kingxsamz:


If both of you enter a room and you see a dead body, and then you go ahead to say that you're convinced without doubt that it was a little rock from space that hit him on the head, the burden is on you to prove it. The other person you entered the room with didn't make any claim and decides to wait for forensics. You no sabi book or are you a secondary school student?

Ammishaddai:
Wrong analogy again. We both enter the room...or are you not following?

Ammishaddai:
My basic problem with you is the stupidity attached to your Athesim. And I believe part of it stems from lacking the ability to read and comprehend. So kindly do me a favor and read the analogy again and digest before before flooding this thread with your stupidity

CamusMidas:

You assume my position on what my reaction would be if we both enter a room and saw a death person.

My immediate reaction won't be on assuming that okay this is the cause of his death, I won't be quick to guess the cause of death without atleast examining the body.

But you on the other have an hypothesis on the cause of death, which mean you most have saw something that I missed and I am curious to know the clue I most have missed.

kingxsamz:


Lmao this one is a ranting cow.
I've addressed your poor analogy and you're asking me to go through it again.
Let me just assume that you're a teenager so I won't be wasting my time arguing. Goodnight.

Ammishaddai:
Bro you're not making sense. The analogy is we both entered the room and upon seeing a dead person, we both have different guesses on the likely cause of death. This is the foundation for our investigation. And the burden of proof lies on both of us to prove. This is simple except you want to be funny with word play

CamusMidas:

You assume my position on what my reaction would be if we both enter a room and saw a death person.

My immediate reaction won't be on assuming that okay this is the cause of his death, I won't be quick to guess the cause of death without atleast examining the body.

But you on the other have an hypothesis on the cause of death, which mean you most have saw something that I missed and I am curious to know the clue I most have missed.

Ammishaddai:
From the bolded in this post, this doesn't still well with the analogy of what we are driving at.

Because our argument is on the existence of God. And if we compare the analogy I gave it sits perfectly well to start our argument because it has all the premises

CamusMidas:

You said there is a God, an atheist said he doesn't know and didn't claim that Allah or Zeus is the god but simply ask you to prove that your God exists.

Ammishaddai:
Wrong way of placing the question : both sides hold different views of the existence and nonexistentence of a God. And it is left for both sides to state their case in the light of logic. So the burden of proof lies on both parties.


P. S : Atheism is a belief system that hold the belief that there is no God. Such an ascertion must be held accountable by providing evidence of the belief

CamusMidas:

The painful part about this discussion is that you think you are making sense.

falcon01:
so wasn't created? how did he or she or it came to existence?

FatherOfJesus:
For a creator

shadeyinka:




Wade through this if you are truthready and answer the question: How!

1. Every Event has a Cause!
2. Every Cause produces an Event
3. Infinite regression of Cause and Event is impossible in timespace

Therefore:
Because, Cause and Events truely exists, logic 1 and 2 are violated

How?

FatherOfJesus:
The number 3 is a special pleading fallacy.

You will eventually created a turtled all the way down effect. The argument will create a vicious circle in the end and it doesn’t make sense.

shadeyinka:

If the number 3 is false, considering the fact that the universe has a scientific beginning of about 13.7 billion years ago;

Is Infinite regression of Cause and Event possible in time-space?


To help you out, consider the trinity of time, space and matter.

FatherOfJesus:
Help who out?
You barely understand the concept of the beginning of the universe.

Big Bang is not the absolute beginning of the universe, Big Bang only explains that the universe started expanding from a singularity, Big Bang doesn’t account for the beginning of that singularity and how it got there. Read about Big Crunch you will understand that your argument is faulty. No one knows the absolute scientific beginning yet.

shadeyinka:

I didnt mention the big bang theory did I?

Please answer this question since the number three point is a fallacy

Is Infinite regression of Cause and Event possible in time-space?

FatherOfJesus:
The question doesn’t make sense if you don’t understand Big Crunch and the nature Big Bang, you are not getting it.

Big Crunch is actually a form of infinite regress at least for the most we know, yes infinite regress is possible.

shadeyinka:

I've heard a new thing today: please can you present your "hopefully scientific" evidence/proof that infinite regress of cause and effect is possible in time-space?

shadeyinka:

I've heard a new thing today: please can you present your "hopefully scientific" evidence/proof that infinite regress of cause and effect is possible in time-space?

FatherOfJesus:
this is Big Crunch, telling about infinite regress.

FatherOfJesus:
Why should I provide any evidence to you when you have not provided any evidence for your claim?

Go and read about Big Crunch and see how infinite regress is possible.

shadeyinka:





You've not said anything other than refering me to the Big Crunch THEORY!

It's just like you asking me a spiritual question and I tell you that the answer is in the Bible.

The evidence could be an equation, an experimental observations etc.

I don't boast of a physical evidence of God because God is too big to be brought into the laboratory table. I have given you logical statements and not Spiritual statements

ALL Logical statements are either true or false. To remind you:

1. Every Event has a Cause!
2. Every Cause produces an Event
3. Infinite regression of Cause and Event is impossible in time space

On item 3, you disagree: you even called it a special pleading fallacy.

Now all it takes is for you to deflate the logic with the implication.

FatherOfJesus:
Infinite regress is possible in the Big Crunch/bounce theory.

There’s no evidence that infinite regress is not possible. Even if there is, no evidence that the regress has to stop at the point of your god

shadeyinka:

Unfortunately for you: it just a THEORY.

I guess you know that theory is different from fact.

That's why, a theory cannot be Evidence of anything!

shadeyinka:

Unfortunately for you: it just a THEORY.

I guess you know that theory is different from fact.

That's why, a theory cannot be Evidence of anything!

FatherOfJesus:
”it’s just theory” is an unscientific statement, only those who don’t understand the definition of what “scientific theories” make such statement.

Any theory in science is not just a theory, it is the explanation of nature backed by some evidence. Though they are fallible and can be replaced only by a “better theory”.

There’s no evidence that infinite regress is not possible in space, you have to disprove Big bounce theory to establish that.

Whether or not infinite regress is possible is not an evidence for your god.

shadeyinka:

You speak like you understand any science. Is any THEORY a fact!?

A theory is an educated guess or perceived explanation of an observable!
How can it then be a presentable evidence?

shadeyinka:

You speak like you understand any science. Is any THEORY a fact!?

A theory is an educated guess or perceived explanation of an observable!
How can it then be a presentable evidence?

FatherOfJesus:
dont go to any science class and say theories cannot be evidence for anything.

You will be ridiculed. Before anything becomes a theory in science, it must have at least one observable evidence.

shadeyinka:

How true or correct is Dalton's Atomic theory?
How true or correct is JJ Thompson's atomic theory?

Can they be used as evidence for an atom?

FatherOfJesus:
First go learn what a scientific theory is, you have google there and internet access.

Every scientific theory has at least one testable evidence. Hypotheses should be what you are talking about.

FatherOfJesus:
It has evidence in it in that it first explained the presence of electrons and protons in an atom. However didn’t accurately get their arrangement hence has been replaced by a better theory.