₦airaland Forum

akintom:
You didn't answer my question.

How did you KNOW that the universe/life was created/caused?

because all available scientific evidence shows that the universe (time space matter) began to exist after the Big Bang as singularity before expansion began (hawkings, vilenkins et al ) and applying the cosmological argument " everything that begins to exist has a cause " it means the universe would need a cause , now answer mine

DeSepiero:
I hope you know how to use a dictionary.

stop dodging, is Zero a word, yes or no?

ednut1:
If adam and eve were the first humans. How come Asians red indian white black chinese came to be. Bearing in mind that since my village started no man der has giving birth to an Asian or white .oya come explain bros

non sequitor fallacy, try again !

AnonyNymous:
No, I stopped you when you said scientists describe nature differently because that is WRONG, once a LAW is made in science then all scientists accept it to be correct. If you ask anyone to state Newton's laws they will say the exact same thing. So I'm not diverting anything, rather, I'm correcting something you said which was wrong.

another strawman, nobody mentioned laws here, I was talking about how scientists will describe Nature differently when asked the question "Describe nature ?" but none of them would ask the other " which nature? " same way it will be illogical for a theist to ask another theist "which God ?" if u believe that two scientists will have same description then there is something wrong with your thinking

As for the gods, you cannot say that just because one characteristic is common to them (that they supposedly created the universe), then they are same person. And just choose to ignore their descriptions and personalities.

adding their description isn't relevant here, it will be a red herring fallacy, what's important is that they all attribute the universe to have been created by a supernatural being

Lastly, just because I said something is wrong diees not mean I know the answer. I believe its more honourable to say 'I don't know' than to fill the void with something incorrect. I don't know who the president of Malaysia is but that doesn't mean its Michael Jackson.

false anology, u claim not to know what causes the universe but u know it cannot be a supernatural being called God? lol, u my dear are an illogical hypocrite

akintom:
OK.

*how did you know that the universe/life was created?

created in this sense is synonymous with caused, now do u believe that the universe is eternal or it began to exist?

AnonyNymous:
What are you saying? The only thing they agree on is that God is the creator and that's just because they have no other answer. But based on the descriptions of them in their books/belief systems, they are NOT the same person. How can the same person say to turn the other cheek when slapped and at the same time ask you to burn all infidels, does that make any sense to you?

it's like you have a poor reading comprehension, I said different religions have different names, description and personalities attached which isn't necessary , u are about committing a Red herring fallacy by trying to divert the discussion. what's important is the fact that they attributes the creator of the universe to a particular category of being in English called God,

now u said they have no other answers, now if I may ask you, how would u explain the origin of the universe?

AnonyNymous:
No. . .at most the wording is different in the example you gave. However, Jesus Christ that was described in Christianity is a Pacifist to the point of stupidity. Allah is a warmonger. Yahweh is very very petty and a warmonger as well, though not as bloodthirsty as Allah. They are all completely different and do not seem even in the slightest to be pointing towards the description of the same person.

strawman argument , God is simply the creator/cause of the universe and origin of life, God is a different category of being, different religions just give different names, description and personalities to God, but they all believe that God by definition is the source of the universe , creator of all things and source of life. Eledumare, chukwu Abiama, Yahweh, Allah, Brahman all Same God, get it? now do u believe that God doesn't exist?

DeSepiero:
Do you not know that the English dictionary defines zero as naught (nothing) ?

is Zero a word? yes or no? pls don't write epistle, just answer me

AnonyNymous:
Hollllllddddd up

If the two scientists you asked don't describe nature the same way, then that means they are quack. They forged their certificates like our senators. All properly educated educated scientists learn the same things about nature and describe nature the exact same way. At most, differences only occur for the unknown, when they form hypotheses if what they think is actually going on. But, religion doesn't say its a hypithese, each religion claims to be absolutely 100% sure that they're right.

think bro, how would you expect two people to describe something the same way? even dictionaries don't define words the same way, let's use Atheism for e.g some dic say Atheism is denial of existence of God, some say it's the belief that God doesn't exist another might say it's a lack of belief in God, so I guess u have been debunked

prove that religion claims to be 100% , by the way u are aware that theism is the BELIEF in the existence of God or gods right?

akintom:
Hmmmm... Let's start this way - you said God exist, so, what's God?

the creator of the universe and origin of life

ScepticalPyrrho:
You are yet to establish if God exists in the first place, but you are asking atheists to choose which characteristics best describes god.

Avoid starting your question with "Is god...?".

We have to agree that God exists before you ask about his qualities. God being "nothing" or "something" is a big loop.

Either options would mean to assert that "God is..."

I don't believe that God exists.

You're backing the wrong tree. Go and have a rethink.

do you believe ideas exists?

DeSepiero:
This is similar to asking "Is Zero something or nothing?".

and yes zero is something, it's a word and words are something not nothing get it?

akintom:
Just how you're gonna do that, is what am curious about.

can we debate? let's go
God exists!

adepeter26:
I talk am. This thread scatter. Blogthug, you ended up proofing nothing

how can I prove it when they all avoided my question ?

ScepticalPyrrho:
As an open-minded atheist, I took the time to read through all the posts from page(0) to page (5), in a sincere quest to see if the op has came up with a proof for the existence of a god....

Blogthug,

Your "nothing" "something" mumbo jumbo is just another shallow argument.

Keep an open mind, think of a better argument then quote me.

just because u lack the intellectual capacity to understand it doesn't mean it's mumbo jumbo, by the way, do u have any argument to back up your atheism position?

ScepticalPyrrho:
As an open-minded atheist, I took the time to read through all the posts from page(0) to page (5), in a sincere quest to see if the op has came up with a proof for the existence of a god....

Blogthug,

Your "nothing" "something" mumbo jumbo is just another shallow argument.

Keep an open mind, think of a better argument then quote me.

do u have any argument to back up your atheism position?

mrmrmister:
They aren't dodging your questions.

Your questions are just invalid.

You want to make atheists believe in the existence of god and you tell them to disprove his existence?

Really?

if u don't know that negatives can be proven then u are arguing from ignorance

mrmrmister:
You've been running in circles bro.

You have no intentions to make people believe in god's existence.

Page 5 and still counting...

if u are not biased you would have noticed them dodge my questions and disappear , now can we have a discussion?

Jackofall:
Ad hominem, that's the best you can offer when you have no Point again. Hahahaha

statement of facts are not Adhominem, one cannot explain Maths to a fish, and I'm not attacking you, I made an anology based on your faulty reasoning

mrmrmister:
SMH for this thread.

I heard you guys have logical atheists here, where are they na?

hahn:
NO. Nature has one definition

God has 4000+ descriptions. Different issue entirely

fantastic strawman, I said described not defined, where is your glasses grandpa?

Jackofall:
It cannot be proven isn't equal to invalidity.

Yet another strawman.

When you have a better argument. Let us know.

Bye.

the claim "it cannot be proven" is false and false statements are not logically sound hence not valid hence invalid , if u can't get this by now I can't help u, it will be like explaining maths to a fish

Jackofall:
How did you establish that it cannot be proven oo

Pls let's see where you logically established that "a negative cannot be proven" cannot be proven.

someone made a claim " God doesn't exist "

and I say Prove it!

and he goes " negative claim cannot be proven "

by logic the claim " negative claim cannot be proven " is itself a Negative claim, so even if it were true, it cannot be proven to be true, hope u get it now?

Jackofall:
Who established that it cannot be proven.
Yet another leading question.
Pls be honest with yourself.

seems u have some bit of faulty logic in there, let's get busy
Can u think of something that doesn't exist?

Jackofall:
Who established that it cannot be proven.

Yet another leading question.

Pls be honest with yourself.

good, the claimant established it cannot be proven , so the argument ends there except the claim is recalled

Jackofall:
Fallacious.

It cannot be proven does not mean it is invalid. Please stop embarrassing yourself here.

if u were smart u would have figured that an Invalid statement cannot be Valid or logically sound, hence it's a fallacy

Jackofall:
Fallacious.

It cannot be proven does not mean it is invalid. Please stop embarrassing yourself here.

it is, of what purpose is proving something that CANNOT be proven?

where did all the Atheists go?

donnffd:
google and come back, I don't have to spoon feed u, u are not paying me

(i believe this was the exact reply you told someone after he asked you about a similar question, what goes around, comes around).

I know what it means but I doubt u do hence my question

Jackofall:
If it cannot be proven, so what?

means it's invalid, a false claim so should be rejected

CeoMYN:
I don't Whatsapp, maybe when you open one on fb.

u can follow me on twitter as well @tweetest_boi let me know when u do, coz I get tons of followers

hopefulLandlord:
so OP is a deist, here to argue for a deistic version of god

he's violating my rule 2 which I gave in page 0 of this thread

I gave my definition of a God for clarity, (the cause of universe and origin of life) keep up bro