₦airaland Forum

wiegraf: This evidence only shows you would do anything to make yourself feel special.

O sire, special, you surely are.

In your ruminations on this matter have you stopped to probe the depths of the human mind as one reference point for discussion? Does it seem to you that this artistic, scientific, emotional, passionate, believing, intellectual and self probing mind that is ours, is the product of the interaction of mindless matter? Does it really?

Sincere answer.

Ah. Ok. I know the standard response to that one. Not acceptable as its an "argument from incredulity."

You might want to reflect on the literal meaning of the word - "in-credible"....

TroGunn: The question is, what do the facts show?

When you look at the universe, it overwhelmingly shouts design, laws, intelligence. Design, Law, Intelligence points to a living being. Simple.

All the non-god explanation of the origin of universe, origin of life and speciation are nothing more than fantastic, imaginative nonsense - not consistent with known facts.

The evidence consistently point to the origin of the universe requiring an Originator - it had a beginning, it's a marvel of order and precise laws. A Beginner and Law-giver seems the logical conclusion.

The evidence consistently point to origin of life requiring an intelligent Originator - even the most basic life form is a marvel of complexity and design. True, living things have basic building blocks, but combining these blocks in the right order by uncoordinated forces of "nature" to create a protein or a nucleic acid, not to mention a living self-replicating organism has severally been shown to be a mathematical impossibility. The fact that it's taking painstaking human effort, deep research into existing proteins, great intelligence and millions of dollars in precise labs and equipment in the attempts to only create synthetic proteins from amino acids tilts toward one sure conclusion - the vastly and insanely more complex living things around us were created by an Intelligent Being.

Speciation or origin of different species/life forms continue to befuddle those who assert evolution as the reason we have different species. Nothing is more factual than real fossils and they consistently show living things unchanged over time. They just don't evolve. Fishes stay like fishes, monkeys remain monkeys, birds remain birds. It's known that over 90% of fossils show unchanged organisms over time. The remaining <10% is inconclusive - likely extinct species. If life forms evolved, we'd see many intermediate life forms as fossils. But the fossil evidence points to one conclusion - variety of species started relatively abruptly (Cambrian Explosion) such that creation is the more logical explanation.

The reason for atheism is understandable - largely to blame are frankly stupid religious teachings/practices and the presence of evil/suffering. But atheism still is the much weaker, less logical, completely-opposed-to-observable-fact position, when compare to believing in Intelligent Creator. Definitely requires more blind faith to be an atheist than to believe in an Intelligent Creator.

And of all religious views/books, none comes close to the historically accurate records, scientifically sound views, extremely wise counsel found in the Bible - giving good reasons to believe it's from the universe's Intelligent Creator.

Gbam.

After so many years the discussion remains willfully misdirected. The question is the existence of A creator. By whatever misconceived name or rendered with whatever misconceived attributes. The philosophical necessity of a prime mover. That is the question.

As such, questions on this or that god are misfooted and meaningless. It beats me that Mazaje could fail to grasp this simple point for several years now.

Logicboy03: You can replace "God" in the above quote with "Witchcraft"


In fact, people who claim to do magic make the exact same argument. The same argument was made in Harry Potter and even in the sorcerer's apprentice

-magic is all around you.



BULLSHEIT

Of course, magic is all around you my brother - Life is utterly and fearfully magical in its every and even slightest particular.

It is well my brother. Do not accept anything that does not make sense to you. Live your life according to your conscience. You will find your path. Blessings.

Joshthefirst: I'm telling you sir. Here's what the bible that they mock says about them
Romans 1:
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Its amazing this 'foolish' book spoke about this foolish men and how they insult and demean themselves as they try to remove the creator from his natural place in thought and imagination. How blind to life's beauty they have become. How blind to reality.

I speak of what I have seen and heard. And God I know bears me witness. My life and words bear witness. Creation itself and Gods powerful signs bear witness of the mighty hand of God.

They bear witness indeed, my brother, to all but the willfully blind.

This is not a matter that anyone should need another to convince him of. Each will speak it himself in the fullness of time. For it is who and what we are. Shalom.

plaetton: Oxygen is not a man, but it interacts with all life.
So, is oxygen god?

Throughout human history , men have worshipped snakes, crocodiles, the sun, the moon, oceans, fires, thunder and lightening, dragons, cats, etc. as god.
You name it, it has been worshipped as god.

So what what do we learn from ancient men?
That god really exists, but it's just human frailty that misunderstands him?
C'mon man, give me a break.

^^^ If you really think about it, it is you who needs to give the whole matter a break... since God does not exist... why bother... there must be a million more fulfilling things to do that obsess with deluded theists on a forum, no?

Just forget the issue, abandon it completely, it is of no use to your life - only urge people against intolerance wherever you see it being displayed - - - - that's more than enough.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
......................But o no, the quiet knowing prickling inside of you won't let it go, will it?

Because, like all mankind, it knows better.

Good evening, dear friend.

plaetton: If you are seeing something that I and many others do not, does that thing exist to all?
The fact that I do not see it means that whatever you think you are seeing is ambigous , to say the least, fuzzy, foggy and not clearly discernable to all.
In which case, the onus clearly falls on you to show clearer and more discernable proof.

Well start by looking behind your eyes.

Do this everyday please. You will see it.

plaetton: But the proof in the case of god is very simple.

No one has seen him.

God is not a man, and so he is not to be seen as some physical creature stalking around somewhere.

However, in being alive and interacting with Life and the World, you do see God everyday.

No space probe or earthly instrument has detected him.

God is not a celestial body that you can point out, and say, Eureka.

Even if his existence was beyond instrumental detection, then all humans would naturally , clearly and unabmigously and intuited him in the same manner everyday.

And this is exactly what has happened throughout human history.

Any confusion that there is has only arisen within the atheistic mind, which seeks to deny that which has been obvious - glaring even - to mankind throughout history.

Logicboy03: What if this particular universe came from another universe which was eternal?

That would fit as God. And on and on, mutatis mutandis.

Why is this a less valid hypothesis than a god creating the universe?

Because the real question is about the origin of any universe, wheresoever, whensoever and whatsoever.

You theists argue God's existence with the certainty of a mad man who is 100% sure that he is sane.

Only mad men see houses and seek to argue against the existence of their builders.

Not one single shred of God.

Of course, none at all, except everything around you which you have ever seen and known since you were born. I would have thought that's quite a lot.

It amazes me how people can behold an entire cosmos and still scream - "not one shred of evidence! not a single shred!"

Sir, please, tell your God that he is a loner and he will die a loner....if he exists, he should grow up......hide and seek are for children

I'm afraid my conveying your message will probably be useless because you will want to sit and have a drink with God, before you hold that God exists. I am afraid you will have to look deep into your very own being to see where God sits, and perhaps be shocked that you have been experiencing the reality of God all your life - and that you have never lived outside that reality....

plaetton: Yes. as far we have seen so far.
There is no evidence of a creator so far.
I remain open to the possibility of being proven wrong when ever you have the evidence..

Well, my good friend, that simply means "whenever I am able to show you everything around you in your life, which you have already seen since you were born and up till this day."

To show, you, in other words, the evidence that you already have, the evidence that you still see in every moment of passing time, and even the evidence that you yourself as a sentient being are.

Gonna have to wait quite a while for that one, sire.

plaetton: Your logic amazes me. I dont know how someone can contradict himself in two sentences.

Indeed there is no case for atheism.
Thank you very much for pointing it out. I hope that Italo is taking note.

There is no case for atheism. No atheist has ever pretended otherwise.
Atheism is not a philosophical proposition.

Secondly, You are also very very correct that atheists make their case from whatever the theist says.
Bingo!!
I could not have said it better myself.

I am glad that you realize that atheism is simply a response to theism. A repudiation of the belief in god.
So we can only make our case from whatever the theists says.

An atheist owes absolutely no explanation. The only relevant question an atheist asks is: Where is god? Show me the proof for god.
In the glaring absence of such evidence, we no choice other than to assume that there is no god.

Why make are theists too busy wasting precious time criticising atheists when they could very well use that time to put show god or put forward evidence for the existence of god.

Calling someone irrational for rejecting what have, over the past 6000yrs of recorded human history. woefully failed to prove, is cognitive dissonance, a mild form of insanity.

As I explained in this post, there is a burden of proof on anyone disputing a default position.

https://www.nairaland.com/808965/atheism-revisiting-burden-proof/2#9684645

- - - even where the default position is wrong; e.g: the case of Galileo.

plaetton: The universe and the life within it does not require a creator.

Looking at this again, it surprises me that you do not see what a categorical, definite and thus omniscient statement this is!

plaetton: The universe and the life within it does not require a creator.

It is quite difficult to contemplate a time when the universe and time was not. It remains a simple human fantasy to manufacture a creator to take credit for the things we know not.

Well you are out of step with the modern god called science then, for current scientific thinking on the big b.ang posits that at the point of the singularity, time did not exist.

The trigger therefore, for the expansion which results and and is still resulting in today's universe, is not accounted for, and this trigger is what the religious theist describes as God.

So contrary to your constant claim that there is "no need for God or a Creator" - the truth is that there is actually a giant gaping hole which is what people have filled with the notion of God. So you are wrong that there is "no need" - the need is there, the question should be if it has been rightly or wrongly filled.

More on the "Default Position"... in response to Plaetton a while back -


https://www.nairaland.com/808965/atheism-revisiting-burden-proof/2#9684645

plaetton:
Also calling something a default position is arbitrary. In light of the amount of knowledge we have amassed so far, your position cannot be deemed to be the default position. Today, the opposite seems to be the case.

In this instance there is no question of arbitrariness. For within human experience, complex systems fit for specific purpose are designed by intelligence - that is the standard human experience with respect to things that humans themselves create. Thus, by creating complex systems fit for specific purpose themselves, and having to apply their intelligence to such processes, humans derive a personal experience which tells them that such complex systems fit for specific purposes require intelligence to be assembled. This is one of the very basic reasons that belief in God is a very default position of human beings - because it tallies with their own personal experience of having to apply intelligence to create complex systems for specific functionalities.

Now, when human beings have, despite their application of intelligence, never been able even in the modern age to create something as sensationally fit for purpose as a single white blood cell - not to speak of the super-computing prowess of the human brain - it then becomes a tall order to expect the very same humans to believe that such things did not have intelligent input. This is why the generality of humans believe in a superveneing and intelligent cause or creator - because it only seems commonsensical to them. . . thus if you will take an opinion poll of all humans in the world, you will find probably nine theists for every atheist. . . or something of the sort. It is thus slam on correct to state that belief in God is indeed mankind's default position - and that is not an arbitrary assessment in the least.

I will go so far as to also inform you that even a great many so called atheists also share this belief - because alot of them are not pure atheists - who totally reject any notion of God. A good number are actually what i call the "anti-religion atheist" - who rejects religion because he recognizes its absurdities - and thereby imagines himself an atheist. Such a person is simply non-religious and closer to being agnostic. I have found famed atheists even on this forum here and there hinting that they accept the notion of a creator and creation - but assert that it is beyond proof. Such are not pure atheists. They still retain the commonsensical notion of a supervening cause. The pure atheist is he who - asserts positively and adamantly that God or gods absolutely DO NOT exist - never mind that omniscience is required to assert that.

Also, the undisputed rationale of causes and effects, and the laws of motion give human beings to believe that indeed there is an ultimate cause and that such a cause is imbued with purpose and intelligence. This has been, and still remains the default belief of the vast majority of mankind up till the present day. Indeed, the opposite thought is only a recent entry into the thinking of humans, and certainly is held by only a small minority of mankind.

There is thus every reason to state that belief in God is indeed mankind's default position.

And the argument remains that any person who disputes a default position - whether or not the default position is wrong or right -  bears the burden of proof. Tell me if you dispute this principle.

Also i gave you the example of Galileo Galilei - who advanced ideas against the wrong default positions held at his time. Although the default position was wrong, would you say that Galileo did not bear the burden of proving his novel assertions?

That helps me rephrase it in another way that also makes sense - any person with a novel claim bears the burden of proving it, and this you CANNOT disagree with! - And certainly atheism is novel amongst humanity - for theism it always was from time immemorial! This alone surely closes the argument - novel claims must be proved - even if they be true and correct - such as Galileo's!

https://www.nairaland.com/808965/atheism-revisiting-burden-proof/2#9684645

Alfa Seltzer: NO!.

Because atheism is not a proposition but a response to one.

Theist: I have Ghadse which cooks any food I want in 30 seconds

Atheist: I don't believe such a device exists. Can you show me?

Theist: Do you have any proof for your disbelief?

Atheist: Ehm! I don't need any proof of anything. You just said ...

Theist: You are very irrational if you can't prove what you just said.

Atheist: Can you please show me this device you talked about or at least proof of its existence.

Theist: Can you prove you are not irrational?

This is a caricature.

The correct position is that human beings as rational creatures born into a world such as this, know, both rationally and instinctively, that it cannot be an uncaused world, or even an undesigned one for that matter. This is actually the default position: and that it is the default position is proven by the default belief of mankind throughout history, in God or gods.

That is actually the default position.

As such it is actually the person who seeks to contradict that default position, who seeks to argue, implausibly, that the world was not created, or that it may be a product of chance: it is in reality this person who is making a new claim - a strange claim against that which humanity commonly understands - a claim against basic laws of motion and causality - this is the person who needs to adduce proof for his very bizarre claim - even if he is right, and the world is wrong, just as I have previously explained on this forum, people like Galileo Galilei and Nicholas Corpernicus still bore a burden of proof - for the simple fact of challenging the default position - even where that default position was wrong.

... And here is what I have previously said on this forum on this -

For where there is an improbability - even if a seeming improbability only - then the greater burden must reside with he who advances that seemingly improbable notion.

Let me give you an example. Galileo Galilei. This fellow could have easily stated that the burden of proof that the earth is orbitted by the sun rests with those who say so. In reality, public perception was wrong, and he was right. He nevertheless recognised and executed his burden of proof because from the Unclad eye, and the vantage point of the general observer - it seemed that indeed the sun was orbiting a stagnant earth . . . that seeming reality thus placed the burden of proving the reverse on he who contended so - and Galileo duly discharged his burden of proof

The original claim is actually that there is no God - because the default belief was that there must be a God. This has been the default belief of mankind from time immemorial, and he who seeks to rebutt a default position bears the burden of doing so - especially when that default position is backed by the commonsensical notion that things as generally known, do have causes.

Heck! - this gives a fresh and stronger spin to my argument - namely that any person attacking a previously held default position must have the burden of proving that default position wrong.

https://www.nairaland.com/808965/atheism-revisiting-burden-proof

Alfa Seltzer: It is telling that of all religions and theist beliefs in the world, the FSM belief is the only one you singled out as a mockery. This is a religion that is recognised in many countries.

It is a mockery, and a puerile one at that.

In any case, if we are to argue about the existence of a creator, then you need to define what you mean by "a creator". A being? A substance? A chemical reaction? An energy source? What exactly? After that definition we can then see if it really exists. And moreover if it corresponds to any of the gods the theists are trying to force down our throats.

It is enough to first agree that there existed a trigger, before using deductive and inductive reasoning to adduce the qualities of that trigger. I will have to know that you accept that there was such a trigger in the first place: because I have had atheists here argue that the universe may be cause-less, or uncaused.

Even if the FSM is a joke that was meant to mock theism, it doesn't mean that it is impossible. You see, there is no possible way you can prove that the FSM did not create the universe and everything in it. Is there?

Just as surely as there is no possible way that you can prove that Yahweh did not create the universe and everything in it, is there?

I hope you see how hopelessly circular your argument is.

It is not even an argument.

mazaje: All gods remain man made ideas. . .That is why there are many gods. . .belief is what makes god live, once people stop believing in gods they die off. . .Ra used to be a very powerful god in ancient Egypt. . .Many of the gods our ancestors worshiped are now dead after the Europeans and Arabs invaded our lands and forced us to accept their own version of gods. . .Gods remain a man made idea. . .FACT. . .

This still entirely side-steps the question of whether the universe and life within it require a creator or not.

That beliefs in various deities change over time, does nothing to address this simple question.

mazaje: OP show define god and show us how such a god exist, that will keep all atheist quite, until the OP does that he can only delude himself by saying god exist, god is just a an idea that relies on belief and the people that buy into that idea and belief system are what exist not the gods themselves. . .Can the OP show us that Zeus the ancient Greek god or Shiva the Hindu goddess are u not the creators of the universe?. . There is no difference between the Hindu goddess Shiva and christian god. . .All are creation of men and exist only in the minds of their believers. . .

Your reference to the existence of various ideas of God or gods, does nothing whatsoever to address the pure philosophical and logical question of the existence of a Creator or Creators of the universe.

That question is that which stands between the atheist and theist, and not the haggle as to identity: Zeus, Jesus, Yahweh, Allah, Shiva, Brahman, et all.

Alfa Seltzer: this is a big fail argument. So if you actually see someone that belives in FSM, what does that do to your twisted argument?

I cannot countenance jokes within a proper debate please. No one believes in FSM as a creator God. You do know that to be true, so please try not to waste precious time on such an argument.

The eternal question remains: does an eternal creator of all that began to exist, exist or not?

That is the question, and it does nothing to address the question, to simply create fantastical concepts such as FSM and apply such concepts towards idle mockery.

What of those that believe in Amadioha? Are you going to claim that they don't exist as well?

We know that they exist, and abundantly so, and their belief is also a breed of theistic thought, and is deeply rooted in history and spiritual antiquity, and is not, as with FSM, a concept garbled up for the sake of idle mockery or argument.

Evil Brain: What gives you the right to declare what other people do or do not believe in? How dare you call my religion puerile? How is is any less credible than yours?

Well we both know that there is no person who believes in FSM as his God/ Creator, and so I cannot countenance that as a serious counter-argument to theism. It remains at best, puerile mockery, and certainly cannot be taken seriously in any proper discussion about the theistic-atheistic divide: namely the question of the existence of a primordial creator of all that exists.

You Christians have started with your legendary intolerance and bigotry again. But the pastafarians will stand strong, even in the face of persecution.

They will have to exist first, to stand strong, my friend.

Also atheists aren't making any positive claims that they need to defend. They are just pointing out that your claims have no evidence backing them, and refusing to believe such claims until evidence is produced.

Every single thing you see about you (and the fact that you see: also the fact that there is a "you" who sees) is and remains overflowing and excessive evidence of Creator and the work of the Creator.

It is rather the most strange and illogical mind, who, beholding the totality of life, (and of time, of memory, of past, of future) concludes still the contrary.

Evil Brain: Christianity is just as irrational and ignorant as it claims pastafarianism is.

Christianity has no empirical evidence to hack its bogus claims: "The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a myth" yet it expects pastafarians to believe its positions on the Flying Spaghetti Monster which is based on blind faith, not reason.

The only problem with this response is that there are no pastafarians in existence.

Also, the sentence would read just as well if the word in red is replaced with "Atheism."

Neither Christians nor atheists believe in the FSM. In fact, no one does, and as a philosophical retort to theism, its puerile.

thehomer: What? Are you back? Or is someone using your account?
So what are you saying? God is good because he is alive? Well Charles Taylor is alive. Is he also good?

I refer to primordial eternal Life and Light.

Being Life and Light, is necessarily good.

Darkness and death...real death...these are necessarily evil, being the anti-thesis of Life and Light.

The Light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth not the Light.

See the hand.

Wonder at the mind. Your mind. Then see the hand.

Gbawe: Bruv, it is the 'JJC' fans of GEJ who make themselves blind to that fact. Everyone else know that, beyond the "national spread" rhetoric, the PDP is a Northern Party. It is the fans of GEJ who want to reshape the Party with fraud and usurpation which cannot stand the test of number. This is what is causing all the problems for the PDP currently. I.e the fact GEJ will lose to the Northerner if they let Party Primaries, like democracy, to be purely a game of numbers.

*sigh*

....Matthew 7:5.

Nuff said.

Any person who catches but a glimpse of reality, a glimpse of self, will first experience confusion and fear.

Then, he begins.

Dear Mr. Anony,

I believe further events after the time I indicated my intention to cease to use this site (in protest over the MMW issue) have shown that I was not being melo-dramatic.

That intention thus remains firm. However because I am very interested in seeing this discussion to a logical conclusion, I have taken the trouble this morning to create a small forum where we can trash it out to its conclusion and anyone else interested in the subject can also read there.

Many thanks.

http://philoversity.com/thread/2/continuing-verse-academy-on-trinity

My deepest apologies, Anony and all.

I cannot continue this thread because I will be permanently withdrawing from Nairaland going forward on account of the unacceptable disposition of the owner of the site.

Best wishes.

jackbauersballs: You are still ranting and raving...

If you were truly offended by the way things are run, you would have left aeons ago...

Unfortunately, you cant leave because you lack principles...and judging by your 7000 worthless posts...a life

Kill yourself.

Done!

Goodbye!

Seun: Well I do. And I am not in the habit of waiting until our great forum has been damaged before dealing with threats. If a person is considered to pose any risk to the forum, such a person will not be allowed to hold the immense powers of a moderator.

You are a bedwetting fo.ol of a coward.

Until I see a proper explanation for this, please delete me from your pathetic forum, dear Ayatollah scaredy-catty.

You are a pathetic excuse for a man.

Logicboy03: You are playing semantics. Another person wont see it as a threat.

A serious organisation would ask him the meaning of the comment rather than interpret an unclear statement

He just had an Ayatollist reaction. He is a closet muslim fundamentalist. That is probably the real reason for the existence of a separate Muslim Board in the first place.

The jack.ass bedwetter still has not addressed the simple question as to why the peaceful request of chrstians over the years for their own space has been ignored ad infinitum...

Alfa Seltzer: I am now convinced that Seun is held hostage somewhere. Someone please inform his family and the authorities.

Better still, the c.ock su.cking swine is actually the self same person as Maclatunji.

His explanations here are a complete disgrace to his person and the forum.