paxonel:
obviously, you have nothing else to say.

This is another terrible argument against God with a very quack conclusion

Again, If he cannot heal 2 out of 10,000, then he's fraud. He should shame me and so many others irreligious people

It's simple, all these long story will end

paxonel:
obviously, you have nothing else to say.

This is another terrible argument against God with a very quack conclusion

you think everyone is foolish enough to believe all the jargons in the Bible? Even when evidence says otherwise?

Some of us a skeptic, who don't take shit written by goat herders from bronze age without actually testing it.

Maynman:

You think you made sense ? 😂😂

No. I think you lack one.

SamboAnguissa:


No.

Thought as much.

Workch:
Again, If he cannot heal 2 out of 10,000, then he's fraud. He should shame me and so many others irreligious people

It's simple, all these long story will end

You always said this was a fallacious argument now here you are appealing to emotion and threats of insult.

TenQ:

Since you have singlehandedly marvelously completely demolished to smithereens all our arguments,

I never claimed to demolish ALL your arguments. I only pointed out reasons why these specific ones don't work as proof of a god.

Can you present your umbreakable, undeniable Scientific EVIDENCE that NOTHING like the Uncaused First-Cause of Everything (aka God) is a mere Figment of Human Imagination!

We are waiting!

I also never claimed the uncaused first cause is a figment of our imagination. I also clarified that the uncaused first cause would not necessarily be classified as what people refer to as a god.

All these were stated in my posts.

paxonel:
you mean the logical law of identity does not follow what are you sayin?

I looked up the logical law of identity. The google definition seems marginally different from what you said... But since definitions are not the main focus of this discussion, I'll let it go.

you will also say Socrates and Aristotle did not exist and they were fictional
true,
But not in this case.

I never claimed Socrates and Aristotle did not exist. You're the one who pointed to religious books as proof of gods.. and i explained to you that writing something down in and of itself is not proof that the thing is true.

If I wrote today that socrates had one eye, and future generations found this writing, would it make it true? No

In this case, we have seen the evidence in what was written, that the evidence points to today's reality.
unfortunately for them, they didn't see the evidence while reading, but it was staring at them.
Now whose fault is that?

Again .. written text in and of itself is not evidence for something.

will they now channel their inability to read and understand to disturb those who have read and understood?
We have billions of theists worldwide which translates that they have largely understood the contents of their holy books that's why they will remain theists
they were confused at some point.

Even on NL, every atheists who claimed to practice my religion always failed the exam each time i question them about my holy book.
This is poof that they never understood anything in the theism before they left
no!

This isn't about exams on religion and whatnot. I'll say it again, because you seem to be pushing the same narrative..

Just because something was written down in a book, doesn't make it true

what you people usually do is, each time theists mentioned that the evidence is right inside their holy book, you reject using the holy book as the evidence, yet you are always demanding for the evidence.

First of all, the claim of a holy book is a claim the followers of the book itself make. The title means absolutely nothing to me. A book is a book.

Secondly, statements made in books are not evidence. They are claims... Before the claim can be accepted as evidence, it must first be proven. The book isn't the evidence.. it is the claim.. the claim which must be substantiated.. the claim which is still yet to be substantiated.

The evidence isn't a pick and take that one can just give it to you like that. It is a lengthy but logical explanation that requires your sincere interest to read.
A previous knowledge of other parts of the book will make it easier to understand.
But if you don't have any knowledge at all, i doubt if you will understand
the truth is!
If you really want a sufficient and logical proof, then you will proof to be teachable or you don't demand any proof at all
lack of belief or not believing, it's still the same thing.
It's like you are saying i lack money, because of that i can't purchase, and someone has money and he doesn't want to purchase.
The bottom-line is, the both did not aquire
atheists don't need to make the statement, we already know

You atheists, you will just jump into arguments without fully prepared.
Is that not the beginning of failure?

Wilgrea7:


I looked up the logical law of identity. The google definition seems marginally different from what you said...

Google defines the law of thought as everything have it's own identity. Which is invariably the same thing is if one does not know the identity of a thing you can't say anything categorically about it

But since definitions are not the main focus of this discussion, I'll let it go.

letting it go implies you never put that into consideration before you jump into the argument,thereby making your arguments very terrible as i pointed earlier

[
I never claimed Socrates and Aristotle did not exist.

what ground do you now fictionalize a religious holy book like Harry potter?
Then Socrate and Aristole or any ancient or Non contemporary character should be Harry potter to you now

You're the one who pointed to religious books as proof of gods..

have you read any of the religious books to see for yourself if the proof is there?
The answer is No!
Then why are you arguing?

If you try to argue at this your ignorant state of these holy books, then you are simply breaking the law of identity since you don't know the identity of these books

and i explained to you that writing something down in and of itself is not proof that the thing is true.

and i said it does not apply in This case

If I wrote today that socrates had one eye,

then you are writing out of context of books containing socrate's history because you do not know the identity of socrate, perhaps you had deliberately refused to read the books first before writing. And with that, you have put up a terrible argument

and future generations found this writing, would it make it true? No

this is what atheists are doing that will never make their arguments true.

On the other hand, if you claim that this also apply to religious holy books then you must read atleast one holy book first. Then from what yiou have read, you can now mention that a character in the said holy book have one eye or something ,just like the illustration you wrote that Socrates have one eye .That is the only way you atheists can present a sound argument void of irrationality against the existence of a god or God

Wilgrea7:


I never claimed to demolish ALL your arguments. I only pointed out reasons why these specific ones don't work as proof of a god.



I also never claimed the uncaused first cause is a figment of our imagination. I also clarified that the uncaused first cause would not necessarily be classified as what people refer to as a god.

All these were stated in my posts.

I present you no defence as you have concluded on my position "as terrible arguments"

Now, since you hold a counter position, I want to learn from your wisdom. At least you must have your own iron clad reasons for your position which I assume would be "excellent arguments"

I am all ears to listen and learn from you sir

TenQ:

I present you no defence as you have concluded on my position "as terrible arguments"

Now, since you hold a counter position, I want to learn from your wisdom. At least you must have your own iron clad reasons for your position which I assume would be "excellent arguments"

I am all ears to listen and learn from you sir

It seems like you're trying to evade my point here. This isn't about what words were used to describe which arguments. I referred to the listed arguments as terrible in regard to proving a god, and listed my reasons for my conclusion.

You're more than welcome to disagree and discuss why you think they are valid arguments for god. We don't need to get sentimental over words

Wilgrea7:
1) ARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY

This is one of the most common arguments used by theists, and as a former theist, this was one of the arguments I liked to make reference to. But it is incredibly flawed in a number of ways. It goes a bit like this.

"look at everything around you.. the starts, planets, atoms, universe.. literally anything. It is incredibly complex. Too complex to not have been created" ... or "it is too complex to arise from nothing"... and the logic that follows is that there must be a god. A god must have created this.

Unfortunately, this logic doesn't explain complexity. It only shifts it one step higher. Let me explain.

A God, if it exists, is also a thing. this god is said to be even more complex, with holy books saying we can never understand this entity. Its ways are above our ways. Whether or not it has a form or shape, the very concept of what it is supposed to be, makes it undeniably complex.

If we need a reason to explain why the very complex universe exists, then we also need a reason to explain why an even more complex god would exist.

You cannot answer the question of complexity with more complexity. That'll only move the question upward. Why does a more complex god exist. Why can a more complex god exist?..

Correction!

The argument is on God therefore the target and destination is to reach God.

Therefore, when we reach God, we have arrived at our destination and target. Thus, you will be the one who is wrong in going past God and thus you are the one shifting the argument.

Of which God is not a thing and for you to say this means that you know God and if you knew God, then you would not be asking if He exists.

SO YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG HERE!

Wilgrea7:
2) ARGUMENT FROM ORIGIN (UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING) ...The universe came into existence 14 billion years ago. The universe cannot come into existence from nothing. Therefore, it must have been created. Therefore god exists. This argument is again flawed for a number of reasons.

1) There's no evidence to believe the universe came from nothing. ..

If you build a chair today, the chair, as it is defined, comes into existence today, sunday the 30th. However, you will agree with me that the materials for the chair have been in existence long before today. Just because the chair started existing today, and didn't exist yesterday, doesn't mean it was created from nothing. It only means it was created from "a different something"...

Wrong Again!

First, WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE ALREADY THAT NO THING IS CAPABLE OF BRINGING ITSELF INTO EXISTENCE, AS PROVEN BY YOUR CHAIR EXAMPLE BY YOUR WORDS " IF YOU BUILD A CHAIR TODAY".

You have automatically admitted and confessed that a chair can never ever build itself.

Secondly, our Proof of God shows that it was on and at a certain period of time that He Came and issued a command, commanding that the earth which is in the universe, built, exactly how the owner of a land goes to his land to command that his house be built.

Thus, haviing ownership of the house earth, proves that He must be presumed to be the owner of the land called universe.

Its as simple as that. No flaw, no error.

So again you are Wrong!

Wilgrea7:
2)
2) It pushes the problem upwards again. Let's assume the cause of the universe was a god. Where did that god come from?

Where God comes from is not the same as proving that God does not exist. It is even rather that you have admitted that He exists which is the issue in focus and not where He comes from or how He came to be, which is a separate issue. Hence why i would always say that you have changed post and gone past the target and destination.

SO, AGAIN, YOU HAVE NOT MADE A VALID OBJECTION AND THEISTS ARE VERY RIGHT TO RAISE THIS AND YOUR NUMBER 3 (FIRST CAUSE) IS JUST A RE-REPETITION OF THE FIRST 2.

Thus, you have no valid objection to the cases theist have made.

Wilgrea7:
I'll leave it at that for now on this subject.

PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying a god does not or cannot exist. As an agnostic, I'm more than open to the idea in the presence of sufficient proof.

However, the arguments often put forward, like the ones stated above, do nothing to support the existence of a god, as they could be used to justify other things in place of this "god"

I hope theists who use these sort of arguments can learn from them. I'll also be making reference to this thread whenever arguments like these are used in the future.

MaxInDHouse, Aemmyjah, TenQ, and other people I've forgotten to mention, please take note of these. Criticisms and opinions are of course always welcome.

Define “Universe”, are you saying this creator created existence?
That means this creator cannot be a supreme “being”, maybe a supreme “non-being” though.

Maynman:

Define “Universe”, are you saying this creator created existence?
That means this creator cannot be a supreme “being”, maybe a supreme “non-being” though.

Only makes sense to your level of IQ

Aemmyjah:



Only makes sense to your level of IQ

And a Virgin giving birth makes sense to yours.

Maynman:

And a Virgin giving birth makes sense to yours.

Cherry picking what to believe and what to argue
See the stupid question he came to ask me about the universe

Aemmyjah:


Cherry picking what to believe and what to argue
See the stupid question he came to ask me about the universe

I am not an hypocrite like you, who came to ask a ask a jewish worthless slave any question? When?

Maynman:

I am not an hypocrite like you, who came to ask a ask a jewish worthless slave any question? When?

So carry your own stupid concept and go away
Common child will not even mention that nonsense concept of the universe
If you're not ment, you'll understand the concept of Cause and Effect regarding the Universe and that the universe can not be an effect of itself but an Uncaused Cause and that Cause cannot be mere chance
As if you don't know what makes up the universe as to design and other
Go and give it to your fellow, negative thinking atheists

Besides, I wonder why you sent me such photos as they don't apply or object to anything I believe... If that's your own think to be posting mythology to those it does not concern

Atheists should go and promote their own religion or philosophy... People with the school of thought that there existence has no meaning or purpose... Why should I converse with such people?
Their existence is nothing

Aemmyjah:


So carry your own stupid concept and go away
Common child will not even mention that nonsense concept of the universe
If you're not ment, you'll understand the concept of Cause and Effect regarding the Universe and that the universe can not be an effect of itself but an Uncaused Cause and that Cause cannot be mere chance
As if you don't know what makes up the universe as to design and other
Go and give it to your fellow, negative thinking atheists

Besides, I wonder why you sent me such photos as they don't apply or object to anything I believe... If that's your own think to be posting mythology to those it does not concern

Atheists should go and promote their own religion or philosophy... People with the school of thought that there existence has no meaning or purpose... Why should I converse with such people?
Their existence is nothing

Cause and effect is the same thing, slave of yahweh.

Maynman:

Cause and effect is the same thing, slave of yahweh.

You're quoting from mythology or legends or whatever does not even interest or concern me...
Go find handwork

Aemmyjah:


You're quoting from mythology or legends or whatever does not even interest or concern me...
Go find handwork

And your iesus chrestus is what?

Go be a slave to yahweh

Maynman:

And your iesus chrestus is what?

Go be a slave to yahweh

This slave of Roman mythology keeps sharing nonsense that has nothing to do with me or my faith
Keep posting
People that claim to be intelligent as atheists can't come up with anything tangible about themselves but be pointing accusing fingers and posting nonsense

Aemmyjah:


This slave of Roman mythology keeps sharing nonsense that has nothing to do with me or my faith
Keep posting
People that claim to be intelligent as atheists can't come up with anything tangible about themselves but be pointing accusing fingers and posting nonsense

Yahweh Slave, hope you know it was Roman Catholic that they made state religion in Rome and not christianity

Maynman:

Yahweh Slave, hope you know it was Roman Catholic that they made state religion in Rome and not christianity

I do read your comments sometimes as when you draw attention of people here to what the Bible says against some of their religious doctrines
We all know how Christianity started
The one who started it foretold that counterfeit of it will form

Pure Christianity was and has never been a state religion
It has never been a tool for war and politics

You're just being black and white thinking you can mislead me but foolish history and deception... It's like a mad man trying to show off his clothes and jewelries, he just amuses others cos nothing he does is responsible

Keep sharing Roman myth n history
We know the truth
Continue convincing me about atheism
Awon most intelligent people

Aemmyjah:


I do read your comments sometimes as when you draw attention of people here to what the Bible says against some of their religious doctrines
We all know how Christianity started
The one who started it foretold that counterfeit of it will form

Pure Christianity was and has never been a state religion
It has never been a tool for war and politics

You're just being black and white thinking you can mislead me but foolish history and deception... It's like a mad man trying to show off his clothes and jewelries, he just amuses others cos nothing he does is responsible

Keep sharing Roman myth n history
We know the truth
Continue convincing me about atheism
Awon most intelligent people

Indoctrinated yahweh slave, madness is more prominent in you guys orgy organization 😂

Maynman:

Indoctrinated yahweh slave, madness is more prominent in you guys orgy organization 😂

He was quoting from Wikipedia all these while
Now, he went to find source from something else
I have all my facts on Wikipedia about the Christos
Liar, you think I'm a fool like you
Why did you not quote or caption from Wikipedia about Christos na?
Abi Christos no de Wiki?

Negative brained atheist
Peopl without meaning in life
And you've never given anyone on this forum any meaning about the life of an atheist than trash talking other religion
And you say you're intelligent
Sun god of Rome kor
Moon lord of Benin nii

You know what, I want to study as I'm in a project
Just keep mentioning me and posting until daybreak
Anyone who shows interest will read ok?
Why not share to LordReed and Jaephoenix?

Aemmyjah:


He was quoting from Wikipedia all these while
Now, he went to find source from something else
I have all my facts on Wikipedia about the Christos
Liar, you think I'm a fool like you
Why did you not quote or caption from Wikipedia about Christos na?
Abi Christos no de Wiki?

Negative brained atheist
Peopl without meaning in life
And you've never given anyone on this forum any meaning about the life of an atheist than trash talking other religion
And you say you're intelligent
Sun god of Rome kor
Moon lord of Benin nii

You know what, I want to study as I'm in a project
Just keep mentioning me and posting until daybreak
Anyone who shows interest will read ok?
Why not share to LordReed and Jaephoenix?

Doomed yahweh worshipper

Maynman:

Doomed yahweh worshipper

Why do you stop quoting wiki?
Jesus that you guys say is a Roman mythology is the same one you're dropping as to whether he was regarded as chrestus or Christos
Keep reading lies and looking for grapes

I know my Jesus as Christ and Messiah
And nothing you can quote can make you change it
Is Jesus tormenting you?
Why not educate us by telling us that Muhammed that lived after or Confucius that lived before Jesus was also some Asain or Arabic myth?

Deep jealousy and hate to find fabricated evidence that someone never existed
You should share this to your blind atheists and not me
Goodnight

Aemmyjah:


Why do you stop quoting wiki?
Jesus that you guys say is a Roman mythology is the same one you're dropping as to whether he was regarded as chrestus or Christos
Keep reading lies and looking for grapes

I know my Jesus as Christ and Messiah
And nothing you can quote can make you change it
Is Jesus tormenting you?
Why not educate us by telling us that Muhammed that lived after or Confucius that lived before Jesus was also some Asain or Arabic myth?

Deep jealousy and hate to find fabricated evidence that someone never existed
You should share this to your blind atheists and not me
Goodnight

Worthless yahweh slave and a dog to his elders in watchtower.

Goodnight Fallen Watcher.

paxonel:
You atheists, you will just jump into arguments without fully prepared.
Is that not the beginning of failure?
Google defines the law of thought as everything have it's own identity. Which is invariably the same thing is if one does not know the identity of a thing you can't say anything categorically about it
letting it go implies you never put that into consideration before you jump into the argument,thereby making your arguments very terrible as i pointed earlier

Again. Your definition and google's definition seem marginally different. But like I said earlier, definitions of the law of identity are not the cruz of our discussion, so I'll let it go.

what ground do you now fictionalize a religious holy book like Harry potter?

I brought up the story of harry potter to prove the point you've been evading. Which is that something isn't automatically true simply because it is written down in a book.

Then Socrate and Aristole or any ancient or Non contemporary character should be Harry potter to you now

That's not how this works. I'm not saying everything that has been written down is false. I'm only saying writing something down isn't proof of its truth.

have you read any of the religious books to see for yourself if the proof is there?
The answer is No!
Then why are you arguing?

You don't get to ask me a question and then answer for me. A lot of agnostics and atheists have read at least 1 religious book. I've read more. Besides, if you're claiming the proof is in the book, then you should be able to show it.

What you're doing is analogous to telling someone there's an invisible dragon in a room, without showing any evidence for it other than asking the person to "look".

If you try to argue at this your ignorant state of these holy books, then you are simply breaking the law of identity since you don't know the identity of these books
and i said it does not apply in This case
then you are writing out of context of books containing socrate's history because you do not know the identity of socrate, perhaps you had deliberately refused to read the books first before writing. And with that, you have put up a terrible argument
this is what atheists are doing that will never make their arguments true.

On the other hand, if you claim that this also apply to religious holy books then you must read atleast one holy book first. Then from what yiou have read, you can now mention that a character in the said holy book have one eye or something ,just like the illustration you wrote that Socrates have one eye .That is the only way you atheists can present a sound argument void of irrationality against the existence of a god or God

I'm sorry... what??

Your argument seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong) that we need to read the holy books first to know if they have proof of this "God". How exactly is a person supposed to know if the statement he/she is reading is true?

Let's take the socrates example. If someone who had never heard of anyone called socrates, and then read a book that claimed he had one eye, how exactly would said person be able to affirm or deny the claim?

Since when did claims equate to proof?

Wilgrea7:
..
I'm sorry... what??

Your argument seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong) that we need to read the holy books first to know if they have proof of this "God". How exactly is a person supposed to know if the statement he/she is reading is true?

Let's take the socrates example. If someone who had never heard of anyone called socrates, and then read a book that claimed he had one eye, how exactly would said person be able to affirm or deny the claim?

Since when did claims equate to proof?

You have not responded to my answer, is it because you cannot find any reasonably counter?

vdestro:


Correction!

The argument is on God therefore the target and destination is to reach God.

Therefore, when we reach God, we have arrived at our destination and target. Thus, you will be the one who is wrong in going past God and thus you are the one shifting the argument....

Dtruthspeaker:


You have not responded to my answer, is it because you cannot find any reasonably counter?

I was kind of thinking the vdestro person sounded a lot like you.

I didn't respond to it because it didn't make any sense.

I'm talking about how certain arguments for the existence of a god fail, and your best response is that this god whose very existence is being debated is the destination.

There's no logical line between the two.