₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
Are you just waking up? So when I listed highly unlikely things - because they are not known to occur in nature, such as talking animals and all those magical fantasies, why were you insisting that they were history? Only to wake up when I mention Mohammed and a winged horse abi?

Please NEVER waste my time like this again. I find it offensive.

Once i notice such again, i will block you.

Bwahahahahahaha! The guy is a tone deaf basket case.

FreeIgboho:
But you agree that Nicea did take place. I mean things you said were wrong or never happened

The Nicean Council were not first hand witnesses was my point so what they decided is irrelevant to confirming what Jesus said or didn't say.

None of the Apostles penned any book about what Jesus purportedly said.

FreeIgboho:
State one "definitive fact" you gave thst cannot be easily debunked

The Nicean Council was centuries later than the time of Jesus.

FreeIgboho:
My friend you're playing partiality. The man said to show him one instant where such was recorded in what he called "history". When I came up with historical records he still dismissed them. What other history does he want??!

Ask him then.

FreeIgboho:
Clearly wrong how? Give example. You made definitive statements you not only had no way of knowing for sure but that can easily be shown doubtful. See below

I gave statements that are definitive facts while you are giving me "traditions" that have been shown to be false or at the very least unknown. You have no argument.

DeepSight:
I began to feel there is a genuine learning difficulty here.
Because all these things may seem obtuse but he may actually be challenged.

Quite possibly. He may be masking it with verbosity.

FreeIgboho:
So what do you call this below? By what power did Constantine triumph? And if this is not history, what is it?

Please I have no time for obtuseness today. Continue that with DeepSight, he has the capacity I don't.

FreeIgboho:
I always say "circumstantial evidence", so I'm in no position to say anyone is definitively wrong - except I say it's from my own subjective perspective

When you are presenting information that is clearly wrong your subjectivity won't save it.

FreeIgboho:
I never said I knew them for sure, nor tried to use them against anyone

Then why did you list them in response to me?

Whatever you say, by trying to introduce uncertainty in any form you destroy your own argument.

FreeIgboho:
I never said anything about reality. I only said you said a bunch of things you have no way of knowing for sure

The same way you said things you have no way of knowing for sure which again destroys anything you are saying.

Either there is a way to know and we can verify or there isn't. Either way your argument is destroyed.

DeepSight:
You will find many historical events which record the activity of gravity and scientific work. That is the point. You will not find a record referring to magic as a historical event. You cannot for example, find a historical record saying that "On the 4th day of June 1914, the PM of Great Britain sent a declaration of war by telepathy to Germany, and thus started the second world war."

You are not in a primary school. I am really being patient here.

You really are. I have no patience for deliberately obtuse people.

FreeIgboho:
I have not definitively said anythimg is false. You're the one saying things are false

You are one trying to claim reality is not real which makes whatever you say moot.

DeepSight:
Where have you seen telepathy in a history book please.

He will soon tell you telepathy doesn't refer to telepathy or book doesn't refer to book. LoLz.

FreeIgboho:
I humbly submit you really don't know

If I don't know then neither do you so again your argument is defeated.

DeepSight:
Speak it abeg. As if the belief held for generations that the Earth was the centre of the universe was true for the fact that it was held by so many and for generations. Does this fella stop to consider the millions who have held one belief or the other for generations?

There is something amiss with this fella oh. On a serious note.

Of course he doesn't! And here he comes again with arguing with reality.

FreeIgboho:
How do you KNOW all this, and how do you KNOW what you read in most books are true? How are you sure some historical figures really existed? Why do you believe black holes, dark matter, trillions of galaxies, etc exist?

Here you come again with this nonsense of arguing with reality, shooting yourself in the foot.

FreeIgboho:
Not with the way it happened with Jesus (over thousands of years and by unimpeachable people).
See a list of who has to be wrong:
*Isaiah and other prophets (prophets who were never wrong)
* John the Baptist
* The 3 kings who worshipped him as an infant
* Peter and other apostles
* Jesus himself who said he was the Alpha and Omega and the "I AM"
*The 300 bishops at Nicea who were almost unanimous
* Etc

1. The so called prophecy in Isaiah linked to the Messiah was not written by the Prophet Isaiah.
2. There were no 3 Kings.
3. What Jesus purportedly said was not written by any first hand witness.
4. The Nicean Council was centuries later than the time of Jesus so it is irrelevant what the decided as they are not first hand witnesses.
5. Which other prophets are you talking about? They don't have names?
6. None of the apostles penned down what Jesus said as first hand witnesses.

You have provided nothing in the way evidence as all you said has been refuted.

FreeIgboho:
Even LordReed agreed that if everything said about Jesus in the Bible were proven true he'd also believe he is God (if he were open to such belief). LordReed!! LordReed who is beyond atheist and is igtheist!!

You can't know better than all the generations of people who foretold Jesus as God coming, worshipped him when he came, and still worshipping him over 2000 years later!

Eleventy billion wrong people are still wrong. Their vast numbers don't make them right.

DeepSight:
Ah I wasn't discussing its existence.

Ok.

DeepSight:
I mean the process by which it came to exist. It's waaaaaaaaaay too super a computer for any explanation such as, oh, it evolved through natural selection, or oh, it just exists. Evolution does not explain the human brain - which is by orders of magnitude more complex than any computer in existence.

That's a different matter. It exists we don't need arguments to determine that.

DeepSight:
The human brain is in this universe and it defies explanation.
I know your answer is evolution but as with the human eye, its still hard to justify.

What do you mean defies explanation? The brain has evidence of its existence.

Image123:
The figment that occupies a big part of your family and that you talk about daily.

Daily? You must be confusing me for someone else. LoLz.

Nothing wrong with talking about fictional characters.

MaxInDHouse:
OK you're just trolling.
Ọmọ do have a good day!

You are the troll. LoLz!

Bye!

MaxInDHouse:
God's aim has been accomplished!

Canaan is not the centre! Bwahahahahahahaha!

MaxInDHouse:
Go out there and stop billions of people throughout the world buying, reading and studying the Bible!

LMAO! Canaan is not the Bible don't be a clown. Bwahahahahahaha!

MaxInDHouse:
Whatever you think but the reason why the Bible God chose Canaan i've told the person who wanted to know and it obvious that He (Bible God) achieved His aim!

LoLz. What part of this is FAKE are you not understanding? Your fairytale doesn't change anything, Canaan is not the centre of anything.

Cashme29:
Hello! Sorry, I'd been very busy this past week.
My answer to all these questions will be that asking them in that context already means you are creating the idea for a god already. For me, GOD, if anyone like that exists at all (in the context of a being all-powerful, and all-knowing), should never even be a question. We do not need to create a GOD to have creation. If there is a creator, it should be all too obvious without a possibility of a debate.

I always thought the idea of whether or not there is a GOD should be common sense answer; it should never require a high IQ or some intelligent explanations. If it isn't obvious already, no debate can make it so. A god should not be proven, it should be real, except if this GOD is some impersonal thing; maybe some "all-powerful", impersonal force of creation (like the big bang, or evolution, or universal gravity, or mathematics). Even these forces of nature are all too obvious. They should be open (as they are) for debate though.

So if we talk of a creator as a natural force of nature; Yes! It makes total sense. But as some conscious all-powerful, all-knowing being? NAH!

I agree with the core premise of this submission which is why I have no place for these arguments for god. Any real phenomenon has incontrovertible evidence of its existence. We see nothing in this universe that subverts this notion, gods will not be an exception especially if they supposedly do things in this universe.

MaxInDHouse:
The God who chose Canaan as the center of ancient world has been known globally today while your Chinese gods or Indian gods refuse to move from their villages!

That fairytale still doesn't make Canaan the centre of anything. LoLz.

MaxInDHouse:
The story book that has united millions of people throughout the world and they have used that same story book to teach themselves never to make, buy, sell or use weapons again shey?
You try!

Bwahahahahahaha! Not falling for your change of topic. Canaan was NOT the centre of anything, your storybook is not evidence.

CreatedtwoRule:
Ohh now I see, it's not my job to convince you to believe otherwise as an atheist, only supernatural revelation!

Sure. The revelations that can never be showed to be real. I get it.

Image123:
God is not a man.

Of course! It is just a figment of your imagination.

MaxInDHouse:
Ọmọ there is no evidence jọọ you're just crying as an atheist looking for means to run away from reality!

LMAO! There is plenty of evidence you are just crying because all you have is a storybook that can't stand up to reality. Omo go and rest jor!