₦airaland Forum

butterflyl1on:
The vehicle in a split second showed you what would happen if it avoids and if it hits the person so this means you have a split second to react and either dodge and become poor again or kill and become immensely rich.

iamvictorbassey:
Thanks man. And the man above too

ScienceWatch:
Did you notice how he continuously insults and falsely accuses Butterflyl1on of a criminal offence with no evidence to prove it?

vaxx:
Ithis is why someone says our youth now are lazy to read. If you can not read an article that is less than 5000 words ......how will you read a complete PhD thesis..... I don't like attacking personality in a debate but you are forcing me to do so.....you shoot yourself at the foot when you bring the table analogy

butterflyl1on:
Again I say we are talking about God and not unicorns. (stop trying to shift my gaze).

The comment does not go both ways for an atheist. It goes in a one way fashion. He says one does not need sensory perception to prove the existence of anything YET is demanding for objective evidence for the existence of God. Such a self refuting statement!

Since that was their stand then it's sheer hypocricy and deception to demand for objective evidence in the light of that declaration.

It's shameful to say the least. They shot themselves in the head with their own gun and realizing this are now trying to derail the thread by engaging in idle banter with each other while throwing ad hominems around.

Been there, done that! Their game is up!

Fvcknames:
Dude throughout this argument, I didn't insult ur intelligence.

butterflyl1on:
NO.

They said a God can exist without us PERCEIVING ITS EXISTENCE and not BELIEVING ITS EXISTENCE. note the difference.

This was why i said that if this is their position then why are they asking for OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD or is sensory perception not objectivity?

NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT BELIEF HERE. WE ARE ON ABOUT SENSORY PERCEPTION.

Fvcknames:
I might not be getting the discussion fully, but I'd like to drop my 2 cents
I feel something can exist without you observing it, but that does not mean it definitely exist.
So there 'could' be a god without us experiencing it, but that doesn't mean there is.
But the chances of that god(if it exists) being the Christian God is slim.
So what I get here is that saying god doesn't exist does not stop him from existing(if he does), and saying that god exists does not make him exist if he doesn't.

All in all, I feel this arguments are of little use for the parties involved cause no matter the points given whether in favour of theists or atheists, there is always going to be a way around it.

vaxx:
am sue your atheist brethren can testify that this techniques of answering question is poor? what is a table? that is my question ......this is not the way someone who consider believer stupid should defend his rational stand....this is indeed poor.... but i will play along

butterflyl1on:
The attached images are my perception of what my table is.

vaxx:
you see yourself....this is what i accept to be table not yours

https://www.google.com.gh/search?q=arab+design+table&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ejXJQB17vhERHM%253A%252CC9OZHeioTfI2lM%252C_&usg=__OVnXkWPa95jE3MGW55IP7JansIM%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjN6YH-kefYAhWB_qQKHYOoCYgQ9QEIKTAB#imgrc=ejXJQB17vhERHM: am sure butterfly1ion and sciencewatch will their own table definition

vaxx:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/ make sure you read

butterflyl1on:
First you say Gods CAN EXIST WITHOUT ANYONE SEEING, FEELING HIM, ETC

butterflyl1on:
then from saying THEY CAN EXIST you jumped eons forward and declared THE FACT IS THAT THOUGH THEY CAN EXIST THEY CATEGORICALLY DO NOT EXIST

butterflyl1on:
If one does not need to have a sensory perception of something before that thing would exist why they is God an exception? Is he not also seen as an object in our objective world? (according to you)?

How can God not categorically exist when you said and I quote


Can God not stand in His own right and have nothing to do with the eye of the beholder?

butterflyl1on:
No you were not being sarcastic . Let me post your numerous comments that show you were not being sarcastic and which show I am right and you are simply clutching at straws.

All comments from budaatum on this thread

1.

2.

3.

Since those were your very quotes why are you now seeking evidential sensory perception to believe a table exists or a tree fell?

So I asked again, Can God exist even when you cannot experience him using your sensory perception?

vaxx:
i love that analogy good

what is a table?

butterflyl1on:
This analogy goes starkly against your very comments and arguments here.

Your argument has been that ONE DOES NOT NEED TO SEE OR HEAR A TREE FALL BEFORE THEY SAY THE TREE FELL IN THE FOREST.

NOT SEEING OR HEARING THE SAID TREE FALL DOES NOT MEAN IT NEVET FELL.

the above has been your position all along and now you are saying the above? ARE YOU CONFUSED?

you do realise that sensory perception is required to validate or invalidate anything and you declared that this wasn't required to validate a tree that fell in the forest outside your view or ears yet you declare here that objective evidence of the existence of the table to this girl was her feeling the pain of hitting it with her hand (which is also a sensory perception)

Stop jumping all over the place bro.

So I asked again based on your comments earlier (which have been your position all day) Can God exist even when you do not SEE, FEEL, TOUCH, HEAR him?

butterflyl1on:
Your comment means that one does not need to OBSERVE, WITNESS, HEAR, FEEL, TOUCH, TASTE ANYTHING TO PROVE IT EXISTS.

vaxx:
how do you verify the objective truth?

vaxx:
i

objective evidence is base on general held believe why subjective is solely base on individual opinion

butterflyl1on:


Budaatum and hopefullandlord why did you guys scamper off like little rats when caught in this trap ?

Come back and answer my question o.

hopefulLandlord:
honestly, I admire your patience

butterflyl1on:
Does God exist even if you are not aware of his existence?

I expect a straight YES answer based on your above comment and arguments

butterflyl1on:


Let me let you in on a little secret.

Unknown to you atheists here your arguments are simply VALIDATING theism and the existence of God regardless of our view or input.

ScienceWatch:
thanks for the correction Sir. But his assumptions are wrong. The truth is that nothing can EXIST without us first becoming aware of it first.

hopefulLandlord:
Its funny how this discourse has gone

vaxx first tried hard to avoid the first question by bringing in "Purpose" and when I showed how it does not follow, he answered No! and when I asked the next question he also tried to strawman by changing the question trying to drag the discussion back to the same "purpose" this time using "Essence"

butterflyl1on:
The declaration from vaxx which I expanded on is that objectivity first begins from subjectivity.

butterflyl1on:
If objectivity cannot exist on its own without a subjective inclusion then objectivity is redundant and a futile logic since its very foundation is clearly subjectivity.

vaxx:
You are much difficult for me to understand...tell me why? sometimes i need to read your response more than once