HealerH:


The name of my God is Healer. Now do you believe in Him? .
Dumbness overload.

You're foooling no one. You're a Christian!

Martinez39s:
, HealerH made his god's identity and attributes as abstract and elusive as possible, all in the cheap attempt to avoid any scrutiny and exposure of any flaw in his god concept. If someone points out something wrong with his implied god idea, he will simply say "that's not the god I am talking about."

So you cowardly avoided that last post.

I make the identity of my God abstract? God dey get identity?
Do you even know what an identity is? Tufiakwa.

You should ask me what's the nature of my God. It's simple. The nature of my God is my nature. You want to see my God, come see me. But when I'm no more, He ceases to exist "for me". (I told you I don't believe in life after death). Someone else might discover Him when I'm gone and He'll continue existing for that person. I won't be there to give a damn. For the moment, it's just He and I. What else do you want to learn kid?

Martinez39s:
I suspect he is a christian.

Suspect on the beat!!!



If you're mistaking me for a Christian, it means Christians have one of the finest critical reflection on this planet.

1Sharon:


You're foooling no one. You're a Christian!

I just realised something.
In your head, any one that believes in the existence of God must have a religion.
You really mean to tell me someone can't believe in God without adhering to a particular religion? And you mean to tell me one person can't have a religion of her own?

HealerH:



I just realised something.
In your head, any one that believes in the existence of God must have a religion.
You really mean to tell me someone can't believe in God without adhering to a particular religion? And you mean to tell me one person can't have a religion of her own?

So you have your own religion? Tell me more

1Sharon:


So you have your own religion? Tell me more

I don't like talking about my religion. I like living it. The best way to learn about my religion is to see me live my daily life.
Thank you.

HealerH:


I don't like talking about my religion. I like living it. The best way to learn about my religion is to see me live my daily life.
Thank you.

LOL cos you're full of shìt.

1Sharon:


LOL cos you're full of wisdom.

Now get lost.

HealerH:


Now get lost.

Or?

1Sharon:
LOL cos you're full of shìt.

Seriously, he is full of śhit. I simply gave up on him.

sunshineV:
all these long tori for what? to claim a white bearded man exist? same god wey get 2 mouth abi no be him talk say ask and it shall be given come still talk say gods time is the best. mtcheew radarada

Read. Read olodo.
Stop embarrassing yourself.

MrColdsweat:

I advice you to go and properly educate yourself so that you can drop valid arguments during discussions of this sort, instead of trolling and embarrassing yourself.


You atheists just find some few things you find inconsistent in the bible, then you make silly conclusions on Gods existence. Then you start believing you are smart. Here I am, trying to educate you on the shortcomings of your tools and why they can never do the job, you are still asking me to use your tools. Is this not foolishness?

Are there proofs of God's existence? Yes of course, but you atheists wouldn't know this because you're busy littering the cyberspace with your arrogance and foolishness.

Go and check Wikipedia for ontological proofs of God's existence and stop embarrassing yourself.

] I can see the truth hurt, but you're on the right path though.

First it will provoke you, then set you free.

HealerH:
[s] I said i discovered God with critical reasoning and I can boast about it before any atheist because what he was unable to do is what I did.

One lazy God-seeker came asking me to show them the God I discovered? Lol.

You called yourself a scientific thinker. Yet you ask me to show you a result of an experiment you never was present to witness. Are you telling me you'll believe this result if I present it to you?
I suppose No. I'm giving you a benefit of doubt of common sense. As a scientific thinker, you probably want to analyse the method I used to discover God and see if it respected the scientific norms of research. (This text in parentheses doesn't concern the current reflection but I'm putting it here to remind you of a very important absurdity I will be revealing in another commentator's post. The person criticised me for not taking metaphysical considerations in a reflection I did whereas everybody reading this post knows this post is targeted at atheism and atheism don't make room for metaphysics in a dogmatic way. Whereas the person I'm currently replying wants to know the scientificity in my discovery of God, another person wants to know why I didn't limit scientificity of reflection and give room to metaphysics. Confused people trying to drag me into their confusion)

Back to the current reply.
What are the scientific norms of research? I won't list them all. I'm just going to point out one that my critique is ignorant of. It is the norm which demands that the same apparatus/apparati used in an experiment be used in any other experiment that wants to ascertain the authenticity of the first experiment. Now the fundamental apparatus I used in discovering God is my reason. Someone is asking me to give them the result of my experiment so that they can verify it with their own reason. Anyone told you reason has a scientifically determined universal standard? Are you not a quack scientist for not knowing this?

I stated it clearly in my post that each person make their experience of God (discover God) in a relative way that can never ever be universalized. And in all my text, you never found me universalising any particular experience made of God.



Another person countered my scientific comparison of "adherence without proof" to one's maternity and to God. He said the two are two different things that should never be conpared. Lol.
This is the commentator I meant when I said someone criticised me for not making room for metaphysics in my analysis. Now let me hit him the akpako of wisdom.

First off, bear in mind the object of my reflections is the philosophy of atheism. And I stated in the beginning of my text that atheism is a failed attempt to discover God with reason and this attempt rejects FAITH (Metaphysics). I'm on this post to confront atheism on their own terrain. My terrain is fundamentally metaphysical (I'm one of the most profound metaphysicians to ever walk on earth. Help me drink 200 liters of water if you feel I boast a lot). I refused to use my main weapon (metaphysics) to confront atheism. I used pure science that was 100% percent constructed on reason.

I used universal laws of science/reason in my confrontations (I don't know where else to insert this peace of knowledge so I try to put it here. I hope it doesn't digress from the current discussion. It's about the nature of scientific method. Do you know, science don't give a damn what your result is. What interests science is the procedure that led to your result. That's why this fellow is not asking me to show him the God I discovered so he can believe in him but because he wants to analysis the procedures I used). Lemme show you one or two examples of a universal scientific law before going on.
1+1=2. This fact is true anywhere on earth (anyone who defies it does it through dogmatism). Anywhere on this planet, whatever you throw up must fall down to earth (whoever tells you otherwise is being dogmatic and tell that person to get the hell out of my post). Anything on this planet that is corporal must have mass and occupy some space. These are universal scientific laws. Atheists adhere to them and I decided to have this intellectual rendezvous with them on these laws.
Now the problem I discovered in atheism was not specifically on these laws: it was in the reverse version of the laws. If one of the universal laws of science stated that whatever is thrown up must fall down, the reverse version implies that whatever that fell down MUST have been thrown up. These is where atheists made a caricature of themselves.
To formulate this reverse version in words, it means that «anything that is in motion started from somewhere» and this "somewhere" must have an experimental proof before the experimental truth of it's destination can be accepted. Atheism rejects a definitive affirmation on the "somewhere" of existence because they all know it is above reason. It is purely metaphysical. Then they try their best to find out the "to where" (destination) of existence. Can someone come from nowhere and arrive at somewhere? Common sense is not that common fellas.
I think I've digressed a lot already on this commentary.

The bottom-line of my lines here is that I am criticising a scientific atheism with scientific reasoning. You're typing off-point if you start criticising me with metaphysics. And the scientific criticism I put forward to atheism on maternal certainty is that this latter is unscientific and inadmissible as truth because no one experienced their mom giving birth to them. We all simply believed and had faith that the woman we call our Mom gave birth to us.

Now if you suddenly realised that existence is fundamentally metaphysical and that one must bring in an absolute being from the back-door of reason and live existence in accordance to the principles of this absolute being, why not bring in the absolute being and live your life? Why do you refuse to do it yet you are certain it needs to be done?
If you're not certain it must be done, (that is, that one's existence is determined by his idea of an absolute being) why did you criticise me saying I shouldn't compare maternity certainty with divine certainty because the admission of the latter determines the teleology of one's existence? Are you not being confused and lazy?
And are you not being a quack scientist by refusing metaphysics in the universal laws of science yet admit metaphysics in this scientific reflection I did?

I don't run away from metaphysics. It's my specialty. I'm simply being scientific in my reflection because that's the language understandable to atheists. So if you want to criticise my reflections, remain strictly on scientific criticism. If you want a metaphysical reflection on existence, go create a trade on that and invite me. I promise to give you one of the greatest metaphysical lessons ever given. Just chose a side and stick to it. Stop being shaky.





And all these ones making debate about proof of God's existence and which religion is the true religion. Get the hell out of my trade!!! I'm not here to discuss God's existence you wannabes. None of your religions interests me. Go create your own trade and discuss your God and your religion. Stop making a joke of my wisdom!

I'm here to confront the rationality in atheistic apologies. Every comment should revolve around this topic and not your mediocre religions.

Peace [/s]

Trash

GRIMMJOE:
Trash

Real trash.

MrColdsweat:


Gravity is a scientific theory. Science is subjective i.e subject to human observation and experience.

Even according to this science, there are frequencies you can see beyond i.e there are millions of things that happen around us that we cannot see. How then can you use your eye and observation as a yardstick for existence when you cannot see everything that happens around you?

When your tool is insufficient, do you say the job cannot be done, or do you try another tool?

You have tried logic and reasoning, they haven proven to be insufficient.

Try faith.

Which of the faith, Christian, Islam, Hindu? smh

HealerH:


Y'all should get the hell out of my post if you'll keep discussing proofs of God's existence. This post was not created to discuss that. Let whatever argument you make here have it's source from my post.

From the way you write I can already tell you're a woman, so emotional.

Well you created this thread to ridicule atheism, only to end.up being ridicule

MrColdsweat:
[s][/s]

You mean you doubt if I know that atheists are fools?
Of course I do.
I know very much that atheists are fools. Afterall, I was an atheist for almost a decade. I've been on both sides, and I can tell you that there's no bigger foolishness than atheism.


When you little boys got no defense, you resort to personal attacks. Una never start.

Bro I can see you're really hurt, calling everyone foolish because they don't agree with you, sigh!

Anyway I liked your comment just make you feel better, peace.

HealerH:

The name of my God is Healer. Now do you believe in Him? . Dumbness overload.

What is your god healing.

HealerH:




So you cowardly avoided that last post.

I make the identity of my God abstract? God dey get identity?
Do you even know what an identity is? Tufiakwa.

You should ask me what's the nature of my God. It's simple. The nature of my God is my nature. You want to see my God, come see me. But when I'm no more, He ceases to exist "for me". (I told you I don't believe in life after death). Someone else might discover Him when I'm gone and He'll continue existing for that person. I won't be there to give a damn. For the moment, it's just He and I. What else do you want to learn kid?

This one don mad finish.

HealerH:


I don't like talking about my religion. I like living it. The best way to learn about my religion is to see me live my daily life.
Thank you.

You don't like talking about your religion but create a.thread to do just that.

GRIMMJOE:
You don't like talking about your religion but create a.thread to do just that.

He is a big clown.

Martinez39s:
He is a big clown.

For him to be ashamed of mentioning his god, shows he acknowledges the flaws in his religion.

GRIMMJOE:
You don't like talking about your religion but create a.thread to do just that.

Don't be silly.
I created this thread to plank the irrationality and the absurdity in atheism. Did you even read the thread? Nonsense.

HealerH:


Don't be silly.
I created this thread to plank the irrationality and the absurdity in atheism. Did you even read the thread? Nonsense.

You think atheism is absurd, but a talking snake isn't?

GRIMMJOE:
You think atheism is absurd, but a talking snake isn't?

Why do you insist to be dumb?

I have seen many snakes but I haven't seen anyone of them talking. Since you seem to believe a snake talks, I'll want you to give me some proof. A video won't be bad. .

HealerH:


Why do you insist to be dumb?

I have seen many snakes but I haven't seen anyone of them talking. Since you seem to believe a snake talks, I'll want you to give me some proof. A video won't be bad. .

What's your religion? Which god.do you worship.

GRIMMJOE:
For him to be ashamed of mentioning his god, shows he acknowledges the flaws in his religion.

Sure! He is being sneaky. His refusal to give us details about his god and his religion despite opening a thread like this shows he is trying to avoid scrutiny and bash atheism. He knows his god idea and religion will be showed to be flawed, hence the game of being elusive.

Thunder go fire all of una, shey na man create satan abi
Why God no go kill satan make the scene just
When satan disobey God why God no cast am to the pit of hell
But same God send wild animal to kill children wey insult pastor

If christian is the right religion what will buddhist worshippers what about hindu worshippers what about muslim are they all ending in the pit of hell

Ekpemoriri99:
Thunder go fire all of una, shey na man create satan abi
Why God no go kill satan make the scene just
When satan disobey God why God no cast am to the pit of hell
But same God send wild animal to kill children wey insult pastor

Every story needs a villain.

Martinez39s:
Sure! He is being sneaky. His refusal to give us details about his god and his religion despite opening a thread like this shows he is trying to avoid scrutiny and bash atheism. He knows his god idea and religion will be showed to be flawed, hence the game of being elusive.

Yes yes yes yes, I'm waiting for him.

HealerH:

Read. Read olodo. Stop embarrassing yourself.

ori e lo daru