₦airaland Forum

CatfishBilly:
Idiot, is it a must to follow anybody on Nairaland.
Fuckkking cretin.

I know I struck a nerve quite well!!!

But, stick to spacetacular. I know she can deal with you quite well.

CatfishBilly:
Prayer has a confounding effect, no one can say with any measure of certainty if it was the prayer that was effective or the drug.
So the best way is to evaluate them in isolation to remove any confounding effect. That was done, we both know how prayers performed.

Even if it is done, you will still come up with another gibberish, like "Oh, these theists are quite stupid! It is not a miracle, it just happened by chance!!

you see that?

branhampaul:
WTF!!. is this one sick.?

Wow, now you just discovered how dumb you sounded?? And was like, WTF!!

spacetacular:
But you said he is YOUR FRIEND and somehow you are both also on the same whatsapp and telegram group and he is a "colleague" yet you do not FOLLOW HIM?

catfishbilly!

You are beginning to catch him.

Just follow the guy slowly, word for word and carefully. You will end up catching completely.

spacetacular:
You made a lot of unfounded assumptions here but they are yours to opine.

I have not touched religion or even hinted on ridiculing anyone here but you seem to think I hold that view even after I corrected someone who said they are idiotic and senseless and I said they simply lacked hope.

How did I ridicule?

The fact is that some of that are angry with religion! Not that, if there is God or not.

I will write a good post on that, after my debate with HopefuLandlord.

branhampaul:
an atheist can't be dumbed becux they think for themselves.

LMAO!

ALL ATHEISTS THINK FOR THEMSELVES, THEREFORE THEY ARE ALL INTELLIGENT!!!

Wow, can someone give this guy some beer?!

So, after answering my questions, in the previous reply, then i expect you boldly answer this too.

Seeing that, you aren't arguing against the existence of GOD, Why do you disbelieve the existence of GOD?

hopefulLandlord:
please, read my posts properly cuz it appears you didn't

I read it carefully and I reread it again and still got the same meaning. Would you mind using a simpler approach, maybe it is difficult for me?

I said "mention them", even Lawrence Krauss that used the word "Nothing" did not mean "Literally nothing"

so my question still stands, mention those atheists that claim nothing and let's see what they mean by

As for your question, you answered it yourself, Lawrence Krauss. WHY? Because the word "NOTHING" simply means "NOT SINGLE THING".

Actually, this makes no sense in the real world. I wouldn't give you link, because any link I would ever give is already at your disposal if you make a good use of Google.

However, I am inclined to believe, from what I have seen in my arguments with atheists over the years, that most atheists wouldn't mind changing "A COMMON AND GLOBAL MEANING" of a word to back themselves up. And that affirms the reason why most atheists give "PHONY" different meanings to, for example, the word "ATHEISM".

I can't imagine you denying the true meaning of "NOTHING" in a subtle way, by saying that atheists like Lawrence Krauss who use the word "NOTHING" does not "literally mean "Nothing".

THEN A GOOD QUESTION YOU MUST ATTEND TO IS(If you avoid it, I would call you back to it):
If the likes of Lawrence Krauss, who use the word "NOTHING" does not literally meaning "nothing", then what else does the word "NOTHING" mean?

And the last time I checked "NOTHING" in a dictionary, this was what i saw, and anything that doesn't agree with it, must be a thing!

noth·ing
ˈnəTHiNG/
pronoun
pronoun: nothing; plural noun: nothings

1.
not anything; no single thing.
"I said nothing"
synonyms: not a thing, not anything, nil, zero,

your defining something and me not arguing against it doesn't mean I'm agreeing with you

I didn't say "YOU AGREED", that's why I asked a question. If I said that, you can point it out.

Take note, I didn't define God. I simply laid out an attribute of God on which we can argue about his reality

I asking that question based on what you said initially, and I quote below:

Ambassagod, I'm not here to argue against first cause, I've not met any atheist that claims "There is no first cause", please if you do, kindly mention them

I'm very agnostic to the "First Cause" argument and so do all atheists I've met

if your definition of "God" is "first cause", then I'm open to its existence cuz what you've given so far is an untestable, unverifiable and undisputable claim

is that why we are here though?

Which simply means you agree that with the reality of a first cause. If no, then what?

please stop this attempt at defining who I am, I've been through this many times, like I said I'm agnostic to the first cause, sorry if that's not what you think I am, I can't sit here and tell you there's no first cause; its senseless to do that; so what is this "first cause"? isn't this going circular? first cause=God, God=first cause

Okay, I am not defining who you are. Okay, why then do you disagree in the existence of God, since God as the first cause is beyond religion? A

I just see no reason to argue against "first cause"

There is a reason because believing in the reality of the "UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE", simply means you believe in God. Then, at this junction, agnosticism and atheism doesn't stand here.

are you here to argue for first cause? is that what we are doing here?

I hope I'm clear

Yeah, simply because that's what God as a creator simply means. And not those imaginary sky daddies, atheists paint up in arguments.

So, at this junction I debunk that God is not an imaginary sky daddy, but an uncaused first cause.

ambassagod:
Actually, according to the first bolded, there are many atheist who claim that! Quite many of them believe that everything came from "NOTHING" and in reality "NOTHING" is not a thing in any form or manner. So, you making that claim, is kind of "FALSE" and more of "ESCAPE ROUTE" to me. Yeah, that's my personal opinion. Because, actually many atheists, we can start from NL, believe everything to just pop out from NOTHING. Which is extremely ridiculous.


Your attention is needed in the second bolded, because it is simply "Tricky" to me. So what do you mean by being agnostic to "FIRST CAUSE" because in the first bolded statement, since you agreed that you aren't against the "EXISTENCE OF THE FIRST CAUSE"?

Okay, seeing GOD as a "SELF ETERNAL FIRST CAUSE" according to your point simply means you believe in God. Am I right?

Then if so, why are you an atheist, since Atheism is a disbelief in God/gods(whether as a first cause or a religious God)??

Your response is needed here!

ambassagod:
NOTE: The simple phrase I gave about God does not actually SUM UP "GOD" in it's entirety as a concept. But, simply an attribute of God that can be used to extend to other attributes in support of of my points

cc HopefulLandlord

hopefulLandlord:
Ambassagod, I would like to know what you mean by "Self-Eternal"

and I'm also very curious, what made your definition of "God" change to drastically from the one you gave in the previous thread to this watered down version?


below was the definition you gave in the previous thread



just putting this out there for the readers

There is no definition of GOD, take note. What we have are "ATTRIBUTES" that sum up the concept "God". That's why I made a note about this in his first page.

I wonder what you are trying to achieve. That is a different thread. I am simply debating on a different approach. So you are to follow my points here.

hopefulLandlord:
Ambassagod, I would like to know what you mean by "Self-Eternal"

and I'm also very curious, what made your definition of "God" change to drastically from the one you gave in the previous thread to this watered down version?

SELF-ETERNAL there, simply means "UNCAUSED".

As for the last statement, the previous argument is over. This is a new one, so you are to follow my points and not presumption. Besides, I am still a christian with a greater approach of understanding "God" than before.

Follow my points.

hopefulLandlord:
Ambassagod, I'm not here to argue against first cause, I've not met any atheist that claims "There is no first cause", please if you do, kindly mention them

I'm very agnostic to the "First Cause" argument and so do all atheists I've met.

if your definition of "God" is "first cause", then I'm open to its existence cuz what you've given so far is an untestable, unverifiable and undisputable claim

is that why we are here though?

Actually, according to the first bolded, there are many atheist who claim that! Quite many of them believe that everything came from "NOTHING" and in reality "NOTHING" is not a thing in any form or manner. So, you making that claim, is kind of "FALSE" and more of "ESCAPE ROUTE" to me. Yeah, that's my personal opinion. Because, actually many atheists, we can start from NL, believe everything to just pop out from NOTHING. Which is extremely ridiculous.


Your attention is needed in the second bolded, because it is simply "Tricky" to me. So what do you mean by being agnostic to "FIRST CAUSE" because in the first bolded statement, since you agreed that you aren't against the "EXISTENCE OF THE FIRST CAUSE"?

Okay, seeing GOD as a "SELF ETERNAL FIRST CAUSE" according to your point simply means you believe in God. Am I right?

Then if so, why are you an atheist, since Atheism is a disbelief in God/gods(whether as a first cause or a religious God)??

spacetacular:
I just did a quick sweep of the thread in question where you said it went viral and your "colleagues " (implying fellow doctors) confirmed your stories.

I am sorry but you do realise that you exaggerated a tad bit.

All I saw were fellow atheists and not fellow colleagues (doctors) who confirmed your theory. Plus I also saw others who also said prayers did work. What would you make of their claims?

Would you ask for proof of their claims since you didn't offer any of yours?

Would you call their claims trash since it did not agree with your stories?

GOOD QUESTIONS!!

HopefulLandlord I am waiting!

OtemAtum:
It makes sense. This is what all developed countries did that enlarged their brains. This is what Africans fear to do that made their brains undeveloped.

It isn't as if anybody will win a GOD-ARGUMENT, but it helps the brain develop a very strong philosophical background which will eventually result into scientific possibilities.

Thank you Socrates, Plato, Hypatia and co. Nigerian Luwabi and Bantoo Bongo are not left out too.

I agree with you, except your view of "Africans". But, anyway this thread is not for that. Thanks for visiting. But, i plead with you not to come back till the debate is over. Please, i beg.

Are you still there?

Or are you lost?

Ranchhoddas:
No need for long thing.

Create a thread and start.

DONE!

https://www.nairaland.com/3930181/second-debate-strictly-between-hopefullandlord#58579996

Chuukwudi:
There is only one true God. Only 3 religions on earth proclaim it: Christianity, Islam and Judaism. He is the Creator of the whole universe.

Mine is not a religion. It's a recognition and understanding of the Truth which both Christians, Muslims etc can embrace in order to find their way back to paradise.

PLease hopefullandlord, i beg you not to reply this guy. Please let's stay with this debate.

hopefulLandlord:
I disagree that one cannot prove the existence of your god with physical evidence

it can be done, the god you believed in for Instance sent fire from "heaven" when Elijah prayed

we can put such to the test in a controlled environment and that would be a physical proof

one doesn't need your god to show physically


let me also add that you claim your god is Omniscient, Omnipotent, omnipresent And benevolent

if these claims were true, one can infer from the above and see that a claim won't be that hard

1 omnipresent god is everywhere and with me right now

2 omniscient god knows what to do to convince me

3 omnipotent god can do that thing to convince me

4 a benevolent god would want to convince me

I hope I've not strayed

You have gone astray a little, but we can easily figure it out as we follow each other logically and not on assumption of each other's belief.


I am being very logical here, you are already putting forth statements on the basis of presumption of what my belief might be, and that's not logical. This is not a christian argument. I AM NOT HERE TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A RELIGIOUS GOD. Like my friend kingebukablog has always pointed out here on NL(anyone interested can check his posts out), I hold this view for a long time now though, that GOD'S EXISTENCE IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF RELIGION AND RELIGION IS SIMPLY A MEANS MAN WOULD RELATE TO GOD.


Besides, there are many things i disagree with this post. But pointing them without knowing if you agree with he meaning of the concept "God" as i proposed, would simply lead us no where.

So, do you agree with my simple proposition of the concept?

Ever8054:
since I discovered that atheist are a waste of space and oxygen with brain they don't use I stop debating with them...
..atheist that don't even understand there own point you think would understand your point...?..never..

Lol

Have a nice day and make sure you follow the argument, lol

Hopefullandlord, i think we have not actually started. We have not established a common ground, around the word "God". But, you have already referred me to "god". Which is out of the argument for now.

Let's follow each other's points, and not presuming, unless you have to point that out in your comment, like "I presume".

I must not necessary point out that my religion, because for me, the concept "GOD" is beyond religion. And religion has "ZERO INFLUENCE" over what he concept of God means as regards to this topic.

So, instead of being fast enough to throw out a question to me, in name of "my god", let's first of all have a common ground on what "God" as a concept in this argument in particular mean.

So, being a proposer, I propose that "GOD" as regards to our argument simply means SELF ETERNAL FIRST CAUSE.

You agree?

Chuukwudi:
Through spiritual awakening. Unfortunately, man has developed his intellect over the years living his spiritual intuition lagging behind.

Presently just two connections are left for the common man to connect with his spirit.

1. Arts (music, paintings, etc)
2. Obituaries.

Okay, bye

hopefulLandlord:
if its beyond intellect, how then did you conclude that your God exists?

Please, ignore the guy. Please!

hopefulLandlord:
so what are the objective evidences for the existence of your god?

First of all, which "god" are you referring to me?

Chuukwudi:
Debating the existence of the spiritual by means of the intellect is futile. Not to talk of the existence of the Divine Spiritual Unsubstantiate (God).


The Intellect is gross material and highly limited under the confines of time and space.

Okay bye, have a nice day!

Don't reply please.

So, since hopefulLandlord has agreed, we gotta start

Okay, as regards the title: "THE REALITY OF GOD". I would like to point out a honest remark; "NO ONE CAN PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD OR DISPROVE WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE". Over the years, no atheist has ever come up to say "I SAW WITH MY 2 EYES THAT THERE IS NO GOD", or a theist say "I SAW WITH MY 2 EYES THAT THERE IS GOD".

There is no such thing like that. Rather, those conclusions are drawn based on the REALITY/LOGICALITY of the points presented by these two parties.

So, this argument will be based on points around each party, pushing for the logicality of one over the other and vice versa.

hopefulLandlord:
okay, let's begin

Okay, thank you.

Please, every other person should cease from commenting

Chuukwudi:
I think this is foolish.

WHY?