₦airaland Forum

jonbellion:
Mr man first off Do you believe all things were created according to thier "kind" Lol

Red herring fallacy, try again

p 1. All codes of known origin is a product of intelligence (empirical observation)
p 2. The DNA is a code
p3 .therefore the DNA is a product of intelligence

Deductive logical inference

for those that would think all codes of known origin are produced by only humans :
http://www.livescience.com/3812-dancing-bees-speak-code.html

please avoid Strawmaning my Argument as u attempt to refute p1 and 2 , if u can't u should concede to the argument and prolly become and Atheist that believes in ID if that's even possible lol, good luck Atheist

CatfishBilly:
I have a DNA test result proving that she's my mother. It can be replicated in every lab in the world and it'll still show the same result.
Now, where's your God proof?

Your DNA test has not been proven to NOT be a figment of your imagination either lol

UyiIredia:
If the OP is a deist I apologise on behalf of deists everywhere.

not only that, I'm the creator of Nigerian union of deists whatsapp group, add 07034362071 to join

4kings:
Ranchhoddas had the proper word for you.
Bye!

he is baby atheist just like u, sure both of you became atheist via fallacious memes

onetrack:
No, it's not truly solipsism but your argument is going to end up there.

only way u can prove your mums existence isn't a figment of your imagination is if u can log into her consciousness , until then, u can only believe your mum exists and can't claim to know she does

if you are an atheist that means you don't believe that the universe has intent or purpose , and if that's the case it means to you life began as a result of unguided mindless chemical molecules and if it all boils down to that, why should murder under Atheism be anything more than chemicals reacting to chemicals ?

onetrack:
Lol. This is a garden variety argument from ignorance, i.e., we don't know where we came from and we cannot comprehend God, therefore he must exist.

Straight to the rubbish bin.

no, u don't know where u came from because u are an atheist yet u think it can't be God, that's ur fallacy from ignorance , and u don't believe the universe has intent, but Theists do because the universe began to exist therefore must have had a cause and call the cause God, get it star dust?

felixomor:
So far.

Nobody has been able to refute the OP one bit.
Only insults here and there.

Baby atheists, everywhere.......

it's only to demand for evidence for God that they know, they can't even prove their mums existence after she suffered and carried them for 9 months, they can't claim to know their mums exists but only believe she does since it doesn't require evidence , bunch of baby atheists smh

onetrack:
Exactly. It is useless debating with anyone who appeals to solipsism because I could then use it to doubt the existence of the very person who is appealing to this, along with whatever he or she claims actually does exist (like some god).

again this isn't solipsism, can u or can u not prove your mums existence isn't a figment of your imagination

4kings:
nice one onetrack

His question stems from solipsism(i wonder why he is addressing it to atheists only)
So as a solipsist, the experience of child birth could be taken as projections from the subconscious.

The solipsism philosophy by Descartes is irrelevant to me, if i can't get to the "supposed full consciousness".

this isn't solipsism sorry

onetrack:
Even though my senses are flawed and limited, they remain the best source of evidence I have that something exists. Logic is the second best source of evidence.

I have seen, heard, and touched my mother, and logic tells me she must exist because I have only seen humans originate in mothers' wombs.

None of these apply to any deity.

your seeing an touching your mother has not been proven to not be a figment of your imagination either lol

Ranchhoddas:
Ah. This one na Olodo. No need to dissipate mental energy.

Adhominem fallacy? how atheist of you

Which God Exists?”


I get this question a lot in discussions on the internet. Atheists seem to think it is a devastating question.  It usually comes with a list, asking why, if you believe in God, you don’t also believe in Zeus, Thor, Athena, Horus, etc.  The “Which God exists?” question is obviously closely related to the sophomoric Village Atheist trope “I just believe in one less god than you do!”

The problem is, the question is A Category Mistake.

A category mistake results when one asks a question with its usual form, but which is actually a nonsense query, because of the nature of the thing being asked about.  That is, one has asked a question that makes sense for one category of things, but one which does not apply to the thing one is actually asking about.

For example, it is a category mistake to ask “What color is the theory of relativity?” or “What color is color itself?” or “What color is the number 2?” It’s a category mistake because these things are not the sorts of things that have colors. It’s a category mistake to ask “Where is space?” To ask this is to confuse space itself with a thing in space.  Space itself is not a thing in space that has a location in space—so it is nonsense to ask where it is. “When is time?” would be similar error. “How many sad are there?” would be another. “What does Bach’s St Matthew Passion taste like?” would be another.

Now, when someone asks “Which God exists?” they are making a category mistake, because they are confusing God with a god. They are assuming there is a genus of things (genus means “family” or “kind”) called gods, and that we are trying to identify which member of the genus we are talking about. This kind of question makes sense when dealing with a genus, for example cats. “Cat” is a genus or natural kind which has many members and it makes perfect sense to ask more specifically which cat we are talking about. But God is not a member of a genus. By definition, anything that could even in principle be a member of a genus would fail to be God for that very reason.

The problem here is that the questioner is assuming one or both of two false things.

He is assuming that God is a god, and therefore can be placed in the genus “god” along with such alleged entities such as Thor, Aphrodite, Apollo, Shiva, Anansi, Zeus, Odin, Kwan Yin, etc., which may or may not exist.

Or else he is assuming that disagreement about certain characteristics of God in different religious traditions indicates that theists in the great religious traditions are talking about different things. Neither of these assumptions is correct.

To address the second one first, an analogy should make it clear. When scientists have a disagreement about the way Nature is, they are not each talking about “a different Nature,” as if there were many competing entities each called “Nature.” Thus, it would be a category mistake to ask a physicist “Well, which Nature exists?” as if the scientific dispute where about whether “Nature A” or “Nature B” existed, rather than a dispute about what Nature itself is like. Neither scientist in the dispute believes in different, rival “Natures.” Each believes in the one Nature that he knows exists and studies; the dispute is aboutwhat Nature is like, about the correct interpretation of Nature: is it this way? or is it this way?

Similarly, within the great theistic traditions, the core understanding of God as YHVH or God or Allah or Brahman or the Tao or The One or The Good or The Prime Mover according to Deist is essentially the same. The disputes between the various theistic traditions are disputes about what God is like beyond the basic core of agreement. They are not disputes about which God exists, which is a meaningless question.  Christians, for example, hold that God exists as Trinity; Jews and Muslims do not hold this. But we are not talking about different Gods. We cannot be, since God, by definition, is the one absolute source of all that is. We are disputing about what God is like. This is the province of theology and revelation. And just as all scientists (discounting cranks and pseudo-scientists) agree that Nature exists, is intelligible, has a mathematical structure, can be known by human reason, etc., all theists (discounting cranks and pseudo-theists) agree that God exists, is partially intelligible, is infinite, beyond time, space, and nature, the source of all things, the absolute reality, etc. We all agree about the one God (in Latin, Deo Uno), even if we use different words, and have differing particular interpretations (e.g. the Christian Deo Trino).  And often, the differences are not as wide as many suppose. It is not uncommon, for example, for a Chinese Taoist to become a Christian without much mental strain; he need not give up anything of his understanding of the Tao, but only needs to acquire the additional belief that the Tao itself took on mortal flesh and dwelt among mortal men and revealed itself (Himself) to them in this manner.  (In the Gospel According to John, Christ is clearly identified as the λόγος, and λόγος is rendered in Chinese as 道 Tao; Taoism is called “The Way”; so is Christianity, in the Acts of the Apostles; in Chinese The Gospel According to Johnbegins “In the beginning was the Tao, and the Tao was with God and the Tao was God.” ).

This brings us to the difference between God and the gods. If you don’t understand this distinction, you will literally never understand what serious theists are talking about. God is, by definition, the Absolute. The one, absolute, unconditioned ground and source of all that is; the Alpha and the Omega, as Christian scripture puts it.  Perhaps there are, as Hindus believe, thousands or even millions of gods; perhaps there are not.  But if there are, these gods, like everything else, receive their existence and being from Brahman, which is the absolute reality beyond all (mere) gods, and as Thomas Aquinas would say, “Et hoc omnes intelligunt drum“, “and this everyone understands to be God.”

This is the reason we distinguish God with a capital G, from gods with the lower case g: gods are beings, entities, that—if they exist—exist as part of the totality of reality, the total ensemble of things that are. There can thus be many of them, or a few, or one, or none, and they may or may not exist, and these are all empirical questions: if they do exist, they do, and if they don’t, they don’t. But God is not a being or thing or entity that exists in the total ensemble of things that exist; rather God is the ground and source of the total ensemble of things that exist. It is, strictly speaking, improper to say that “God exists,” because the word “exists” fails to capture adequately the being of God (as does the word “being”; as do all words). This is also the reason why the existence of God is not an empirical question. It is not the case that God may or may not exist. If God exists, then God necessarily exists. Indeed, if anything exists, God necessarily exists. Existence or reality itself is an effect of God’s being.

When one talks about God, one needs to talk in a way that is utterly unlike talk about anything else, because God is not a thing among other things. One must say things like Plato, that “The Good is beyond being, exceeding it in dignity and power.” Or like St. Dionysius the Areopagite, that “It is wrong to say God does not exist. It is wrong to say God exists. But it is more wrong to say God does not exist.” This is not, as some will claim, a fallacy of special pleading. A fallacy of special pleading occurs when one asks that something which isthe same as other things be treated as if it is different, or special. But God cannot be treated the same as anything else. If God were the same as anything else, or commensurate with anything else, He would not BE God. There is no special pleading involved in speaking of that which is utterly unique as if it were different from everything else; it must be so, and necessarily so, if it is at all. Even the dimmest atheist should be able to grasp this: IF there is a God in the way theists mean that term, THEN nothing else will be or could possibly be comparable to God.

Ranchhoddas:
What does the phrase 'reasonable doubt' mean to you?

a red herring? answer my question

jonbellion:
aren't you a diest
This is quite funny
You do realise the deistic god is impossible to prove so I don't see the point
And what are you even saying

when u say impossible to prove what do u mean, are u working with a bearded man imagine here? there is actually no difference between deistic God, Yahweh, Allah and Brahman, only that they are described differently, just like how scientists would describe Nature differently but would never ask themselves which nature?

We see alot of New online Atheist demand for proof of God's existence, but can they even prove their mums existence is not a figment of their imagination? let's put it to the test , note if u can't it means u only believe your mum exists and not Know she does

hopefulLandlord:
try watching the debate between Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8

Sean Carroll destroyed Kalam

infact, universe began to "exist" is pure guesswork

just watch the debate and see

caroll has been debunked www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-iv-quantum-eternity-theorem/

OK a close friend of mine created this site that help you avoid getting stuck in traffic . it gives 24Hrs traffic updates on major roads in port Harcourt with images too, everyone can be part of the online community and share their traffic reports. port Harcourt traffic can be really annoying and frustrating , check it out here www.jejelife.com he wants to know what u think of it ?

hopefulLandlord:
try watching the debate between Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8
Sean Carroll destroyed Kalam
infact, universe began to "exist" is pure guesswork
just watch the debate and see

so Vilenkins and Hawkings made guess work? lol

CoolUsername:
I've answered this time and time again, the fact that the Universe had a beginning doesn't prove God. The Big Bang only denotes expansion of the singularity into the Universe that we know of. If the cause of the singularity is truly external then there's no way that you can reliably tell me that it's anything resembling any definition of God that we have.


DNA is not a code, it is a chemical that undergoes purely chemical processes. We only compare it to a code for easier understanding.


Really? Is that even a deistic argument? The universe seems more fine tuned for empty space than anything else.



The ontological argument is inherently flawed. It first assumes there is a God then concludes the is a God. Lets take it this way, think of a supreme being than nothing can be greater than, the supreme being would be greater if it exists so it must exist. Is that even logical? How does the conception of such a being affect reality?


But at the end of the day, the biggest proof against God is the lack of evidence that isn't unverifiable. You guys have managed to push God from mountains, to the clouds and now outside observable time and space. Sounds awfully convenient, doesn't it?

u are indeed ignorant, the DNA is a code and called a code by chemical biologist, the DNA has its own sophisticated language, the DNA like all codes is an information process and requires intelligence , pls don't make ignorant claims

Similarities between Genetic and computer codes https:///jdusx7kMJE

peer Reviewed https:///IQqeEhB57e

now provide your own peer reviewed paper claiming DNA isn't a code, get to it atheist!

obinna58:
Don't worry I give u time u gonna turn atheist

I'm once a deist like u

lol, u must be joking, I bet someone like u fell for the " Nothing created God " argument and left deism for atheism, it's a pity, I have never met an atheist with any logical argument, they all attack Christianity and Yahweh, demanding evidence left right and center , u need to question everything, even your atheism!

CoolUsername:
You called atheism illogical; what is your evidence for God?

Evidences for God

1. kallam

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist therefore it has a cause

scientific evidence shows that the universe (time space and matter) began as a singularity 4.5 billion years ago before expansion , hence the cause is external and we deist call that supernatural cause God

2. intelligent design

All codes of known origin are a product of intelligence,
the DNA is code
therefore a product of intelligence

all valid deductive logical Evidences

3. Fine tuning

4. Ontology of morality observed at different religions at different locations shows morality is Objective and if objective, then it will be transcendent

4. ontological argument ( ur homework, research on it)

u can try to refute the logical arguments premise 1 and 2, if u cant, u should concede, Hint : citing kraus won't help u

u can attempt to refute them though

frustratedguy:
if that is what you are thinking then you are wrong. yes i have left christianity forever, no going back. also no need for atheism or deism. don't want things that will complicate my life. i now know that god can't work miracles and he's not real. that's all that matters. i will just live my life without bringing more confusion into it

saying God isn't real you are already embracing the illogical Atheism position,Does God exist? yes God exists but some things claimed to be God's promises according to various revealed religions happen to be false, again, research more about deism or add me on whatsapp 07034362071 to join Nigerian union of deists

obinna58:
Look at nonsense coming out from ur mouth

God created the universe and disappear to heaven with no evidence

ignorant mofo! that's ur strawman, I'm a deist n don't believe in heaven, there is to reason for any intelligent human being to embrace Atheism, there is in fact no evidence supporting atheism, they all seem to commit the Ad futuris fallacy, as long as u comprehend that the universe must has a supernatural intelligent cause based on several deductive logical evidences then u will either be a First Class idiot or simply incredulous and ignorant to believe or embrace atheism as true, Atheism 0+0 == 1

frustratedguy:
[b]all my life, i dedicated my time, body and soul to doing yahweh's work, but yahweh has disappointed me and i don't see why i should continue serving a lifeless god who is no better than a sitting duck

i attended all church programmes, payed tithe and other church dues, fasted many times that i rarely tasted anything food, read the bible over and over and prayed everyday, yet I only meet with disappointments and misfortune like i am cursed

yahweh has failed me and I would worship him no more
if it was possible, i would have demanded back all the money i gave those greedy pastors so that I could at least piece together whatever is left of my tattered life and move on. depression and sorrow have taken a strong hold of me. shame on yahweh

as from today, i am no longer a christian. i am ignoring yahweh the same way he did to me. wicked and heartless god who demands praises from men but turns useless when his assistance is sought. e no go better for god. better to commit suicide as that is the only option left than continue wallowing in suffering. my heart is bleeding with pain. i hate god [/b]

hope your next plan won't be embracing Atheism ignorantly thinking its the default position, anyway read about Deism, u will like it, sorry sha

obinna58:



You are on the right track better accept reality and face the fact

Cus

We created God

sharrap your ignorant mouth there, you created God ba? so you created the Universe too right? hediot!

HardMirror:
John 3:16 "for God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life

This is the most popular bible verse and perhaps one of the most popular quotes in the world.

Now we are so busy bleating out this quote, we get carried away and fail to see the fault in logic of the quote.

this very quote made me a christian, this very quote made me dump christianity

Here is a flaw you never noticed perhaps.

1. So God loved the world: the bible did not say he loved Jerusalem. The bible did not say he loved the Middle-east. He loved Africa, loved Asia, Loved Australia, Loved south America, loved Europe, loved North America. God loved all the people living in remote Islands.
This is soooo good to know

the question is, then why did Jesus die in Jerusalem?

Wait... You probably don't understand yet.

According to christianity, the coming and death of Jesus is the most important event EVER in the entire Human History.

You probably still don't get it. I understand the brainwash is that strong.

So God loved the WHOLE world and he gave Jesus for the world. Then in his stupidity wisdom asked men to spread the most important message ever! A message that would save every man, woman and child from eternal damnation, eternal torment, eternal doom. This wise and loving God did not know it would take over 1000years for the message of Jesus to reach America through the Europeans.
What about every tribe in africa? Asia? Europe? Australia? North korea? How long did it take before they even heard of the existence of a man/myth called Jesus?


How many people would have died within that space of time?

So all those people are damned?


If you say no, god would judge them differently, then why spread the story of Jesus at all?

The only reason for this is because the myth of Jesus christ is only a myth created by the romans to put the jews under control. The jews know this and that is why they rejected the story.

wait let me guess, So there for God does not exist? look bro, if u think Atheism is the default position of Christianity, u have not even started free thinking yet, and mind u, I don't know what caused the universe into existence but it's not God is a fallacy from ignorance.

think of it like a Car, there are of different brands Volvo, Toyota, BMW different brands but they are all Cars, same way God exists but is seen differently by different religions at different locations of the world and attributed differently but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. best u can do is reject the various description but u would still be a theist, a Deist is also a theist too. let me leave u with this logical evidence for Intelligent design , u can think about refuting it by giving an example of a code of produced sans intelligence, also avoid making secular reasoning while at it thanks.

All codes of known origin are a product of intelligence, the DNA is a code therefore it's a product of intelligence. ( deductive logical evidence is Valid Evidence )
+2347034362071 Hit me up, I'm the creator of Nigerian union of deists whatsapp group.

the best

sup intellectuals, I'm Bob, I observed that whenever I come on NL religion section I see a lot of miss informed freethinkers labelling themselves Agnostic atheists after reading some New atheists Propaganda memes suggesting agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, but being a free thinker means u are suppose to question everything (even your new beliefs) right and seek for the truth right? now let's do some truth seeking shall we?

most widely known misconception about Agnosticism by pseudo intellectuals is that is is a Knowledge claim, how true is this? let's start with the definition of Agnosticism by T H Huxley, AKA Darwin's Bulldog, the guy who coined the word.

Agnosticism is of the essence of science, it simply means a person shall not say he KNOWS or BELIEVES that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe - T H Huxley. (see below post for Huxley's work on Agnosticism)

from this definition, if you are intelligent, you will understand that Huxley's agnosticism is not just about Knowledge but beliefs as well, so where do y'all get your information from? Dawkins? Sam Harris? random memes? well u just saw the definition from the guy who coined the word agnosticism himself, if you are honest then you should think about this.

now let's say we agree to the claim that Agnostics refers to knowledge claim, it's still an entirely illogical and contradictory construction. if agnostic should mean "Does not know" then to make a judgment when asked if God exists is illogical, as we can see, the statement " I do not know if it's raining but I believe its not raining is absurd but dont forget many pseudo intellectuals claim agnostic atheist means " one does not know if there is a God but believe there is no God" so my question is if you don't know, why do u believe there isn't? why don't u just say " I don't know" ? remember, saying u don't believe still means u get Burden of proof like the Theists that says he believes in God/gods. just thought I should share this so one free thinker can become less ignorant.


My nxt post will be about BURDEN OF PROOF any why it falls on both one claiming the Existence of God and the One claiming Non Existence. I'm a Deist by the way (Believe in Intelligent first cause God, rejects revealed religion and it's claims on the grounds of reasoning) , also the founder of Nigerian Union of Deists whatsapp group 07034362071 if any of u is interested , just add up.

link to TH Huxley's work: https:///lK3QRfLjNJ

Goodday Everyone

Active Nairalanders, atleast those who frequent this section will know me by the anas09 and analice07 (my alternate) monikers.

My reputation as a devout theist, a christian to be precise, is privy to a large number of popular religion sect folks as I don't fail to come online everyday spreading the gospel of our beloved saviour Jesus christ who died on the cross and rose after three days across all threads, and brutually ridiculing depraved atheists with wayword lives and satanic agents for sport.


All my Nl years spanning almost 3years was dedicated to the service of yahweh because he is the king of kings, lord of lords, ancient of days... Words can't describe his mightiness and goodness. I was a priest of the most high until yesterday.... Dawn was just paving way for dusk to announce the departure of day.

Something stirred deeply in me. It was as though I was in a trance. A sharp ice-cold feeling of knowing inundated my being, holding me captive for a short time. Everything turned dark.

Gradually I opened my eyes, but I was dazed at first, but as my vision became clearer I was able to keep some balance.

Everything was all gone. What happened to me could best be described as a rude awakening. A violent jolt from the reverie of blind servitude to yahweh. But all that is in the lost pages of yesterday.

I'm now a free person, just like the atheists, who are not held by religious bonds.

I'm so happy!!! Beginning from today, I renounce my christian identity, i'm embracing atheism. And I hope for a better tomorrow.

No more paying tithes to greedy pastors.
No more living in fear of hell fire threats.
I can now eat shell-fish with impunity.
I can wear skirts made of different kinds of fabrics.
I can do anything I want to do as long as it's not harmful to anyone.

A big thanks to nairaland atheists. You all drew me to the light.
Words cannot express my heartfelt gratitude and how grateful I'm to you all. Thank you! Thank you!! I love you all!!!

so just because you have a problem with Christian concept of God, u should become an Atheist? what happened to Deism or Agnosticism? do u have any evidence supporting atheism? what caused the Big Bang? if u say " I don't know " but it's not God u will be making the fallacy from ignorance, atheism is an illogical position that believes in blind faith that the universe came from nothing (krauss children) if u were intelligent enough u would be a deist ( necessary 1st cause God that doesn't interfere with humanity and rejection of all claims from revealed religions) or better still agnostic (not claiming to know or believe) since they are both reasonable positions.

MrMontella:
a belief may comprise certainty and uncertainty..likewise a lack of belief...

Eg..i dont believe Chelsea will beat liverpool tonight..but i'm not sure...

I dont believe chelsea will beat liverpool tonight and i'm sure of it...

You see..its compactible...
Simple logic..

Even in religions..two opposites can merge for a set of beliefs..

Eg hinduism has a theistic version and also an atheistic version

how about u either say I don't believe Chelsea would beat Liverpool or I'm not sure Chelsea would beat Liverpool? just because u decided to mix both together doesn't mean they are compatible it makes it bad grammar. it's logically identical to saying Uncommitted committed

also to show that the Agnostic atheism position is illogical so called Gnostic atheism would require a universal knowledge of universal negation . Gnostic atheism is categorically impossible except the atheist were omniscient (God)

yes, there are some version of Hinduism that believes in God while some do no and so are atheistic and MOST importantly, Agnostic (meaning one who believes it is impossible to know anything about God or the creation of the universe). is still very much a belief position .

Do some philosophical research
start here http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic