₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
Yes

LordReed:
Ubenedictus, 9inches they are calling you. LMFAO!

LordReed:
3. He doesn't say this was definitely how the universe came about but that this could have been a mechanism to bring it about. Besides these are occurring at quantum levels which do not translate to the same effect at the macro level.

HellVictorinho:
Who is he?

HellVictorinho:
Time can't be formed.

joseph1013:
But I don't have the evidence of Christianity. You merely said Christianity passes the three tests you brought up. You have not shown us how it does and why it is evidence. Can you provide the evidence?

Else...let's just call it a day. I have not gained anything from this interaction.

9inches:
1. It has been subjected to more than those tests over the centuries. And the results are there to be seen. Infact, it's even christians that ask most of the hard-hitting and difficult questions.
I won't conclude without saying, "why not be the scholar and test it out yourself?"

2. Yes, I can say that I have knowledge of the other world religions. Belief systems can be grouped and understood in a nutshell. For example, if the Abrahamic religion is false, Judaism, christianity and Islam will fall in one fell swoop and your search for the truth focuses on the other religions. But if the Abrahamic religion is true, then your search narrows down to only the Abrahamic religions.

joseph1013:

There is something called 'burden of proof'. He who makes a claim is obligated to prove the assertion.

budaatum:
He accuses atheist of nothing from nothing belief. Did this thread not start with that idea being debunked? Are you in fact, not the one claiming some creator came from nothing preceeding it!? Is the argument not that something always precedes something?

budaatum:
I cite buda. Something had to exist to go bang (assuming there was a bang). It must have been a big thing that existed, hence big bang. And even if there were no bang and gods did it. They'd have had to have existed in order to create what didn't exist. And something must have existed to create the gods themselves, and something must have existed to create whatever created whatever created the gods, and something must have existed to create whatever created whatever created whatever created the gods, and something must have existed........ad infinitum.

9inches:
In short, when was the beginning of "something"?

budaatum:
Are you in fact, not the one claiming some creator came from nothing preceeding it!?

budaatum:
The truth does not have to be good or bad. The truth is simply validity, as in, it corresponds to fact.

budaatum:
Meanwhile, if there truly was an "absolute truth", and it was good....

budaatum:
As to research, try the first chapter of Brief History, Truth and [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality_%28philosophy%29?wprov=sfla1]wiki[/url].

budaatum:
Meanwhile, if there truly was an "absolute truth", and it was good, what makes you think you would be the one to have it to spread?

9inches:
I wonder what you think absolute truth is. Does truth have to be good or bad?

budaatum:
Yes 9inches. When people say they believe, that is just it - they simply believe, and without really thinking about or understanding or considering any alternative to what they believe.

And yes, I must understand before I believe. Believing what one does not understand implies childhoodness, which one is not anymore, and stupidity, in an adult - neither of which buda is.

LordReed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UemhCsaeGgc

He doesn't say they are uncaused but you can infer it.

joseph1013:
I have a feeling I am wasting my time.

- You made a claim.
- You say the claim can be tested via three tests (never mind that there is no universal corroboration of it, but for the sake of indulging you I have allowed it to stand).
- I ask that you tell me how your claim passes the three tests.
- You start ad hominems.

What kind of conversation do you think this is?

joseph1013:
Do you have evidence for such a being?

joseph1013:
Hahaha...see what I am saying. Instead of bringing about coherent arguments...you resort to ad hominems.

My questions to you are simple and I have consistently asked them only for you to keep drumming fallacies. Not going to work.

I will repeat: When I ask of proof, I'm referring to something tangible. Something like claims of the Bible being inspired by God. Something like a believer being a better human than anyone on earth due to the Holy Spirit indwelling. Something like miraculous claims by Christians that have been verified to be true.

Can you provide these tangible proofs of your faith? Take any religious beliefs and your rhetoric will fit like a glove.

9inches:
You can use the following three tests to ascertain what the truth really is:

1. Correspondence theory
2. Coherence theory
3. Explanatory power

Only the original Christian faith passes these three tests with flying colors.

joseph1013:
Which of the Gods? And how do you know?

budaatum:
For anyone willing to upgrade their beliefs to a bit more modern ones, here is a free pdf of Stephen Hawkings A Brief History of Time to download.

The devil is the lord of ignorance!

budaatum:
And as a belief, you might see benefit, but for the advancement of knowledge and the betterment of an ever increasing world? All I see is poverty, and exploitation and squalor in such beliefs. You experience this in your argument with your fellow believers on homosexuality. They too believe as assuredly as you believe that they are right.

Muttley, Is it not righteous to understand than obediently believe?

HellVictorinho:
"The Big Bang" is just a banging theory but Religion is a compilation of theoretical disasters

budaatum:
Can someone please post some links where "absolute truth" has been flogged please. Though to be honest with you, 9inches, you should go and do some research.

Meanwhile, if there truly was an "absolute truth", and it was good, what makes you think you would be the one to have it to spread?

Is it because you believe more than others?

LordReed:
Its uncaused.

budaatum:
And that's ok. For you. But unless you plan on having brains washed with what you believe you must understand that it may not be so for everyone else, and perhaps wonder, why?

LordReed:
They come into existence without an apparent cause even in the deadest of space vacuums.

LordReed:
1. Depends on what you mean by out of itself. Isotopes of elements are virtually created from theirself.

2. The source of everything cannot be the source of itself so its not the source of everything.

joseph1013:
Who created this law?

LordReed:
What is the cause of virtual particles?

LordReed:
LMFAO! Na wa.

budaatum:
This is a difficult question! My first instinct is to say, Yes, "anything that has a beginning cannot create itself". A creator must create anything that has been created.

I'm just glad you never said "everything that exists must be created".


No. The creator of anything with a beginning must also have a beginning! How else could it possibly come into existence if it did not at one point in time come in to existence?

And don't give me "it was always in existence", unless you precede it with "I believe"?

joseph1013:
Saying the original Christian faith passes these three tests with flying colors by offering rhetoric does not cut it.

joseph1013:
When I ask of proof, I'm referring to something tangible. Something like claims of the Bible being inspired by God. Something like a believer being a better human than anyone on earth due to the Holy Spirit indwelling. Something like miraculous claims by Christians that have been verified to be true.

joseph1013:
This comment is difficult to read, as my comments and yours have been lumped together

HellVictorinho:
You are creationist,period.
And everything you do is in a bid to validate that.

LordReed:
The word create is kind of a cheat. It implies an act of purpose. Nevertheless we've observed things that come into existence without cause, virtual particles.

Your 2nd statement already fails for humans, rephrase?

LordReed:
The word create is kind of a cheat. It implies an act of purpose. Nevertheless we've observed things that come into existence without cause, virtual particles.

Your 2nd statement already fails for humans, rephrase?