₦airaland Forum

StillDtruth:
😆😆😆😆😆😆 princess, if you have ever participated in a proper debate or been to court you would have known that when an opponent or witness starts Lying, it is one of the most entertaining and funniest thing on earth. 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

So, forgive me for laughing so much it has become a habit. 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

If you've ever participated in a proper debate or been to court (which would be tragic if true, given your pitiful grasp of logic), you'd know that baseless accusations and giggling fits don't constitute a winning strategy. Little wonder you can't find a coherent argument to support your position on this topic after 7 pages.

I didn't fail to notice that another one of your attempts to corner me with semantic traps failed. Your claim that I lied was proven to be another instance of your poor comprehension at work. It must really suck to be you in this discussion right now. At this point, I'm starting to feel like a bully.

StillDtruth:
See, you are Lying some more! 😆😆😆

We are not even arguing, yet here you are lying that you are arguing with me because i am bent on winning by any means necessary.

Whereas, i have already won and you are there deslerately crying and shouting "foul" 😆😆😆

And now since your loss, you have been very desperate and hell bent on winning that you have resorted to Lies and veiled insalts and twistings all because of you are trying very deslerately to win.😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

Listen to yourself. 😂😂

I'm the one who's desperate, lying, and resorting to insults, yet you're the one who's spamming laughing emojis like a hippie on nitrous oxide, claiming victory without even engaging with any of my arguments?

And by the way, if you've already won, then why are you still typing? Shouldn't you be basking in the glory of your triumph, rather than desperately trying to convince me (and the innocent readers) of your non-existent victory?

StillDtruth:
I showed you your recent one in bold 😆
"Unlike you, my self-worth isn't tied to internet debates".

And Yet here you are need fully going on and on and on, like your life depends on it. 😆 😆😆

Clearly, you're A Liar as proven by your mounting block of lies! So, girl, keep the lies cumming! 😆😆😆😆

😂

Just because I'm still engaging in this conversation doesn't mean my self-worth is tied to it. Read my latest response to Negroid001. You've conveniently missed the context and logical connection (or lack thereof). My self-worth isn't defined by "winning" or "losing" this debate. I'm simply enjoying the exchange of ideas and pointing out the flaws in your arguments. Your conclusion that I'm a "Liar" because I'm still participating in the debate is a stretch, even for a contortionist. It's called enjoying the process, not being defined by it.

I made a post, clear as day, and yet... somehow, someway... it got lost in translation. Don't worry, I won't make you read it again (I wouldn't want to strain those brain cells of yours). Just take a bow, bask in the glory of your confusion, and remember, it's always okay to ask for clarification. 😂

Negroid001:
Arguing with someone who has chosen ignorance as his path is equivalent to arguing with a mad man on the street. When he's ready for a factual, non sentimental and non abusive debate, you can engage him.

It's just target practice for me really. Speaking for myself, I enjoy arguing with people who I believe are clearly bent on winning by any means necessary, even through sheer duplicity, because I want to give their ego a run for its money. In my experience, these kind of people can't deal with someone who's willing to go back and forth with them for lengthy periods, while casually stripping their simplistic and sentimental arguments and philosophies, leaving them without any cogent basis to keep trolling.

More importantly, I'm also arguing for the sake of the innocent, and impressionable readers who might stumble upon this online kerfuffle. His conviction might persuade them into the false notion that he's making sense, and I want to ensure that he stays looking stupid.

I understand your concerns, but don't fret. For someone of his cognitive level, It really doesn't take me more than 15 minutes to dismantle any pathetic argument he tries to present, so it's no skin of my nose.

StillDtruth:
Told you lying does not work .😆😆😆😆

StillDtruth:
Yet, here you are desperately openly lying a na talking too much. 😆😆😆
Told you lying does not work. 😆😆😆😆😆

Okay. Go ahead then, point out a single lie I've told in this back and forth. I'll wait. Take your time. I'm sure it'll be a real challenge to find something that doesn't exist. If you can't, then congratulations, you'll have proven my point about your inability to engage with reality. And if you try to make something up, well, that'll just be another demonstration of your impressive skill at fabricating nonsense.

So, what's it going to be? Are you going to put your money where your mouth is, or just keep flailing in a desperate attempt to save face? You're running out of time my dear.

EmperorCaesar:
My other Moniker has been banned since July1 till July 30 and thats why i was unable to later edit it...I can only do that on 30th as soon as the ban ends...Trust me, I'm not that uncivil, plus I have seen your pic and i wont even insult my mate, let alone an older person

Again, I already dropped the message before coming back to modify and add your name to it randomly

Im sorry once again


Back to the discussion, I have a link to a science website about the evolution of Cells/DNA, an argument and counter argument by Pro-evolutionist and Anti-Evolution Scientists, and why/how they concluded that the existence of DNA would fail evolution theory

Can i drop the link for u? I'm asking cause i noticed you tend to lean more towards using Philosophy and Art to disprove the existence of God, a method that seems abstract to me cause it lacks practical and experimental analysis and facts

I'm asking again, cause it has all science jargons and that would trouble u a bit if u arent science inclined or never studied anything science at Uni level at least


My slow reply is so due to the fact that i get exhausted typing heavily while responding to u, if not, i for dey quick dey reply pass this one

Reading your comment is always scary...its always sounding like u wanna dra

For the record, I'm not afraid of "science jargons". I don't know why you would make that assumption. As a matter of fact, I've routinely studied and explored scientific concepts enough to understand the relevant facts, even if I didn't major in a specific scientific field.

Also, I need to make one thing clear to you here: philosophy and logic are very essential tools for evaluating arguments and evidence, including scientific ones. I consider them important because they help to strengthen my cognitive muscles to reason efficiently and prevent me from committing logical fallacies and also to ensure that any conclusions I make follows from the evidence. And I believe it applies to other people as well. So, I don't believe you have a strong basis to dismiss my philosophical inclinations as "abstract" or lacking in practical analysis.

As for the claim that DNA's complexity supports intelligent design, linking a website doesn't constitute an argument. You could cite it as a reference if you want, but I need to see your own coherent explanation, understanding and articulation of the concept.

StillDtruth:
You Lie!

The records show you repeating yourself when you had nothimg to ay after i countered you. 😆😆😆.

And here you are lying and building stacks of lies in desperation.😆😆😆

And see, you have just finally confessed that i.gave evidence, whereas, you have been crying "no evidence". 😆😆😆

So lil' princess, go learn some more eg criticism and debates are not the same thing..

And 2, lies and insalts are very useless weapon in argument, it always disgraces its user. 😆😆😆😆😆

I've already seen through the fragile facade you're trying to put up here. You can't salvage the wreckage of your argument. It's over for you. The sweet aroma of your desperation wafts through the air, carrying with it the stench of intellectual bankruptcy. Indeed, the emperor has no clothes.

As for your newfound interest in debate etiquette, I find it mildly touching. It's almost as if you're slowly realizing that your tantrums aren't quite the devastating retorts you thought they were. Truly, insults and lies are indeed useless in an argument, which is why I've been pointing out your reliance on them all along. 🙂

StillDtruth:
So this is how you deceive yourself? No wonder you think lies and lyings are effective! 😆 😆
Desperate is not whatever you call it, princess. 😆😆.

You're the one running amok, twisting things to deceive yourself here. Then again, deception implies a level of sophistication I wouldn't dream of attributing to someone whose grasp of logic wouldn't fill a thimble. It would be pointless. If you're out of your depth, there's no shame in admitting it.

You lie to yourself princess, Thread shows you are the one desperately trying to.cover your shame of loss by repeating and repeating and even trying to praise yourself!. 😆😆😆 That tactics never works! 😆😆😆😆😆

As for your accusations of self-praise, well, darling, after I've demolished an opponent so thoroughly that all they have left are playground taunts, a little self-congratulation is practically mandatory. It's like winning a gold medal in intellectual jousting against a sack of potatoes. Furthermore, dismantling your argument was basic intellectual hygiene. You wouldn't understand the concept of hygiene anyway, judging by the logical dumpster fire you've created for yourself. Your arguments could be likened to a toddler flinging mashed potatoes at the wall. Besides, your desperate attempt at laughing emojis is the real sign of emotional distress. It's like watching a mime trapped in a funhouse mirror maze, flailing his limbs about with misplaced enthusiasm.

Here's a free tip just for you: if you want to be taken seriously, maybe try using actual arguments instead of the digital equivalent of glitter glue. Not only did you fail to submit a sensible argument here, you've also lost a tenuous grip on reality. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary and brush up on the meaning of "defeat" before embarrassing yourself further.

You don't know miuch proncess, 😆😆 Anong your other "don't knows", you obviously don't know that a thread means, it is lined up already. 😆😆😆😆😆😆

You've managed to not only misspell "much" and "process" but also invent a new word: "miuch proncess". I can only assume it's the title of your upcoming autobiography. What's the matter, kiddo? Are you losing composure? Are you shaking in your boots? Are your feelings getting hurt? 😂

See how you are so used to lying to yourself that you forgot to.see that the thread shows you desperately wailing and lying all because you lost! . 😆😆😆 😆😆

And i didnt even gloat over it. I rather even gae you a chance to lawfully walk back into the debate.

But because there is none, here you are wailing and cursing and lying desperately. 😆😆😆.

Told you, girl, THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTH.! 😆😆😆

I have to say, I'm impressed by your ability to throw hissy fits of pain and anger and simultaneously claim victory. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that your argument was a house of cards, and I'm the gentle breeze that sent it tumbling down. It's been a while since I've seen someone so thoroughly entertained by their own cognitive dissonance to the point they were dancing at the grave of their own arguments.

Listen, I get it. You're upset. You're utterly confused. But please understand that at the end of the day, the reality of your situation is that you cannot offer a single piece of evidence that your god exists. You've got nothing.

Lies don't work princess😆😆

Just say you cannot afford another loss now you real eyes that lies and deflections are invalid arguments and you cant use them against me! 😆😆😆😆😆😆

And know this girl, if your world of lies and delusions would allow, arguments are not established by noise making or by lenghty superfluous and meaningless words or simply because you support a posituon.

I don't need to "afford" a loss. Unlike you, my self-worth isn't tied to internet debates. I demolished your arguments because they were demonstrably nonsensical. You cling to lies and delusions because reality requires pesky things like evidence and logic, which, from your response, appear to be foreign concepts. Arguments are established by facts, reason, and a coherent train of thought, and you seem to be missing all three. You're just sounding like a wounded animal, cornered, frightened, and lashing out with all the ferocity of a kitten. You've already emptied your bag of tricks and yet, nothing has worked in your favor. You tried to deflect, you tried to project, you tried to strawman, but the truth still stares at you hard in the face. But I won't stop you though. Nope. Keep going. You're only digging a deeper hole for yourself, and I'll still be here to kick the sand over you when you've exhausted your limit.

StillDtruth:
See resort to insalts all because you Lost! 😆😆😆😆

Au contraire. I dissected your spurious argument and exposed the pearls of illogic and the gaping holes in your "evidence." But we already know how your tiny ego can't handle this level of public humiliation and so, in your grand quest to appear magnanimous, you're trying to falsely equate a logical takedown with a playground brawl. Maybe you should take a refresher course on the difference between criticizing an argument and criticizing a person. In the meantime, I hear crayons are great visual aids. Now feel free to lick your wounds and come back with something a little less… desperate.

StillDtruth:
Ehen! That bad! I tell you, you are desperate as you have already proven only for you to turn it around . What a childish! 😆😆😆

If being desperate means I'm calmly debunking your nonsense despite your best efforts to derail the thread with logical gymnastics, then I'm guilty as charged. But if being childish means I'm still waiting for a decent counterargument from you, then I'll wear that badge with pride.

Are you surprised that your arguments aren't holding water? Because I'm not.

When the debate is lost, one of the antics by the loser is to repeat their argument and create new ones to so that the argument might be thought continuing and prolonged as you seek something which may say which you can use to redeem your loss.

This is hilarious. It's almost as if you're trying to distract from the fact that your argument has been reduced to a smoldering ruin, like a plate of food that's been left in the open for far too long - dry, flavorless, and only good for the bin. At this point, I'm simply providing a funeral procession for your deceased claims, and you're the one tossing dirt on the coffin with your pathetic deflections. The only thing I'm repeating is the sound of your argument hitting the ground with a thud, and the only new thing I'm creating is a eulogy for your lost cause. So please, continue to flail about like a fish in a bucket, grasping for that elusive straw that will save you from drowning in a sea of your own ineptitude. I'll just be here, sipping tea and waiting for your brain to catch up with the reality and finally admit defeat.

But unfortunately for you, that won't work with me! 😆😆😆

.....a phrase famously uttered by every defeated debater, bad poker player, and toddler who's about to lose a game of Candy Land. Congratulations, you've just leveled up in the art of sounding vaguely defiant while conceding the argument. You're welcome 😂.

I only kept on responding to you because i thought you might come up.with something intellligent and valid that should give you an opportunity to restart the debate.

Obviously, you're delusional. We can go ahead and line up our claims for the audience to verify line by line, and it will be proven that everything I've said here is facts and all your responses have been intellectual equivalents of a participation trophies I.e. "Good job showing up!", "A for effort!" etc.

The sounds you've been hearing are just the sweet serenade of your own cognitive dissonance, making you spin around aimlessly like an impoverished villager at an urban science convention.

But here you are repeating yourself and resorting to low blows, blackmails, lies and insalts all because YOU LOST! FAIR AND SQUARE. 😆😆😆😆

I see you've finally admitted that your entire argument was a game -- one that you played with a deck of fallacies and a rulebook of rhetorical tricks. But don't worry, I won't gloat (much). After all, it's not every day that one gets to witness the majestic spectacle of a worldview imploding under the weight of its own contradictions. At any rate, I'm still enjoying your tantrums, which betray the fact that you're still trying to comprehend your self-defeating argument.

I repeat, if you think you can ever vaidly win, raise a thread, i'll be there and you would stil lose again crying and wailing about how you lost! 😆😆😆

It would be a waste of my precious time to create another thread, just to expose the vacuity of your claims once again. We don't need to trouble this site with too many threads of me making you look stupid over and over. Your responses are akin to a magician's hat -- empty, yet full of hot air. I've been playing a game of intellectual whack-a-mole with you, and every time I smack down one of your baseless assertions, another pops up, equally as flawed. You're a lightweight who's only good as a punching bag, not an intellectual sparring partner.

And remember, when you point a finger at me, three fingers are pointing back at the corpse of your argument -- which, might I reiterate, has been autopsied, cremated, and reduced to a pile of ashes by the fiery sword of reason.

StillDtruth:
You are just trying to keep.us talking so that it would look like we are still arguing. Whereas, You did commit fallacies and i pointed them out at their material times and the argument moved on to where you were you admitted and confessed that you saw God's prophecies come to pass.

All these things are clearly recorded here. So you are just trying to find a way to.reargue this matter since you see that you lost.

Now you're starting to sound desperate. You've accused me of trying to prolong the argument, yet you're the one who's been grasping at straws, throwing up smokescreens to hide the fact that your corpse of an argument that's already been autopsy-confirmed dead and buried.

You've been consistently guilty of cherry-picking (which I've pointed out ad nauseam), confirmation bias (only seeing what you want to see), moving the goalposts (constantly shifting the definition of "prophecy" etc. Meanwhile, I've been patiently pointing out these logical fallacies, and you've responded with... crickets. Not a single attempt to address or refute them. It's like trying to have a conversation with a brick wall, except the brick wall would at least have the decency to be consistent in its silence.

No princess, you did that. All my response flow from eveything and anything you said. So, its you dear.

And sorry the remainder of your comments are invalid for being afterthoughts and fesh arguments and reatguments eg i have already given you examples of vlear and precise prophecies which you admiited and confessed tthat you saw them happen like the rest of us.

So, clearly you just cannot believe that you had no valid counter to this issue, thetefore you trying to create ways you could.reargue it.

But dear, there is none BECAUSE, IT IS A LAW, THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTH.

So, you would lose everytime, if you doubt it create a thread on it and see if you would not still fail again... and again.... and again

All I see here are the grandiose declarations of a cornered apologist who's already lost the argument. The only thing your responses did was to betray the fact that you practice logic below two dimensions, with a three dimensional brain. Acknowledging your examples doesn't mean I conceded their validity or relevance. Obviously you know this, but it's an inconvenient obstacle to your spurious agenda so you've wilfully chosen to conflate acknowledgement with agreement. So these are just more desperate lies from you at this point. You're the one desperately trying to revive a failed argument by accusing me of rearguing. It's like watching a zombie try to dance the ballet. Once again, truth isn't determined by your say-so or personal convictions. It's determined by evidence and reason. And on that front, you're still woefully lacking, no matter how many times you try to pretend otherwise.

Sorry dear,the claim is proof of God and the Sparrow gave evidence of prophecy, which caused the burden to shift to you, which is why you countered with general vagueness and i recountered, that specific and precise prophecies, which.means the burden shifted to you again

And you could not counter it. You even admitted the truth of seeing the prophecies happen. So, sorry, you lost!

Well, I think it's clear who's still searching for their intellectual footing here. The burden of proof doesn't shift just because you've mustered up a bit of confidence and some vague hand-waving. It shifts when you present credible, empirical evidence that meets the standards of rational inquiry; and your "evidence" wouldn't even pass muster at a kindergarten show-and-tell. As for your "specific and precise prophecies," I'm still waiting for something that wouldn't be laughed out of a school debate tournament.

In a court of reasoning prophecy and the coming to pass of the prophecy is proof of God for it is known that prophecy is not within the ability of humans.

And saying it would rain tomorrow is not a prophecy. But if you said the Sahara would be a mighty sea like the Atlantic, now, thats a prophecy, everyone would look out to see if it would happen. And you already know this but your just being petty in your desperation to change your loss.

Something being unexpected doesn't equate to it being "divine", and I'm sure no one here with a healthy brain capable of reasoning will swallow that logical whopper whole. Prophecies, by their very nature, are long shots. And when one finally hits, it's not a testament to divine intervention, but rather a statistical inevitability. You're the one who's betting the farm on a handful of dubious prophecies, not me. You're the one who's trying to shoehorn the complexities of the universe into a narrow, dogmatic worldview, not me. More proof of your desperation driving your position in this argument.

It's a good thing we have actual scientists studying laws of geology and plate tectonics, so we can verify when the Sahara desert magically bends to accommodate your messianic meteorological musings. So keep on prophesying. Keep on praying for that Sahara sea. And I'll be over here, in the "court of reasoning," waiting for something -- anything -- resembling actual evidence.

Sorry dear, if your husband acknowleges an unknown child from your house girl as his, he also acknowledges sex and adultery with the housegirl.

As i.said earlier, You would lose everytime,

if you doubt it create a thread and see if you would not still fail again... and again.... and again BECAUSE, IT IS A LAW, THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTH.

More capital letters and awkward analogies. Ignoring the fact that your analogy completely fails to capture the concept of the debate, rendering it nonsensical, it is also a strawman argument, which means you've not actually addressed my argument. A more proper analogy would be that if I didn't acknowledge my neighbor's terrible cooking, then I'm conceding that it's a culinary masterpiece, which is the very definition of a false dichotomy. I know you won't understand what a false dichotomy means because your understanding of logical fallacies is abysmal and you have the wits of a dusty scarecrow.

sonmvayina:
JessicaRabbit, StillDtruth AKA Dtruthspeaker is our resident lunatic. I have volunteered a thousand times to pay for his treatment but for some reasons he keeps declining.....
Just let him be for your own sanity...

Trust me, I've been well aware of this fact since my last two posts here. At this point, I'm mostly just doing this out of boredom. He's obviously a simpleton, which is a good thing for me because it means that I don't need to use much brain juice to banter with him. I could go on for years reminding him that he's a dumbass. He obviously lacks the intelligence or the wits to keep up.

StillDtruth:
You are the one committing the red herring fallacy for you raised the issue of vagueness and i have addressed it and now that you couldn't counter it, you are trying to redivert attention back to the vagueness as if you never raised it or it was left not answered

Allow me to disentangle the mess you've created here. Firstly, I didn't shift any posts -- that's entirely your own wish or imagination. I have maintained my original argument that prophecies are often vague and open to interpretation. Your attempt to clarify vagueness doesn't suddenly make the original prophecy less vague. You are trying to put toothpaste back into the tube. It doesn't work that way. The vagueness has already been squeezed out, and we can all see it, so stop chasing your own tail. You've continued to cherry pick instances that seem to fit your narrative while ignoring the countless other times when prophecies have failed or been grossly misinterpreted. That's not evidence my dear. That's selective attention.

I must say that I'm impressed by your audacity in accusing me of committing a red herring fallacy when, in fact, you're the one who's trying to divert attention from the original argument, like a magician using a sleight of hand. Not only was your address of "vagueness" pointless, the elephant in the room - the inherent malleability of prophecies - remains unattended to. Vagueness is still an issue, hindsight is still 20/20, and your attempts to deflect and divert attention only serve to strengthen my original argument. Well done, I suppose?

Meanwhile, the records here prove i addressed it and your complainings here and your attempt at red herring proves that you have no valid argument to make.

I suspect that you're having difficulties following the thread of logic here and I sympathize with you on that, but in all honesty, your responses have been about as convincing as a kindergartener's drawing of a unicorn -- colorful, perhaps, but not exactly based in reality. I'm not the one who's trying to retrofit a square peg into a round hole here. If your prophecies are truly as clear and direct as you claim, then perhaps you can explain why they require so much creative interpretation in the first place? Shouldn't a genuine prophecy be more like a precise arrow shot, rather than a shotgun blast of vague statements that can be applied to any old thing? If events are still "playing out in our presence," as you put it, then doesn't that just prove my point that we're still waiting for clarity on these supposedly clear prophecies? It's like waiting for a bus that's perpetually "just about to arrive" - at some point, you start to wonder if the bus even exists in the first place.

You are just seeking how to re-argue what you have already argued and lost.

Sure, call it re-arguing. I call it reminding you of the basic facts you wilfully and conveniently ignore.

If there was any contradictory evidence you would have presented it if you had it.

You think I'm obligated to spoon-feed you counter-evidence, as if I'm your personal research assistant? Newsflash: the burden of proof lies with the one making the claims, not the skeptic. So please bring actual evidence, if you hope to convince anyone with a functioning critical thinking muscle.

But you had none which was why this case closed!

Nope. Reverse card on that logic, buddy. I know I just addressed you on this, but once again, allow me to introduce you to the burden of proof. In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute. The burden of proof is usually on the person who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, a translation of which is: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges" [Wikipedia]. The lack of counter-evidence from my end simply means your own evidence, which you've presented, is as flimsy as a wet tissue. Your turn.

This is a court of reasoning and each side was given an equal opportunity to make their case freely.

In the "court of reasoning," merely asserting that prophecies came to pass doesn't magically confer divine provenance. That's like saying, "I predicted it would rain, and it did! Therefore, I'm the meteorological messiah!"

If you really think that both sides of this discussion carry the same weight, then that's just another testament to your ignorance of the subject being discussed. There exists absolutely no equality between testable evidence and unverifiable claims. It's like pitting the scientific method against a crystal ball and expecting them to carry equal weight.

When you're ready to present some actual evidence that withstands scrutiny, I'm all ears. Otherwise, it would do you good not to pretend as though declaring "case closed" constitutes a logical conclusion. At best, it's just a smoke bomb to obscure the lack of substance in your argument.

And you made yours and i responded to it and you even admiited and confessed the Truth of my case, hence the case got settled. So, no wrong was done to you.

The fact that I acknowledged the occurrence of an event doesn't mean I conceded the divine origin of said event. I even pointed out that these events have natural explanations, a point you are yet to address or respond to. From what I can see here, you're just trying to play fast and loose in the most blatant case of intellectual dishonesty I've witnessed this year. Your entire argument relies on a textbook case of four well known logical fallacies:

1) False dichotomy: assuming that if I don't attribute the event to divine intervention, I must be admitting it's a miracle.

2) Lack of evidence: providing zero concrete proof of divine involvement, just hand-waving and "trust me, bro."

3) Moving the goalposts: first, you claim the prophecy is the important thing, then you shift to "it happened, therefore God" without establishing a causal link.

4) Cherry-picking: selectively highlighting convenient events while ignoring the countless unfulfilled prophecies and contradictions in your holy book.

This is not how logic is done. The fact that you refuse to even recognize and admit to your obvious shortcomings only indicates that you have ulterior motives in this discussion and are not interested in debate for the sake of arriving at the truth. Quite an irony, if I might add, given your username.

You just lost because "THERE IS NO.VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTH" And this is an unbreakable law (Aside: which is why criminals need to bribe and put corruptable judges in the courts of men else, they will always be found guilty)

Non-sequitur. You've successfully changed the subject while pretending to score a point. Truths are not established by stamping feets, declaring "truth!" and expecting the universe to nod in agreement. Your "unbreakable law" sounds suspiciously like a get-out-of-jail-free card for your own cognitive biases.

You already that predicting a fact that is known or foreseeable is no prophecy.

Now this is a perfect example of moving the goalposts. Remember that you initially claimed that the fulfillment of prophecies is evidence of divine intervention, but look at you here qualifying it by saying that predictable events don't count. I find this to be a very convenient escape clause. At any rate, if we're discounting predictable events, then shouldn't we also discount the "prophecies" that are similarly predictable or have obvious historical and political explanations? Like the cyclical nature of empires rising and falling, or the inevitability of human conflict and societal upheaval?

It's so obvious that you're not being consistent with your standards here -- another telling sign that you're not having this discussion in good faith. If we're going to play the "prophecy fulfillment" game, we must apply the same standards across the board, otherwise it's just a shell game where you get to declare "prophecy fulfilled" whenever it suits your narrative. The question remains: what makes a prophecy truly prophetic, and not just a predictable event or a clever interpretation of existing trends? Give me a clear criterion, and let's see if your "prophecies" still hold up to scrutiny.

The quality of a prophecy is that it must be one which no one can speculate or foresee and the best one is the one which no one could even have in mind, which was what God did.

Look at how far back God gave this prophecies, when the world was very sweet and good and green and people had love and family and moved about freely.

Even in 1980 to 2010 no one could still see or calculate that life as we have always known it would have scattered so terribly as we have now seen. No body knew this neither did anyone see it.

MEANWHILE, GOD THROUGH HIS SERVANTS, HAD ALREADY OVER LONG FORETOLD US THESE THINGS AND YOU AND I AND OTHERS.HAVE SEEN THEM HAPPEN.

AND GOD, WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO SAID SO.

So, come do that and come up.with something no.one can come up that will happen tommorrow, then we shall all see if you are a prophet.

So if I predict something obvious, like the sun rising tomorrow, that doesn't count as a prophecy. But if someone makes a vague claim about future calamities and hatred, that's a "real" prophecy? Okay then, I'll play along. Here's a prediction that meets your criteria: I foresee a future where humans will continue to both cooperate and conflict with each other, leading to a mix of progress and challenges. Wow, I can see the shock and awe on your face already!

As for the "no one could have seen it coming" argument, that can easily be explained with hindsight bias. Humans have a remarkable ability to rationalize and make sense of past events. No point appealing to divine intervention here.

StillDtruth:
Ses ow, you have shifted post from foresight ("vague and open to interpretation." to hindsight now that i have answered your goresight.

And even more, these events are still.playing out in our presence and in our eyes, so no one is looking backwards

I'm not sure how this red herring detracts any points from my main argument that prophecies are often so vague and inherently malleable that they can be retrofitted to fit various outcomes.

So what if those events still play out today? You haven't established any actual fact. You're still only selectively focusing on events that seem to align with the prophecies while ignoring the multitude of contradictory evidence or, at the very least, alternative explanations, and that is a textbook case of confirmation bias.

Correlation does not imply causation. Just because some events may seem to align with ancient predictions doesn't mean the prophecies were divinely inspired or accurate. The world is an intricate web of cause and effect, so please be cautious of cherry-picking data to suit your preconceived notions.

All in all you have now admited and confessed that these prophecies happened. And no one cares how/why they happened.

The most important thing about a prophecy is that it must happen undisputably. AND YOU HAVE JUST CONFIRMED THAT.

So, case closed

God is proven!

This is just an ambitious leap of faith. For starters, I think you have prematurely popped the champagne cork. If we're in the court of reason, then we're still in the opening statements phase. You need to bring on the evidence, and then we can get this trial started. Acknowledging that an event occurred is not tantamount to admitting divine intervention. I can agree that the sky is blue without attributing it to a celestial paint job.

Besides, if we're playing the "prophecy fulfillment" game, I can predict with 100% certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow. Will that make me a prophet? Please, do tell.

StillDtruth:
Ambiguity and vagueness is always cleared with the happening of an event. Not to talk of the fact that there was no vagueness when God fore said Isreal shall be 2 countries. And historians confirm that,

Only for God to also fore Say that they would be 1 again, and thishas been so even till today.

Not to talk of the present world calamity and hatred and distance among family members.

No ambiguity in these things and all these evidenced and more, you and i and the world are clear and direct witnesses to the Truth and real eye-ity of these prophecies.

Hindsight is 20/20, so it's very easy to retrofit prophecies to fit events that have already occurred. The fact that some events may seem to clarify vague predictions doesn't necessarily translate to evidence-based reasoning. Also, I'd argue that the division and reunification of Israel can be explained by historical and political factors, rather than divine intervention.

As for the "present world calamity and hatred and distance among family members", I'd say that's more a result of human nature and societal complexities than any divine prophecy.

EmperorCaesar:
Lemme start by rendering my apology first

You misunderstood me, the insult wasn't for u and it's never an insult too

I already dropped the messaged, and had to come back three days later to tag u to it so u could see it

I just added your name randomly to it, and i somehow added it to what made it read like an insult


I'll never for any reason insult u.... I remodified the post already

I'm sorry please .


Can we go on with the discussion now??

I'm sorry once again, it's not directed at u

Listen, I'm not impressed by your "rendering my apology" phrase. It's a vague and insincere expression. You tagged me in a comment that directly addressed me with a condescending tone, implying I'm not a logical thinker. Do you think I'm blind?

DevilsEqual:
JessicaRabbit, I guess we could all agree you're not a logical thinker. Atheists aren't smart at all

^^^^^^^
|||||||
If that wasn't intended for me, then I must be the Queen of England. Your "apology" just seems like a weak attempt to save face, and I've not seen where you modified the original post contrary to your claim. If you're genuinely sorry, then demonstrate it through your actions and words. I'm willing to put this aside and engage in a discussion, as you requested. But let's make one thing clear: I won't tolerate any more passive-aggressive comments or backhanded "apologies".

Now, regarding the topic of discussion here, I'm still waiting for your coherent explanation of how the complexity of DNA supports intelligent and purposeful design. Enlighten me with your scientific evidence and logical reasoning. I'm eager to see if you can provide something more substantial than an argument from incredulity.

StillDtruth:
The bold is exactly my point with the adfition that they have been done already.

That is why we have The Laws of Logic for validity and Truth of arguments and The Laws of Evidence for proof of Truths via proper evidence, among other Laws.

And it is them who raised the invalidity and wrongfulness of your counter.argument to mightysparrow's case.

If you look, you would see i have not made any claim to you however, i am.watching to see if you truly and properly countered sparrows claim which you did not as i.have already pointed out.

So, these universal Laws are the basis of my objection to your answers for the rules and laws of proof of Truth has been identified and set already.which is why God and the bible have been acceptable and upheld even centuries after by every.reasonable person.

Perhaps you didn't quite understand the comment I made in response to MightySparrow. I was simply trying to illustrate that prophetic pronouncements, whether biblical or not, are often vague and open to interpretation. Your dedication to the Bible as a historical authority is admirable, but you must acknowledge the distinction between faith and evidence-based reasoning. While the Bible is a sacred text for many, it's crucial to consider the findings of scientific inquiry and historical research, which have led to a more nuanced understanding of the past. Science, with its self-correcting nature and reliance on empirical evidence, has challenged the accuracy of certain biblical accounts. For instance, the scientific consensus on evolution, geology, and archaeology has shed light on the origins of humanity, the age of the Earth, and the history of civilizations, most of which may differ from the popular biblical narratives.

Now, I'm glad that we seem to share a common ground in valuing the importance of logical reasoning and evidence-based evaluation. However, I'd like to highlight that the Bible, as a sacred text, does present challenges when examined through the lens of logical consistency and empirical evidence, defying the very "Laws of Logic and Evidence" you hold so dearly. It contains accounts that seem to contradict each other, and some narratives that may be considered fantastical or miraculous, which can be difficult to reconcile with the laws of logic and evidence. A common example to highlight is the difference between the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2, both having different sequences of events. You also have the resurrection accounts in the Gospels which have varying details. If you genuinely seek truth and understanding, you must learn to apply the laws of logic and evidence consistently, without selectively choosing which parts of the Bible to scrutinize and which to accept without question.

As for the claim that "reasonable people" have upheld the Bible for centuries, I think that's a vast oversimplification. Our comprehension of the world has evolved over the years, which means that what was deemed reasonable in the past, when the Earth was believed to be flat, may not withstand the scrutiny of present-day understanding. I'm not advocating for religious people to abandon their faiths, but rather, to integrate critical thinking to complement it. When it comes to historical and natural world inquiries, it's more efficacious and intellectually honest to employ methodologies like logic and the scientific method, that have consistently augmented human knowledge.

Hello David0002

I don't agree with your negative assertions about the effects of masturbation. In fact, there is evidence showing the positive benefits masturbating has on sexual health, which directly contradicts your position. If you want to quit masturbation entirely, you run the risk of developing prostate cancer. Like almost everything in life, moderation is important.

I understand that you have struggled with these issues and have found them to be detrimental to your well-being. I also appreciate your commitment to seeking help and finding resources to overcome these challenges. That being said, I would like to caution against framing this issue as a simple matter of good against evil, or sin vs salvation. Sexual struggles are often complex and multifaceted, and using shame and guilt to coerce people with compulsive sexual behaviors often exacerbates the problem, rather than solve it.

StillDtruth:
See your words "meet the standards of evidence, logic, and reason" betray you for this standard is according to who? You.

Therefore your judgment is based on your personal acceptance/rejection and not based on.Law /Logic/Evidence, for if you truly.did know this standard then you would know that.proof has been given

The standards of evidence, logic, and reason are not mine, nor are they arbitrary. They're the result of centuries of philosophical and scientific development, refined through the contributions of countless thinkers and experts. These standards are the foundation of critical thinking, empirical inquiry, and intellectual honesty.

All I'm seeking for is arguments which align with the principles of logic, the scientific method, and the pursuit of objective truth. My personal acceptance or rejection is completely irrelevant. The focus here is on the collective efforts of humanity to establish a framework for evaluating claims and arguments.

I think it's becoming quite obvious that you cannot meet these standards and that is why you prefer to believe that I'm imposing my own personal standards. If you're suggesting that these standards are merely a product of my personal preference, then I'd love to see your alternative framework for evaluating evidence and arguments. I'm eager to learn about this novel approach that bypasses centuries of intellectual progress. As for me, I'd rather rely on the time-tested standards that have propelled human knowledge forward. The claims you've made so far, on the other hand, will remain unconvincing without empirical evidence and logical coherence.

StillDtruth:
I think you guys keep equate your personal not-acceptance/dislike for a fact with evidence and logic.

Logic and evidence lives beyond peoples desires, wishes and personal preference.

So you committed those infractions because you allowed your personal position override your prove of your argument by law and logic.

And you are already holding christians to that standard so it is duly applied to every one who debates here.

My "personal not-acceptance" or "dislike" for a fact is not the issue here. The issue is the lack of empirical evidence and logical coherence in your arguments. I'm not rejecting your claims because of personal preference; I'm rejecting them because they fail to meet the standards of evidence, logic, and reason that you claim to uphold. You accuse me of allowing my personal position to override my proof, when that's precisely what you're doing. Once again, you're only projecting your own inadequacies on to me.

jaephoenix:
Babe where have you been? Missed you. You have been schooling these dvllards for too long. Even our second most crazy resident madman DTruthSpeaker becomes civil while discoursing with you

Hello there. Nice to know I was missed 🙂.

I've just been busy with work and other personal engagements. Besides, discussions on online forums can get mentally tasking, and usually I'd rather not engage until I'm sure that I can fully commit to a back and forth trade of points and counterpoints.

DevilsEqual:
The Cleric is drunk

According to scientists...

"If unwound and tied together, the strands of DNA 🧬 in one cell would stretch almost six feet but would be only 50 trillionths of an inch wide. If all the DNA in your body was put end to end, it would reach to the sun and back over 600 times (100 trillion times six feet divided by 92 million miles).”


With this kinda arrangement in one body, if u really believe Life 🧬originated from a random explosion or from a random simple molecule(Organic Soup) rather than by an intelligent design...

Jessica.Rabbit, I guess we could all agree you're not a logical thinker. Atheists aren't smart at all

You've presented a fascinating fact about DNA's length, but I'm particularly curious if you really believe this somehow supports "intelligent design"? Are you perhaps implying that the complexity of DNA is evidence of a creator? That's a classic God-of-the-gaps fallacy. Do you know what that is? Are you even familiar with the scientific explanations for DNA's structure and function? Knowing you, I'd wager that you're not.

DevilsEqual, EmperorCaesar or whatever you call yourself these days, I'll have you know that "random explosion" and "organic soup" are rather poor representations of the actual scientific theories. Abiogenesis and evolution are well-studied fields with evidence-based explanations. I'd have advised you to explore the scientific consensus instead of relying on watery caricatures, but I don't know if you really want to do that, because from what I've parsed from your behavior since we first interacted many months ago, you seem to find more comfort in pointless shadowboxing, as opposed to having straight and honest dialogue around a subject. Your second moniker's failed debate promise has unfortunately morphed into sad and childish attempts at drive-by insults, and I couldn't be more unimpressed. It's a telling indication of your insincere duplicity.

AlbertNewton:
What sort of evidence will convince you of the existence of a God?

Empirical, testable, and falsifiable evidence that meets the standards of scientific inquiry. You know, the usual suspects: peer-reviewed papers, replication etc.

StillDtruth:
Evidence, Logic, sound reason, all dictate that co debators must argue on the issue of the debate, So, this is you,.moving from topic to topic all because you could not reasonably attend to the issue on point, so you atheist shift the post as you have now done in complaining about contradictions and inaccuracies whereas, we are waiting on you to attend to nostra and prophecies. In violation of logic, reason and evidence.

I had to read the conversations back and forth between the both of us to understand your post here and I find it very interesting that you can casually accuse me of "moving from topic to topic" and "shifting the post". It's a clever case of projection from you, considering the fact that our correspondence has been a masterclass in evasion from your own side. I've been consistently addressing the topic, while you've been expertly dodging and weaving around the uncomfortable facts I've presented. Regarding the contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible, I'd say it's quite relevant to the debate actually, considering your entire worldview is built upon the assumption that this book is infallible. It's not a complaint, but a critical examination of the very foundation of your beliefs, so you really have no point there. Just because I didn't buy MightySparrow's "Moses knew the story of creation because... magic" explanation or suggestion doesn't mean I'm dodging the topic. I'm simply saying that if anyone wants to rely on evidence, logic, and reason (as you claimed), then let's apply those standards to his/her own claims.

Nostradamus' prophecies, just like the Bible's, are open to interpretation and have been cherry-picked to fit various narratives. And, as I mentioned earlier, the Bible's contradictions and inaccuracies are glossed over, while atheists are expected to provide exhaustive explanations for every. single. detail.

Perhaps you need to understand that evidence, logic, and reason don't just magically appear when it's convenient. They require consistent application, not selective interpretation. So, let's either have a genuine discussion or agree to disagree -- but please, spare me the "you're dodging the topic" rhetoric when I'm simply holding your claims to the same standards you claim to uphold.

MightySparrow:
I am living proof. He created me what about you?

So you're not just a living proof, yes? You're a living, breathing, self-replicating, carbon-based, water-dependent, gravity-susceptible proof. That's a lot of proof! But unfortunately, that's not quite the kind of evidence I was looking for.

You see, I can also claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created me, but that doesn't make it a falsifiable claim, so until you can provide some testable, empirical evidence that doesn't involve your personal existence (which, let's be honest, is a pretty biased sample size), I'll remain a skeptical atheist.

At any rate, if you truly consider yourself to be "living proof", can you regenerate your limbs or something? That would be a neat trick!

MightySparrow:
You are right. We are not talking about new things but someone who see all things transforming but remains unchanged and unperturbed.

I'm still waiting to see you provide actual evidence for the God you believe in.

StillDtruth:
Fallacy and shift from post.

The topic was Nostra and prophecies but now you have craftily shifted post to creation stories and bible falling short on True events.

Whereas, Isreal's return to their land in 1947 is looking at you!

If only people would learn and see that you atheists make invalid arguments!

Speaking of history, it's fascinating how some of you Christians cherry-pick events that fit your narrative while ignoring the plethora of contradictions and inaccuracies within the Bible. It's like selectively quoting a scientist to support one's claims while disregarding the overwhelming consensus. At least atheists rely on evidence, logic, and reason to construct our arguments. We don't rely on faith, which is merely a euphemism for "I don't need evidence."

MightySparrow:
What about him, he was a Jew also. However, if he ever saw anything, there are nothing new in his prophecies that the Bible has not talked about one way or the other.

However, he knew nothing about the creation of the world and those things that happened before his birth. How do you suppose Moses knew the story of creation?

Cultures around the world have creation myths. The Egyptians had a cosmic cow birthing the sun god Ra. The Babylonians had Marduk slaying a sea monster to create the earth. Creation stories are not an exclusive element of Christianity. Besides, if the Bible is the ultimate authority on history, then why does it contradict verifiable facts? The Bible might be a fascinating collection of stories, but when it comes to demonstrably true events, it drastically falls short. Unless, of course, you believe the world is flat and the sun revolves around it.

Looks staged to me. I could be wrong though.

MightySparrow:
Have you considered the prophecies of Daniel and others like Isaiah, Obadiah,etc about the world's events, even some writings of Moses written about 4,000 years ago and their accuracy?
It can only take a person who is in charge to write history in advance.

I take it you've never heard of Nostradamus?

MightySparrow:
Your conclusions are drawn out of your own myopic view of the world and religion. In all of the religions, two things are possible: if man set out from a point in time and space, they must have carried along a knowledge of God from that place or they got to a point when they feel there is a higher power outside their reach that controls things.

Besides, reading through the Bible, and the prophecies, you will discover that there is a being somewhere controlling everything globally from the prehistoric past to the unknown future. Only very few people share your view, just insignificantly few called atheists.
God does exist.

Your submission here is a masterclass in begging the question and conflating correlation with causation. The existence of religious beliefs and prophecies doesn't automatically substantiate the existence of a higher power. It only highlights humanity's innate desire for meaning and control in an uncertain world. Nothing new to see here.

Dangrace01:
The earth is flat the earth does not spin

The moon is not ball shaped so it has no other side.
The moon is like a circular plate or disc. The moon is 2d or 3d.

Forget all these fake cgi you see from NASA its all scam.

No one has ever been to space talkless of moon

Surely you're trolling. LOL