₦airaland Forum

achorladey:
You see the empty boasting and bragging I talked about. He was all over you like someone preparing the script Jehovah's Witnesses used in giving their talks only to come back and tell you he does not know.

The agenda is to draw you out into his usual arguments of calling people liars and Antichrist and throwing them into hellfire.

Can you just imagine?

What type of human being is he?

Judas1X:
Please! Don't give me that "an argument is an argument" crap . If I wanted to argue with AI, I'd go argue with AI, not a low rent apologist poser pretending to have a clue about what he's talking about .

You're what I term a text-book student . People who are confined to the basic rendition of rules. People who can't explore and go an extra mile to be creative because their brains are wired to follow and never to lead. People who are confined to the basics.

This is the fundamental reason why you cling to AI for arguments like a prostitute gripping the balls of her client tenaciously. I'd even have more respect for you if you had the candour to reference the AI in that particular post, but no, you personalized it like it all came from your head . You're just a copy and paste human photocopy machine without a sense of originality. Bwahahahahaaa .

Go and sit down if you don't have anything to say to boy counter. The thoughts are my origin thoughts. The arguments are my original arguments. The counter arguments are mine. We live in a modern world where things are no longer done mechanically. I can use anything to fine-tune my argument and make it more presentable. The thoughts are still mine motherless.

achorladey:
the Boomark of God himself



Fxmasterz . Empty boasting and bragging with empty skull thinking peddling brains is what you see.



Wants to contest with an individual who gave many talks based on script given and instructions on how to follow the script given



You dey fall my hand. I want to see Antijehovah this Antichrist is witnessing about Christ paapaa not Jehovah

His matter don tire me sef. He knows nothing about how they do their talks, yet the fool is defending what he knows nothing about while calling others who are more sensible than himself fools.

Judas1X:
FxMasturbator the lying cunt who has developed an unholy romance with AI is back again .

You remind me of unadulterated lunacy. Everything about you is anticlockwise. And the fact that you have to rely on AI to even be functional human in society is the very definition of tragic . You are organically retardéd .

The next time you want to copy answers from ChatGPT, try formatting your posts in a way that will seem more natural. You're not fooling anybody here, you bedazzled dweeb !

cc: hopefulLandlord

I didn't know that your foolishness is on a very high level.

Even if it's AI, counter it. An argument is an argument and a counter is a counter. Counter it my friend if you can and don't run away using AI as an excuse.

Boomark:
[b]Your foolishness is the bolded part. This is the summary of that foolishness and illiteracy.

1. A former high ranking member told you about scripting.
2. You foolishly grabbed the word and started using it.

In your foolishness, your eyes were blinded to the fact that he's talking what he knows which was corroborated by another former member, and was not denied by any of the current members. Can you see how foolish you are?

3. You went ahead to say it is only fools that will say they are not scripting.

Filthy lying evangelist, can you show me where I said that? Did you go to school at all? Or you cannot understand simple English?

4. Then someone asked you to explain what you meant by the scripting you said they do?

It's a foolish question because that someone wanted to give a new interpretation to what we know scripting to be in the English dictionaries.

The fellow failed to describe his own idea of scripting. He also failed to prove that the JWs were not scripting. A big fool for that matter.

5. Your reply is that you don't know and you are waiting for someone from the cult to explain it to you.{/quote]
I have known from the start that you're a demonic and pathological liar. Your attempt to twist my words have failed. JW lying evangelist, prove where I said the above right now or shut up forever!

[quote]This can only be done by an illiterate and a foolish fool. I am not calling you a fool but this is how they behave.[/b]

A very foolish and dishonest fellow trying to cover the shame of his cult lying that he's not a member and yet flexing his muscles against former members who were trying their best to open the eyes of others to the activities of the cult while also telling the current members to wake up and open their eyes.

This satanic agent of hell is here to further reinforce heresies, defend lies and Bible manipulations, and give glory to deceitful men whose occult practices and false doctrines have been sending many people to hell from its inception.

The foolish lying evangelist who defends a matter and then turns to say he knows nothing about the matter he was defending because he's not a member. He thinks everyone must be a pathological liar and a foolish fellow like himself.

Boomark:
Have you seen that you people have a big problem. I just don't want to say that you don't have sense. So after telling you I am not a JW, my cult group should be the Pentecostal church abi?

I have always known that other Christians lie a lot about JW and you want me to join in the bandwagon of foolish liars and evil incitements against them for what reason? FOR WHAT REASON? Hatred, Jealousy, envy, evil incitements, and ignorance? You may not know them but I know them.

After you ignorantly and falsely accuse them of scripting, now you are looking for someone to explain it to you. Who knows about all other lies you have told about them without knowing it? You were even laughing and used that word severally against them. You only started retracing your steps when I asked you to explain what you meant by the scripting you said they do.

What you people are doing is wrong and evil. I am not foolish to join liars just because they are my church members to persecute other Christians. It is wickedness and a sin before God if you don't know.

I am an evangelist. Not the foolish type. I rebuke whosoever I see lying anywhere, wether they are Catholics, Pentecostal, or Jehovah's witnesses.

Those who don't know anything are the ones dodging questions and lying to defend their church and doctrines. They will be the one to accuse others of lying when they cannot defend themselves properly.

God hate lying of any kind from anybody or any church.

If you actually have sense, you'll understand that the person who accused them of scripting was a high ranking member of the organization before he left! You claimed not to be a member but know more about them than a former insider. Filthy lying fellow!

A foolish and useless Evangelist you are! I can't see any Wisdom of God operating in you.

Go and keep your mouth shut! We are not kids here okay? If you don't know what they do, those who are exposing them left them for some of these things they now expose. You join the JW in lying and now start to whine about not being part of them. Is that not your new tactic? You lying evangelist of Satan. If you're of God truly, you would verify the truth and then defend it 100% afterwards. It's only a fool that would defend a group saying they don't script their talks, then after he's asked to describe how they do it, he says he doesn't know and that the askers don't have sense. Very childish and foolish. Now, the demonic JW is claiming to be an evangelist. Evangelist of lies.

hopefulLandlord:
Okay, but aren't you just moving from conclusion to evidence though. Your point is like changing upon a civilisation of dwarves in a very distant land through a powerful binocular. This tribe have their houses very small so you conclude the houses being small is why they're short. You'd agree that if they were taller you'd have been seeing taller houses, right? This is similar in ways to what yours saying. We are here and the universal constants support us being here so the universal constants were maden for us to be here. That's very circular

I’d be a lot more accepting of the “fine tuning” argument if modern physics showed that it was impossible for the universe to exist given the values of the fundamental physical constants it has discovered.
In that situation some variation of God’s Sustaining Hand™ would become more plausible.
This is largely Dr Sean Carroll's argument. He says that the constants could be anything and God could still create life. He's magic, after all. That we do indeed have life-supporting constants says that we don't need God to sustain life.

Or, let me answer you from another perspective if my precious response does not really address your concerns.

Let me break down your counter-argument as follows:

1. Circular reasoning: if I understand you well, you argue that the fine-tuning argument is circular, as I'm concluding that the universe is fine-tuned because we exist, and we exist because the universe is fine-tuned. However, this criticism misunderstands the argument. The fine-tuning argument is based on the observation that the fundamental physical constants have precise values, allowing for life's existence. This observation is independent of our existence.

2. Dwarves analogy: The analogy is creative but flawed. The size of the dwarves' houses is not a fundamental property of the universe, unlike the physical constants. The fine-tuning argument focuses on the precise calibration of these constants, and the consequences of their values.

3. Dr. Sean Carroll's argument: Dr. Carroll suggests that God could create life regardless of the constants' values, making fine-tuning unnecessary. However, this argument assumes a magical or supernatural God, which isn't the focus of the fine-tuning argument. The argument is about the evidence for a Creator based on the universe's design, not God's hypothetical abilities.

4. Impossibility of the universe's existence: You have demanded that modern physics show it's impossible for the universe to exist with different constant values. However, this is a misunderstanding of the fine-tuning argument. The argument is about the improbability or unlikeliness of the universe's existence with life-supporting constants, not impossibility. Hence, as long as there are values, the argument for a Creator remains even if the values change. A suitable method can be adopted to make new values workable. New values don't eliminate the proof of a Creator.

5. God's role in fine-tuning: You have argued that if God exists, He could create life regardless of the constants. This misses the point. The fine-tuning argument suggests that the universe's design, as evidenced by the precise constants, points to a Creator. It's not about God's ability to create life in any circumstances.

In summary, while your counter-argument misunderstands the fine-tuning argument's focus on the universe's design and the evidence for a Creator. The argument is not circular, and the your demands for impossibility or God's hypothetical abilities miss the point of the fine-tuning argument.

Boomark:
So after saying they are scripting, you no longer hold any belief. I believe my question did a good job for you to start rejecting your erroneous belief.

Go and ask Jehovah's witness people how they do their talk cos I don't know. They will explain better.

I only know how we read from our Sunday school manual.

Beware of that achorladey. He is Antichrist.

I said they're scripting based on reports. I told you I usually verify but I was told by your fellows not to mention them again. So, I'll hold on to whatever I hear of your cult until any of you can refute it.

If you are not a JW and you don't know how they do their talks, what's your business defending what you know nothing about even when the practitioners didn't deny it! Achorladey said it openly and not secretly.

hopefulLandlord:
It appears to me that your arguments aren't yours but one you read somewhere. Nothing wrong with that but it seems your understanding of it is shallow

Look at it this way

You: look at the constants of the universe. If it were any different we wouldn't be here so it must've been a creator involved"

Me: That's one way to look at it but what if it were different and another "type" of us were here instead? Like when there are harmful bacteria in the body then you take antibiotics and those are eliminated meaning the constants of the body changed by addition of this antibiotics and anytime those bacteria starts giving issues again you call on the antibiotics to come and do the usual again only to discover one day that you're taking the drugs but the bacterias aren't dying anymore but are now resistant to the drugs. The constant of the body changed but the bugs evolved anyways despite the unfavorable constants

I don't think you understand my points. The arguments are 100% mine. Not copied from anywhere so I fully understand what I'm saying. Your first response was probably copied or you just decided to pretend you're not implying what you really implied. iIf you really understand the points made especially by Dr. Sean Carrol, he's saying in very simple terms that life might still have been sustained even if the values of the constants were varied, and that would rule out the possibility of a hand being responsible for the sustenance of the universe. By implication, he's saying that he can only accept whatever they were arguing about regarding fine-tuning if science could find out that the present values of the constants are the only values that can sustain the universe. This is captured by an excerpt from your post pasted below:

"I’d be a lot more accepting of the “fine tuning” argument if modern physics showed that it was impossible for the universe to exist given the values of the fundamental physical constants it has discovered."

I am replying you and Carrol that if the values were changed, the universe might still exist. It all depends on the method intended to be used to arrive at the same purpose - sustaining the universe. And that still wouldn't rule out the possibility of a mind being behind the whole scheme. I didn't arrive at this argument on the basis of the values of the constants but rather on the basis of the purpose and purposes which the values of the constants fulfil.

Look at it this way. If you have a goal in mind,you could use many methods to fulfil the goal. Many constants and variables might change because of a change in method but the goal would still be achieved regardless of the method you used. There could be many methods available for sustaining the universe. And each methodology is free to use its own sets of values for its constants. I'm talking this way because the emphasis of this argument is on purpose.

I'm replying Dr. Carrol that even if it is not impossible for the universe to exist, given the values of the fundamental physical constants, it does not rule out the possibility of a mind being behind the results brought about by the changed values. This is because everything will boil down to methodology. That is, values may be altered and supported with a suitable and different methodology to achieve the same results. The universe might still exist and that does not rule out the possibility of a mind still being behind the sustenance of the universe.

Boomark:
Do you believe Jehovah's witnesses teachers are scripting?

I don't hold any belief. Explain what you do whenever you do your talks and stop asking unnecessary questions!

lawbabs:
You are repeating what I said. It is by mercy you are saved. Your works are dead. It is only in Christ that you have living work. Your work only counts when you have been saved by the sure mercies of the Lord. Any work done outside of Christ is filthy rag before God.

Succinctly said. This captures the whole message of Christianity.

Boomark:
Rebuttal to what?

Are you asking me? Is it hard for you to openly declare how you do your talks?

AntiisIam:
Him and Aishat, the guy like pusi no be small

Na Khadija be him sugar mummy. All him talk na pussy, pussy, pussy. Even him heaven na heaven of 72 pussies.

hopefulLandlord:
Okay, but aren't you just moving from conclusion to evidence though. Your point is like changing upon a civilisation of dwarves in a very distant land through a powerful binocular. This tribe have their houses very small so you conclude the houses being small is why they're short. You'd agree that if they were taller you'd have been seeing taller houses, right? This is similar in ways to what yours saying. We are here and the universal constants support us being here so the universal constants were maden for us to be here. That's very circular

I’d be a lot more accepting of the “fine tuning” argument if modern physics showed that it was impossible for the universe to exist given the values of the fundamental physical constants it has discovered.
In that situation some variation of God’s Sustaining Hand™ would become more plausible.
This is largely Dr Sean Carroll's argument. He says that the constants could be anything and God could still create life. He's magic, after all. That we do indeed have life-supporting constants says that we don't need God to sustain life.

I've not mentioned God yet. My aim is to establish the fact that a Creator exists. The talk of God does not need to come to play at this time. Thoughts about the Creator should suffice.

The flaw in Dr Sean Carroll's argument is that there's a mind behind those constants. An intentional mind set those constants on Purpose. Without a mind, purpose cannot be created. A varied mix of constants or mechanisms might still achieve same purpose but the possibility of life being sustained by different sets of constants does not eliminate the possibility of a mind being behind them. For example, you can solve a quadratic equation using varied methods. You'll arrive at the same answer regardless. The varied methods do not eliminate the fact that a mind is behind the solutions. Hence, the constants might sustain life if they're varied, still, a mind would be responsible for making them happen in such a way that they can sustain life. The whole intelligent complex systems work together towards one goal - the sustenance of life. Everything was deliberate and intentional. No doubt. Only a mind can set a goal. Only a mind can create a Purpose. A mind set those constants. Those constants didn't set themselves.

AntiisIam:
YES.. Na one of their Alfa said Muhammad was a sugar daddy ooo doing his things with his sugar mummy, Khadijat


https://www.nairaland.com/8050057/reactions-islamic-cleric-claims-prophet

Wow. I learnt he became a sugar daddy after his sugar mummy died.

hopefulLandlord:
Can you elucidate on these sir?

Okay,

Planetary Fine-Tuning refers to the idea that the fundamental physical constants and planetary conditions that allow for life on Earth are "fine-tuned" to an extraordinary degree.

This means that if these constants and conditions were even slightly different, life as we know it would not be possible.

Some examples of Planetary Fine-Tuning include:

1. Distance from the Sun: If Earth were 5% closer or farther from the Sun, temperatures would be too extreme for liquid water to exist.

2. Atmospheric composition: The precise mix of gases in our atmosphere allows for the right balance of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and other gases necessary for life.

3. Gravitational forces: The strength of gravitational forces between Earth and the Moon, as well as the Sun, is crucial for maintaining stable ocean tides and planetary orbits.

4. Water's chemical properties: Water's unique chemical and thermal properties make it an ideal solvent for life's biochemical processes. Water is here on purpose. Not accidental.

5. Cosmic radiation: The level of cosmic radiation reaching Earth is balanced to allow for life to thrive without being overwhelmed by harmful radiation.

Each fine-tuning is done on purpose to sustain life on earth. This can't be accidental. The necessary calculations, weighing and accurate placement of these complex things are too magnificent to ignore.

The fine-tuning suggests the presence of an intentional and intelligent Designer or Creator.

jaephoenix:
Of course you dodged the point there, which was about your uncanny knack of talking rubbish and then denying that you made the rubbish statement.
Floored atheist indeed

Go and sit down! I won't take the bait you're setting to derail the thread.

Open your ears wide!

This debate is not about intelligent design or complexity of systems. It's about Purpose. Purpose. Unintelligent atheist, listen again for the umpteenth time. It's about Purpose, okay?

Boomark:
Chai! As in, me that was asking you what meant by JW teachers are scripting? I should give a strong rebuttal against the alleged scripting of my talks?

As in, I am now the one saying JW teachers are scripting? Even after seeing your quotes in pictures?

Wonders has refused to end. I am seeing a lot of bad things on nairaland. Bad liars. No wonder churches are everywhere but evil keeps increasing.

Bye bye
Tufiakwa!!!

Go and repent. You won't gain anything by lying to defend your church or doctrine. Those who did miracles in Matthew 7:21-23 didn't make it how much more an ordinary liar. Seek the truth and the

will of God only.

Where have you ever heard that a question is called a strong rebuttal?

JW liar. Explain how you do your talks and debunk the scripting allegation. Stop acting like a kid thinking that your false name calling would save you.

I explained how we do it for clarity in all sincerity and honesty. Why can't you do the same? Instead, you retorted to name calling to deflect attention away from your failings.

Describe in vivid sentences how you do you talks if you do not have skeletons in your cupboard. All the time and resources you wasted on irrelevant rants since yesterday would have sufficed for a defence if you have rather spent those times and resources explaining how you do your talks. Why are you JWs so shameless and dishonest in conversations? Did you go to school at all? How can a mere question suffice for a rebuttal?

jaephoenix:
Of course your tiny brain cells would go bust from trying to assimilate the posts. Its beyond your pay grade just like my posts you ignored are beyond your post grade

Your mind is so dirty that you cannot frame a single sentence without getting vile. You're just getting dirtier and filthier each day. Go wash your mind dude.

jaephoenix:
At this point, you really need a shrink. You keep in throwing up stvpid points and when choked, you flat out deny those stvpid points. This is the second time you're doing this on this thread. Against Kingxsamz and now this.
Your very first OP talked about intelligent Design. Please scroll back and check it. Or better still go to a memory clinic. You prolly have a temporal lobe issue or you are stvpidy dishonest like your lawyer StillDFvcktard

Mtcheww. Please give room for intelligent people to engage. I can't be lecturing you on what we have plainly explained on this thread. Kindly take a sit and go find a place to study the very theme of this thread until you understand it, okay?

Boomark:
I have already shown you picture evidence of how deluded you are.

Don't say it is pride, just tell us you envy Bookmark of God.

Since you refused to give any strong rebuttal against the alleged scripting of your talks, you're the one deluded, proud, deceitful and highly dishonest.

jaephoenix:
But you changed the definition of a religion and declared atheism is a religion. So that's why I asked that question

Mtcheww.

jaephoenix:
You talked about a creator. Or do you have a fvcked up brain? Refer to your OP

Mtchew.

jaephoenix:
You simply have a short memory or your brain is fvcked. You talked about the creator here several times. So who is this creator? Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Go and sit down. If I talked about the existence of a Creator, did I say who the Creator is yet? Must you claim what I didn't claim?

Very unintelligent atheist.

jaephoenix:
What is a religion?

That's not the topic of this thread. I have no time for that.

jaephoenix:
So the creator here isn't Jesus/Yahweh?

Discussions should be stage by stage. I'm not discussing any Creator here. I'm discussing the existence of a Creator only.

jaephoenix:
May you be fvcked

Trash!

Is that the only thing you have in that your head?

achorladey:
Don't allow him to derail the fact he mentioned you and failed the challenge

Thank you bro.

achorladey:
No be today we sabi how he goes about blackmailing people with his lies and manipulations.

So, he is very famous for this kind of thing? A very famous blackmailer?

MaxInDHouse:
Did you MALICIOUSLY LIED against someone on Nairaland?

Did you maliciously blackmail me on Nairaland? Did someone first lie against me maliciously on Nairaland? Did I apologize to the said person?

jaephoenix:
Oh, I have. I have rebuffed your concept of 'intelligent design' with 2 points.
1. Why are the products of this 'intelligent design' seriously flawed?
2.Who created this creator?

1. You didn't refute anything. We're not discussing intelligent designs except you don't understand the output of this thread. Abd I've told you also severally that flaws in a design do not eliminate the existence of a maker. A flawed car cannot be said to be to be without a manufacturer because of its flaws.

2. Do you accept there's a Creator before asking who created Him? And who told you that a Creator must be created? By what rule or law?

Moreso, you completely avoided the topic. It's either you're dodging the real issue or you don't understand the topic.

MaxInDHouse:
You actually exhibit the character that could make me see you as a GOOD MAN:

But you publicly LIED against someone accusing him of defending you!

While you exhibit the character of a mischievous blackmailer when you know he was the first to accuse and I was the one who eventually apologized to him.

Mischievous liar and fake Christian.