₦airaland Forum

naijadeyhia:
[/b]


The bolded is a classic dawkins fallacy. When I saw you guys are full of fallacies you call it a lie. This is an extract from the OP. Read it then tell me thank you for pointing out your fallacy early.

[b]3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause): This fallacy makes the unjustified assumption that when one thing precedes another, the first must cause the second. Dawkins adds a peculiar twist to this fallacy by arguing that the ‘simple’ must always precede the ‘complex.’ He insists that in the history of the universe simple processes must always have preceded (and produced) more complex systems. On the one hand, as mentioned earlier, Dawkins asserts the creative power of (simple) naturalistic evolution: “Entities that are complex enough to be intelligent are products of an evolutionary process“. On the other hand, Dawkins denies the admissibility of (complex) divine creative agency: “Any entity capable of intelligently designing something as improbable as a … universe would have to be even more improbable than [a universe]”.

The renowned philosopher, Anthony Flew, has called Dawkins’ argument “bizarre.” Dawkins offers no evidence in support of these assertions other than his admitted preference for any viewpoint which precludes divine activity. The logic of Dawkins’ argument (‘simple-always-precedes-complex’) is disproved by all human artistry and engineering as well as all forms of biological reproduction. The artist always precedes the work of art; the chicken always comes before the egg. If Dawkins’ logic was valid, then any human agency capable of designing something as improbable as a watch, a cathedral, or a spaceship would have to be considered “improbable.” There’s obviously something wrong with that. It is an accepted practice in logic to “infer to the most sufficient explanation.” In the debate about human origins, a strong argument can be made that only divine agency can account for human life and reason. By refusing to consider the possibility of divine creativity and causation, Dawkins ends up by threatening human creativity and causation as well.[/b]

naijadeyhia:
How did you arrive at the conclussion that God is complex and extremely improbable? Care to share your data?

Omudia:
Well since you're ignorant let me educate you. HIV is about 80% more prevalent among homosexuals than it is among heterosexuals. Do you know that most gay people are actually bisexual and could easily spread the virus to heterosexuals?

Also its not rocket science to know that men are actually meant for women and not the other way round.

KingEbukasBlog:
If something has a cause and a beginning then it must have a creator . God -an appellation of the creator- is the reason for the existence of everything .

Anytime an atheist ask this question he has snowflakes in mind as if snowflakes are not part of nature

KingEbukasBlog:
Time is part of our dimension , same with space and matter . God who is eternal "dwells" in a transcendent realm which is timeless . Time is irrelevant or more appropriately non existent to someone who has always existed or has no beginning . The beginning of this universe indicates the beginning of time thus God as an eternal being transcends time .

To God , time is a limitation , and contradicts His nature as an infinite and immutable being .

KingEbukasBlog:
You have to prove it

Name just one atheist argument devoid of logical fallacies

KingEbukasBlog:
Good one bro naijadeyhia

Atheists' arguments and their unholy romance with logical fallacies eh

There is no logical thinking with logical fallacies

UyiIredi:
The man was bold. Unlike some atheists here. Toothless e-warriors.

peacesamuel94:
I choose to take this as another proof, if other humans were discovered in other planets, then it would have been easy to debunk religion, considering the Fact that the Bible recorded the creation of man on earth alone, so theists believe that existence of human life is exclusive to earth alone.


If earth's ability to support life was as a result of coincidence, then I think it should be a usual occurrence in other planets...
or what do you think?

DoctorAlien:
"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or unclothedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom. 8:35-39

KingEbukasBlog:
You actually agree with me that agnostic atheism is illogical (appeal to ignorance ) - your belief that God does not exist is because of lack of contrary evidence .

Let me call someone an agnostic atheist who'd likely understand me

cc : CoolUsername

peacesamuel94:
what makes you think that the creative force was apathetic? Are you aware that the force you are referring to as apathetic is also responsible for the creation of life, as well as complex animals with emotions such as humans. How could something "impersonal" as you call it come up with something so organized.

Like I said before God predated time, and does not need to be caused to exist.

peacesamuel94:
what makes you think that the creative force was apathetic? Are you aware that the force you are referring to as apathetic is also responsible for the creation of life, as well as complex animals with emotions such as humans. How could something "impersonal" as you call it come up with something so organized.

Like I said before God predated time, and does not need to be caused to exist.

peacesamuel94:
Nothing has changed about the argument. The summary of the reply you gave was "that you do not know"
That's why I asked why your actions and your claims seem to be contradictory

peacesamuel94:
That's not the purpose of this thread, meanwhile I've seen theists on this forum going to great lengths to provide proofs, one of which includes, creating countless number of threads to prove God's existence, and at the end of the day, atheists label them as ridiculous claims..... why should mine make any difference?

This thread was created to subject the atheistic stance under scrutiny, If you claim that all the answers provided so far, were fabricated and are lies, then tell us the the Truth, and how you knew it to be the truth.

peacesamuel94:
You claim to admit ignorance , but your atheistic stand contradicts this, You do not know how the universe came to be, yet you are so sure that it was not created, even to extent of confidently parading yourselves as atheists.
Your overconfidence in God's inexistence goes to show that you have a better explanation on how the world came to be.

UyiIredi:
The universe is ordered not chaotic. There is evidence e from fine-tuning about Grand Design and such designer is uncaused.

Omudia:
Yeah...just like serial killers are born that way too. And kleptomaniacs also. How do people even reason?,

lordnicklaus:
Richard Dawkins used this as a basis for an uncaused universe but spacetime is inherent to the universe. God created the time spectrum so there could be cause and effect.

peacesamuel94:
wrong, the laws that govern the universe tend to complement each other, taking earth as a case study, the size of the earth as well as its corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly oxygen and nitrogen only extending about 50miles above the earth's surface, if earth were smaller an atmosphere will be impossible, and if it were larger, it's atmosphere will contain free hydrogen just like in Jupiter. Before you term it "blind chance" consider these..........

How could an impersonal physical entity come up with something that depicts such striking precision?

why does the universe operate by uniform laws of Nature?

why is gravity consistent?

From your definition of how the universe came in to being, it is easy to imagine a universe where conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, where things pop in and out of existence, However that isn't the case. There is no logical necessity for the universe to obey rules yet it does.

Trust me, the system of operation in the universe is the farthest thing from blind chance, it's all too planned out to be coincidental.

joyContraMundum:
Chai..... Jesus Christ!

peacesamuel94:
What makes you think so?

lordnicklaus:
Quite a point you have noted, but do not forget that all conventions of Physics only began with the creation of the universe and so, no known conventional law either theoretical or empirical can quantify pre-creation events, even quantum mechanics or quantum Kyra dynamics.
Causes only precede their effects in spacetime and God existing outside spacetime would make him uncaused.

peacesamuel94:
The precursor to the Universe is whom the Theists refer to as God

peacesamuel94:
Out of nothing, nothing comes.
a particle expanded from a single point?
what particle?
what caused it to expand to the extent of creating the universe and all its inhabitants?
or do you now believe in miracles?

DoctorAlien:
Why did you try to make it look as if you're so sure of how everything came about? Isn't it an act of dishonesty to parade yourself as someone in the know when, in fact, you know nothing?