Hundredfold4lif:
Nonsense!
Science is a religion that is terribly afraid of GOD.
Anything GOD perplexes science!
Do you know why?
Because science can't exist without GOD! How? Science is dead without men created by GOD!
GOD made man; man made science!!!

In addition Science simply means "To Know/ To Study" from the word "Scienta".

Which means man is Only Studying and Learning "WHAT HAS BEEN CREATED".

Hundredfold4lif:
Nonsense!
Science is a religion that is terribly afraid of GOD.
Anything GOD perplexes science!
Do you know why?
Because science can't exist without GOD! How? Science is dead without men created by GOD!
GOD made man; man made science!!!

That is a Whataboutism fallacy.

It is on the list. I’m right after all

...

Workch:
Does cars have consciousness like humans?
You are still committing the fallacy of faulty equivalence.

Or you stupid or what?

Went on about this with him some time back.
He's a lost cause.


It's like saying Steve Jobs loved the iPhone so much he sacrificed his son for it. The equivalency doesn't work.

IMAliyu:

Went on about this with him some time back.
He's a lost cause.

It's like saying Steve Jobs loved the iPhone so much he sacrificed his son for it. The equivalency doesn't work.

People have given their lives to save their phones and cars from armed robbers. So you are talking rubbish.

And the mere fact you could not find any good answer the last time we contended on this issue proves The Truth.

Once the impossible is eliminated, whatever remains, IS THE TRUTH. No matter how unpleasant and Undesirable it is! Arthur Doyle

IMAliyu:

Went on about this with him some time back.
He's a lost cause.


It's like saying Steve Jobs loved the iPhone so much he sacrificed his son for it. The equivalency doesn't work.

lol

Workch:
That is a Whataboutism fallacy.

It is on the list. I’m right after all

Tu Quoque only occurs when a contestant, the defendant in an argument who is supposed to either defend himself or admit the allegation ABANDONS HIS DEFENCE AND ATTACKS HIS OPPONENT, BY ACCUSING HIM.

And this is not the case here. He is only his only giving his own opinion and observations.

He was not on defence and you are not his opponent most especially as you see, HE DID NOT ADDRESS YOU OR ANY SPECIFIC PARTY.

Dtruthspeaker:


People have given their lives to save their phones and cars from armed robbers. So you are talking rubbish.

And the mere fact you could not find any good answer the last time we contended on this issue proves The Truth.

Once the impossible is eliminated, whatever remains, IS THE TRUTH. No matter how unpleasant and Undesirable it is! Arthur Doyle

That's your reasoning?

I consider those people irrational.
Will such people gain anything, from their car/phone when they are dead, Or did they just throw their life away in vain for a replaceable item?

What are the equivalent of the armed robbers to your God then, could he not foresee the robbery, or was he not powerful enough to prevent the robbery?

On the other matter, I got exhausted by your antics and chose to move on from the endless chain of back and forwards.

(1/4)

IMAliyu:

That's your reasoning?
I consider those people irrational.

Right now the validity or otherwise of your judgement is not in issue.

You said it has never been done, I have shown you that people do it. Period. End of case.

Dtruthspeaker:


Right now the validity or otherwise of your judgement is not in issue.

You said it has never been done, I have shown you that people do it. Period. End of case.

I never made such claims.

I pointed out the absurdity in your equivalence. With my Steve Jobs example.

(2/4)

IMAliyu:

I never made such claims.

I pointed out the absurdity in your equivalence. With my Steve Jobs example.

(2/4)

That is how a case is made.

Workch:
...

You got the fòol, the ignorant and arrogant foòl.

Trying to have logical discussions with these religious folks is like tryna fill a basket up with water,you can never be understood by people who are determined not to understand you even with all the evidences laid bare right before their eyes.
They are even making those fallacies you listed lol very predictable bunch,I've learnt not to have any back and forths with them cause it's a waste of time

@Workch let me add one more fallacy that I've been trying to quantify, but I've had no luck in identifying.

It's the "You know deep inside" argument.

Like "You know deep inside you boko haram are right, but you are afraid to admit it" an exaggerated example but this is the common formula.
Some one will project or try to implant a position or thought you don't have inside your head. It's a tactic used most commonly by cult leaders.

IMAliyu:
@Workch let me add one more fallacy that I've been trying to quantify, but I've had no luck in identifying.

It's the "You know deep inside" argument.

Like "You know deep inside you boko haram are right, but you are afraid to admit it" an exaggerated example but this is the common formula.
Some one will project or try to implant a position or thought you don't have inside your head. It's a tactic used most commonly by cult leaders.

It should be fallacy of false assumption

Martinez39s:
You got the fòol, the ignorant and arrogant foòl.

Quit been uncouth

Workch:
It should be fallacy of false assumption

Thank you.

Workch:
WE have numerous fallacies that religious people often commit, it seems to me that one attribute of a religious person is their total lack of philosophy and logic knowledge, hence the inability spot logical fallacies in their points. Of the many fallacies that they commit, I will list 10..

1. Only a new student of the word will use any of your premise above as argument or likely the person decided to communicate to you in that lower form.

2. The proof you needed is what you aren't ready to study well. Bible is Theology.

Theo - God
Logy - Study

The study and revelation fo God.

So, if you chose to not open to proper learning of the Bible you won't find the answer your seek.

It is like a case of a man who want a proof that dream does exist but never want to sleep at all. Yet disbelief the ones (who believed dreams exist) who have slept and had dreams.

Such man will always have an argument to present always just as you do all times, but the honest truth is, he will never know nor believe that dreams exist as long as he refused to sleep nor believe those who have slept before.

hupernikao:



1. Only a new student of the word will use any of your premise above as argument or likely the person decided to communicate to you in that lower form.

2. The proof you needed is what you aren't ready to study well. Bible is Theology.

Theo - God
Logy - Study

The study and revelation fo God.

So, if you chose to not open to proper learning of the Bible you won't find the answer your seek.

It is like a case of a man who want a proof that dream does exist but never want to sleep at all. Yet disbelief the ones (who believed dreams exist) who have slept and had dreams.

Such man will always have an argument to present always just as you do all times, but the honest truth is, he will never know nor believe that dreams exist as long as he refused to sleep nor believe those who have slept before.

The Bible is not proof, that's a fallacy of petitio principii.
Thr proof has to come from outside of the Bible because the Bible in itself has alot of unproven and disproven quotes. it's a fallacy

Workch:
The Bible is not proof, that's a fallacy of petitio principii.
Thr proof has to come from outside of the Bible because the Bible in itself has alot of unproven and disproven quotes. it's a fallacy

Does the proof of science comes from theology? Or the proof of electricity comes from scriptures?

When you use the wrong tool in the harvest, you will labor like a man in planting time without even result.

hupernikao:


Does the proof of science comes from theology? Or the proof of electricity comes from scriptures?

When you use the wrong tool in the harvest, you will labor like a man in planting time without even result.

The Bible made claims without prove, what you are insinuating is that "the Bible is right because the Bible said its right". That's unacceptable, It's a circular argument and fallacy of begging the question at the same time.

The logical position should be "the Bible is right because evidence and data says its right".

Workch:
The Bible made claims without prove, what you are insinuating is that "the Bible is right because the Bible said its right". That's unacceptable, It's a circular argument and fallacy of begging the question at the same time.

The logical position should be "the Bible is right because evidence and data says its right".

You haven't answered me. You need to know how to answer question if you are sure of what you know.


How do we proof that electricity exist? Scientific or by Theology?

Do you use the Bible to prove the existence of electricity.

See, my questions are always deliberate, so trying to avoid them won't work in discussions.

You want science to proof theology as the basis of true evidence. So let me know what proof you have outside science tools and observation for electricity. Can we use theology to prove electricity?

hupernikao:


You haven't answered me. You need to know how to answer question if you are sure of what you know.


How do we proof that electricity exist? Scientific or by Theology?

Do you use the Bible to prove the existence of electricity.

See, my questions are always deliberate, so trying to avoid them won't work in discussions.

You want science to proof theology as the basis of true evidence. So let me know what proof you have outside science tools and observation for electricity. Can we use theology to prove electricity?

Your question is faulty.
You assume that theological events should not be tested by empirical. Methods. There's no evidence for this.

This same empirical method to test for electricity should also be used to test for every event in the Bible. The idea of making it impossible to test is dubious unless there's evidence theological events have special and reliable methods to test them, which no theologian has even produced. It's a product of cognitive dissonance.

So your question is illogical, dubious and a subtle way of telling me not to question theological claims.

Workch:
You question is faulty.
You assume that theological events should not be tested by empirical. Methods. There's no evidence for this.

This same empirical method to test for electricity should also be used to test for every event in the Bible. The idea of making it impossible to test is dubious unless there's evidence theological events have special and reliable methods to test them, which no theologian has even produced. It's a product of cognitive dissonance.

So your question is illogical, dubious and a subtle way of telling me not to question theological claims.

You always don't have an answer. And then result to illogical fallacy. You will need to add honesty to your discussion as have told you before. When you are hooked don't try to waive around. What I asked you is as simple as ABC.

You test electricity using scientific principles not theology. Yet you want to test theology outside theology because you want a proof.


Like I told you, when you have the wrong tool you will work in harvest like a planter yet be complaining there is no harvest.

Now go and reread my first respond.

Theology is the branch of study that study God. Such work is to find out God, if you want to find out, go that way. The limitation of scientific tool in this premise is so much that you will have over 100% deviation and false result.

hupernikao:



You always don't have an answer. And then result to illogical fallacy. You will need to add honesty to your discussion as have told you before. When you are hooked don't try to waive around. What I asked you is as simple as ABC.

You test electricity using scientific principles not theology. Yet you want to test theology outside theology because you want a proof.


Like I told you, when you have the wrong tool you will work in harvest like a planter yet be complaining there is no harvest.

Now go and reread my first respond.

Theology is the branch of study that study God. Such work is to find out God, if you want to find out, go that way. The limitation of scientific tool in this premise is so much that you will have over 100% deviation and false result.

Theology as a branch of study doesn't have any evidence for what it does, just like astrology.

What you are inferring is that astrology cannot be tested by empirical method. That's a flawed argument.

Theology will need to substantiate what it does by developing a means of testing her claims else it cannot be removed from same Cadre as astrology.

hupernikao:



You always don't have an answer. And then result to illogical fallacy. You will need to add honesty to your discussion as have told you before. When you are hooked don't try to waive around. What I asked you is as simple as ABC.

You test electricity using scientific principles not theology. Yet you want to test theology outside theology because you want a proof.


Like I told you, when you have the wrong tool you will work in harvest like a planter yet be complaining there is no harvest.

Now go and reread my first respond.

Theology is the branch of study that study God. Such work is to find out God, if you want to find out, go that way. The limitation of scientific tool in this premise is so much that you will have over 100% deviation and false result.

The limitations of scientific tool is not evidence for god. It's a fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

You need to stop commiting that fallacy

Workch:
Theology as a branch of study doesn't have any evidence for what it does, just like astrology.

What you are inferring is that astrology cannot be tested by empirical method. That's a flawed argument.

Theology will need to substantiate what it does by developing a means of testing her claims else it cannot be removed from same Cadre as astrology.

Just put it simply. Theology must be confirmed by science because in your mind now, everything rotates around science alone.

Ordinary, love (I love you) cannot be subjected to your testing testing to ascertain. No single scientific tool exist to test such virtue.

Or you have tested your girlfriend or wife love in the scientific lab to be sure?

I guess you trusted her love, right? Remember that word Trust? You don't like hearing it but it is part of you.

Workch:
The limitations of scientific tool is not evidence for god. It's a fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

You need to stop commiting that fallacy

Likewise it's not evidence of "no God".
But that limitation alone, is necessary and sufficient to stop you speaking in 100% confidence level that there is no God. Even science never said so.

hupernikao:



Just put it simply. Theology must be confirmed by science because in your mind now, everything rotates around science alone.

Ordinary, love (I love you) cannot be subjected to your testing testing to ascertain. No single scientific tool exist to test such virtue.

Or you have tested your girlfriend or wife love in the scientific lab to be sure?

I guess you trusted her love, right? Remember that word Trust? You don't like hearing it but it is part of you.

Theology must not be confirmed by science.

You don't need science to go to hospitals and grow an amputated limb that has verifiable hospital records.

You don't need science to recreated a man walking on water to prove that it happens. You only need a simple way that it can be verified outside of a book written by bronze age herders that didn't know that earth is spherical.


We don't need science to verify that humans cannot be born without fertilization, it's common sense and unscientific data findings can test that.

hupernikao:


Likewise it's not evidence of "no God".
But that limitation alone, is necessary and sufficient to stop you speaking in 100% confidence level that there is no God. Even science never said so.

But there's no evidence for god. Why must you create a subtle way of telling us not to ask for evidence?

I'm 100% sure that unicorns didn't and don't exists, same way I am sure of a Christian God.

Workch:
But there's no evidence for god. Why must you create a subtle way of telling us not to ask for evidence?

I'm 100% sure that unicorns didn't and don't exists, same way I am sure of a Christian God as well.

Am sure you aren't reading me well. Subtle way not to ask for evidence? I only use a textual allegory to help you see your mistake. You are looking for God in the wrong place just like looking for electricity in the Bible.


And on your 100% assurance, Well like I said, even science never said that. Atheist can but science don't speak in absolute. That's the difference between atheist and science.

hupernikao:


Am sure you aren't reading me well. Subtle way not to ask for evidence? I only use a textual allegory to help you see your mistake. You are looking for God in the wrong place just like looking for electricity in the Bible.


And on your 100% assurance, Well like I said, even science never said that. Atheist can but science don't speak in absolute. That's the difference between atheist and science.

Dude,

I don't have 100% certaintyand that's why I don't believe it. It's very illogical to believe things you are not 100% sure about.
If you have 100% assurance that he exist then how did you get that complete level of certainty?