.

Let me give you two short examples of Established Notions:
1. America went to the moon in 1969
However, there are some people who are challenging such notions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

2. The earth is spherical
However, there are some people who are challenging this notion.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/11/16/us/flat-earth-conference-conspiracy-theories-scli-intl/index.html

On these two, even though we have an established notion, the challengers need to do the job of convincing the rest of us that the established notion is wrong

kimco:

Because logically he assures the continuation of his generation in a much better world which is kind to them if he fights to protect his country or cause.

A soldier don't always fight because he is protecting his generation. He fights because his general told him to.

Vietnam War: was it about protecting US citizens?
Ira

kimco:

By carefully observing behaviours defined as such and demonstrated consistently over a wide range of circumstances or situations.

Why then does dating relationship and marriages break after some times? For love isn't an emotion but a CHOICE!
My people say: The love we exibit to a chicken is not genuine.
Why: the motive is that at the end of the day we eat a FAT chicken Love is not measurable!

kimco:

Risk and reward evaluation. Heaven is a far greater reward to some christians vrs death. They have been indoctrinated to believe in the spiritual as the all important realm. Why wud that not be demonstrably logical to you?

Reward over what is not seen nor measurable?
No!

Faithful4real:

Just answer the question. Have you called their name before and they come to your aid

I only ask questions when I am lost, and when I do, they come to my Aid... And set me on the path I am supposed to go..

Life is a journey you know.

shadeyinka:

No one can measure the existence of God with any instrument. It was a fallacy developed by athiests even when they know the answer.

The complexity of creation attest to the fact that it couldn't have existed by accident.

From this same inference, two choices are presented
1. God the creator must exist. Everything in creation cannot be a statistical accidental coincidence!
2. No need for any god. Everything in creation is just a statistical accidental coincidence!

After a man makes his choice does he care about knowing this God or rejection of any knowledge of Him.

There is no instrument a person can use to objectively default himself either to the first or second Notion about God's existence!

We cannot measure the existence of god but s/he does exist is by far the worst argument i have heard.

I am impressed by your knowledge i must admit you are a thinking man.... Im learning from you. However you seem to resort to rationalisation the moment it comes to god for some reason. You reasoning is like this big tunnel that narrows down at the very end for no apparent reason. You are bottlenecking obviously yourself.

shadeyinka:

Any established notion can be true or False. I have used the case of an established notion that is indeed had been proven false by a challenging notion. If there is an established fact, such cannot be proved wrong for a fact cannot be argued against. Every established notion was assumed to be a fact UNTIL they are proven otherwise by a challenging notion.

The moment a particular established notion is acknowledged as True, it becomes "fact" (note the quotes) until its nolonger acknowledged as True. Then it stops being a fact. So a fact is a variable, remaining True while the condition remains, until otherwise.

You have the liberty of calling certain things notions example lightening caused by god or thor because today you know better. But this notion was fact until it was rendered false and stopped being a fact.

Your last bit is quite underwhelming tbh. With ever new discovery and every new tech we churn out we dissolve the mystery of god. Wat we thought divine is now in the hands of capable men. Due to the expansion of our knowledge in a world faraday and galileo wud kill to be in, we are now questioning notions that were thought to be facts waaay before our time. Faraday needed to prove his theory are fact by demonstrating because science was yet to fully earn itself the vote of confidence it enjoys today. The fact that god exists has never been proven but due to no other explanation, that notion became fact. An unchallenged fallacy could earn itself the label "fact" because man had to have cognitive homeostasis. This is not so anymore. The falsification of one notion doesnt make the competition notion true....this is reasonable.
So unlike before we can actually ask that you prove you initially unchallenged and unproven notion and not expect to be ask to prove that s/he exists first. Its quite simple...god exists or he doesn't exist. Your failure to prove that s/he exists will not mean that god doesn't exist...same applies to me or others who you have asked to prove otherwise. However, it does tell us one thing....we don't know and must not profess to know, ergo, we must retreat to our default stance as man....we don't know, we must find out.

shadeyinka:

Your Mum being able to dance better than MJ is not an established fact. It is at best your personal opinion and you are entitled to it.
But I am not referring to a personal opinion BUT an established notion

The burden of proof still rest with the challenger of an established notion.

But the established notion is not that my mother can dance, the established "notion" is that humans are capable of dancing. Therefore my mom is capable of dancing. However because i took it a step further and said, my mom can dance like MJ I will be challenged to prove so to be true. The idea that a god exists because we dont know how everything came about is jux like claiming my mom can dance like MJ cos all humans can move to a rhythm. It might have gone on unchallenged for long because it was crazy to think that the world wasn't binary. That is, if we dont who created wat we see and are, the a supreme being did it even though we havent seen or heard of him/her before...doesnt it intrigue you how every god is in the likeness of the people who worship him/her and named in the local dialect?

The bolded bit might fly before or during the renaissance but it doesnt fly in today's world. An established notion is now required to be an established fact before it can task it nay sayers to prove otherwise. Our minds can now harbour conflict ideologies and still be in harmony because we have grown as a specie. Prove that god exists...if you can't den we must agree that we both don't know.

shadeyinka:

Human beings will be robots if we function solely as logical beings. For no one will experience emotions like love, anger, betrayal, fear, hate etc. A Pure Logical existence will completely remove emotion.

The word solely is your choice of word, not mine. Amongst the four thing you listed i advocated we put logic on top of that pyramid not break it all down except logic. Please come again.

shadeyinka:

An established notion is accepted as true until it is proven otherwise. There was a time Ether was thought by the scientific community as occupying the whole space of the universe. But such notion was disproved at the advent of research on electromagnetism.

An established notion remains a fact until it is proven otherwise.

But was the theory of the ether a fact? Atleast from all my readings(thank you for that) it was just a theory unproven to be fact, it had it supporters. And that's the beauty of science...its self regulatory...everything must be tested.

Your logic is flawed. Not all established notions are regarded as facts until they are not. Some are, not all. But in our context I will give you that god was an established notion.

shadeyinka:

Let me give you two short examples of Established Notions:
1. America went to the moon in 1969
However, there are some people who are challenging such notions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

This is not a belief. It is fact. Jux because there are doubting thomases doesn't make it a belief.

shadeyinka:

2. The earth is spherical
However, there are some people who are challenging this notion.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/11/16/us/flat-earth-conference-conspiracy-theories-scli-intl/index.html

Again this is not a belief. Its a testable fact. Doubters don't render a fact into a belief...

shadeyinka:

On these two, even though we have an established notion, the challengers need to do the job of convincing the rest of us that the established notion is wrong

They need to convince us because its a testable fact. The theory became demonstrable consistently without fail until it's proven otherwise. Using poor tools and conspiracy theories is not how you disprove facts. And this would have been the case for your case for god had the initial notion been proven and consistently testable. but its not.

shadeyinka:


A soldier don't always fight because he is protecting his generation. He fights because his general told him to.

How do you think generals get soldiers to fight and remain loyal? Simple, Manipulation. Whether its justified or not...well. A general manipulate the soldiers to drink from his cup and be intoxicated by his ideologies or by directly using those they hold dear ransom. But all in all the final consideration of that soldier is the continuation of his generation. If i dnt fight enemies will kill my people and if i fight and we win, my people (everyone included) will live a better life. Even if i dont win i would give my people a chance at survival. That is very logical.

shadeyinka:

Vietnam War: was it about protecting US citizens?

The soldiers were made to believe so. Iran war, afghanistan etc. All of them. That's why you have former soldiers against the government screaming liar liar while others still chant *USA*

shadeyinka:

Why then does dating relationship and marriages break after some times? For love isn't an emotion but a CHOICE!

Love deeper than most think. Yes it involves emotions but it doesn't mean it cannot be studied. Infact a police man was studied to harbour fear for black people when an eeg was placed on his head and part of the brain responsible for fear was seen as active whenever a picture of a black felon came on vrs other races. This police man had shot a black man multiple times. The accurate amount of love a person can exhibit cannot be measured but an assumption of the behaviour in circumstances pertaining to a loved one can be made. Example a man who loves his children is likely to sacrifice himself for his children due to the unconditional love. Infact all things being equal, a man or woman is likely to choose the children over the other spouse because of the deeper connection there. This assumption doesn't cut across but generally it rings True. This can and is studied.

shadeyinka:

My people say: The love we exibit to a chicken is not genuine.
Why: the motive is that at the end of the day we eat a FAT chicken Love is not measurable!

Hahaha! But your people are committing the same you seem to be commiting as well. We are showing chicken as much love as kim jun un shows/showed love to his people. The fatter the chicken the more we enjoy. What can we gain from eating a lean chicken...its always about how things benefit us. That not love. The concept of love is not be measured in the traditional sense(maybe oneday it may be possible) but can be observed and resulting behaviours diagnosed and prognosed.

shadeyinka:


Reward over what is not seen nor measurable?
No!

Heaven cannot be measured because its not real at the moment, but the expectations of heaven and how it makes them feel can be observed. Anything that makes you happy, you are likely to sacrifice everything for.

kimco:

The moment a particular established notion is acknowledged as True, it becomes "fact" (note the quotes) until its nolonger acknowledged as True. Then it stops being a fact. So a fact is a variable, remaining True while the condition remains, until otherwise.

You have the liberty of calling certain things notions example lightening caused by god or thor because today you know better. But this notion was fact until it was rendered false and stopped being a fact.

Your last bit is quite underwhelming tbh. With ever new discovery and every new tech we churn out we dissolve the mystery of god. Wat we thought divine is now in the hands of capable men. Due to the expansion of our knowledge in a world faraday and galileo wud kill to be in, we are now questioning notions that were thought to be facts waaay before our time. Faraday needed to prove his theory are fact by demonstrating because science was yet to fully earn itself the vote of confidence it enjoys today. The fact that god exists has never been proven but due to no other explanation, that notion became fact. An unchallenged fallacy could earn itself the label "fact" because man had to have cognitive homeostasis. This is not so anymore. The falsification of one notion doesnt make the competition notion true....this is reasonable.
So unlike before we can actually ask that you prove you initially unchallenged and unproven notion and not expect to be ask to prove that s/he exists first. Its quite simple...god exists or he doesn't exist. Your failure to prove that s/he exists will not mean that god doesn't exist...same applies to me or others who you have asked to prove otherwise. However, it does tell us one thing....we don't know and must not profess to know, ergo, we must retreat to our default stance as man....we don't know, we must find out.

Check your bolded, it is wrong!

The difference between truth and fact is that fact is something that cannot be combated with reasoning, for it is logic itself. But truth is something which depends on a person's perspective and experience.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8053/what-is-the-difference-between-fact-and-truth

The bone of contention again:
An established notion is regarded as true UNTIL a counter notion proves it otherwise.

2+7= 9 is a fact because it is an immutable truth.
The universe is 13.8billion years old is the accepted truth ( to the best of scientific knowledge today) but it is not immutable.

A person may speak the truth yet be wrong. Like saying :
"The colour of my shirt is purple!"
Whereas, to the expert,
"The colour of my shirt is burgundy"

This is why an established notion, even though is accepted as true could be challenged by an opposing notion.

Final example:
Established Notion:
Life started in Africa!: (this is scientifically true but not a fact)
Challenging Notion:
Life started from the North Pole!

Now, upon who is the burden of proof? It is of course the Challenger.

Another example:

Established Notion:
God created the universe
Challenging Notion:
The Universe created itself

Upon who should be the burden of proof?

Your claim of we both don't know is untrue. You may not have enough conviction of God but I do. You rejected the notion of the existence of God by choice just as I accepted the notion of the existence of God by choice. Every other proceed from this choices.

I think even if given a trillion years for a tornado to jumble up piles of metals, rubber and plastics, a Boeing 747 cannot form itself from the rubble. Unfortunately, you believe otherwise and there is nothing anyone can do about that

kimco:

But the established notion is not that my mother can dance, the established "notion" is that humans are capable of dancing. Therefore my mom is capable of dancing. However because i took it a step further and said, my mom can dance like MJ I will be challenged to prove so to be true. The idea that a god exists because we dont know how everything came about is jux like claiming my mom can dance like MJ cos all humans can move to a rhythm. It might have gone on unchallenged for long because it was crazy to think that the world wasn't binary. That is, if we dont who created wat we see and are, the a supreme being did it even though we havent seen or heard of him/her before...doesnt it intrigue you how every god is in the likeness of the people who worship him/her and named in the local dialect?

In the example @bolded. There was no established notion. What you had is a personal opinion. A personal opinion is never an established notion except a vast majority of people believe that your mother can dance better the MJ.

Example of established notion:
1. The Lion is the king of the animals!
2. Cheetah is the fastest animal
Example of Personal Opinion:
1. My pet dog is the strongest dog alive
2. The population of my village is greater than yours

The question you should truely ask is this:
1. Is life possible only from carbon based molecules?
2. Are we certain that existence can only occur in 3D space?
3. If we exist within a higher dimensional world eg 4D, 5D,...nD can we know with certainty?

If your answer is "We don't know!", then you have based your atheism on limited information: thus treating the non existence of God as a fact

kimco:


The bolded bit might fly before or during the renaissance but it doesnt fly in today's world. An established notion is now required to be an established fact before it can task it nay sayers to prove otherwise. Our minds can now harbour conflict ideologies and still be in harmony because we have grown as a specie. Prove that god exists...if you can't den we must agree that we both don't know.

The word solely is your choice of word, not mine. Amongst the four thing you listed i advocated we put logic on top of that pyramid not break it all down except logic. Please come again.

But was the theory of the ether a fact? Atleast from all my readings(thank you for that) it was just a theory unproven to be fact, it had it supporters. And that's the beauty of science...its self regulatory...everything must be tested.

Your logic is flawed. Not all established notions are regarded as facts until they are not. Some are, not all. But in our context I will give you that god was an established notion.

Check again!
I said an Established Notion is accepted as TRUE until otherwise proven.
I also said an established notion may be true or false.

I even gave you examples of Established Notions that are false .

Human beings do not go to war based on logic. They go to war based on emotion. The emotion may be ego, fear, greed, revenge etc. We are not entirely Logical beings.

kimco:

This is not a belief. It is fact. Jux because there are doubting thomases doesn't make it a belief.

Again this is not a belief. Its a testable fact. Doubters don't render a fact into a belief...

They need to convince us because its a testable fact. The theory became demonstrable consistently without fail until it's proven otherwise. Using poor tools and conspiracy theories is not how you disprove facts. And this would have been the case for your case for god had the initial notion been proven and consistently testable. but its not.

How do you think generals get soldiers to fight and remain loyal? Simple, Manipulation. Whether its justified or not...well. A general manipulate the soldiers to drink from his cup and be intoxicated by his ideologies or by directly using those they hold dear ransom. But all in all the final consideration of that soldier is the continuation of his generation. If i dnt fight enemies will kill my people and if i fight and we win, my people (everyone included) will live a better life. Even if i dont win i would give my people a chance at survival. That is very logical.

The soldiers were made to believe so. Iran war, afghanistan etc. All of them. That's why you have former soldiers against the government screaming liar liar while others still chant *USA*

Love deeper than most think. Yes it involves emotions but it doesn't mean it cannot be studied. Infact a police man was studied to harbour fear for black people when an eeg was placed on his head and part of the brain responsible for fear was seen as active whenever a picture of a black felon came on vrs other races. This police man had shot a black man multiple times. The accurate amount of love a person can exhibit cannot be measured but an assumption of the behaviour in circumstances pertaining to a loved one can be made. Example a man who loves his children is likely to sacrifice himself for his children due to the unconditional love. Infact all things being equal, a man or woman is likely to choose the children over the other spouse because of the deeper connection there. This assumption doesn't cut across but generally it rings True. This can and is studied.

Hahaha! But your people are committing the same you seem to be commiting as well. We are showing chicken as much love as kim jun un shows/showed love to his people. The fatter the chicken the more we enjoy. What can we gain from eating a lean chicken...its always about how things benefit us. That not love. The concept of love is not be measured in the traditional sense(maybe oneday it may be possible) but can be observed and resulting behaviours diagnosed and prognosed.

Heaven cannot be measured because its not real at the moment, but the expectations of heaven and how it makes them feel can be observed. Anything that makes you happy, you are likely to sacrifice everything for.

Have you ever had a dream (while sleeping)?
Is your dream real or just a belief?

Now, if you had a dream that you went to the White House and had lunch with Donald Trump, have you spoken the truth about your dream?
Is this your dream measurable by any instruments?

If this dream cannot be measured to ascertain the truthfulness of your claim, does it make it false?

If God had always been described as physical, then he is measurable and testable. If God is not physical, then he isn't measurable nor testable.

If God is not measurable nor testable, is that a convincing proof of a fact that He doesn't exist?

If you have taken a position that God is not real (simply because he is not measurable nor testable), on what basis did you arrive at your gnostic position. In other words, is this your atheist position
1. A Fact?
2. An opinion?
3. The truth?

kimco:


We cannot measure the existence of god but s/he does exist is by far the worst argument i have heard.

I am impressed by your knowledge i must admit you are a thinking man.... Im learning from you. However you seem to resort to rationalisation the moment it comes to god for some reason. You reasoning is like this big tunnel that narrows down at the very end for no apparent reason. You are bottlenecking obviously yourself.

We are not on the same pedestal.

Let me give you an example:
I know that I am the son of my parents. There is only one scientific test that may prove that with at least a 90% chance of probability: and that I have not done. So, how come I know that I was born by them?

My relationship with them made me see that I am a graft of both of them physically, mentally, emotionally and psychologically. And so, I can speak truthfully that they are my parents.

Now, unlike you. You have rejected the existence of the man and woman you grew up with and alienated yourself from them. Even if the man and woman turn out to be your real biological parents by DNA analysis, there was no way you'll have known.

I know God and have a relationship with Him, you don't know God and neither do you have a relationship with Him so, on what basis are we alike?

Yes, you can truely say "You don't know"
But,
I cannot truely say "I don't know God!"

We cannot measure the existence of god but s/he does exist is by far the worst argument i have heard.

The quote above is your conjecture. I doubt if any serious Christian hold that position.

You may put a theists argument roughly like this:
We cannot measure the existence of God but the complexity of the universe point to the existence of an Architect and a Builder(God).

Knowing this God is a build up on the above.

And that's why I said:
From this same inference, two choices are presented
1. God the creator must exist. Everything in creation cannot be a statistical accidental coincidence!
2. No need for any god. Everything in creation is just a statistical accidental coincidence!


After a man makes his choice (from the two options above) does he care about knowing this God or total rejection of any knowledge of Him.

shadeyinka:

We are not on the same pedestal.

Let me give you an example:
I know that I am the son of my parents. There is only one scientific test that may prove that with at least a 90% chance of probability: and that I have not done. So, how come I know that I was born by them?

My relationship with them made me see that I am a graft of both of them physically, mentally, emotionally and psychologically. And so, I can speak truthfully that they are my parents.

Now, unlike you. You have rejected the existence of the man and woman you grew up with and alienated yourself from them. Even if the man and woman turn out to be your real biological parents by DNA analysis, there was no way you'll have known.

I know God and have a relationship with Him, you don't know God and neither do you have a relationship with Him so, on what basis are we alike?

Yes, you can truely say "You don't know"
But,
I cannot truely say "I don't know God!"


The quote above is your conjecture. I doubt if any serious Christian hold that position.

You may put a theists argument roughly like this:
We cannot measure the existence of God but the complexity of the universe point to the existence of an Architect and a Builder(God).

Knowing this God is a build up on the above.

And that's why I said:
From this same inference, two choices are presented
1. God the creator must exist. Everything in creation cannot be a statistical accidental coincidence!
2. No need for any god. Everything in creation is just a statistical accidental coincidence!


After a man makes his choice (from the two options above) does he care about knowing this God or total rejection of any knowledge of Him.

If u have a relationship with god then describe her/him. And show him/her to us. If you cannot then u r likened to a child and his or her imaginary friend. Only they can see him or her.

kimco:

If u have a relationship with god then describe her/him. And show him/her to us. If you cannot then u r likened to a child and his or her imaginary friend. Only they can see him or her.

I can describe my God to you!
But I cannot show Him to you

1. He is invisible and unmeasurable
2. He made all things for his own pleasure alone
3. He gave human beings and some other beings His spirit and a conscience
4. He gave these beings a volition to willing submit themselves to Him or not
5. At the end of the fulfillment of time, He will separate the useful beings from the useless beings.
6. The useful beings will be with him for eternity for future assignments He intends for them.
7. He is not localised in space, hence He is in all places at the same time.
8. He isn't bound by time, so He could be in the past, present and future at the same time.
9. Before anything He was and He is the origin and originator of ALL things.
10. He relates to some people as FATHER and to others, just creations.
11. He relates to His children through their spirit
12. He is a Spirit and a Trinity of His Fatherhood, His Word and His Power

There are still much more I know of God that I cannot state here now.

HOWEVER,
If you believe that He is just my imaginary friend, so be it. I can't deny what I know.

When I see bolt and nut, I know it can't happen by accident
When I see padlock and key, I know for certain it was designed
When I see a rifle and bullets, I know it's a product of design and implementation

When I see the sun and other stars giving out massive amount of energy and yet having half life's of several million years...
When I see differences between a male and a female...
When I see the Carbon cycle...
When I see the water cycle...
When I see the food chain...
When I see the interdependence of everything that make living possible...

The more I study creation, the more I see the works of His hands.

And that's why I said:
From this same inference, two choices are presented
1. God the creator must exist. Everything in creation cannot be a statistical accidental coincidence!
2. No need for any god. Everything in creation is just a statistical accidental coincidence!


After a man makes his choice (from the two options above) does he care about knowing this God or total rejection of any knowledge of Him.

Let me ask you some questions!
Do you believe that extraterrestrial life is possible in our universe?
If you believe it is possible, must they be carbon based?
Do you think it is possible to have a complex conjugate of our earth in existence?

Knowing that God isn't physical,
What ultimate proof led you to believe God doesn't exist.

Is your evidence a fact?
What is the implication of your choice?

shadeyinka:

I can describe my God to you!
But I cannot show Him to you

1. He is invisible and unmeasurable
2. He made all things for his own pleasure alone
3. He gave human beings and some other beings His spirit and a conscience
4. He gave these beings a volition to willing submit themselves to Him or not
5. At the end of the fulfillment of time, He will separate the useful beings from the useless beings.
6. The useful beings will be with him for eternity for future assignments He intends for them.
7. He is not localised in space, hence He is in all places at the same time.
8. He isn't bound by time, so He could be in the past, present and future at the same time.
9. Before anything He was and He is the origin and originator of ALL things.
10. He relates to some people as FATHER and to others, just creations.
11. He relates to His children through their spirit
12. He is a Spirit and a Trinity of His Fatherhood, His Word and His Power

There are still much more I know of God that I cannot state here now.

HOWEVER,
If you believe that He is just my imaginary friend, so be it. I can't deny what I know.

When I see bolt and nut, I know it can't happen by accident
When I see padlock and key, I know for certain it was designed
When I see a rifle and bullets, I know it's a product of design and implementation

When I see the sun and other stars giving out massive amount of energy and yet having half life's of several million years...
When I see differences between a male and a female...
When I see the Carbon cycle...
When I see the water cycle...
When I see the food chain...
When I see the interdependence of everything that make living possible...

The more I study creation, the more I see the works of His hands.

And that's why I said:
From this same inference, two choices are presented
1. God the creator must exist. Everything in creation cannot be a statistical accidental coincidence!
2. No need for any god. Everything in creation is just a statistical accidental coincidence!


After a man makes his choice (from the two options above) does he care about knowing this God or total rejection of any knowledge of Him.

Let me ask you some questions!
Do you believe that extraterrestrial life is possible in our universe?
If you believe it is possible, must they be carbon based?
Do you think it is possible to have a complex conjugate of our earth in existence?

Knowing that God isn't physical,
What ultimate proof led you to believe God doesn't exist.

Is your evidence a fact?
What is the implication of your choice?

Two things.

My argument is not God doesn't exist. It is, we don't know that he or she exists because there is no substantial evidence to prove that he exists.

If you cannot show your god to me then the possibility of him existing are slim.so you cannot claim emphatically that he does.

Its okay to talk to people in your head....everyone does it. Its when they start talking back that we have a problem. If a moslem says god told him to bomb others can you say he is delusional without you sounding delusional yourself? How can you say that moslem was spoken to by satan or some evil spirit when in your bible your god ask that a king spares no ox or ass or children. And when the king spared some because he wasn't that stupid, Christians up till today call saul disobedient for not killing all the ox and ass etc. Your case always sounds rational to you but others' cases are always silly...the irony of life (in religion).

Carry on. Its ony ur belief.

kimco:


Two things.

My argument is not God doesn't exist. It is, we don't know that he or she exists because there is no substantial evidence to prove that he exists.

If you cannot show your god to me then the possibility of him existing are slim.so you cannot claim emphatically that he does.

Its okay to talk to people in your head....everyone does it. Its when they start talking back that we have a problem. If a moslem says god told him to bomb others can you say he is delusional without you sounding delusional yourself? How can you say that moslem was spoken to by satan or some evil spirit when in your bible your god ask that a king spares no ox or ass or children. And when the king spared some because he wasn't that stupid, Christians up till today call saul disobedient for not killing all the ox and ass etc. Your case always sounds rational to you but others' cases are always silly...the irony of life (in religion).

Carry on. Its ony ur belief.

I will pick you up on the @bolded.
1. It is, we don't know that he or she exists because there is no substantial evidence to prove that he exists.
Very weak argument!
1. God isn't Physical, so how could you have measured Him objectively to determine whether He exists or not. Like, is it possible to use a spring balance to weigh an electron? If you failed to detect the mass of an electron using this means, does it prove with certainty that electrons don't have a mass.
2. You certainly don't have any experience of Him and you are right to speak for yourself. Some of us have experienced God. Your claim is just your conjecture.


2. If a moslem says god told him to bomb others can you say he is delusional without you sounding delusional yourself?

Knowing about God is entirely different from knowing God. No Muslim will tell you that God speaks to them or that they know God.

A lot of people know about God and many of the knowledge is general and some is outrightly wrong.

It's like at least 99% of adult Nigerians know about Buhari but only his relations, friends and close acquaintance know him.

Sorry, you can't generalize!

3. Your case always sounds rational to you but others' cases are always silly...the irony of life (in religion).
This is true because there is also a strong opposition to the knowledge of God sponsored by the adversary of man. Hence, man will always find alternatives to God according to the kind of deception the adversary advances to them

shadeyinka:

I will pick you up on the @bolded.
1. It is, we don't know that he or she exists because there is no substantial evidence to prove that he exists.
Very weak argument!
1. God isn't Physical, so how could you have measured Him objectively to determine whether He exists or not. Like, is it possible to use a spring balance to weigh an electron? If you failed to detect the mass of an electron using this means, does it prove with certainty that electrons don't have a mass.
2. You certainly don't have any experience of Him and you are right to speak for yourself. Some of us have experienced God. Your claim is just your conjecture.

You asked me if love can be measured, i stated that it cant in the traditional sense however by it effect we can say it exist and how much of it exists. Infact it is by the impact that we can tell that love does indeed exist and not the other way round. Same with atoms and infact eletrons. It the impact of love and atoms determine that they do exists....annnnnd, this is very important, they can be demonstrated consistently. Can you consistently demonstrate that god exists? If you can't how do you know god exists? If you claim its because he is spiritual and cannot be seen then how come he revealed himself to moses? If you claim god you must live up to certain accolades. So surely he could shut a lot of naysayers up by simply speaking from wherever he/she is. queue the *you cannot speak for god on how he should do his thing* brigade ready to tell me how god will do his thing.

How do you know god isn't physical? Because you haven't seen him/her before so you assume he or she isn't physical right?
In order for me to believe that a supreme being exists i need proof. Only one proof. He need to speak to me..loud and clear so that even the deaf could hear...i don't think I'm asking for too much.

Ofcos i expected you to say you have experienced him. So god is a him right? How did you know this? Do spirits have gender now? No man, the weak argument comes from you.

shadeyinka:


2. If a moslem says god told him to bomb others can you say he is delusional without you sounding delusional yourself?

Knowing about God is entirely different from knowing God. No Muslim will tell you that God speaks to them or that they know God.

Bro your wordplay wont work here please. I'm not a sheeple. Are you saying Moslems don't claim god speaks to them? Reaaaaally? Im lost here though...enlighten me.

shadeyinka:

A lot of people know about God and many of the knowledge is general and some is outrightly wrong.

Let me guess, your knowledge is the right one right? Your claim without substantial proof is right while others of the same kind are wrong. Good to know.

shadeyinka:

It's like at least 99% of adult Nigerians know about Buhari but only his relations, friends and close acquaintance know him.

Sorry, you can't generalize!

well everyone is claiming to be his brother and son and servant. Who here shall we listen to. Who speaks the truth? That's the issue at hand

shadeyinka:


3. Your case always sounds rational to you but others' cases are always silly...the irony of life (in religion).
This is true because there is also a strong opposition to the knowledge of God sponsored by the adversary of man. Hence, man will always find alternatives to God according to the kind of deception the adversary advances to them

god keeps losing ground to the discovery of man. But in order to stay relevant above all things, all god has to do is reveal himself....
Or are we required to take in the opium of the masses first before we can experience god?

shadeyinka:

Check your bolded, it is wrong!

The difference between truth and fact is that fact is something that cannot be combated with reasoning, for it is logic itself. But truth is something which depends on a person's perspective and experience.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8053/what-is-the-difference-between-fact-and-truth

The bone of contention again:
An established notion is regarded as true UNTIL a counter notion proves it otherwise.

2+7= 9 is a fact because it is an immutable truth.
The universe is 13.8billion years old is the accepted truth ( to the best of scientific knowledge today) but it is not immutable.

A person may speak the truth yet be wrong. Like saying :
"The colour of my shirt is purple!"
Whereas, to the expert,
"The colour of my shirt is burgundy"

This is why an established notion, even though is accepted as true could be challenged by an opposing notion.

Final example:
Established Notion:
Life started in Africa!: (this is scientifically true but not a fact)
Challenging Notion:
Life started from the North Pole!

Now, upon who is the burden of proof? It is of course the Challenger.

Another example:

Established Notion:
God created the universe
Challenging Notion:
The Universe created itself

Upon who should be the burden of proof?

Your claim of we both don't know is untrue. You may not have enough conviction of God but I do. You rejected the notion of the existence of God by choice just as I accepted the notion of the existence of God by choice. Every other proceed from this choices.

I think even if given a trillion years for a tornado to jumble up piles of metals, rubber and plastics, a Boeing 747 cannot form itself from the rubble. Unfortunately, you believe otherwise and there is nothing anyone can do about that



In the example @bolded. There was no established notion. What you had is a personal opinion. A personal opinion is never an established notion except a vast majority of people believe that your mother can dance better the MJ.

Example of established notion:
1. The Lion is the king of the animals!
2. Cheetah is the fastest animal
Example of Personal Opinion:
1. My pet dog is the strongest dog alive
2. The population of my village is greater than yours

The question you should truely ask is this:
1. Is life possible only from carbon based molecules?
2. Are we certain that existence can only occur in 3D space?
3. If we exist within a higher dimensional world eg 4D, 5D,...nD can we know with certainty?

If your answer is "We don't know!", then you have based your atheism on limited information: thus treating the non existence of God as a fact


Check again!
I said an Established Notion is accepted as TRUE until otherwise proven.
I also said an established notion may be true or false.

I even gave you examples of Established Notions that are false .

Human beings do not go to war based on logic. They go to war based on emotion. The emotion may be ego, fear, greed, revenge etc. We are not entirely Logical beings.


Have you ever had a dream (while sleeping)?
Is your dream real or just a belief?

Now, if you had a dream that you went to the White House and had lunch with Donald Trump, have you spoken the truth about your dream?
Is this your dream measurable by any instruments?

If this dream cannot be measured to ascertain the truthfulness of your claim, does it make it false?

If God had always been described as physical, then he is measurable and testable. If God is not physical, then he isn't measurable nor testable.

If God is not measurable nor testable, is that a convincing proof of a fact that He doesn't exist?

If you have taken a position that God is not real (simply because he is not measurable nor testable), on what basis did you arrive at your gnostic position. In other words, is this your atheist position
1. A Fact?
2. An opinion?
3. The truth?

Man i didnt know you had replied to this post. I will reply tomorrow. I dnt know why i didnt get a mention on this.

shadeyinka:

I wonder who is more clownish:
The one who says electron has mass and the one who demands to know the mass with his spring balance!
If you can decode this, you become free!
Goodnight!!

To me, you in the same category with oaroloye

I never read your post

Mishighas

StrikeBack:
To me, you in the same category with oaroloye

I never read your post

Mishighas

Because I refuse to partake in your insanity!?
Who begged you to read this one?

kimco:


Man i didnt know you had replied to this post. I will reply tomorrow. I dnt know why i didnt get a mention on this.

No problem?

Cheers

kimco:


You asked me if love can be measured, i stated that it cant in the traditional sense however by it effect we can say it exist and how much of it exists. Infact it is by the impact that we can tell that love does indeed exist and not the other way round. Same with atoms and infact eletrons. It the impact of love and atoms determine that they do exists....annnnnd, this is very important, they can be demonstrated consistently. Can you consistently demonstrate that god exists? If you can't how do you know god exists? If you claim its because he is spiritual and cannot be seen then how come he revealed himself to moses? If you claim god you must live up to certain accolades. So surely he could shut a lot of naysayers up by simply speaking from wherever he/she is. queue the *you cannot speak for god on how he should do his thing* brigade ready to tell me how god will do his thing.

How do you know god isn't physical? Because you haven't seen him/her before so you assume he or she isn't physical right?
In order for me to believe that a supreme being exists i need proof. Only one proof. He need to speak to me..loud and clear so that even the deaf could hear...i don't think I'm asking for too much.

Like I don't you. We all have to by default decide if the evidence of creation is enough to tell us that God must exist. Buhari just sought for permission to seek for another $5 billion dollar loan. To Buharists, this is a sufficient evidence that He loves Nigeria but not me. The same evidence at play!

If the complexity and interdependence of the systems that make up our universe is not enough evid nice for you. If you feel that atoms of elements assembled themselves from a state of nothing or disorder, good for you. If you feel that laws of nature occured by chance, so be it. You cannot claim that there are no evidence, your claim should be that the evidence are not convincing enough for you. Then, the burden of proof is actually on you. The same evidence, but different conclusion it is.

Moses didn't see a physical evidence of God until a much larger part of his life and ministry.

kimco:

Ofcos i expected you to say you have experienced him. So god is a him right? How did you know this? Do spirits have gender now? No man, the weak argument comes from you.

Poor argument!
The gender adjective she is used for ships. Does it mean ships are female?
The gender adjective her is used for nations. Does it mean nations are female?

kimco:

Bro your wordplay wont work here please. I'm not a sheeple. Are you saying Moslems don't claim god speaks to them? Reaaaaally? Im lost here though...enlighten me.

Let me guess, your knowledge is the right one right? Your claim without substantial proof is right while others of the same kind are wrong. Good to know.

well everyone is claiming to be his brother and son and servant. Who here shall we listen to. Who speaks the truth? That's the issue at hand

god keeps losing ground to the discovery of man. But in order to stay relevant above all things, all god has to do is reveal himself....
Or are we required to take in the opium of the masses first before we can experience god?

Ask Muslims, it is blasphemy for a Muslim to say God speaks to them because the last person God spoke to according to them is Mohammed.

@Bolded.
Atheism is simply replacing the God of creation with the God of Men/Self!

Interestingly, what do you think God benefits by going out of His way to IMPRESS you (so that you can believe Him)?

shadeyinka:

Because I refuse to partake in your insanity!?
Who begged you to read this one?

Mishigas

shadeyinka:

Like I don't you. We all have to by default decide if the evidence of creation is enough to tell us that God must exist. Buhari just sought for permission to seek for another $5 billion dollar loan. To Buharists, this is a sufficient evidence that He loves Nigeria but not me. The same evidence at play!

The evidence of creation? There is no evidence of creation. There are creatures. You use the existence of "creatures" and decide that there must be a "creature", simply because your mind cannot be left hanging. You need closure, "homeostasis" so you cannot settle on "I don't know". Your buhari's case can be judged using past experiences. Did buhari squander or use the past loans well? There will be references to make an assumption which might be closer to the truth. Not so with creation we were not there when creation happened therefore it cannot be a reference point, only a notion. A notion that needs to be fact. It could be true or false...but it needs to be facts, then the burden of proof will fall on me. In your ather analogy you will agree that the theory failed itself through demonstration before theory of relativity buried it corpse. The claim was made, it had to be proven beyond reasonable doubt then alternative arguments wud need proof to compete. Such is not the case here.

Please note: We are trying to do the right thing here not follow past mistakes. So logically, an established notion still requires proof of it existence. I dnt need to provide alternative arguments to question the notion. You have made the claim, i only need to question it.

shadeyinka:

If the complexity and interdependence of the systems that make up our universe is not enough evid nice for you. If you feel that atoms of elements assembled themselves from a state of nothing or disorder, good for you. If you feel that laws of nature occured by chance, so be it. You cannot claim that there are no evidence, your claim should be that the evidence are not convincing enough for you. Then, the burden of proof is actually on you. The same evidence, but different conclusion it is.

Here lies the problem...you must first establish that complexity is by design otherwise you are grasping at straws here. Also the nothing you claim here in physics is not nothing at all. I know you know this you are trying to be slick. You have to establish that the laws of nature was indeed by design by a perfect being. And if you were to ask me. If this was by design then its not a perfect one, which is bad coming from a perfect being. Establish the assertion first and we'll go further on this.

shadeyinka:

Moses didn't see a physical evidence of God until a much larger part of his life and ministry.

An adult moses is still moses. If he saw it then it possible. Yet no one has claimed they saw him and can describe him. Still we wait

shadeyinka:


Poor argument!
The gender adjective she is used for ships. Does it mean ships are female?
The gender adjective her is used for nations. Does it mean nations are female?

I don't get you the analogy you make here a metaphorical. So are you saying your gender association to a perfect supernatural being are metaphorical? If so, are you not "insulting" god? He transcends all. Help me understand.
[/quote]

shadeyinka:


Ask Muslims, it is blasphemy for a Muslim to say God speaks to them because the last person God spoke to according to them is Mohammed.

Is it blasphemous as in backed by the qu'ran not to ever happen or ...? Besides, is it not god through the qu'ran telling them to lay waste the unbeliever? I think that qualifies, don't you agree?

shadeyinka:


@Bolded.
Atheism is simply replacing the God of creation with the God of Men/Self!

ve False...its reasonable skeptism. If god exists we should atlease hear god if we like it or not.

shadeyinka:


Interestingly, what do you think God benefits by going out of His way to IMPRESS you (so that you can believe Him)?

Well god seem *loving* enough to sacrifice his only son to save me apparently...its not silly to think me believing god benefits god. i mean I wouldn't go as far if i didnt care.

kimco:

If u have a relationship with god then describe her/him. And show him/her to us. If you cannot then u r likened to a child and his or her imaginary friend. Only they can see him or her.

Leave that guy.
He's intelligent but when it comes to issues like this his knowledge seems to drop.
The question is, how would he prove the existence of god to someone who has never heard of God before?
If he tells such person about God, and the person asks him to prove it, will he go ahead to ask this same person to disprove God's existence?
His belief has put him in a certain place where he becomes ignorant on purpose.
The reason why he's asking you to disprove his god's existence is because he is avoiding the task of proving it. (because he knows he can't)

shadeyinka:

Check your bolded, it is wrong!

The difference between truth and fact is that fact is something that cannot be combated with reasoning, for it is logic itself. But truth is something which depends on a person's perspective and experience.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8053/what-is-the-difference-between-fact-and-truth

First of all i did say "note the quotes"

Let's do this from now on, let's define our labels just so we are clear. But thanks for the source. I did learn a lot. So now its obvious my "fact" is indeed "Truth" if we are to go philosophical. That much is clear.

shadeyinka:

The bone of contention again:
An established notion is regarded as true UNTIL a counter notion proves it otherwise.

Fact.

shadeyinka:

2+7= 9 is a fact because it is an immutable truth.
The universe is 13.8billion years old is the accepted truth ( to the best of scientific knowledge today) but it is not immutable.

Agreed.

shadeyinka:

A person may speak the truth yet be wrong. Like saying :
"The colour of my shirt is purple!"
Whereas, to the expert,
"The colour of my shirt is burgundy"

This is why an established notion, even though is accepted as true could be challenged by an opposing notion.

Agreed.

shadeyinka:


Final example:
Established Notion:
Life started in Africa!: (this is scientifically true but not a fact)
Challenging Notion:
Life started from the North Pole!



Now, upon who is the burden of proof? It is of course the Challenger.

Analogy is flawed here.

Life started on africa is not a baseless claim. Findings of earliest fossil buttress this claim. Its true and not fact because maybe oneday an earlier fossil of man may be found elsewhere and the narrative will change. But for now based on an evidence that has been demonstrably consistent that theory holds up. Therefore a competing theory needs to prove itself valid.

shadeyinka:

Another example:

Established Notion:
God created the universe
Challenging Notion:
The Universe created itself

Upon who should be the burden of proof?

Established notion based on not having an alternative theory that explains who or what created the universe. Its a baseless argument which held true because "well, what other explanation is there". This proves that man is in constant need of closure to keep his mental space in balance even if it might turn out to be a lie.

Example...the world is flat based on the bible is no longer a valid argument even if it turns out the world is not spherical. The invalidation of one claim does not render the competing argument valid. But it seems that's what you are aiming for.

shadeyinka:


Your claim of we both don't know is untrue. You may not have enough conviction of God but I do. You rejected the notion of the existence of God by choice just as I accepted the notion of the existence of God by choice. Every other proceed from this choices.

Conviction is not evidence my brother. You are free to believe what you want. The state of unbelief is indeed the default state of man. If you believe something to be true you must give proof of that or forever it remain your conviction. I reject the " evidence of god" by the fact that its not substantial or convincing enough. I know that a gun can kill you because i have evidence of that. If your bible says you can do far greater things than Jesus surely that will be bases on which you can demonstrate that god or spirits exist. I will accept that. Simply heal someone i know to be a disable or go to the school of blind and heal just 30. When yahweh sent moses to egypt he equipped him with physical evidence of his existence. I too wish to see such evidence.

shadeyinka:


I think even if given a trillion years for a tornado to jumble up piles of metals, rubber and plastics, a Boeing 747 cannot form itself from the rubble. Unfortunately, you believe otherwise and there is nothing anyone can do about that

Therefore it must be designed by god. Because the big bang theory is based on tornadoes. (Not that i subscribe to that theory yet). And i have told you i don't know what created the universe...why are you subscribing theories to me. This is the issue i have with christians...you either believe one theory or the other. You simply cannot say, "you know what, i don't know" your answer is always "god did it". Some atheists swear by the bb theory...and the thing is, their reasons are valid...i have jux not gotten to the point where i'm fully convinced yet.

shadeyinka:


In the example @bolded. There was no established notion. What you had is a personal opinion. A personal opinion is never an established notion except a vast majority of people believe that your mother can dance better the MJ.

Actually please pay attention to my argument and give me your opinion on this.

Established notion: Humans can dance

Claim based on notion: my mom can dance

Further claim: my mom can dance LIKE MJ.

Vrs

Established notion: Everything we made was designed by us.

Claim based on notion: Therefore everything we see that wasn't designed by us was created and designed by someone.

Further claim: We don't know who it is so this being must therefore be supernatural and and all powerful since the scale of the design not by us is beyond human under standing.

shadeyinka:


Example of established notion:
1. The Lion is the king of the animals!

A baseless one, therefore it needs to be proven. Simply saying...its popular believe doesn't mean it can fly without having to prove itself. Times have changed. Established notions based on nothing but opinions can be challenged without producing an alternative.

shadeyinka:



2. Cheetah is the fastest animal

Straight up false actually.

shadeyinka:

Example of Personal Opinion:
1. My pet dog is the strongest dog alive

True

shadeyinka:

2. The population of my village is greater than yours

Based on what was this claim made? Please be clear. If i see a 100 people vrs a 1000 people even with my eyes i can tell. The claim will therefore be true. It becomes fact when we count and realise indeed the claim holds.

shadeyinka:


The question you should truely ask is this:
1. Is life possible only from carbon based molecules?

. I don't know yet, but the answer isn't automatically, "god did it".

shadeyinka:

2. Are we certain that existence can only occur in 3D space?
3. If we exist within a higher dimensional world eg 4D, 5D,...nD can we know with certainty?

we don't know this yet. But until we find out, let's keep looking.

shadeyinka:


If your answer is "We don't know!", then you have based your atheism on limited information: thus treating the non existence of God as a fact

My atheism is based on my default stance as a man, i dont need a reason to not know that god exists. We were born not knowing. An acquired stance would be yours and is based on not having answers to your questions or if i want to be a bit mischievous, based on your upbringing.

shadeyinka:

Check again!
I said an Established Notion is accepted as TRUE until otherwise proven.
I also said an established notion may be true or false.

I even gave you examples of Established Notions that are false .

My bad. Apologies sir.

shadeyinka:


Human beings do not go to war based on logic. They go to war based on emotion. The emotion may be ego, fear, greed, revenge etc. We are not entirely Logical beings.

This is very philosophical. man A kills a family. The son survives. Grows into a great warrior. He thinks to himself...killing man A not only because he killed my family but because he will most def kill me too to keep himself safe. Therefore in order to save myself i must kill man A. Is that not a logical path of reasoning?

I need to conquer and collect riches for myself not because it will my life easy but because it will ensure the survival of my geneology. Is that not logical?

Life isn't binary....as far as im concerned there is logic in emotion sometimes. And since its philosophy, there isn't one answer. Come at me.
And why do you keep saying i advocate for a life based on solely on logic? Im saying logic must be a priority in how we run our life.

shadeyinka:

Have you ever had a dream (while sleeping)?
Is your dream real or just a belief?

Now, if you had a dream that you went to the White House and had lunch with Donald Trump, have you spoken the truth about your dream?
Is this your dream measurable by any instruments?

If this dream cannot be measured to ascertain the truthfulness of your claim, does it make it false?

It doesn't make it false but it doesn't make it true either. Fortunately it doesn't matter because it's only a dream, unless it starts to affect your daily life. It is a fact that most people dream. Why? Because everyone can confirm that for themselves...even the doubters.

shadeyinka:


If God had always been described as physical, then he is measurable and testable. If God is not physical, then he isn't measurable nor testable.

If God is not measurable nor testable, is that a convincing proof of a fact that He doesn't exist?

But god is testable. Even your bible gives instances where god provided physical evidence of his existence. God knew in the bible that he is required to prove his existence so he did, in the bible. The rule seems to change when we get back to real life.

shadeyinka:


If you have taken a position that God is not real (simply because he is not measurable nor testable), on what basis did you arrive at your gnostic position. In other words, is this your atheist position
1. A Fact?
2. An opinion?
3. The truth?

I have taken this position based on the fact that there is no evidence for god that is satisfactory. If you are easily convinced by these flimsy "evidences" i can't fault you. Its simply a bias and we all have it. If a traditionalist tells you his god is the real deal you will demand proof from him and reasonably so. But when it comes to yours emotions cloud your judgement.

My stance is based on my default settings. Tabula rasa...the truth or opinion, call it whatever you want.

kingxsamz:


Leave that guy.
He's intelligent but when it comes to issues like this his knowledge seems to drop.
The question is, how would he prove the existence of god to someone who has never heard of God before?
If he tells such person about God, and the person asks him to prove it, will he go ahead to ask this same person to disprove God's existence?
His belief has put him in a certain place where he becomes ignorant on purpose.
The reason why he's asking you to disprove his god's existence is because he is avoiding the task of proving it. (because he knows he can't)

Brilliant. Well worded...he is a smart guy though like you said. Learning a bit from him.

My main Monika shadeyinka was banned by nairaland bots

kimco:


First of all i did say "note the quotes"

Let's do this from now on, let's define our labels just so we are clear. But thanks for the source. I did learn a lot. So now its obvious my "fact" is indeed "Truth" if we are to go philosophical. That much is clear.

Fact.

Agreed.

Agreed.

kimco:

Analogy is flawed here.

No not flawed. You actually agreed with it.

kimco:

Life started on africa is not a baseless claim. Findings of earliest fossil buttress this claim. Its true and not fact because maybe oneday an earlier fossil of man may be found elsewhere and the narrative will change. But for now based on an evidence that has been demonstrably consistent that theory holds up. Therefore a competing theory needs to prove itself valid.


Established notion based on not having an alternative theory that explains who or what created the universe. Its a baseless argument which held true because "well, what other explanation is there". This proves that man is in constant need of closure to keep his mental space in balance even if it might turn out to be a lie.

Some corrections on how you interpret your terms;

Definitions :
1. Notion:
A synonym for notion as used by me is IDEA.
Example: The notion that electron has a mass of 9.1093)×10−31 kg was first stated by J.J. Thompson.

A notion is NOT necessarily a baseless claim.
2. Established:
Means generally accepted.

An Established notion thus means: Generally accepted idea.

Example: The lion is the king of the Animals!

kimco:

Example...the world is flat based on the bible is no longer a valid argument even if it turns out the world is not spherical. The invalidation of one claim does not render the competing argument valid. But it seems that's what you are aiming for.

False. The bible didn't say the earth was flat.

kimco:

Conviction is not evidence my brother. You are free to believe what you want. The state of unbelief is indeed the default state of man. If you believe something to be true you must give proof of that or forever it remain your conviction. I reject the " evidence of god" by the fact that its not substantial or convincing enough. I know that a gun can kill you because i have evidence of that. If your bible says you can do far greater things than Jesus surely that will be bases on which you can demonstrate that god or spirits exist. I will accept that. Simply heal someone i know to be a disable or go to the school of blind and heal just 30. When yahweh sent moses to egypt he equipped him with physical evidence of his existence. I too wish to see such evidence.

I never said that conviction is evidence.

Your argument is going circular!
I believe God exists
I have a strong conviction God exists

You DON'T believe God exists
YOU have NO conviction God exists

In both cases, your requirement for evidence fall very flat. Like, What are your evidence for the fact that God doesn't exist? What are your evidence for your conviction?

The best either of us has is a BASIS for our beliefs and a BASIS for our convictions.

The state of unbelief isn't the default state of man. The default state of man is IGNORANCE! As humans acquire knowledge, he chooses either to reject or accommodate the devine in his activities.

kimco:

Therefore it must be designed by god. Because the big bang theory is based on tornadoes. (Not that i subscribe to that theory yet). And i have told you i don't know what created the universe...why are you subscribing theories to me. This is the issue i have with christians...you either believe one theory or the other. You simply cannot say, "you know what, i don't know" your answer is always "god did it". Some atheists swear by the bb theory...and the thing is, their reasons are valid...i have jux not gotten to the point where i'm fully convinced yet.

Unconsciously, athiests move from agnosticism to a hate for God.

Truthfully answer this question.
If the formation of universe is not an accident, is it not deliberately done?
Then the next logical question is by who?

kimco:

Actually please pay attention to my argument and give me your opinion on this.

Established notion: Humans can dance

Claim based on notion: my mom can dance

Further claim: my mom can dance LIKE MJ.

Vrs

Established notion: Everything we made was designed by us.

Claim based on notion: Therefore everything we see that wasn't designed by us was created and designed by someone.

Further claim: We don't know who it is so this being must therefore be supernatural and and all powerful since the scale of the design not by us is beyond human under standing.

A baseless one, therefore it needs to be proven. Simply saying...its popular believe doesn't mean it can fly without having to prove itself. Times have changed. Established notions based on nothing but opinions can be challenged without producing an alternative.

Straight up false actually.

True

Based on what was this claim made? Please be clear. If i see a 100 people vrs a 1000 people even with my eyes i can tell. The claim will therefore be true. It becomes fact when we count and realise indeed the claim holds.

. I don't know yet, but the answer isn't automatically, "god did it".

we don't know this yet. But until we find out, let's keep looking.

My atheism is based on my default stance as a man, i dont need a reason to not know that god exists. We were born not knowing. An acquired stance would be yours and is based on not having answers to your questions or if i want to be a bit mischievous, based on your upbringing.

My bad. Apologies sir.



This is very philosophical. man A kills a family. The son survives. Grows into a great warrior. He thinks to himself...killing man A not only because he killed my family but because he will most def kill me too to keep himself safe. Therefore in order to save myself i must kill man A. Is that not a logical path of reasoning?

I need to conquer and collect riches for myself not because it will my life easy but because it will ensure the survival of my geneology. Is that not logical?

Life isn't binary....as far as im concerned there is logic in emotion sometimes. And since its philosophy, there isn't one answer. Come at me.
And why do you keep saying i advocate for a life based on solely on logic? Im saying logic must be a priority in how we run our life.



It doesn't make it false but it doesn't make it true either. Fortunately it doesn't matter because it's only a dream, unless it starts to affect your daily life. It is a fact that most people dream. Why? Because everyone can confirm that for themselves...even the doubters.

I've always used established notion rather than just notion.

The word notion had been explained not to mean frivolous or baseless beliefs. It just simply mean statement, belief or conviction.

kimco:

But god is testable. Even your bible gives instances where god provided physical evidence of his existence. God knew in the bible that he is required to prove his existence so he did, in the bible. The rule seems to change when we get back to real life.

Then go test Him!

kimco:

I have taken this position based on the fact that there is no evidence for god that is satisfactory. If you are easily convinced by these flimsy "evidences" i can't fault you. Its simply a bias and we all have it. If a traditionalist tells you his god is the real deal you will demand proof from him and reasonably so. But when it comes to yours emotions cloud your judgement.

My stance is based on my default settings. Tabula rasa...the truth or opinion, call it whatever you want.

This had been said my previous post.
The "evidence of God in creation" before me is satisfactory to me while this same "evidence of God in creation" is unsatisfactory to You.

These same evidences of God in creation leads to either a belief/conviction or a disbelief.

Like I said, there are two things at play
1. Knowledge about God
2. Knowledge of God

Knowledge about God is from information you get: knowledge vof God is a follow-up which is based on relationship.

You can argue about knowledge but you can argue about relationship. Rejecting knowledge is Rejecting relationship.

Finally,
You've hinged your eternity on your beliefs (no physical evidence): what if you're wrong!?

HE IS SATAN IN HEAVEN AND DEVIL (THE PATHFINDER OF EVIL) ON EARTH.

shadeyinka2:
My main Monika shadeyinka was banned by nairaland bots

Sorry bro....im surprised i don't get mentions on your replies. Sorry for the late reply.

shadeyinka2:


No not flawed. You actually agreed with it.

I didn't. The anology you gave was not same because the details differed slightly.

shadeyinka2:

Some corrections on how you interpret your terms;

Definitions :
1. Notion:
A synonym for notion as used by me is IDEA.
Example: The notion that electron has a mass of 9.1093)×10−31 kg was first stated by J.J. Thompson.

A notion is NOT necessarily a baseless claim.
2. Established:
Means generally accepted.

An Established notion thus means: Generally accepted idea.

Example: The lion is the king of the Animals!

A notion is not necessarily a baseless claim....True but it can be a baseless claim...Im stating that this particular one is baseless and only established because it was held true for a long time with no competing argument against it.

Your example encompasses my point. Its an established notion, a very baseless one.

shadeyinka2:



False. The bible didn't say the earth was flat.

I won't argue on this one...it will be another roller coaster and i fear i don't have strength for it. So let's leave it for now.

shadeyinka2:


I never said that conviction is evidence.

Your argument is going circular!
I believe God exists
I have a strong conviction God exists

You DON'T YET believe God exists
YOU have NO proof God exists

In both cases, your requirement for evidence fall very flat. Like, What are your evidence for the fact that God doesn't exist? What are your evidence for your conviction?

The best either of us has is a BASIS for our beliefs and a BASIS for our convictions.

In bold: fixed that for you. My evidence of not accepting that god exist yet is that there is no proof of it. I require physical proof. I don't need to prove to you of the insufficient evidence that constitutes my stance. I have no rigid conviction...i am susceptible to a change of mind if the necessary proof is provided.

You have your beliefs, i have my skeptism.

shadeyinka2:


The state of unbelief isn't the default state of man. The default state of man is IGNORANCE! As humans acquire knowledge or is indoctrinated, he chooses either to reject or accommodate the devine in his activities.

Ignorance in the sense of a clean slate not of that of bad information paraded as knowledge.
If man is tabula rasa by definition in the sense i have described above, he would not harbour any belief whatsoever. In that case, would you not have to explain to him or her how your god exists?

State of non belief as used here is not weighing in after being presented with many ideologies (my version) but rather not knowing whether a god exist or not. So you are right, but I'm not wrong, you jux defined my state of non belief much more clearly. However still, non belief (of the ignorance kind)is still the default state in this context.

Note: bolded.

shadeyinka2:

Unconsciously, athiests move from agnosticism to a hate for God.

I don't deny if a god like yahweh exist i might really hate him or her.

shadeyinka2:

Truthfully answer this question.
If the formation of universe is not an accident, is it not deliberately done?
Then the next logical question is by who?

Your question simplifies things too much. If a seed falls to ground on an asphalt and it rains, the seed is less likely to germinate. But in a loamy soil and water, its much more likey to do so. My analogy targets one thing....favourable conditions...so let's say that instead of being deliberate or by accident, it was as a result of favourable conditions...how would you qualify that option? Accident or deliberate or its own option?

shadeyinka2:


I've always used established notion rather than just notion.

The word notion had been explained not to mean frivolous or baseless beliefs. It just simply mean statement, belief or conviction.

From your own mouth you used the phrase...NOT NECESSARILY. You know exactly what you meant when you used that phrase. You knew that an established notion can be based on nothing but accepted because its been held for a long time.

shadeyinka2:




Then go test Him!

He/she doesn't seem to respond.

shadeyinka2:

This had been said my previous post.
The "evidence of God in creation" before me is satisfactory to me while this same "evidence of God in creation" is unsatisfactory to You.

These same evidences of God in creation leads to either a belief/conviction or a disbelief.

Like I said, there are two things at play
1. Knowledge about God
2. Knowledge of God

Knowledge about God is from information you get: knowledge vof God is a follow-up which is based on relationship.

You can argue about knowledge but you can argue about relationship. Rejecting knowledge is Rejecting relationship.

You knowledge of god is not that which i can hold on to as proof. Its inconsistent with a whole lot of other people who claim to believe in god too. Why is yours true?

shadeyinka2:

Finally,
You've hinged your eternity on your beliefs (no physical evidence): what if you're wrong!?

Only way to know this is physical evidence since i have not experienced any spirituality before. I wouldn't know unless it was in the physical realm. If i am wrong then i am wrong. If there is time i will review my stance on god. If moses can earn physical evidence to prove god's existence, then y can't any other have it too?

kimco:


Sorry bro....im surprised i don't get mentions on your replies. Sorry for the late reply.

I didn't. The anology you gave was not same because the details differed slightly.

A notion is not necessarily a baseless claim....True but it can be a baseless claim...Im stating that this particular one is baseless and only established because it was held true for a long time with no competing argument against it.

Your example encompasses my point. Its an established notion, a very baseless one.

I won't argue on this one...it will be another roller coaster and i fear i don't have strength for it. So let's leave it for now.

In bold: fixed that for you. My evidence of not accepting that god exist yet is that there is no proof of it. I require physical proof. I don't need to prove to you of the insufficient evidence that constitutes my stance. I have no rigid conviction...i am susceptible to a change of mind if the necessary proof is provided.

You have your beliefs, i have my skeptism.

Ignorance in the sense of a clean slate not of that of bad information paraded as knowledge.
If man is tabula rasa by definition in the sense i have described above, he would not harbour any belief whatsoever. In that case, would you not have to explain to him or her how your god exists?

State of non belief as used here is not weighing in after being presented with many ideologies (my version) but rather not knowing whether a god exist or not. So you are right, but I'm not wrong, you jux defined my state of non belief much more clearly. However still, non belief (of the ignorance kind)is still the default state in this context.

Note: bolded.

I don't deny if a god like yahweh exist i might really hate him or her.

Your question simplifies things too much. If a seed falls to ground on an asphalt and it rains, the seed is less likely to germinate. But in a loamy soil and water, its much more likey to do so. My analogy targets one thing....favourable conditions...so let's say that instead of being deliberate or by accident, it was as a result of favourable conditions...how would you qualify that option? Accident or deliberate or its own option?

From your own mouth you used the phrase...NOT NECESSARILY. You know exactly what you meant when you used that phrase. You knew that an established notion can be based on nothing but accepted because its been held for a long time.


He/she doesn't seem to respond.

You knowledge of god is not that which i can hold on to as proof. Its inconsistent with a whole lot of other people who claim to believe in god too. Why is yours true?


Only way to know this is physical evidence since i have not experienced any spirituality before. I wouldn't know unless it was in the physical realm. If i am wrong then i am wrong. If there is time i will review my stance on god. If moses can earn physical evidence to prove god's existence, then y can't any other have it too?

1. You want a Physical Evidence for something/someone who is never described as Physical. Then you'll wait till you die. After death, you get the "physical" evidence you desire!

It's just like a Famer insisting on believing the existence of an electron with his own weighing balance. And his argument goes like

"If you say electrons exist, put some in a bag and let me measure it's mass!". The argument looks logical only to an ignorant person.

2. What is your problem with God anyway?
Is it because God gives rules about
i. Right and Wrong?
ii. Loving your neighbors as yourself?
iii. Doing good because you will get the reward for it after this your life
iv. Hard work and providing for your family?
v. Obeying government and constituted authorities?
etc
Since Science isn't Atheism and Atheism isn't Science,
1. What are the core positive teachings of Atheism to Humanity (human to human relationships)?
2. Do you advocate that we throw away the positive LAWs of God ?
3. Is morality Objective or Subjective?

shadeyinka:

1. You want a Physical Evidence for something/someone who is never described as Physical. Then you'll wait till you die. After death, you get the "physical" evidence you desire!

It's just like a Famer insisting on believing the existence of an electron with his own weighing balance. And his argument goes like

"If you say electrons exist, put some in a bag and let me measure it's mass!". The argument looks logical only to an ignorant person.

2. What is your problem with God anyway?
Is it because God gives rules about
i. Right and Wrong?
ii. Loving your neighbors as yourself?
iii. Doing good because you will get the reward for it after this your life
iv. Hard work and providing for your family?
v. Obeying government and constituted authorities?
etc
Since Science isn't Atheism and Atheism isn't Science,
1. What are the core positive teachings of Atheism to Humanity (human to human relationships)?
2. Do you advocate that we throw away the positive LAWs of God ?
3. Is morality Objective or Subjective?

You obviously have lost your cool at the point. Let's end things for both our sakes. Thank you for a wonderful discourse...till now.

kimco:


You obviously have lost your cool at the point. Let's end things for both our sakes. Thank you for a wonderful discourse...till now.

I didn't loose my cool bro. I just wanted to know that if we reject religion, God and whatever they entail: what does what you offer as a replacement give us?

I guess you took offence because of the questions I asked. Number 1 had been repeated at least twice in our conversation. Number 2 is new!