₦airaland Forum

jaephoenix:
Whats the name of the fallacy? Or did you learn what fallacy is today?

Go and find a dictionary. I'm not using a legal term. I'm simply speaking English. If you want to give it a name, go find a lawyer.

jaephoenix:
Then point us to those intelligent theists. This dress on Nairaland are just misfits

Meanwhile, you don't measure up to anything when intelligent atheists are being considered.

Judas1X:
Dude stop being a wuss.
You don't need a lawyer. This is a debate, not the law court. Have you never watched a real debate in your miserable life? Who are the parties involved. Can you name them?

Who is this pestilent fellow that's full of cursing and all vulgarity? Is this how filthy atheists can be?

Judas1X:
Jessicarabbit, pls don't debate this subhuman battling with AI. It is obvious that he is mentally compromised. Might as well debate with a basket.

At least AI is more intelligent than you. While the AI put forth a solid rebuttal before taking a bow, you couldn't even put forth a single rebuttal. You're a mere noise maker

Judas1X:
Preparing? Dude, he ran away !

Are you still here? I didn't run away. I've been busy but I'm now back online to read all my mentions.

MrBrownJay1:
here is the reality of life:
if you take away science today from everybody's mind and throw away all the science books etc, then in 100years, there will be the exact same science/books back in people's life because science is eternal (you cant fake it)... but if you take away religion and religious books from this world, then in 100years there will be a new bunch of holy scammers with new gods and strategy and brand new scam to try to enslave people. FACT!!!!

That's not fact. It's fallacy.

Please face the topic and don't detail the thread.

jaephoenix:
So a thread where I explained how deja vu works is where you floored me? Lol 😆
Ahahahahahahahaha
Did you learn that word 'floored' today and maybe want to use it in a sentence? Cos the only thing I saw in that thread was me schooling you on how the brain works.
Please how did u floor me? Hahahahahaha
And please what did you teach me? Be specific

Come on go and sit down. We were arguing about purposeful designs and the existence of a Creator before you ran away as everyone who goes through the thread can see. Why do you love lying and dishonesty this much? You can't speak a single truth in your life ? Should I bring screenshots to disprove you?

JessicaRabbit:
Well then, I reject this format.

The idea is to have referees who have no stake in this debate. StillDtruth is not one of those people. If I wanted, I could call in Maynman or AntiChristian or Judas1x. But I don't need them here. If I need someone who leans more to one side of the debate than the other, then what's the point of making it an exclusive debate? We can as well make it a free for all where everybody can just butt in and argue against each other.

I personally don't need a lawyer. I'm more than capable myself of pointing out fallacies in others' argument without having someone else do it for me. That's the point of having referees, or a jury if you will. They will vote in the end to decide a winner based on the logical framework of their argument.

If you're not willing to reconsider this, then I'm not having this debate.

If you reject the format then you're not being sincere about engaging in a honest debate. This shows you really want to break the rules and get away with it.

kingxsamz:
Oh, I must believe in this creator which you claim very much exists before you can provide any proof? 😂😂😂
Is this how you "destroyed" Atheism?
Oga, it's either you provide proof of this creator you've been rambling about or you sit aside.
Like I said, if you won't provide proof of what this creator is, what it consists of, where it resides, how it operates and how you came across such information, you're only wasting your time.
I don't need anyone to believe I have a flying horse before I show them proof, I can simply just clear their doubts by showing them undeniable evidence.
🤷🏾‍♂️

Can you show me where I said you should believe in a Creator?

Is this thread about proof of what the Creator is? We're talking about the existence of a Creator only. If you have nothing to say, shouldn't you sit back and read what others have to say?

Boomark:
Question:

1. Tell me just one thing which the spirit of God told you that is not in the bible?

Let's see if you were laughing in ignorance or not about all truth.

How does that question relate with me?

StillDtruth:
I can't and will not always be here at the material time to point out any infraction she may make before you respond. And i'm about signing off now to do somethings things and will only come in when i.want to play here.

And you have a very big weakness going against her, she is not the ordinary people you argue with, she knows how to argue and decitfull arguments which sound reasonable but are all invalid arguments because they break many rules of debates which she knows including ones she does not know.

Then you have a second problem. She does not fight fair, she always, always fights dirty and Lies when she sees she is going to lose.

And atheism is built on Lies, so if you cannot spot or prediict the lie in advance, you would walk into trap for she guarantees that she will Lie and throw every dirty trick and misrepresentation and distortion of facts and natural Truth, so the debate will never ever be fair as you have already seen she did even from the beggining.

I recommend you do not engage her for she is not the normal people you engage.

Thanks for the heads-up. I understand the situation about you rejecting my invite.

I'll be very much at alert against her antics since I'm now aware of them. The Spirit of God would raise a higher standard against her.

I have challenged AI before challenging Atheists here. Even AI gave in. Screenshot posted below. Atheism is just lies upon lies upon lies. The more you're able to quickly spot the lies and deceits, the quicker atheism falls.

Thanks again.

JessicaRabbit:
This is not what we agreed on my dear.

We agreed to have two or three unbiased referees to supervise the debate. Think of it like a jury. None of them should be allied to one side to check the other. You're trying to make this a free for all where any and everybody can shoe in his unsolicited opinion, and I'm not having it. This is strictly between the both of us.

And DeepSight is also a lawyer. If you really need a lawyer to be involved, why involve one who has a history of dishonesty and incompetence (StillDtruth), as opposed to one who is probably one of the most revered and respected intellectuals to ever grace this forum in DeepSight.

StillDtruth is heavily biased, and if you think he isn't, then I might have to start wondering if YOU are actually interested in having this discussion. DeepSight and budaatum to the best of my knowledge are objective commentators, but if you reject them, fine. You'll also have to respect my decision to reject StillDtruth as well.

StillDtruth is my own personal referee. Not yours. He alerts me when you break a rule. He's not here to judge us or decide the outcome of the debate. Hope I'm clearer now? You might need someone Ike him beside you too who'll alert you when I break a rule.

JessicaRabbit:
Emphasis on unbiased referees.

You really believe that a guy who desperately hates atheists is a right choice? Really? 😂😂😂

He's not here as a judge but as a check for rule breakers.

JessicaRabbit:
Well I reject yours too. Can we try this again?

I have many more to pick from.

Mine is just a lawyer to check you when you break the rules. Nothing more. You might need someone to check me too.

I've not yet nominated a judge. You can try again with others on your list.

JessicaRabbit:
Okay.

As for the independent referees. I nominate budaatum and DeepSight.

Budaatum is unallied to both Christians and Atheists to the best of my knowledge. Plus he frequents these parts a lot and definitely won't have any stakes in the outcome of this debate.

As for DeepSight, I've never interacted with him personally, but I follow and observe his posts. I believe he's a deist (correct me if I'm wrong DeepSight 😁). Plus he's a fierce intellectual who's been active since around the early Nairaland days and has a track record of arguing with both Christians and Atheists alike.

I'll try and reach out to them, and if they decline. I have a couple more people to call upon as referees.

You can also make two nominations if you want.

Your nominees are in no way neutral. I reject them.

StillDtruth:
Easy man. How well do you know the rules of debate?

She knows them more than you, so, you would be in trouble if she breaks one and you don't know it.

You're a lawyer. You can join the debate and be our referee. I'll try my best to spot infractions as they come.

Thanks in advance.

JessicaRabbit:
No, no, no, no. Lol. I'm not taking this highly ambiguous response from you as a concrete agreement. I'm trying my best to avoid a debate that might devolve into trolling or pointless back and forths here. "Matured reasonings" is a phrase that sounds profound but means precisely nothing. It's just a placeholder for actual substance. Be direct with your words. Are you accepting the conditions I outlined, or are you simply paying lip service to the idea of "matured reasonings"? Can you respond with a simple "yes" or "no" to the following questions?

1) Do you agree to avoid logical fallacies, emotional appeals, and straw men? And are you willing to address them properly if you're called out for committing any of the above?

2) Do you agree that empirical evidence and scientific consensus are acceptable benchmarks for truth claims?

3) Do you agree to refrain from sentimental arguments, red herrings and unprovoked personal attacks?

4) Are you willing to have our debate moderated by objective, intellectual referees to ensure fairness and call out fallacies?

Let's establish a clear understanding before proceeding please!

Yes to all.

All arguments must be contained within the limits of the stated facts. No derailment.

JessicaRabbit:
You do realize that most atheists have better things to do than to sit on their ass all day to engage in eternal rounds of "prove the existence of God" bingo? We have lives, we have careers, and we have Netflix shows to binge. Me personally, I have a work calendar that's more crowded than a wedding reception in Lagos. In past debates, I've taken up to a month to respond to my opponent, not because I was "floored" or "ran away," but because I have priorities. Nevertheless, if you want to dance, we'll dance, but under the following conditions. Logic will be our guide: No logical fallacies, no emotional appeals, no straw men. Also, and this is very important: we must stick to the rules of reason and evidence. Empirical evidence and scientific consensus will be our benchmarks for truth claims. No sentimental arguments, and no unprovoked personal attacks that don't contribute to the discussion in any way, shape or form.

For the sake of fairness and to prevent butthurt or dishonest narratives from being peddled, I would propose that we enlist at least 3 mature, intellectual and objective monikers as our referee and judge. Someone with no stakes in this argument and who can call out fallacies, ensure we stick to the rules, and declare a winner (or a stalemate, if that's where the evidence leads). So, if you're ready to put your argument through the wringer, I'm game. But don't expect any free passes or special treatment. I'm as strict as they come when it comes to upholding the rules of logic and the scientific method.

Please respond accordingly to this post, accepting the aforementioned conditions. If you accept, then give me a mention and I'll proceed to respond to the arguments presented in your OP. Thanks.

The rules are already my unannounced rules. Matured reasonings. You're welcome to the challenge.

kingxsamz:
"What atheists are known for" is not Atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. There are atheists who believe the earth is flat. There are those who believe evolution is a lie. No matter the kind of argument you have with any atheist about life, he/she will present their own opinion about that topic. Now, using that argument you had to make a generalization about atheists and athesim is lame.
I'm an atheist and I'm sure you already know that.
And no, I don't believe in any "creator" whatever that means>
. If you know there's one, provide evidence. You must tell me what this creator is, what it consists of, where it resides, how it operates and how you were able to come across such information. If don't provide all of this then anything you say will be based on assumptions which is meaningless. ✌🏾

My friend, we're here to discuss the bolded above. Put the long talks aside. Now face the topic since you have now admitted you do not believe in the existence of a Creator. I can't tell you who the Creator is until you first believe there's a Creator!

jaephoenix:
I know being a theist makes one to be dishonest but you, my friend, have taken this dishonesty to a whole new level.
Please can you post the thread you floored me? The last thread we collided was this
https://www.nairaland.com/8183255/check-it-98-atheists-poor

And it was on Elon Musk's religion(or non -religion), where we didn't agree which it was. And I didn't run. And no, atheists don't just rush into arguments cos another atheist is there. There are some debates here I just don't fancy, or I'm not interested in, or its too boring. I won't just jump into it cos another atheist is there(especially now I want to start limiting my 'social media out-time')
So where did the flooring come into this?

Back to the topic, I wanna ask some questions before I commence. Do you believe in evolution?
I highlighted the question so you won't say you didn't see it.

Do you believe a fetus is a complex design? If you do, then who created it?

You talked about the eye. Are you aware it was a simple structure before it gradually evolved into the complex structure we are now using? If you don't know, please read up. I can't teach you everything. Same with many structures in the body. In fact some structures like pineal body, appendix, coccyx have evolved into completely useless structures.
Now there exists different types of eyes due to adaptation or evolution, like I pointed above. Example, the dominant preserved group among the early Cambrian arthropods, however, was the trilobites, which were well equipped with compound eyes from their very beginning. Humans didn’t have complex eyes at first.
Also can you point out those purposeless designs stemming natural processes ?
Also while we are at it, please can you tell us who created such an intelligent, purposeful creator? I mean such complex and powerful creature can't be a product of purposeless natural design(according to your logic)

Cha!!!

Lying atheist, I'll pull out the thread now.

This is the thread where you were floored. Very, very dishonest fellow:

https://www.nairaland.com/8177501/experience-graveyard/3#131416294

Your questions are irrelevant. Except you can't read, you would have noticed that I covered details regarding your questions in my first post. Telling me to go read is the hight of empty pride and hypocrisy. You'll teach me what I already taught you? Or you can't see my talk about natural selection and incremental adaptive changes?

This thread is about establishing the fact that there's a Creator. I'm not here to tell you who the Creator is. Yes, I believe in Evolution but I don't believe that evolution itself was not set in motion by a Creator.

jaephoenix:
Ok. So those structures and phenomena are interesting…
If you suggest they were designed, then you have a problem. The problem is they were poorly designed. The immune system for example attacks some body organs, and there are no fail-safe mechanisms to curtail such attacks. So we end up with autoimmune diseases caused by the body itself. Then you have cellular diseases due to inborn error in metabolism, carcinogenic processes etc. These were products of this 'intelligent design'. Also human birth is a messy process. You have an anus sited about 10cm from the vagina, thus you see a baby popping out and covered with feces. Even the DNA is easily corrupted to code diseases like sickle cell, thalassemia etc.
I can go on and on about the errors in this very 'intelligent design' but my point is there is no intelligence in all these

How many times would I have to tell you that imperfection does not in anyway disprove the existence of a Creator? If a car has some defects, would that mean the car has no manufacturer?

jaephoenix:
I don't know if there is a creator. Science is yet to prove it. And you cannot prove it. So rest

Counter me. I presented some clues up there.

kingxsamz:
No, coming on here to claim you "destroyed" athesim with arguments that has nothing to do with athesim is what's lame.

Please desist from making such inane statements.

Please you need to cover yourself in shame.

Openly denying what atheists are known for? Atheists argue delay in favour of evolution against Creationism with a tone that suggests that since there's no Creator, then there's no God. Who doesn't know this?

Our argument today is that there's a Creator. Atheists believe that there's no Creator. Do you believe there's a Creator? I'm asking you this question for the umpteenth time tonight.

1. DNA and Genetic Code: DNA's double helix structure, nucleotide sequence, and genetic code allow for the storage and transmission of genetic information. This complex system enables life's diversity and adaptability.

2. Cellular Machinery: Molecular motors (e.g., ATP synthase), pumps (e.g., sodium-potassium pump), and factories (e.g., ribosomes) work together to maintain cellular homeostasis, regulate processes, and facilitate life's essential functions.

3. Planetary Fine-Tuning: The Earth's:
- Distance from the Sun (allowing liquid water)
- Atmospheric composition (regulating temperature and protecting from radiation)
- Magnetic field (deflecting harmful radiation)
- Axial tilt (enabling seasonal variation)
- Water content (supporting life)

all demonstrate precise calibration for life to emerge and thrive.

4. The Brain and Nervous System The brain's:
- Neuronal structure and synaptic connections
- Information processing and transmission
- Consciousness and self-awareness
- Control over bodily functions

exhibit remarkable complexity and functional design. All purposely made to perform pre-intended functions.

5. The Immune System: The immune system's:
- Recognition of pathogens and foreign substances
- Activation of immune responses (e.g., inflammation, antibody production)
- Cell-mediated and humoral immunity
- Immunological memory

demonstrate a highly specialized defense mechanism. Purposefully designed in all complexity to defend the body.

6. The Water Cycle: The continuous process of:
- Evaporation
- Condensation
- Precipitation
- Runoff
- Infiltration

regulates Earth's climate, sustains life, and maintains ecological balance.

7. The Earth's Magnetic Field: The magnetic field:
- Protects from harmful solar and cosmic radiation
- Regulates charged particle flow
- Influences Earth's climate and weather patterns

also demonstrates a purposeful design for life's protection.

These explanations further highlight the intricate complexity and intentional functional design within each example above, further supporting the argument for Creationism.

kingxsamz:
Yes, there's no proof. And if there's no proof, there's no point. You're just suggesting.
I don't need to believe there's a tree outside my house, it'll just be a fact.

This is very lame and does not address the matter at hand given the facts that have just been presented. This is just noise at best.

Please desist from commenting if you have nothing to say.

kingxsamz:
I agree. The spaghetti monster made all of this possible. 👏🏾

No matter what you agree. It's not my concern.

Do you believe in the existence of a Creator?

kingxsamz:
No, that has nothing to do with athesim. Athesim is the lack of belief in a god. It's even ridiculous that people have to be given a name for not believing in the delusions of other people. I don't see anyone calling anybody anything for not believing in mermaids or leprechauns.
If you say the universe has a creator, then you're free to prove it. If you can't, there's no point.
Just because an atheist chose to argue with you over those subjects doesn't mean it has anything to do with Atheism.

This is a lie and an outright denial. Atheists argue here on a daily basis that there's no proof of a Creator and therefore there is no God. This argument is not about the existence of a God actually. We'll get to that later but not on this thread. This is about the existence of a Creator.

Now, let me ask you, do you believe there's a Creator? Since atheism is just the lack of belief in a God.

I have used the Eye as an example in my argument above. There are many examples of other complex and purposeful designs in the earth and universe that support the argument for Creationism. Here are a few:

1. DNA and Genetic Code: The intricate structure and function of DNA, as well as the genetic code that dictates protein synthesis, demonstrate remarkable complexity and purposefulness.

2. Cellular Machinery: The inner workings of cells, including molecular motors, pumps, and factories, exhibit remarkable complexity and functional design.

3. Planetary Fine-Tuning: The precise calibration of physical constants and planetary conditions that allow for life on Earth, such as the distance from the Sun and atmospheric composition.

4. The Brain and Nervous System: The human brain's intricate structure, functionality, and ability to process information and generate consciousness.

5. The Immune System: The complex and highly specialized defense mechanisms that protect living organisms from pathogens and diseases.

6. The Water Cycle: The intricate process by which water circulates through the environment, sustaining life and regulating Earth's climate.

7. The Earth's Magnetic Field: The protective shield that deflects harmful solar and cosmic radiation, allowing life to thrive.

8. The Universe's Large-Scale Structure: The organized distribution of galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters, suggesting a purposeful design.

These examples above and several other such examples that we see in the universe further destroy atheism and support the existence of a Creator.

There are so many individual complex and well organized systems working together for a common purpose - to make the world livable for living organisms.

------

Modified today 24th August 2024.

No atheist has been able to offer any counter-argument against the arguments in the OP. One of them was even trying to get me into a different debate while avoiding this current debate. Another one up there has suddenly denied that atheism does has anything to do with the subject matter. Atheists are liars. They argue everyday that the world came into being through natural processes but here they're trying to deny because they came face to face with an argument they couldn't counter. Many of the strong atheists on this forum have avoided this thread like a plague. They should keep deceiving themselves. Atheism has been destroyed.

The Existence of a Creator: A Challenge to Atheists

I had an argument with Jaephoenix a few days ago. He was completely floored and ran away from the discussion. I observed that unlike what used to be the norm, none of his fellow atheists came to his rescue. I have presented the argument in a more organized way and hereby table it as an open challenge to all atheists worldwide.

Now, let's begin:

Atheism posits that complex designs and functionality in the natural world can be explained without the need for a Creator. However, I argue that certain features of the natural world demonstrate intelligent design, purposefulness, and complexity, necessitating the existence of a Creator.

Key Points:

1. Intelligent Design: Complex structures like the eye exhibit intelligent design, with multiple components working together to achieve a specific purpose (sight).

2. Purposefulness: The eye's design serves a clear purpose, unlike natural processes that may create complex but purposeless structures.

3. Complexity: The eye's complexity and functionality cannot be explained by random natural processes alone.

4. Universality: The eye is a common feature across many living organisms, suggesting a deliberate design rather than a random occurrence.

5. Variety: The existence of different types of eyes (e.g., human, insect, octopus) implies a Creator who adapted designs for specific purposes.

6. Creator vs. Intelligent: The argument focuses on the existence of a Creator, not necessarily an intelligent or supernatural one.

7. Natural Processes: While natural processes can create complex structures, they lack purposefulness and intentionality, unlike the eye's design.

8. Emergence: Complex systems can exhibit emergent properties, but these do not necessarily explain the eye's purposeful design.

9. Evolutionary Explanations: Incremental adaptive changes may contribute to the eye's development, but they do not fully account for its complexity and purposefulness.

Conclusion:

The existence of complex, purposeful designs like the eye necessitates the existence of a Creator. This challenges atheistic views that rely solely on natural processes to explain the natural world. While the nature and identity of this Creator are open to discussion, the evidence from intelligent design, purposefulness, and complexity demands consideration of a Creator's role in shaping the world around us.


Modified on 24th August 2024
For purpose to be established, there needs to be a mind or a conscious entity behind it. This mind can be human, animal, or even a hypothetical artificial intelligence. The presence of a mind is necessary to:

1. Conceive goals and objectives
2. Make decisions and choices
3. Experience desires and intentions

In other words, purpose requires consciousness, awareness, and intentionality, which are all qualities of a mind. Without a mind, purpose cannot be established or exist. Hence there's definitely a mind behind the existence of these purposeful and complex designs.

oteneaaron:
Of course I completely understand the parole.

When I got married, majority of JWs were shocked that my mum and dad boldly stood by me throughout, even though I say I no do again and I no wan marry JW.

And this is only because my parents have UNCONDITIONAL LOVE for me - my parents clearly said to the Elders - "no religion will EVER make us shun our own children."

Everyday, I thank God for my parents.

But for many others who decide to leave this cult, it is often a very different story - parents are quick to shun their children and would rather love the GB & organization more than their own children.

This is because as a JW, you practice a form of CONDITIONAL LOVE - the day you decide to leave the cult, is the day you become dead in their eyes.

Thank you for the this truth bomb @Achorladey

Hmm.

Nawa for this organization o. They would even scatter families on the basis of their deceitful organization?

achorladey:
Those things are programmed. More like you are given a script and expected to act according to the script.

Chai!!

achorladey:
Let me exposure your lies and manipulations packed into your madness and insanities peddling brains despite being an elder and one of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding how you blackmail people emotionally just like your GODS of men housed in USA packed into your madness and insanities peddling brains. MaxInDHouse stated.....




Your GODS of men housed in said these about parents of those who leave that your religious organization......




In essence, parents should not feel pity for their children who chose to leave that your religious organization yet MaxInDHouse wants to emotionally blackmail me using my parents, the same people that you don't even know whether they are Jehovah's Witnesses or not for that matter.

You think I am like those members you are made elders over in your congregation. That to read bible they will come to your house to do rehearsal. Do you think I look person that go to meet elders to do rehearsals before I give talks.


cc: FxMasterz this is part of their mode of operation. You will think they really pity those whose children abandoned that religious organization

Na eye service. If those parents all there children decides to leave that religious organization and the parents lacks the means of survival, they will suffer. Their eyes go see shege banza. In fact you will not know when these Jehovah’s witnesses start using style style to tell these same parents that......

But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let these learn first to practice godly devotion in their own household and to repay their parents and grandparents what is due them.

These people Chai🤣😂🤣😂


Courz and Oteneaaron will understand how this parole be.

Lol.

So dem dey do rehearsal before dem fit give talks for the cult?

😂😂 😂 😂

Since they do not have the Spirit of God for inspired teachings, na rehearsal dem they do. Men are teaching them all things but Jesus said the Spirit of Truth will teach us all things. When the Spirit is absent, the flesh takes over, leading to many errors and heresies.