₦airaland Forum

Isaacmacdon:
I'm not surprised the owner changed the topic in other to drag the issue. My problem with atheists is that they like being spoonfed. Its either why this? or why that? Its obvious they are babies spiritually. Its only a child that requests for food always. My fellow believers has answered your question. Read your bible you fools. The world was devoid of illness or sickness up until the father of stupidity and foolishness tempted Eve. Have you fools asked why Satan tempted Eve?

Psalm 14 vs 1 says thus, Fools say to themselves, "There's no God" . They are all corrupt, and they have done terrible things; there's no one who does what is right.

Your same bible said "but whosoever shall say, thou fool, shall be in the danger of hell fire" ~
Mattew 5:22b

tivta:
Maybe he created those planets for us to expand into

Then why is he creating bacteria to kill us if we are suppose to expand to other planets?

tivta:
Some pastors will say cause God works in mysterious ways, but scientifically speaking, God created deadly bacteria to reduce the population, can you imagine if no one died? Where would we all fit?

But he just so happened to create lots n lots of rich empty redundant planets in our galaxy, 7 in our solar system alone and majority are far larger than the earth multiplied by 50...

He does work in mysterious ways...

Hoseaovo:
In essence God has demonstrated his love and still demonstrates it by keeping us alive hoping that someday we will still repent. However, if we still choose to remain in sin, then we will not have hom to blame for the wages therefrom.

Everyone according to the christian belief goes to Hell if they die a sinner, no matter what they did.
For lying, fornication, stealing #5, stealing $5 billion, killing one person, killing millions, it doesn't matter, you would spend the rest of eternity in hell, suffering from everlasting pain and anguish. Lets not forget, God is Love.

Well, i am sorry for offending some people but the concept of Hell came from an ancient tradition of wealthy Nobles who punished peasants horribly for petty crimes just to instill fear on them, and make sure they don't do it again.
If you, a filthy peasant can offend a Noble and get your hands cut-off or eyes plucked out, or tongue ripped out. Then what do you think would happen to you if you offended the "ALMIGHTY GOD", creator of heaven and earth. Yes, you got it, Everlasting torture.

Its a pity that this mentality has found its way into a more liberal, free and just society in the form of a Religious doctrine.

Now we set up our justice system to yield punishment that fits the crime.

Imagine a society where the democratically elected president states that whatever you do, you get 70 years imprisonment, be it for killing someone or raping or just for not wearing your sit-belt, No matter what you do, 70 years imprisonment.

Now be objective and ask yourself, would you like to live in such a society?, would you have an feelings for the people who have this harsh sentence just because they stole #10 from you?, or would you conclude that it was their choice?

The concept of Hell is an immoral one and No God worthy of worship would keep such a place to torture people who do not agree or obey him, and if really there is a God like that, he is no different than a dictator like idi-amin, kim jong un and the likes and most certainly doesnt deserve to be worshipped.

Even the bible says in Jeremiah 7:31-32

"And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind. Therefore, behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when it will no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Topheth, because there is no room elsewhere."

SAMBATLAN:
I mean i should confront my brothers, demanding for the video of what is meant to be kept secret?... Just to clear an argument on nairaland? Had it been it's a coverage of different a man, and not my dad, I will have love to send it over to you... Perhaps my dad's condition before he died is what I must not share to anyone. Not even my wife... Ok?

Its not about clearing an argument on nairaland, its about showing the world that the supernatural does exist and you have proof, but then again, i respect your decision, all i am saying is that there would always be people like me who doubt the existence of the supernatural until given real proof...

Kk

SAMBATLAN:
The reason I can't really doubt this is one. I could recall the experience we had in our home, back in 2009 when my dad died. Before his death, he was very sick that he could barely be moved from his Sick bed... Could neither talk nor feed himself. Our eldest brother suggested one of the security cameras in the home be moved to my dad's bedroom only to capture every on his moments for proper attention on him. Though my mum died few years before then, and my only sister, (our last born) was asked to go home to watch over him and at the same time will have to take care of some minor house choirs too,... when she confirms his stability and have a leisure for it..... We were all away in Lagos. To cut the long story short., the day he died, we all came home, and after some times, my brother decided to track all my dad's moments on the sick bed... Just for the memory of his lifetime on earth. Low and behold, my brother ran out to call on us to see what the camera was reading... '' A light shown on my dad's body, an image emerged on him furiously like a white stripe, coiled into a shape that appears faceless... This image stood and came out clearly from my dad'sd body. The shape stared at him for like 2min or more... It was an afternoon of which I won't say that could a reflection...I am very certain of what we all saw... This image was fast that it faced through the wall behind the bed through which it vanished... We pause and pause to see the face, zoomed it to maximum, yet faceless.. I held my brother tight... No one was with my dad's body that minutes because my sister came in to notice he was dead, 30 minutes after this mystery... Ever since then, I had been deep in thoughts.... I won't say the one here is photo shopped.... Mysteries happens everyday in this world

I would assume a video of such importance would be saved, and still available. Is there anyway you can show us the video or atleast a screenshot of it...

Dejideji1:
@ donnffd, i believe you have read the story of @ SAMBATLAN what can you say about this? because i believe we have really argued on the soul concept before.

Please can you send me the link, i dont think i have...

Modified: i have seen it, dont worry

Dejideji1:
For the case of camera and ghosts, there have been several reported cases of cameras capturing unusual and spooky images @the background Most of which have Remained unexplained. It just shows that cameras actually detect some invisible things. The case of the infrared is an example.

There are two ways we can settle this dilemma

1. You would agree that spirits are not out of reach or outside space and time and can be detectable with our cameras and lenses. Now if thats the case, why havent we seen real evidences(pictures and videos) of spirits and moreover we know there is a large spectrum of wavelengths that our eyes cannot see and we acknowledge that, thats why we build devices to detect these wavelengths. So if your claim is that spirits are just radiating on a different wavelength other than the visible light spectrum, then you would agree that there is nothing supernatural about these beings and we should in time detect them and understand how they work in the natural world.

2. You stick with your view that spirits are supernatural beings and are immaterial, undetectable by Natural means, so if thats the case, then obviously, what we see here in this picture cannot possibly be a spirit.

Bonus: its either photoshoped or just a light mirage(given that the human brain is quick to recognize faces and shapes that belongs to our species).

tartar9:
Whatever construct that may be,it will still be mathematics.

Whats your reason for that?

All that could be true if God was real!!!

shadeyinka:
I understand you quite well but the truth is that every experimental research starts with one or more hypothesis. When the hypothesis are verified it is called a theory band when the theory is not easily reduced to smaller entities, it is called a law. Suppose I have a hunch that the earth is not perfectly round, thatbforms the basis of my hypothesis. The next thing is to find supporting evidence to that effect AND proof that the current position that the earth is perfectly round is disproved. Every scientific investigation starts with a bias and NEVER a blank mind.

I have just proved that every scientist starts with a hypothesis: a hypothesis is a biased position waiting to be proved or disproved.

I think this was my inability to explain clearly what i meant,When i meant "blank mind", i meant a preconceived supernatural explanation for the phenomena being investigated. Scientists always start with and end with Naturalistic explanations.

Ofcourse i know they start with an hypothesis, Lol, what i meant was a supernatural bias is not allowed because it is "supernatural" and unverifiable.

I also wished you could think in terms of where the Energies that condensed into the known universe came from. Atba point in the very distant time, total energy in the universe must be zero. If this energy is not zero, then, it must have a source: for every type of known energy has source.

Funny enough, there has been a debate about this same topic, Michio Kaku and brian greene are two string-theory physicists who confirms that if you were to add all the energy in the universe, you would get zero, positive energy with negative energy(which is gravity). i watched the video one time like that, i can get the link, i would paste it for you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6XAkVA7RmY

In terms your analogy of employee, employees do not exist because a suitable office is available. Office exist because employees are required. Every invention occurs to solve the problem of the primary user, not the other way round. The earth was an invention to solve the problems of the primary user: human beings.

My first analogy was explaining how you think the world is to us, i was refuting that idea and saying NO, the earth is not like an office created for its employees, rather the earth is to us,like a gutter is to a tadpole, it wasnt created for it, but it is necessary for its survive.

Although, like " somepeople" their conclusion is that it is impossible simply because they have never experienced it. In weightlessness, the physical laws as we know it on earth is violated.

@bolded, Physical laws are not violated, they just happen in ways that are unfamiliar to us!

From your frame of reference, spirits do not exist...let's play a little experiment game. Let's assume that spirits exist and demons are a malevolent class of spirits who can communicate with peoples mind, would you say that my explanation in my earlier post makes sense.

Of course, it only doesn't make sense to you because your premise is : Spirits do not exist. How do you explain the "dramas" that take place in the course of deliverances? Acting?, Hypnosis? I suggest you watch some cases on TV and truely unbiasedly explain the phenomenon.

I appreciate your responses. Stay blessd.

Ofcourse, i have seen deliverance happen right in my front, my mom is a deliverance minister(the irony of it,right?!, lol), but nothing and i repeat nothing happens that can be regarded as supernatural, people say lots of things, yes, and they act in weird ways, yes, but nothing happens to be regarded as supernatural. So except i take their word for it, i cant say they have any supernatural powers, and i have every reason to believe that they could be lying or just mentally deranged.

I do appreciate your responses too, quite intelligent and polite, i respect that, keep up the good work...

naijadeyhia:
We are not talking about language because all language did not come from latin or english. We are talking about living tissue.

Ok let me ask you this and I need a simple yes or no answer since you believe in evolution.

Can you genetically engineer a cat from a dogs DNA?

Since u say evolution is real so lets help it along to speed up the process. Can a dogs DNA be genetically modified to become that of a cat? Yes or no.

It seems you dont understand the meaning of a "layman's example"...

Truly, i dont see anything useful coming out of this argument, so i am off, enjoy...

naijadeyhia:
Then explain it to me please I beg you.

I wont go into technical details, but i would use a layman's example

Language, specifically English language

Do a simple history research about it, it evolved from Latin and some other older languages.

Can you pin-point anytime in history where a Latin speaking mother gave birth to an English speaking child?

Even in the English language, go back 600years ago, i bet you, you wont understand a word they spoke, and it was still English language and we speak English now, but it has totally changed and evolved that if the two were compared side by side, they could be regarded as different languages.

When did Old English become New English?, was it overnight?

I would use another example, When did you stop being a child and become an adult? which day?

Tell me the day you went to sleep a child, and woke up an adult!

This is just a very simple layman example of how evolution of organisms work...please educate yourself more about it

Ofemmanu1:
The same way you lacked the basics to show the atheists God is Omnipresent.

I really dont understand what you just wrote

KingEbukaNaija:
Bill Gate is a Christian .

Bill Gate is an agnostic atheist

Mark Zuckerberg is an Atheist

Richard brandson is an Atheist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_(miscellaneous)

naijadeyhia:
Evolution is a lie, a myth and without scientific fact and has no basis in reality. Not one professing Atheist has presented clear and convincing evidence of evolutions reality. No animal has been found to be in the transitional state of evolving into another being or entity.

ABSOLUTELY NONE!

The truth remains that No Atheist(scientist) would be able to show you any convincing evidence, so just drop the matter.

Explaining how evolution works to you would be a total waste of time, trust me, i have done it many times in the past.

You obviously dont even know the basics of it...smh

shadeyinka:
I understand that you have been prejudiced by scientists like me. Whenever I travel out of Niger's for conferences, I marvel at the average scientist because, their premise is that there is no God and this forms the foundation of every hypothesis they profound.

I dont understand what you mean by prejudiced but what i do know is the difference between science and every other forms of knowledgeable enterprise is that science starts with a blank mind and builds up from there.

So if you want a scientist to start with a premise that involves "God did it", then i am sorry to say but that scientist is doing bad science.

Now, dont get me wrong, you can be a pastor and also a scientist, people do it all the time, but when you enter into the laboratory, you must have a blank mind as to whats going on else you are contaminating the enterprise in which you are carrying out.

My argument was about the statistical odds of having ALL the physical factors favouring life existing on just one planet. Why not that the maker of everything prepared a necessary habitat for living organisms. Its not about one, two or ten necessary factors but hundreds of simultaneously necessary conditions to sustain life. Think about this.

I get your point, earth just have all the right factors necessary to sustain Life. What you dont get from what i am saying is that, your assumption is that earth is here for Life, just the same way an office building is there for a company and her employees.

The building would obviously have conditions necessary to sustain the company and her employees, right?

Now, what i am saying is that, NO, earth is not here for Life, rather Life is here because of the earth, just the same way tadpoles have an ecosystem in the gutter or sewage systems, the gutter has all the necessary conditions for the tadpole to survive, but those that mean the gutter was created or is there for the tadpole?

Demons do not belong to the rhelm of matter.

Well, if Demons do not belong in the realm of matter, i wonder how people would know about it so well...

Anyways, i still dont have convincing evidence that homosexuality is an effect of demon possession and hence should not be treated as one!

shadeyinka:
Hm, just check out this. Is it possible for a laptop to self assemble itself over a period of say one trillion years? Can a pair of trousers be created with buttons and zippers, can a bicycle self create itself with chains, pedals, hand bars given gazillion years. My friend, the key is not complexity but functionality.

No, a laptop would not assemble itself over a period of a trillion zillion years, neither would a bicycle, Noone said they would but your mistake is equating life to machine.

First, we can agree that the most complex systems we have found in the universe is life and yes, its very functional, but you equating it to a machine is off, you know why?, Life reproduces, something a machine cant do. We can argue about how life began, but once it began, it began very simple but its ability to replicate itself was the bedrock of its complexity later on. Mistakes in replication meant that the offspring would have slightly different characteristics of its parent and sometimes new features are added. Natural selection then filters out the functional from the unfunctional. Over millions of years, you can imagine the functional complexity that would amass

Have you looked at the statistical odds of a planet like the earth existing? Do you know that no life would have existed on the earth without the moon. If the distance of the earth from the sun differs by 10%, no life will exist. How com on this same earth we have the combination of gases in the proportion which can sustain life. Check out the carbon cycle, water cycle...on this same planet earth we have a life sustaining food chain. The statistical odds is astonishing. Remove just one variable and earth becomes a barren planet.

That just shows you how life evolved to adapt to earthly features. Your assumption is that the earth was put here and is just right to sustain life. I beg to defer,Life is the way it is because of the earth and not the other way around, Life evolved to fit into the environment it found itself, those who couldnt fit, died off. So trust me when i say, the only thing special about the earth is that it is in a region that supports liquid water, and liquid water is essential for life's chemistry(as we know it). Fyi, some saturn satellites have even more liquid water than earth and are potential habitats for life also.

What kind of evidence would you have believed- a physical laboratory evidence? The instrument for that I am sorry has not been invented and probably never will. Interestingly, not everything in science is measurable e.g the Hypnotism phenomenon. However, it is proven in
science to exist and at best, scientists try to comprehend it.

Your question is like asking a medical doctor to show you the malarial parasite before you believe his diagnosis. Demons are spiritual equivalence of bacteria s, virus and other disease causing organism. They infect their host and then the host begin to exhibit characteristics peculiar to the vector.

Your final question rephrased sounds like "SHOW ME AN ELECTRON, THEN I WILL BELIEVE THAT ATOMS EXIST"

If you go back to my question, you would notice i asked "show me evidence that demon exist" and not " show me a demon"...There are two different things, i only asked for evidence. Yes, noone saw an electron before knowing it was there but they had evidence it was there, they could measure its charge, and detect its energy, that is evidence.
You havent been to the surface of the sun, how do you know its hot, because you can feel it, that is evidence.
Malaria parasite has been seen in the lab many times over, that is evidence.

So you see, evidence is an effect that has a direct casual link to the claim being made where there is no other possible explanation for such effect, and that was what i asked for!

ValentineMary:
Nice work boss

Thanks bro

#10 Demand for Counter-evidence

Some people would say,the bible and many other first century texts says that jesus raised from the dead. Now where is your evidence that he didnt?!, you dont have?, then i win.

Nope, I don’t have first-century evidence of people arguing that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, and I’m sure I never will. Is that what you’d expect to see if the Jesus story got embellished with supernatural elements in the retelling—people preserving first-century letters that say that the Jesus story was nonsense?

Let’s imagine that demand in the case of Merlin the magician. The story goes that he was a shape shifter. Are we obliged to accept that as history unless we can find contemporary evidence against it? I propose that we are entitled to conclude that such a remarkable claim needs far more than just an old story to support it.
Ditto the Jesus story.

#11. Nature is intelligible.

Some apologists would ask, "Why is this universe rationally intelligible? … Why is the world rational to begin with?"

Who says the universe is rational? It’s only as rational as it is, which isn’t particularly rational. Christians looks at science’s conquests and dismisses them as not that big a deal, as if they were common sense. No, science has fought a long uphill battle to learn things that are very much counter to common sense: atoms and quantum mechanics, DNA and cells, galaxies and black holes. Science still has plenty on its plate—questions about dark matter, abiogenesis, extraterrestrial life, epigenetics, consciousness, the multiverse, prime numbers, and much more—yet more evidence that declaring the universe to be rational is an inept approximation.

What fraction of the realities of nature do we understand now? What fraction will we? Do humans have the ability to understand everything? This certainly doesn’t look like a reality with a god who designed a simple and obvious universe, smoothing the way for us to understand it all. That is what you get from the Genesis creation stories, but that’s not the way reality actually is.

shadeyinka:
Quite an intelligent post you have. However, I perceive that you speak from the premise that all things / event have natural explanations.

I beg to say no! I am a Physicist and we are supposed to believe in the quarks that caused the big bang from which every physical things emendated from. However, if you look at the complexity of the ATOM, you will be amazed. The atom is so complex and structured for one to conclude that it came about by some physical accident.

Of course, this does not proof the existence of God...but we can infer an intelligent design. Science does not deal with things that cannot be quantified in the physical sense. Demons are real, they are spiritual equivalence of bacterias, virus and disease causing microbes.

I do agree, the complexity in the universe is mind-bugling, and we humans have battled with the realization of it for so long, but because something is so complex, does it really affirms design?

You said you are a physicist, and i am very much sure you realize that the scientific consensus is that all life evolved on this planet, Now thats just one way we see how complexity can arise from a naturalistic process without input from a designer, why cant the universe also have that?

Again, because we see something so complex, still doesnt prove that it was designed because we dont have sample of universes to compare our universe with, its like seeing one snow-flake fall from the sky and because of the nice crystalline structure, claim that it was intelligently design without even comparing it with other snow-flakes.

Then you said Demons are real, well i cannot say Demons dont exist, because i dont have enough evidence to make a claim like that, but i do know that there havent been any evidence that supports that "Demons are real", so if you do have any evidence, please show me...and i am sure you would agree now that just acting abnormal cant be regarded evidence for a Demon!

shadeyinka:
Of course not. But a sizable percentage is. A simple way of understanding demonic activity is to ask the basic question about character/behaviour:

"Does this behaviour make sense?" Is the action normal and reasonable under the given circumstance?

Demon activity abound everywhere.

From your above statement, it clearly means you think that demonic activity happens when a behaviour doesnt make sense or if the action is not normal or reasonable.

Now there have been cases where people behave perfectly irrational and abnormal but we conclude that they needed psychiatric help.
Go to a mental institution, we see lots of people with irrational behaviours.
Would you say they are all possessed by a demon?

Also coming back to the issue of homosexuality, homosexuals are just everyday normal people that just have a different sexual preference than the majority of people.
Does that mean that they too are possessed by a demon?

I say this because if a preference is deemed abnormal just because only a minor percentage of the population has it, then cant we assume that those who keeps snakes and tigers as pets are also possessed by a demon, or people who claim soaking garri is their best food are also possessed by demons.

Infact any group of people with behaviours that are not the norms would be regarded as possession by a demon just deducing from your logic.

#8. You cant prove Christianity False

You can’t know that God doesn’t exist unless you’re omniscient.

First off, don’t ask for proof. Proofs are for math and logic, not science or history. You can’t prove that God exists, and I won’t ask that of you; I simply want compelling evidence of your claim. And vice versa: ask for arguments and evidence from the atheist, not proof.

More important, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the person rejecting the claim.



#9. You really believe in God.

You must just hate God. Or you’re an atheist because you are too proud to bend the knee. Or because you had a bad father. Or you don’t want to give up your hedonistic lifestyle. Or you had a bad experience with a religious person.

There is also an irritating statement that goes around here that claims that atheist contradict themselves by saying two statements:
1. God doesnt exist
2. God is wicked

Following from that logic, we can safely conclude that these arguments are contradictory
1. Superman is not real
2. Superman can fly

1. Spiderman is fictional
2. Spiderman is a hero

1. Snow white is a fairytale
2. Snow white can sing.

These are what people who claim to be intelligent educated people use as counter-argument to atheists...smh

shadeyinka:
I do not speak of alternative behaviours not related to scarcity of resources. I am speaking about addictions which the carriers could not break free from. You don't want to eat soil butbyou cannot help the cravings when they come.

Not everything can be explained in terms of biology.

Does that automatically mean that demons are responsible?

shadeyinka:
I have seen a man who eats his own feaces. Would you say thatbis normal? How will you explain the rational behind a young woman who drinks kerosine? Is it normal for a young girl to eat soil?

There are many irrational behaviours among the homo spiens. I have seen demons that afflict people in that respect being cast out and the people in question set free from their pervasion.

I was speaking from experience and not textbook speculations.

its obvious you dont understand biology.

Godforbid, we somehow ended up in a post-nuclear war era where there is no clean water, only kerosene, and these young woman of yours drinks kerosine and it does no harm to her, well who do you think would survive better? who do you think would be able to live long enough to pass on her genes?, what do you think her children's advantages would be in that horrible era?

Random mutations creates different features in organisms, what becomes the so-called "Normal" depends on which features fits best into the given environment, that doesnt mean we still wouldnot see features that are strange to the norm

#6. You will be Sorry

You’re really going to threaten atheists with something we don’t believe in?, why would we care anymore about the Christian hell than the Buddhist hell or the Islamic hell?

And That doesn't help your argument whatsoever.

#7. Citing Bible passages

We know that there is a Judgment Day. Jesus tells us, “Everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken.”

As proof that the Bible makes a particular claim, Bible quotes are fine. I use them myself. But don’t cite a Bible quote as evidence of something important. You realize I don’t consider the Bible authoritative, right?

Personally, i find it to be circular logic, its like proving Harry potter exists using the novels

shadeyinka:


I agree that some men can achieve sodomy, and some have sodomy thrust upon them
BUT
I do NOT agree that some men are born sodomites. Statistics show that most homosexuals were exposed to influences by older homos while they were young.

If you ask me, I will say homosexuality is a soul disease caused by demons.

Oh really, you dont say

Please can you show us the statistics?

and homosexuality have been found in chimps, sheeps and many other mammals, do demons attack these animals too?

#4. I’ll believe the first-century eyewitnesses over modern historians.

The Christian gives more weight to writings closer to the events.

The Christian wants license to dismiss unwanted ideas from modern sources. It’s fair to be concerned about the accretion of layers of dogma or tradition over time, but a good New Testament historian would try to do the opposite and strip away these layers to uncover the history of the first century.

As for the “eyewitness” claim, this is often slipped in without comment or justification. None of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts. That Matthew and Luke (to take two of them) borrow heavily from Mark—often copying passages word for word—make clear that they’re not eyewitness accounts. And those gospels that do make the claim (the Gospel of Peter, for example) are rejected by the church. Show compelling evidence for the remarkable eyewitness claim before confidently tossing it out.

Of course, getting closer to the events is a good policy. Problem is, this doesn’t work to Christianity’s favor. We’re separated from both Islam and Mormonism by less time than from Christianity. Mormonism in particular fares much better than Christianity in a historical analysis. This is an argument the Christian wants to avoid.

#5. Pascal’s wager.

Bet on God, and the upside is huge. Bet against God, and the downside is huge. Any questions?

The error is in imagining just two choices, Christianity and atheism. In reality, human societies have invented myriad choices, and Christians are in the same spot they imagine for atheists. What if they bet wrong on the Hindu or Roman or Norse pantheons? Or on the Greek or Egyptian or Buddhist afterlife? Do you know how the Buddhist hell looks like?—it ain’t pretty.

It also assumes that the deity will accept an ass-covering “bet on God” instead of authentic belief driven by conviction. Wouldn’t a god be smart enough to see through the insincerity? And notice that Pascal does nothing to provide evidence for God’s existence.

Finally, Bet against God is the logical choice given all the choices availiable, its either there is a God or Not, if you choose no God, you have a 50% chance of being right, if you choose a God, then you would have to choose out of the 5000 gods that humans have worshipped across its civilization(thats even assuming the number is 5000, the real number should be closer to 10,000), that automatically reduces your chances of being right to about 0.025%.

This is going to be a list of senseless arguments some christian apologetic's uses to claim God's existence.

Please, if you want to argue with an atheist and want to sound intelligible, avoid these arguments

#1. The Atheistic World-View is Depressing.

I hear this argument alot, if there is no God, then what is the meaning of life?, life is useless and meaningless, why should we be good?, why dont we go around killing people on the streets and raping anything that walks in skirt.

This has to be one of the most unintelligent things i have ever heard of in my life, because something is not pleasing to you doesn't automatically makes it untrue. "Atheism is depressing; therefore, it’s false" is a childish way of looking at the world. A pat on the head might make us feel better, but are we not adults looking for the truth?

Personally, I dont find an ultimate meaning to anything because sooner or later, everything comes to an end but that doesnt mean we should live meaningless lives. it most-certainly doesnt warrant claim that God exists because otherwise Life is meaningless, thats just bad logic.

#2. I have felt God's Presence, that means God exists.

This has Bad idea written all over it. its like saying i have felt a unicorn's presence therefore unicorns exists

I can’t tell whether you’ve deluded yourself or whether you’re justified in believing in a supernatural experience. Nevertheless, your subjective personal experience may be convincing to you, but it won’t convince anyone else.

#3. Science can't explain everything, therefore God exists

The origin of life? Of consciousness? Of the universe? If you don’t have an answer, I do—God did it!

Science doesn’t have answers to some questions, and we’ll have to be patient. But some apologists seem desperate and insistent in their search for answers to life’s riddles. This is because they already have an answer. They started their investigation with an answer.

“Time’s up!” they say. “Pass your tests to the front.”

This apparent eagerness to understand reality is simply a smokescreen. They want to shoehorn in their answer for all puzzles, and science’s answers are irrelevant.

4evergod2:
You can also read about the bombadier beetle. When you are done you will know that Someone higher (God) was responsible for a perfect design and purpose.

Ofemmanu1 you can help him understand some terminologies he finds hard.

a step-by-step evolution of the bombardier system is really not that hard to envision. The scenario below shows a possible step-by-step evolution of the bombardier beetle mechanism from a primitive arthropod.

1.Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods.

2.Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes.)

3.Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.

4.The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])

5.A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.

6.In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.

7.Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior.

8.The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ.
This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [Forsyth, 1970]

9.Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.

10.Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones get used for defense.

11.Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn't be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location.

12.More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction. The beetle Metrius contractus provides an example of a bombardier beetle which produces a foamy discharge, not jets, from its reaction chambers. The bubbling of the foam produces a fine mist. [Eisner et al., 2000]

13.The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.

14.Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles.

15.The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.



Note that all of the steps above are small or can easily be broken down into smaller steps. The bombardier beetles' mechanism can come about solely by accumulated microevolution. Furthermore, all of the steps are probably advantageous, so they would be selected. No improbable events are needed. As noted, several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in living populations.
The scenario above is hypothetical; the actual evolution of bombardier beetles probably did not happen exactly like that. The steps are presented sequentially for clarity, but they needn't have occurred in exactly the order given.


Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html