Workch:
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.

You have moved again from the question asked.

Do you use science to prove the love of your friend to you? Or you trust him? These are simple questions.

Love exist, but do you take them to lab to proof this?

Last last, there is still an element of trust in you even without scientific instrument.

See, there are over a million things in existence that science is still yet to know or struggling to know. Knowing God isn't close for now.

Workch:
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?

The same way you have 100% assurance that electricity exist true scientific rules, same way I have 100% assurance of God's existence through theological rules. That's the right tool for the right harvest

hupernikao:



You have moved again from the question asked.

Do you use science to prove the love of your friend to you? Or you trust him? These are simple questions.

Love exist, but do you take them to lab to proof this?

Last last, there is still an element of trust in you even without scientific instrument.

See, there are over a million things in existence that science is still yet to know or struggling to know. Knowing God isn't close for now.

I'm not going to answer a logicallly flawed loaded question.

How are you sure that God exist?

I'm not sure and that's why I don't believe it.

hupernikao:


The same way you have 100% assurance that electricity exist true scientific rules, same way I have 100% assurance of God's existence through theological rules. That's the right tool for the right harvest

So it means that the Flying Spaghetti Monster also exist and I believe his claim that he created the Christian God. We just need the right tool to test this claim

That logic also applies to that right?

Workch:
So it means that the Flying Spaghetti Monster also exist and I believe his claim that he created the Christian God. We just need the right tool to test this claim

That logic also applies to that right?

Well present the theology for us to examine.

That's the domain where the prove lies. So present it.

hupernikao:


Well present the theology for us to examine.

That's the domain where the prove lies. So present it.

What if I say the theological tools is limited and cannot find this yet?

Workch:
I'm not going to answer a logicallly flawed loaded question.

How are you sure that God exist?

I'm not sure and that's why I don't believe it.

You will need to study more o.

This one that I had time to even drag you into your observatory and instrumented scientific domain, you refused to answer. I hardly even want to talk to that. I won't push you far.

I prefer facing my theology. That's where the full assurance of God is. Unshaken, convinced, immovable, persuaded and assured.

Workch:
What if I say the theological tools is limited and cannot find this yet?

Then it is not in the domain of such. Find the domain where it exists and can be proven and present it. Theology is sufficient enough to prove a fundamental character of its study, God. The knowing can be extended, but the existence must be evident in such theology.

hupernikao:


Then it is not in the domain of such. Find the domain where it exists and can be proven and present it. Theology is sufficient enough to prove a fundamental character of its study, God. The knowing can be extended, but the existence must be evident in such theology.

If the theological tool can’t find evidence for god, I don’t see why we shouldn’t think it cannot find evidence for Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I think as the theological field is improving, it will find evidence for Flying Spaghetti Monster someday, unless you disagree that the theological field is improving

hupernikao:




You will need to study more o.

This one that I had time to even drag you into your observatory and instrumented scientific domain, you refused to answer. I hardly even want to talk to that. I won't push you far.

I prefer facing my theology. That's where the full assurance of God is. Unshaken, convinced, immovable, persuaded and assured.

Same way the theological instrument is yet to find evidence for Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Maybe it will find it in future when it improves more. We all will then know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created Yahweh.

Workch:
Same way the theological instrument is yet to find evidence for Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Maybe it will find it in future when it improves more. We all will then know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created Yahweh.

Theology isn't even looking for that. It's not in its premise. We are sure of what we have and have believed. We are not of such that are troubled. If it is about God o. We dey, our conviction total.

So let the one with spaghetti go to supermarket to get one.

Hupernikao, come on. You can’t run when I start using a simple Russell’s teapot against you?
I think that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is beyond the comprehension of theology and we need a more sophisticated tool to be able to figure him out. Theology doesn’t know all, it’s improving and still has limitations.

Maybe in few centuries to come, it will find out that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of Yahweh. I do not have to provide evidence for this, we don’t have the tool to find the evidence yet

Workch:
If the theological tool can’t find evidence for god, I don’t see why we shouldn’t think it cannot find evidence for Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I think as the theological field is improving, it will find evidence for Flying Spaghetti Monster someday, unless you disagree that the theological field is improving

Who told you theology can't find evidence of God?

God is found all through it. Revealed in essence and presence. Well documented and preserved. Like I said, you may be able to find the spaghetti in a supermarket. Theology is for finding God.

hupernikao:


Theology isn't even looking for that. It's not in its premise. We are sure of what we have and have believed. We are not of such that are troubled. If it is about God o. We dey, our conviction total.

So let the one with spaghetti go to supermarket to get one.

Science isn’t looking for god either, it’s just making findings and some disproves god.

Theology should work hard to disprove Flying Spaghetti Monster is that same light.

It’s either you accept that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created Christian god or develop a tool to disprove it

I love Russell’s teapot, if this doesn’t make you see the absurdity in all you have been saying then I don’t know what will make you to

hupernikao:



Who told you theology can't find evidence of God?

God is found all through it. Revealed in essence and presence. Well documented and preserved. Like I said, you may be able to find the spaghetti in a supermarket. Theology is for finding God.

Even if it finds evidence for Christian god, it can’t find for Flying Spaghetti Monster who created the Christian god.

The tools used by theology is very limited in doing that

Workch:
Hupernikao, come on. You can’t run when I start using a simple Russell’s teapot against you?
I think that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is beyond the comprehension of theology and we need a more sophisticated tool to be able to figure him out. Theology doesn’t know all, it’s improving and still has limitations.

Maybe in few centuries to come, it will find out that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of Yahweh. I do not have to provide evidence for this, we don’t have the tool to find the evidence yet

Run?
You always think so much of yourself.

I have posed at least two questions to you here that you don't even have an answers. I left them because I want you to have time to think through them. Even if it takes you a decade. I am not in a rush.

And in your assertion.
To have forgotten, that Christian theology is documented, it doesn't give room for unnecessary extended research. It's not finding new things, it's examining what has been documented. Hence it revealed God within its context.

If you know any spaghetti that you can't find in the market, then present a theological book that explains it, let's examine it. Christian theology examine God within the revelation of Christ. You can present to me the book that gave evidence of your thoughts.

hupernikao:



Run?
You always think so much of yourself.

I have posed at least two questions to you here that you don't even have an answers. I left them because I want you to have time to think through them. Even if it takes you a decade. I am not in a rush.

And in your assertion.
To have forgotten, that Christian theology is documented, it doesn't give room for unnecessary extended research. It's not finding new things, it's examining what has been documented. Hence it revealed God within its context.

If you know any spaghetti that you can't find in the market, then present a theological book that explains it, let's examine it. Christian theology examine God within the revelation of Christ. You can present to me the book that gave evidence of your thoughts.

This Flying Spaghetti Monster lives beyond space and time and the Christian god.

It must be true because the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster said it?

When logic backfires

Workch:
Even if it finds evidence for Christian god, it can’t find for Flying Spaghetti Monster who created the Christian god.

The tools used by theology is very limited in doing that

Present the book the book for your theology, not a roll around. I am not here to disprove even if you say your God is a rat. But present it from your evidential domain. That's simple enough.

hupernikao:



Run?
You always think so much of yourself.

I have posed at least two questions to you here that you don't even have an answers. I left them because I want you to have time to think through them. Even if it takes you a decade. I am not in a rush.

And in your assertion.
To have forgotten, that Christian theology is documented, it doesn't give room for unnecessary extended research. It's not finding new things, it's examining what has been documented. Hence it revealed God within its context.

If you know any spaghetti that you can't find in the market, then present a theological book that explains it, let's examine it. Christian theology examine God within the revelation of Christ. You can present to me the book that gave evidence of your thoughts.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t need proper documentation, the tools in theology now are too limited to properly describe him. He’s too complex and that’s why he’s beyond the Christian god.

As we improve, we will get to know this truth

Workch:
This Flying Spaghetti Monster lives beyond space and time and the Christian god.

It must be true because the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster said it?

When logic backfires

I guess you are only here to keep awake. There is no logic here you presented.

Christian presented a theology documented. If your God is a rat present the theology and documents to support this. Aside this you are only rolling on the floor in circles.

hupernikao:


Present the book the book for your theology, not a roll around. I am not here to disprove even if you say your God is a rat. But present it from your evidential domain. That's simple enough.

He is too complex to be described totally in any book, our level of understanding is still very low to describe him.

If we cannot totally understand the Christian god, is it the creator of the Christian god that we will comprehend?
Think about it, we need to properly understand the Christian god before looking to understand the Flying Spaghetti Monster: the creator of Yahweh

Workch:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t need proper documentation, the tools in theology now are too limited to properly describe him. He’s too complex and that’s why he’s beyond the Christian god.

As we improve, we will get to know this truth

Good then, hold unto it and let him hold unto you. It's your God. As the scriptures also presented my God to me.

hupernikao:


I guess you are only here to keep awake. There is no logic here you presented.

Christian presented a theology documented. If your God is a rat present the theology and documents to support this. Aside this you are only rolling on the floor in circles.

When we understand Christian god completely then we can understand the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Our understanding is still limited, we cannot comprehend him. It’s the reason you cannot disprove him.

hupernikao:



Good then, hold unto it and let him hold unto you. It's your God. As the scriptures also presented my God to me.

He created your god

Workch:
He is too complex to be described totally in any book, our level of understanding is still very low to describe him.

If we cannot totally understand the Christian god, is the the creator of the Christian god that we will comprehend?
Think about it, we need to properly understand the Christian god before looking to understand the Flying Spaghetti Monster: the creator of Yahweh

It's a perfect one for you. I guess you are short of defence again.

Like I have advise you, don't start discussion you don't have good knowledge about you will end up just moving in circle trying to defend yourself. Your topic is already flawed from the beginning. I presented to you simple questions but you couldn't even comprehend them.

You claim to be scientce inclined, yet you have little knowledge of the limitations of science.


You will do best to take time to do more study before coming out again to discuss about God.

That discussion is not for baby atheist else you will be giving such cradle argument as you did in your first post.

hupernikao:



Good then, hold unto it and let him hold unto you. It's your God. As the scriptures also presented my God to me.

Maybe next time when you start making bogus claims about your god and then putting it to an unverifiable point, you should note your logic can be applied to just about anything that doesn’t exist.
It will backfire

If you claims are right, the the Flying Spaghetti Monster claim is also right. They don’t contradict, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is only a higher creator, bigger than Yahweh

hupernikao:


It's a perfect one for you. I guess you are short of defence again.

Like I have advise you, don't start discussion you don't have good knowledge about you will end up just moving in circle trying to defend yourself. Your topic is already flawed from the beginning. I presented to you simple questions but you couldn't even comprehend them.

You claim to be scientce inclined, yet you have little knowledge of the limitations of science.


You will do best to take time to do more study before coming out again to discuss about God.

That discussion is not for baby atheist else you will be giving such cradle argument as you did in your first post.

I also claim that theology has little limited knowledge and cannot disprove or prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn’t create the Christian god.

It’s true because I don’t have to provide evidence for it. I Just need to create a dubious argument that you can’t disprove, no matter what

hupernikao:


It's a perfect one for you. I guess you are short of defence again.

Like I have advise you, don't start discussion you don't have good knowledge about you will end up just moving in circle trying to defend yourself. Your topic is already flawed from the beginning. I presented to you simple questions but you couldn't even comprehend them.

You claim to be scientce inclined, yet you have little knowledge of the limitations of science.


You will do best to take time to do more study before coming out again to discuss about God.

That discussion is not for baby atheist else you will be giving such cradle argument as you did in your first post.

i am hitting you with Russell’s teapot analogy.

It’s the best way to make you see how ridiculous your line of reasoning is.
you have been forced to accept that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist.

You do not have an option because you need your god to exist to stay relevant. So it’s okay for Flying Spaghetti Monster to exist as long as your own god exist.

It’s Russell’s teapot and it rubbishes any religious argument.

Workch:
Maybe next time when you start making bogus claims about your god and then putting it to an unverifiable point, you should note your logic can be applied to just about anything that doesn’t exist.
It will backfire

If you claims are right, the the Flying Spaghetti Monster claim is also right. They don’t contradict, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is only a higher creator, bigger than Yahweh

Like I said, go back to your study of science. You are still in formative year. You have so much questions you can't answer. Alt least I have asked you not less than 5 questions on NL that has no return. It showed gap in your study. You need to revisit your books and work more.

This will make your argument smart and appealing but for now, you are still a learner.

hupernikao:


The same way you have 100% assurance that electricity exist true scientific rules, same way I have 100% assurance of God's existence through theological rules. That's the right tool for the right harvest

What are your rules or at least the standards you use in your theology?

Like if for example I was looking at two different conceptual theological frameworks like Christianity and Zen Buddhism. How do I go about determining the validity/truthfulness of either with a degree of confidence?

hupernikao:



Like I said, go back to your study of science. You are still in formative year. You have so much questions you can't answer. Alt least I have asked you not less than 5 questions on NL that has no return. It showed gap in your study. You need to revisit your books and work more.

This will make your argument smart and appealing but for now, you are still a learner.

You still cannot disprove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created Yahweh.

You cannot because it will reveal the fraud in your argument.
You see?

Workch:
i am hitting you with Russell’s teapot analogy.

It’s the best way to make you see how ridiculous your line of reasoning is.
you have been forced to accept that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist.

You do not have an option because you need your god to exist to stay relevant. So it’s okay for Flying Spaghetti Monster to exist as long as your own god exist.

It’s Russell’s teapot and it rubbishes any religious argument.

The only thing you do is to make jest of yourself in the face of any intelligent reader. A run in circle and avoidance of questions already showed how weak your points are. You only end up rubbishing your knowledge and false post you created. They were oy premised on poor assumptions and illusion.


Remember, when a man go with the wrong tool to harvest, he will labor so much and still be complaining.