₦airaland Forum

KingEbukasBlog:
All I see is circumlocution

Again , I ask you how did natural processes derive the propensity for their functionalities ? Artificial processes in computing are designed to run on their own and produce results ON THEIR OWN .

How did artificial processes derive those capabilities and tendencies ? Made by man

How did natural processes derive those capabilities and tendencies ?

This is getting awfully embarrassing - as a comp scientist I am now embarrassed for you

And we forgot artificial processes as works of man are driven from the inspiration of natural process.

I have explained this before ... We call them strings, the most fundamental particle of nature.. Distinct levels of natural elements possess distinct vibration of strings and so there must be a chaotic reaction when these distinct tunes comes in contact...

Check the names..

ARTIFICIAL PROCESS -

NATURAL PROCESS- Self sustaining and replicating...

Oh the difference is so so clear... Nature is not a computer programme at all..

As a computer scientist...Hahahahahaha you are not a physicist sir you should be ashamed for yourself rather

Nature and Computer are not same.. Physics not computer science explains nature

KingEbukasBlog:
This is a non sequitur to what I posted .

God has control over nature tho

Puhahahahahahahahahaha **faints** You asserted the bible mentioned strong winds but didn't attribute them to a deity and heck you have been shown you don't even read your own bible..

The bible just like other naive ancient works that are products of human intelligence of that era attributed phenomenons they couldn't grasp ...

its noble poetry but seriously still naive.. The sumerians did better, they recorded accurately the orbit of Jupiter thousands of years before any other canaanite civilization emerged.

that's quite impressive if you ask me ..

Again , science assumes . Only if you have a video or images of how the events took place to prove such assumptions happened

Oh we have thousands of IMAGES and videos, thousands of telescopes in orbit and observatories peering into deep space and microscopes peering into the Quantum world.

Science is Observation. . .

Georges Lamitre a catholic priest was the first to propound the Hypothesis of a Big Bang when he explained the universe was expanding and the point when the expansion began is known as the Big Bang.

Many years later it was a confirmed fact by the Young Edwin Hubble using the Mount Wilson observatory confirmed the expansion of the universe.

Even Newton and Einstein thought the universe was static before then until proven otherwise..

In science falsified hypothesis are discarded as bogus in favour of a more substantiative truth.

Not stuck on to as a dogma ....

"God it" anyway .

In the same vein , "evolution did it " can be described as ignorance because such has not been observed - macro-evolution off course

Hahahahahaha "God did it" will always be receding in the face of scientific truths, even some Christian sects has modified their doctrines to reconcile with evolution.
even when i an atheist is still maintaining an "agnostic" stance as regards evolution and giving time for more studies and observations to be made the Christian sects already agreed with it..

doesn't that tell you something?

Evolution didn't do it anyway, evolution is a process not a source it's just development

fearlesschicken:
break in transmission....
abeg who has heard from theatheist101?
Johny is not using his bold fonts today, hope all is well?
*sips tea and continues observing*

The mods happened ooo

KingEbukasBlog:
Stop the assumption . There were even atheists during that time . The bible also talked about strong winds and did not attribute such to a deity

Read your bible you no gree ValentineMary was so correct..

Psalm 78:26 He caused the east wind to blow in the heavens And by His power
He directed the south wind. That is the bible attributing wind to a deity

And thousand other examples... The bible also attributed the rainbow to a deity But the fuc_k we know rainbows are as a result of refraction of sunlight..

For goodness sake these ancient men just like the young ValentineMary pointed just used these explanations to make sense out of the cosmos to sate their ignorance.

its noble but it is naive we know better now..

Science assumes when it comes to the origin /genesis of the universe

"God did it" is never an answer that should be employed as a placeholder for scientific ignorance..

If you are only going to place "god" only where our study lacks knowledge yet then just like the breakthroughs of science has always removed "god did it" from our knowledge like VM pointed out you'll find that "God" will always get smaller and ever receding in the face of scientific knowledge.

That man do not know how anything started is a call for study and that is science

sukkot:
nah bro the ohhhhh shyttttttt was not bold. the law requires for it all not to be bold.

That's why i used Most Smart move brother.. these mods are not smiling

bxcode:
Sir, how many of your theories and postulations in science like evolution, big bang, etc are based on pure observable evidence like you seek in my own belief about God's existence, which dosent require blind faith as a basis?

Hahahahaha i am not paid to teach anyone science in this age of information. ... You may as well help yourself here www.google.com

Scientific thesis are not my dogma rather is a product of human learning you can go study them if you like to..

winner01:
Whats this about claim and evidence.

If you just looking for words to use, use reasonably.

He gave an evidence of robotic creations requiring a creator. You said it does not count and have refused to back up your claims.

Why not back up your claims.

Hahahahahaha you should look closely...

Using because man created robots to assert man must be created is a claim and a nonsensical one for that matter.

Plastic flowers are not evidence that biological flowers are designed no not at all, man derive inspiration in nature.

Nature has the ability to replicated to form complex chains and unlike robots or plastic flowers biological organisms develop from one single cell and replicate into a complex multi cellular entity.

This is natural process... Simple no assembly line is needed for it..

You need to find somewhere else to put your god

Tellemall:
There are many, you say. True, sir .

Why, then, your grudge with the Bible? Is it something personal?

..I was arguing with someone who was using the bible as his basis, if he used the Quran it get same thing..

sukkot:
oh shytttttt time to look for a loophole lolz. its says ALL WORDS BOLD meaning i can make SOME WORDS BOLD

BOLD and CAPS are different things bro.. bold / CAPS and from the looks of it most of your text above are bold

Tellemall:
And yet some atheists claim to be of superior intellect.

It takes a shallow person to imagine the only book with a creator in it is the Bible. There are so many religious books out there.

Of course sir there are many and unfortunately they are all still limited by the level of human knowledge and contradictory too

something that supposedly created the universe could have done (known) better.. No?

bxcode:
So you don't have a problem that this 'thing' exists but that he talks to people is where you are objecting?

If that "thing" is described as a measurable even in the least a very fundamental particle that is fine... at least measurable

But when it becomes a complex humanoid **person** (then we now have a problem of complexity again) who likes the jews, has a son, likes smell of burning flesh and you are having a personal relationship with it yet cannot demonstrate that.

at the same time cannot be perceived but needs blind faith as a basis...

then you sir are lying..

Weah96:
That's why they love to muddy the argument with unnecessary discussions. I like to keep the argument on point.

If the beginning of the universe speaks, then there's no need for school or work or anything. That's like finding out that there are aliens living in every house on earth. Every human activity should grind to a halt and be relegated to obscurity.

It is not the kind of claim you make while pounding yam. There should be no more need for yams. Every human on earth should be talking about it, everywhere on earth, at ALL times.

Very simple my brother.

If you are having a relationship with the creator of the universe then you can tell us what we don't yet know about our universe.

But heck this creator is only subjected to a book.

BIBLE

the same book that thinks that day/night came four days before the sun, stars could fall and the earth could stand still.

Oh crap this creator needs a secondary diploma

sukkot:
they have to show me the law against bold fonts first before i take heed

romans 4 vs 15 where there is no law, there also is no violation.

11. Don't create distracting posts with: ALL WORDS BOLD / huge font sizes /
ALL CAPS / distracting imagesspaces, etc.

Oya now there is a law... I was surprised too ooo

KingEbukasBlog:
Resorting to disingenuousness ... this is serious . God is eternal

Don't forget also Complex? And doesn't need to be designed too even though super complex and your argument maintains complexity must need a designer so voila you killed your God

And how did simple cells derive the propensity to become complex . Did they wake up one morning and decided to just find out a way to be complex out of nothing .

Oh we call that "Strings" the most fundamental particle of everything.. A hydrogen atom (H) vibrates differently (strings) from an oxygen atom .. so once both comes in contact there must be a chaos of reacting differences and the result becomes a complex compound H₂0

it is not nothing actually but something and a very fundamental something to be exact not some enormously complex guy talking from nowhere

Lwkmd

Show us proof ... we need proof ... that life needs no designer and everything came from absolute nothingness . If you do this , you shame us .

Is this too hard to prove

And here we go still running away from providing proof for god?

for someone who is having a personal relationship with the creator of the universe this shouldn't be hard.

We are still waiting for the proof of god stop shifting the burden of proof abge ... ROTFL

KingEbukasBlog:
Lol ... show us why we need no creator

This is becoming really embarrassing .

You see?

BOP game? really?

We all have seen the workings of nature, no invisible artist is needed in the equation.

So common meeeehn you are still clutching to this to escape providing proof for your god?

You must provide that proof today

LoJ:
That's where I don't get it. What has all the former post got to do with the issue?

Well, we will get used to your new writing style.

Hahahaha i wonder bro..

Well i might get used to the plain new font

sukkot:
oh really ? dayumm these mods no try at all oooo

You might be next

KingEbukasBlog:
I have presented mine on the front page ... y'all denied it . So provide yours and shame us

Oh sorry .. again ... there is no evidence that precludes the existence of the creator

Yeah sure robotics ...

If man made robots(complex entity) then man (more complex) can be made by something else and then that something else (even more super complex) don't need to be made by another complex designer

Common just because we have plastic flowers means flowers are designed and not grown slowly from simple cells to a complex result like every other natural value

Boom...

We are still waiting for your proof ... Plastic flowers are not evidence that natural organic flowers were designed .. Chai.

We are still waiting..

KingEbukasBlog:
Hahaha ....

Stop playing the BOP game

Prove the universe needs no creator and show us how deluded we are ! Oh sorry you cant but to stay relevant in this discussion you keep playing the BOP game

THis is fun . Who else is seeing how delusional atheists are

Hahahahaha "The bible"

You should wake us up when this creator gets more than just a book or books and start speaking for himself

You do know that Voldomoth can only be found in the book of Harry Potter? that's it.

Common you do not want to show us this your creator? at least a bit of measurability can suffice

LoJ:


Sukkot you dey hear

Must be a Christian or muslim mod to have wiped out all my recent posts

sukkot should take note cus he might be next to chop ban for bolded texts

KingEbukasBlog:
The BOP game is for the mentally indolent ... your responses agree with me .

End of Story !

Abi? You said it

So should we still wait for your proof of your God or you are just gonna keep shifting the BOP?



We are still in chapter 2 of the story

KingEbukasBlog:
Any kind of knowledge can be obtained from books . Words are written on the pages of books so that knowledge of which is postulated can be gained by the reader .

You need the bible to understand who the creator is and it is through the bible you can learn how to connect to the Supreme creator .

How did I learn how to pray - from the bible

How did I understand the word of God and his plan for me - from the bible

Where do Christian books draw through their words of wisdom ? - the bible

Psalm 119:105



Now do you see the correlation between the quoted bible verse and the aforementioned points ?

Wisdom , a plan for someone is like a light that leads and guides you

Hahahaha so this your supreme creator only can be found in the pages of a book ?

No wonder ...

LoJ:
sup sup my brother.

What happened to your writing style? Hope it was not also banned

The mod said that all bolded font style is against the rule i tire oo

KingEbukasBlog:
Lmao .. do you know that the BOP game is for the mentally indolent ? I have presented evidence of a designed nature in the front page of this thread . Y'all have blatantly denied its veritableness . Now its your turn to provide yours for scrutiny

Winner01 , this is what they are very much oblivious to - if they ( atheists) insist that the burden of proof is on the creationists then they have no proof the universe needs no designer . Why ?

Because if the atheists have an evidence indeed that shows the universe needs no creator , they wouldn't need the creationists to prove God exists

End of story !

Thread closed !

Hahahaha as always mistakes a claim to be an evidence

Maybe i can also point to a tree and maintain that it is proof that a tree fairy exists thats my evidence..

A claim can never be an evidence..

We are still waiting for your evidence to back your assumptions (maybe a picture or something ) Or since you are having a personal relationship with the creator of the universe maybe you could provide us reasonable Intel ?

Common you can do better, stop asking the ones doubting your claims to provide proof against your claim rather provide your proof for it.

We all know scientifically there is never an equation where a creator is fixed, maybe in sunday school but not in science class.

Prove it and earn a noble prize

So try again?

Weah96:
Material knowledge is obtained by reading. You claim to be in contact with the person who started the universe, and lives outside of it, as well as in it. No amount of books can back that claim up.

In inner city high schools, students have given ones for lesser offences. This is like trying a nigga gangster

These People just don't realize how ridiculous they sound.

The universe must have been started by something then out of no where that thing became a humanoid who didn't know you can't have day and night before the sun and stars can't fall off from the sky, likes the jews, hates others, loves burning flesh and blood and finding their keys and they are having a personal relationship with it but cannot say what it sounds like.

Considering the depth of nature these Gods are just too small..

That is what we call Retar_d raised to power Infiniti..

KingEbukasBlog:
Try again ? Its simple ... can you prove the universe needs no creator ?

Yes or No

If No ... bye

If Yes ... provide proof . ( You may include videos , images of the genesis of the universe - these buttress your evidence )

Hahahahahaha just like you have proven it needs one or maybe a whole race of them not just one rather billions of eternal being.. all of them eternal yet super complex but don't require to be designed just like a less complex entity as the universe needs to be eeh?

Burden of proof reversal

Am sure since this elusive creator has always being a subject of your assumption then you need to provide the proof for it rather than ask the ones who doubt your assumptions to provide proof against.

So we are still waiting for the proof of this creator... (I'd accept even just a picture)

If not you can shout down the clouds in your sunday schools but it never leaves the walls of the sunday class and enter into the science room

so you wanna try again?

winner01:
I didnt, you started it. Im only helping you out. You were trying to measure the total power/extent of this Creator by implying that He must have a creator.

Speak for yourself dude. Who are the "we". Were the greatest scientists in the world also scientifically ignorant?


Exactly!!!. Except you wanna agree that the robots on the picture KingEbukasBlog posted could have come about by chance or time.

You might have a point, infact there are several other mechanisms in nature that we are yet to discover, that is whay science is not as close-minded as atheism.

The Designer of the universe is super-complex to have designed such a vast universe. The problem is i didnt assume it up. Logic did.
And if i'm right, then your chances of probing the "source" of this Designer is not even close to Zero.

KingEbukasBlog closed the thread already. Man emulates nature but fails to admit that nature was designed.
Do we have the slighest chance that those robots were unplanned and coincidental?

Yeah, which is exactly my word against yours. Science says the universe had a begining, strongly suggesting that time began at this "begining". Whoever was acting before time is not bound to time, and is therefore eternal(no beginning or end). Which takes you back to the concept of an Eternal Being. And if this Being is eternal, your best bet is that He could not have been created by another.
Sand dunes are part of nature and are the results of a created universe.
Why did you choose a less complex occurence like the sand dune, why not the scorpion. Should we assume that the scorpion was created by chance, time or processes.

Complexity has design written all over it.

Stars are part of nature and are the results of a created universe.

You just refuted your infinite regress claim earlier by saying that the universe had a begining.
If God was acting before time began i.e (Eternal - no beginning or end ), Then the "duration" of His existence does not not fit into your brain or that of any human.
Hence, the question "Who created an Eternal God" is self-refuting.

No one is pleading anything.
Its simple Logic. If really you were created, then you cant even begin to fathom the depth of a Creator with your created mind.
Try harder, but you have your limits.

You haven't probed your existence successfully, yet you wanna probe your Creator's existence.
Thats biting more than you can chew or of course 'laughable'.

Eternal!!!. Thats single word ends it all.
The Creator is indeed complex. But i'm more concerned with wether you have the physical ability to probe the existence of an [b]Eternal[b] (No beginning or end) Being Who created you.

When you understand how Someone or Something has no beginning or end, then you will understand eternity cant be created.

Eternity man, Eternity. If the Universe has a beginning as science teaches. Then God was was acting before time as the Bible teaches.

It simple logic.

Here it lands.

A complex entity is eternal, didn't need to be designed neither did it develop from simpler values but was just eternal ever complex but didn't need a designer.

Here murders the argument of Complexity needs design... You have simply murdered your own argument.

Am sure we have seen how nonsensical that argument remains.

The universe had a beginning the question remains what was the cause?

Now in your own lingual terms the word "God" is used to quantify what began the universe.

Was it Dark energy as string theory shows but heck you call it a God .. lol.

When the word "God" becomes a lingual expression to represent what ever caused the universe then that is your own representation.

when it becomes a complex humanoid that loves the smell of burning flesh but in turn does not need a designer then you are not only lying but swimming in abject delusion.

We have all seen where all your argument lands "if the universe has a beginning then God was the acting force behind it" am pretty sure we call the point of universal causality a singularity.

It has been seen that all your argument here centers on employing the word "God" as a placeholder for scientific ignorance... "You don't know what caused the universe then god did it"

Lol even Ptolemy invoked the design of Zeus when faced with the motion of celestial objects.

The invocation of a deity remains an ever diminishing factor with advancement of scientific discovery.

You can never explain the universe (complex entity) with an even more complex entity and plead for it to be exempted from design.

If complexity must require a designer then this super complex entity must require one. If not just like you have shown above then your argument has been murdered by you by showing something actually can be super complex without being designed.

whether you hide your assumption behind the curtain of "eternal" your argument remains "complexity must require design" so your designer is complex and must also require a designer.

am sure scientifically energy is an eternal value but in a very simple state and not a complex one... So you see even with the universe having a beginning "a complex humanoid talking to himself still does not enter into the equation"

It by far makes more sense that a simpler value like "Dark energy" through stages of quantum fluctuations developed by the interactions of these simpler values within and these interactions became even more complex as more values interact from the result of previous reactions.

That has always being the way of natural process.

So now you have killed your "Complexity requires design" argument

Try again..

winner01:
Leaving the concept of an Eternal Being out of this for a minute (I know its hard for the human mind to grasp), I want you to realize something.

Whether you have the ability to probe the existence of your Creator depends solely on how your Creator created you. Somehow in your (created) mind, you think you possess the ability to root out the "source" of your Creator. Its amazing how you limit and liken a Creator to his creations.

Complexity connotes design, and that is all we have ever observed even in our planet. The only difference is, you agree with all other observed occurrences but give an exception to man and the universe.

You didn't create yourself and for that you need to recognize you limits, for if you didn't have any limits, this discussion of a Creators existence would have been settled a long time ago.

I should sound like the atheist Richard Dawkins and then say: "What matters is whether God's existence is probe-able".

Your limits is why you haven't successfully probed your existence. How on earth do you think you could probe your Creator's existence.

You see? You are now trying to shift the goal post to the measurability of this supposed creator.

For all we know this supposed creator is just an assumptive concept used as a placeholder for scientific ignorance.

Your line of arguement maintains "Complexity connotes design" so therefore anything complex must have been designed with no exception.

If we employ this cut and run case as you are trying to clutch on here then we can conclude your head is too small to probe the universe so you can never deduct the mechanisms of nature.

the point remains if complexity connotes design then this designer must be super complex in order to design the universe and the same way you assumed up a designer to explain the complexity of the universe then assume up another designer to explain the complexity of the creator.

what ever is complex must be designed is not only flawed but wronger than any wrong can get.

It is scientifically a proven fact that the universe did not pop out as a complex entity but rather went through stages of development from which simple values keep on interacting to form complex chains of values.

You can also assume that sand dunes of a desert are the works of some invisible artist..

Complexity is never a mark of design but pays homage to distinct simpler values.

Old stars are far more simpler in composition than new stars and so it keeps developing and keep getting ever more complex.

So if you maintain "complexity connotes design" then that includes your complex creator, It must require a designer and an infinite regress continues.

It will be laughable if you try to exempt this creator from your argument by pleading it has no designer.

If this creator has no designer then you no longer have an argument because you just showed something complex exists without being designed.... if something as super complex as "the creator" requires no designer then you have simply murdered your "complexity connotes design" argument

But if "anything complex must be designed" then this complex creator must require a designer and so forth..

There is no way for it to work...

Weah96:
Scientists call it the precursor of the big bang. Some people call it Providence. I just call it the thing that we all came from. Never been big on semantics.

The particular system of nomenclature is unimportant. The claim on the table is that this thing speaks to human beings. I say you're telling lies for the benefit of advancing your own selfish interests. That's where the modern atheist/theist argument is. You say this thing speaks to you, you know other humans that it talks to.

If you were telling the truth, this would be the simple claim to prove.

In String theory it is called Dark Energy

LoJ:
bro, are you free from the ban

Yeah still banned from the phone section for 5 more days though and my posts were not restored

winner01:
An atheist will agree with you that these artificially created items were seriously and carefully planned and created.

And none of mans creations even comes close to the real thing, yet atheists will have us believe that somehow, these extremely complex creations don't need a Creator.
Worse is, they pass it off as Logic. and maybe science (as cloudgoddess and other hardcore pseudoscientists do).

And for this creator to be able to do this it must also be even more complex than all of creation.

Yet you are still exempting this extremely complex creator from having another creator which in turn must require another creator and so it goes.

Complexity in no way connotes design because if the complexity of the universe makes you invoke a creator then surely that creator must be very complex in order to be intelligent enough to do that.

so how can that creator who is even more complex not have a creator to design it? Of course going by your argument "Complexity connotes design" this complex creator must also require an extra complex creator who in turn requires another and so it goes we are in an infinite regress of assumptive creators.

It is a known and observed truth that in nature simple values interact to form more complex values .. Just like Old stars were just a ball of Hydrogen and Helium.

Or simple values like (H) and (O) Must interact to gain a more complex result (H₂O)

Complexity connotes design argument does not work at all..

try again

..lol..