₦airaland Forum

Workch:
is there evidence for or against unicorns?

Good.
Do you believe I flew to work in my wings this morning?

Workch:
We are talking about God and not unicorn.

Strawman fallacy

Just oblige me. You would understand my point
Yes or no

Workch:
Ok, it means that you are unscientific about your approach.

Because science doesn't reject until an evidence against is available.

Science is agnostic

Lol. Does science believe blue unicorns exist?

Workch:
I didn't make the word god, I don't know if it's god.

I am using the deistic term for it for you to understand what I am talking about.

It's not my word, it's the word of deists, atheists and theists. How else can I communicate with you if I don't use it.


How else do I communicate with you about aliens that we aren't sure of their existence if I don't use the word "alien".

How am I suppose to discuss dragons with you if I won't use the word dragons, even when there no evidence that they existed

Okay, I understand your view point. Clearer now. Agnostism seems a 'softer' view than atheism

Workch:
do you have sufficient knowledge to reject it?

I don't have knowledge of their existence so it stays rejected til knowledge about its properties can be ascertained

Workch:
no I don't, it's why I neither accept nor reject it.

Then you shouldn't put the word god, cos you have already qualified that being. That is what I said initially. The agnostics here have qualified and crystallized the being into a 'god'. The truth is, it may be rjhft or kahtev, but instead you chose the word 'god'
I see sometimes why y'all have run-ins with Maynmann

Workch:
yes, I don't know it there's god or not.
I think does who reject or accept the claim are wrong because we do not have sufficient knowledge to either accept or reject God.

Do you have sufficient knowledge to either accept or reject rlifht?

Workch:
Seem like you still do not understand what Agnosticism is?

Kindly read about it

I know. The issue is the ones I see here tend to qualify the 'I don't know if there's a god'

Workch:
I am telling you deistic claims. Like what they claim, not mine.

You don't understand?

I am saying that that specific kind of diestic claim can never be disproven by anybody, not even the smartest atheist on earth.

It's why agnostics hold their position

Do you understand me now?

Which of them is a deistic claim? First or second

Workch:
That's why I am agnostic in the first place, I don't know if it's a god that caused it or not.

Deist say that it's a god, atheist say it's not.

Me: we can never know, we don't know.

Some minutes ago you said

A specific kind of God that caused the singularity to form before big bang. That one

Then precisely 5 minutes later, you deposited this

That's why I am agnostic in the first place, I don't know if it's a god that caused it or not

How do you reconcile the two statements?

Workch:
A specific kind of God that caused the singularity to form before big bang. That one

How can you prove or disprove that god?

How do you know it was a god that caused the singularity? How do you know it wasn't fghtjn or akruz

1Sharon:
Yes and what did God do about it?

He basically sat back and started munching his favorite cookies

Light777:
. Do you expect God to break there heart when they aren't willing. Pharaoh was given an opportunity to repent, by God bringing some ailments to them, but he still refused, So He wasn't willing too.

Even you, when you aren't willing too, you won't expect God to turn ur heart.
Romans 10:9-10, says that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the lord Jesus,and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from Dead thou shalt be saved.

So with the heart man believeth unto Righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

So did you see that you will need to believe first in your heart first, before the breaking of it. Because your question was why haven't God make those hardened leaders to repent, so that things will be well in Nigeria, and this is the Bible telling you that before someone's heart will be broken the person will need to believe in Jesus Christ name first.

Pharaoh didn't believe in God, and wasn't going to change either, so he faced His downfall both the nation he is ruling.
God is only going to separate His people from the bad ones, same way He separated people of Israel from Egypt if the bad leaders refuses to believe in Jesus Christ name.

God will only help you when you as a person will accept that Jesus Christ died and resurrected and believe in Him.
God is busy saving His people and those who are willing to become one, not to those who are hardened.

When the Leaders believe in Jesus Christ name they will be saved and the country will be saved too.
But when they refused God is not going to force them, He will make them face there doom and the country they rule. God will only separate His people out from them. And the time is near.
So to them that believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, they will definitely be made saved.

God help us♥️

Youre seriously countering what your bible said. When the Pharaoh refused what did yahweh do? He suffered him till he bowed down. Even your bible verse said the heart of the king is in yahweh's hand. I don't know what you're defending

Workch:
for me, particularly, a deistic god.
We have different versions of them though

Which one specifically? I don't want to chase you around bushes this hot afternoon

Workch:
That's one part of Agnosticism another part of it is that, there's no evidence for or against the existence of some certain gods

What certain gods?

Trollronaldo:
1. Fallacy of appealing to ignorance: Atheism suggests that something can be outrightly rejected on the ground that we do not have sufficient knowledge about it. This is an inference reached from ignorance.

2. Fallacy of Affirming the consequent
Inferring that P is true solely because Q is true and it is also true that if P is true, Q is true. Or if P is false, Q is also false.

If The religious gods have been proven false, it doesn't mean that a non-religious God is also false, one has to also independently disprove the latter.


3. False dilemma
Presenting a limited set of alternatives when there are others that are worth considering in the context.
Atheism assumes that it is either you believe in a god or not, it's no possible to be neutral like we see in agnostic. They make this mistake a lot.
They conjure several terms like agnostic atheism, gnostic theist etc to show that pure agnostic is impracticable while in the real sense, it's very possible to be in-between.

1. Theists have not provided any counter-arguments or data to back up the claim of a god. So, we reject that claim. Same as myself claiming hdktlei exists, without evidence to its qualities and properties. The burden of proof lies with the claimant
2. This is risible. Can the non-theist gods be proven?
3. To be honest, all those qualifications are not my concern.
I'm an atheist but I have a soft spot for agnostic. Just like I'm straight but have a soft spot for lesbianism

Trollronaldo:
The logic behind deism is that, the absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. Deists argue based on law of casualty.
Their idea is that a cause caused the universe but this Casue doesn't intervene in the proceedings of the universe. Two claims:

1. Casualty: they can argue from statistic here that no one can provide a scenario where something didn't come from another thing. As a matter of fact, with the evidence available, you cannot create something from nothing. If you try this 100 times, you will fail 100times, which means they this deistic claim has 100% level of significance. Although I still insist that their claim is logical but not scientific.
People may argue about infinitive regress, it's true that this resosning will lead to infinite regress but there's evidence for now that you cannot create something from nothing hence the universe cannot be created from nothing.

2. The Cause of the universe doesn't interfere with the universe: this is also true with the evidence available.

I am not a deist, I am an Agnostic because I see some level of sense in both deism and atheism in the same vein I can identify their flaws which is why I have to wait for an evidence.

Atheism has so many flaws as well.

What are the flaws in atheism

Trollronaldo:
can't you see that I don't want to argue with you because you don't understand anything?

Lol

Trollronaldo:
Deism is based on logic.

Whats the logic

Trollronaldo:
The proposer of phlogiston thinks that Phlogiston is true and he defended it even with no testable evidence, simply based on logic. however, this doesn't matter, The objective is to show that, the proposer of God hypothesis doesn't have to provide evidence for it according to scientific principles.

In that regard, you are not suppose to outrightly reject it until a counter-evidence has bee provided.
Based on this, atheism is not scientific, this is also true for deism.

Good. You said the proposer of phlogiston based it on logic. Is religion based on logic?

Kobojunkie:
Not all "believers" fall under the same gap so please do not generalize abeg! Please be more specific abeg!

Anyone believing in religion falls under that umbrella

MaxInDHouse:
How long will those white supremacists continue to exploit you?
Ọmọ wake up! Stop fooling yourself as if there's no way out of the box they kept you. Must you always believe in their definition?
Anyone living, standing, working close to you is your neighbour!

Lol. Look who's talking about white supremacist controlling me?
How many of these people that control your brain are black?
https://ibb.co/GMx7bhM

Lateefadewale:
I am really bothered with the way you think. You are a perfect example of critical thinking education being greatly curtailed in this nation..

Its quite unfortunate brains like his constitute 90% of the Nigerian populace. Reason why we are currently doomed

jesusjnr2020:
Lol!. The witches have come and proved me right, lol.

… and you left us no doubt…

Trollronaldo:
LordReed, observe how Lavoisier maintained skepticism, tried to disprove it before coming out to reject or campaign against phlogiston theory?

It's what I expect people to do with the god hypothesis.

At least the proposer of the theory maintained some degree of skepticism.
The proposers of religion maintain is the 'gospel truth' (pun intended)

falcon01:
you need to have an iq of a potatoe 🥔 to not know that video is fake! What proof do you need? If you believe it's real then good for you, there's always people like you who makes life hard for themselves.

Brain disease is real for some folks

jesusjnr2020:
Go back to my first comment and see how you prove me right.

Only fools think everything needs proof to exist, even though everything proven to exist, existed beforehand, and didn't come into existence only after they were proven to exist.

Before they were proven to exist, there were those who knew they existed, hence they ahead of those who waited for proof before they came to that same knowledge.

What gibberish is this?
Can you prove Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?

jesusjnr2020:
Whose ignorance? Yours?

Who doesn't know about video editing especially in this age of smart phones? Even infants do...

But if you don't know witches and witchcraft exists you're as ignorant as they could possibly come.

You hastily came to the conclusion that it was video editing without proof, otherwise provide proof it's video editing and quit being a hypocrite.

You're justifying and proving my first comment right with your tantrums if you don't know.

There's proof of video editing. Look at that clip slowly, watch the timeframe, you'll see it skip some seconds during the time of 'disappearance'.
Now that I have wasted my time explaining basic shit to an adult, how do you feel?

FERNANDEZISBACK:
Look what I was saying.. you were the one who made the first comment by jumping into a conclusion without considering other possibility.. now that I called your ignorance out you are playing the dvmb game ... 🤣

There are proof of video editing which we can see how it works or worked in that video... Care to show or demonstrate how witchcraft work since you can spot one from a mile... I'm waiting clown! 🤡🥱🤣🤣🤣
Or do I just position a camera... Put on some attire and vanish into thin air? 😂
You folks be really dvmb..

What else do you expect from a bible-thumping theist? A brainstorming session? Not gonna happen

jesusjnr2020:
Did you look at the other possibility of witchcraft before concluding it was video editing, or just because you don't believe witchcraft exists too means it doesn't exist?

You should heed your own advice. Stop concluding others don't know what they believe or talk about just because you're ignorant of it.

Video editing exists, so also do witches or witchcraft even if you don't know it does.

We all know video editing exists, because some of us engage on it and in fact, you can see it done anywhere, apps do it, even for free and beautifully too.
Can you show us proof of witchcraft?

jesusjnr2020:
Lol! You've only heard of video-editing but not witchcraft that existed long beforehand.

Now clap for yourself.

If I tell you to prove existence of witches, you'll now start telling me fairytales, tales your mummy used to tuck you to sleep. SMH

jesusjnr2020:
That's better than being a waste of my God-given brain, by using it to believe He or the spiritual side of life doesn't exist. Psalms 53:1

The witches are already here to deny their own existence, lol!

Both your brain and your god are non-existent. Prove you have either