₦airaland Forum

Martinez19:
There is a difference between " be consistent with" and "you must also show". Don't confuse both. I also made it clear that I don't expect anything other than an unshakeable, irrefutable and sound logical pathway from observational reality to one's idea of god. If I am going to expect anything other than that, it will depend on the positor's description and idea of god and if necessary, attributes as I would expect that god to live up to his attributes and description. No matter the idea and descriptions of god put forward, the proof of that god must not be devoid of unshakeable, irrefutable and sound logical connections between my observable reality and the god postulated.

ok

For any god one claims to serve or just believe in, one must fulfill the following for me to believe :
STEP 1: Clearly define and describe your god and, if necessary, it's attributes.

let me try. I believe in the God Amadioha.

The God of thunder, lightening, justice and vengance. Amadioha has every storm in the universe running throw him and is a cause for lightening?

STEP 2: provide an unshakeable, irrefutable and sound logical connection with observable reality and that of your god to support his existence.

Observable reality = Thunder and lightening

In concept = Justice and vengeance.

See?

Are these evidences? There are observable but are they really evidence?

Just like we need no one to tell us what is moral and not, I need no one to tell me that a proof is logically sound if and only if I am open minded.

I do not think this is so, we in fact learn majority of our moral outlook. Someone eventually told us what is moral or not.

Hakeem12:
Lols...this is funny really




[color=#F5A215]We really do need a strong evidence.[/color]

Hahahahaha I tell you

dalaman:
Anything that consistently agrees with observable reality based on the claims of the said God.

Ok like, parting the sea? Lol

A deist God can not be proven or disproven in anyway because the God concept isn't well defined.

Logically contingent.

But take for instance the idea that God is a necessary cause for the universe, do you think this idea is consistent with cosmology or observational physics?

felixomor:
Easy o.

This question is too hard for that young lad.

LOL.

Do you mind dabbling in. There is room for a theistic perspective.

What do you think should be a conclusive evidence for God?

Any prediction consistent with the idea of God as a cosmological reality that we could watch out for to either substantiate or falsify the idea?

Martinez19:
LOL. Even though I expect nothing except unshakeable and irrefutable logic and sound reasoning which I would unfailingly spot (if and only if I am open minded) nevertheless, for this claim to be true, the following must be true or The proof that validates this claim must be consistent with the following:
1) God exists.

And this brings us back to the fundamental premise. What do you think evidence for this would be like? Your answer above is still ambiguous.

2) he is the God of the religion implied.

- How will this be determined?

- What if there is non implied?

3) he has the power to do such, has a working method (which might/can be explained) and he can, if necessary, replicate such creation process before my very eyes.

Now you come. Hahahahaha

Would you require a proof such as this to agree Leonardo Da Vinci painted Mona Lisa if Leonardo were to be alive today?

There shouldn't be any room for faith or baseless assumptions. The burden of proof is

There shouldn't be which is why I'm asking for predictions wee should expect met to substantiate the God theory.

CAPSLOCKED:

THE ONLY THING I NEED IS FOR THE GOD TO SPEAK TO ALL OF US AT ONCE AND TELL US WHAT IT WANTS (THIS INCLUDES GENERATIONS OF UNBORN HUMANS) INSTEAD OF SPEAKING TO SPECIFIC PEOPLE IN A TRANCE WHICH HAS LED TO MANY MISINTERPRETATIONS OF IT'S WORD AND INSTRUCTIONS.

IF IT'S REAL, THERE SHOULDN'T BE SELECTIVITY IN COMMUNICATING WITH THE CREATURES IT WANTS TO ATTRACT.

And if God doesn't communicate at all with humans? What then would you regard good evidence for God (deism) ?

Martinez19:
What to expect? I don't have what to expect and even if there is something to expect, it might very with individual. What I would expect depends on one's idea of god and it's attributes if stated. Any proof that is laden with logic and sound reasoning can be spotted if and only if one is open minded. If one simply says there is a god and stops there, there must be a reason. Question is "is your reason logical?" one doesn't need to have an expectation to spot a sound logical reasoning.

How would you recognize this proof if one is presented since you expect nothing in this respect?

Take for instance: A religious person says, God created man.

What proof do you expect that validates this claim?

tintingz:
I'm sorry but he's a freak, legendary defender of abusive priests.

I still fail to see how his opinion on abusive priests invalidates his thesis of transgender causality.

This is still nonsensical

Let us wait here for answers.

Gggg102:
yes

Which would you consider a good theory?

tintingz:
No they are not, that's fallacy.

- Fallacy of what?

- and Its actually sarcasm.

tintingz:
He's a religious freak.

Repeating the same nonsense doesn't make it sound better each time.

Gggg102:
I don't think a deistic god can be provedone or disproved.
there is no way of falsifying a deistic god.

Therefore a Deistic is not a good theory then. Yes?

Martinez19:
Very good. There need not be a holy book or claim. If one has an idea of god, he/she must provide a sound, unshakeable and irrefutable logical pathway from observable reality to his/her idea of god for me to believe or else we can agree to disagree.

This answer I say is quite ambiguous.

Any example of such observable reality? Any idea of what to expect?

If we do not exactly what to expect as proof, how do we recognize such proof when we are faced with one?

Martinez19:
If it's for other gods, I will test them on their claims and supernatural attributes as given in their holy book as I just did for the christian god. At least the faithful of any god must provide an irrefutable, unshakeable and sound logical pathway from observable reality to his/her god and it's suppose attribute and claim in its holy book thereof.

Great answer.

What if then this concept is not confined to religious books or claims.

E:G a deistic God.

The claim for a deistic God mostly is "God created the cosmos"

What do you think would be sufficient evidence required to add credence to this claim in order to satisfy your skepticism?

Martinez19:
If they can consistently show that prayer in the name of Jesus alone and not without makes amputees whole, blind to see, dumb to speak, deaf to hear, heals terminal diseases, perform miracles and raise the dead.


If they can, through their god, predict with 100% accuracy events difficult for a normal human being to predict.

If they can, with hundred percent accuracy, read my mind through their holy spirit.

NB: THIS APPLY TO THE CHRISTIAN GOD

Does your atheism/skepticism apply on to the Christian God?

- What if the God in question is not the judeo-Chrisrian God

- What if the God in question is some form of desitic concept that transcend the conventional religious conception?

aaronson:
I don't want to be confined to the premise of this argument leading to causality or consequences, That's for the individual to deal with. my moral obligation is to respect any one who deem it fit to opt for a transgender.

This is not a moral argument.

If your concern does not coincide with the premise of a particular thread, you shouldn't really be there.

Human right protection law isn't also after causality or consequences but does one thing, Upholding the freewill of any LGBT individual so long as they not hurting any member if an out group.

Nobody is arguing that.

Religion is a fundamental human right, you still can think its nonsencial to think a snake talked or a virgin gave birth.

Identifying objectively the causality behind transgendarism does not in anyway mean 'nobody should be transgender'

So your post is actually non sequitur and meaningless to the premise in question.

Evangkatsoulis:
None whatsoever.

I don't understand.

Do you subscribe to the atheistic or theistic world view?

We are all used to the normal narrative of demanding for evidence on the subject of God.

True the onus lies on the positor not the negator to present proof.

But to arrive somewhere one thing must be substantiated.

E.G: In science, a good theory is one that makes predictions that can either be confirmed or falsified.

If this predictions are confirmed, the theory garners a degree of proof to its merits.

If falsified based on this prediction, it is discarded.

In this example, the primary factor is is prediction.

What to expect

So atheists, what do you consider to be the thesis that must be confirmed for the theory of God to make sense?

Theists, what do you consider the greatest pointer that suggests the existence of God?

aaronson:
It's NOT about making sense to make you feel comfortable,

Correct.

But I'm afraid this is not the premise of the argument.

it's about let any one does whatever makes them comfortable with which they also find sense in with likeminds so long as they not hurting you in anyway.

The premise of this argument is not about doing what you want or what you are comfortable with. That's entirely a different talk.

Understand that first.

That said. The premise is on the causality and implications leading to this effect.

Transsexuality is nonsensical because sex cannot be changed, its biological.

The question of incorrect identity however has always been straight cut pointer to mental delusion.

dorox:
Those who can should watch this video, the presenter made some pretty strong arguments against biology as the cause of gender issues.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-NQhDfloaM

Biology is not the cause of gender issues.

It is correct that biology causes effeminacy or the reverse or intersex but these traits are not identity hinged.

Identity on the other hand is mental. Thoughts, feelings and belief.

Once this thought, feeling and belief is factually wrong, its a delusion.

Its that simple.

A goat that believes its a dog is straight up deluded.

tintingz:
Scientists don't take flat Earth model serious, it's a conspiracy theory.

The four source I provided are from reputable source.

Wikipedia encyclopedia. You got issues.

Are you saying these source: psychologytoday, psychiatry.órg, National health service are dumb for making that assertion?

It is an oversimplification as saying the sun rises from the east which is factually incorrect and once an argument is based on a false premise, it is inherently wrong.

Sex cannot be assigned neither can it be changed. It is a DNA business not something you give to people.

WHO said it's no longer a mental disorder,

This appeal to authority is pitiful.

You have been shown with a peered reviews article from institute of biological studies that WHO's declassification is politically spurred but No. You keep repeating this rubbish.

it's not recognized as mental disorder anymore in clinical field, these stubborn scientists should keep calling it mental disorder, they will keep losing their jobs.

What changed?

The bolded is plain ass retard.

Is hormonal influence not biological or not? It seems you have not been reading the source I provided.

Let me straighten you up - Behaving like a woman or even looking like a woman is not the same thing as identifying as a woman.

One can behave in feminine ways but still agree with factual biological realities of being male.

Hormones have nothing to do with identity perception, it is sorely psychological.

And a non factual identification is delusion

Scientists said transgender is mostly biological factors, hormonal influence, genetic, heritable etc you're saying another thing.

This is a stupi_d lie ..

Transsexuality have nothing to do with hormones, genes neither is it heritable.

No one said it's not psychological, what study said is it's beyond psychological.

Transsexuality is an identity subject not even sexual.

Sex is biological. Identity is psychological.

Seems both confuse you.

I tire for you sir.

No offense but you are grossly naive.

Throughout this discussion you have not made a single argument.

All you throw around is: Scientist said that, WHO said its no longer a mental disorder, Wikipedia is a good source.

You need to straighten up yourself man

Martinez19:
This study is actually correct. I can't believe that Myles Monroe and his wife lived four years longer than Richard Dawkins and George Carlin. Who would have concluded that Nabeel Qureshi would live four years longer than Lawrence Krauss? How did Ben Idahosa's daughter live longer than the chronic smoker Christopher Hitchens? Chai, Johnny my friends, let's humble ourselves before yahweh lest we died before all religious folks.

I don't really care that's why I said "that's cool"

tintingz:
Gender dysphoria is no mental disorder - WHO

Lmao..

But religious people are dumb

tintingz:
My advise for you if you're in clinical field, if you diagnose your patient of gender dysphoria and call it mental illnesses, Sha don't let WHO hear or you will be fired for unprofessionalism.

Again another weak argument. Peered reviewed articles have been provided showing the political motive behind the declasffication of gender dysphoria as mental illness which actually became known as gender dysphoria as recent as 2013.

But No. This is the refutation you can muster.

Lmao

tintingz:
You don't mind if there are sentiments in his assertion? A religious freak that defend sexual abusive priests?

You have not provided an argument that refutes his stance.

This is simply an ad hominem and is nonsencial in argumentative ethics.

DateMynd44:
don't you want to live longer?
It's like you don't love yourself.

Shouldn't you be vying to go to heaven? Why do you want to live longer and stall heaven more?

Surprised you're still an unbeliever for so many years despite the preaching and messages of God's love for you

Wow that's a lot to take in. Preach on

tintingz:
Thank you, Even if he/she has the feeling of becoming a dragon or warewolf.

No one is still arguing against this.

You can be what you want to be, this is not the premise of the argument. You lot should stick with the premise and leave this nonsensical rhetoric.

The point is, feeling like you are what you are not is a condition that is called mental disorder.

This is even one characteristics of full blown madness.

HajimeSaito:
Doctor McHugh is an agnostic. He does not identify with any religion.

LOL this is a burst

Even if the doctor is religious, does this make his argument wrong?

I think the strawman that he is religious was a very stupi_d attempt at refutation.

festwiz:
...and what's it called again?

Mental disorder

tintingz:
What happens when four sources use the word "assigned gender"?

I bet i can provide 10 sources that says the earth is flat.

If this doesn't make you understand how ridiculous you sound up there, i fear nothing will.

Biological sex can never be assigned at birth, it is strictly a biological process at conception which i have shown over and over again here.

You just don't want to accept the study shown by scientists despite the studies provided, you still haven't provide any source that said gender dysphoria has no biological causes!

The article is about gender dysphoria, hello..?

These ones are Wikipedia abi?

Gender dysphoria occurs when there is a persistent sense of mismatch between one’s experienced gender and assigned gender.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/conditions/gender-dysphoria

Oh Jeez.

gender dysphoria is a recent classification of a condition known as gender identity disorder. This is sorely a political move as i have shown before and will also show again.

Cretella Michelle (2017) peered reviewed https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/07/03/im-pediatrician-transgender-ideology-infiltrated-field-produced-large-scale-child-abuse/

And this peered reviewed article also goes on to show how scientists and physicians who do not coincide with the recent political correct trend are black listed and made to lose jobs http://www.jpands.org/vol21no2/cretella.pdf

Biological sex is assigned at birth, depending on the appearance of the genitals. Gender identity is the gender that a person "identifies" with or feels themselves to be.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/

Amazing. Still at the same place. You know nothing of reproductive biology still throw gross nonsense about.

Gender dysphoria involves a conflict between a person's physical or assigned gender and the gender with which he/she/they identify.
https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria

Oga wether it's assigned gender or not that's not even the main case here.

The main case here is:

Sex = biological
identity = psychological

A child raised by wolves would behave like wolves

Identity can be factually correct or factually wrong.

A tall person identifying as short is factually wrong.

A biological female identifying as male is factually wrong

And what we call factually wrong identification in psychology is mental delusion.

It beats me how a straight simplification can't be deducted here.

tintingz:
He's a religious freak!

So?

How does this invalidate his assertion?