₦airaland Forum

Trollronaldo:
what's your point?

I wasn’t even quoting you, who is stalking now?

Workch:
I see you portraying cognitive dissonance now.

If not then why running from a deistic argument if it's not superior to yours?

Only fellow deistic worshippers think their argument is superior.

You CLAIM a god that has all this power to be a creator but doesn’t intefere.
A Sango worshipper CLAIM that sango is the creator and interferes.

Different gods, different characteristics bwahahahah

Workch:
But I agree with na, what's now the purpose of arguing when we are now on the same page 😂

Agnostics claim they don’t know if any god(s) exist or not.
Then, As an agnostic why do you think a god like zeus has the ability to exist?

A001:
Read what I typed again and think about it. I know all this is becoming too much for your intellectual capacity because a smart person will easily grasp these things.

You wrote garbage. You think god is a single person or a thing.
The agnostics should say they don’t if ANY god exist or not.

first start with the origin of the word “god”, what are things that are called “god”?

A god is a deity.

A001:
You asking me this silly question shows you don't know what's called agnosticism.

The earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old, and recorded history doesn't account for even 5% of the planet's age.

There are billions of galaxies and hundreds of billions of planets in the Universe, which is unimaginably big, and scientists haven't explored even 1% of the Universe.

There are natural limits of our abilities as a human; for instance, we can only hear within a narrow range of sound frequencies and see only within a narrow range of frequencies.

There's a vast amount of information and data in our immediate surrounding we're not able to detect and know, just like we're starkly ignorant of things happening in the extrasolar or extraterrestrial worlds.

As a result of these, what the average human know pales in comparison with what they don't know; hence, agnosticism.

A god can exist or not exist; we may never really know for sure due to our limited knowledge of our nature, of our planet, and of of the Universe.

That's the agnostic position in simple terms, which is more reasonable than saying with certainty that a god exists (yet the claimant can't provide a concrete proof for such a claim) or doesn't exist.

A god is a deity. Yahweh, allah, ogun, zeus are all gods.
As an agnostic, Why do you think a god like zeus or allah has the ability to exist or not?

Workch:
ok, I totally agree with you.
Can i rest now? 😅

Stop running.
As an agnostic why do you think a god like zeus has the ability to exist?

Workch:
No one is talking about God of zeus here or marble characters.

See please, I don't have the energy for back and forth

The agnostic position doesn’t make sense.
They claim they don’t know if any god exist or not?
Why do they think any god has the ability to exist or not?
The same way, Why do they think any marvel character has the ability to exist or not?

Workch:
There's nothing absolutely wrong in being wrong. I use to be an atheist myself until I encountered strong argument about deism quora that revealed the flaws in my reasoning.
Atheism is not correct, Agnosticism is the best approach.

The issue with most atheists is that they cannot handle been disproved. It the same thing that happens to theists. If you were a theist before now and you left, you should also leave atheism when you see a superior argument. It's what I did.
The decision is yours to make

Why do you think a god like zeus has the ability to exist or not?
Why do you think any marvel character has the ability to exist or not?
For you to say you don’t know if any god exist or not, then you’ve ascertain that a god can exist.

Trollronaldo:
Why are stalking me me?

I don't respond to militant atheists who are only interested in arguments. I am interested in people who are ready to engage logically, provide me evidence that will convince me or change their mind after I have convinced them.

You are never going to get a reply from me.

Your position is hypocritical and you are not consistent.
Read again.
Why do you think something cannot be created from nothing because of the evidence available, is absence of evidence not evidence of absence again? Cc lordreed.

Trollronaldo why are you cherry picking? Are you not committing fallacy of appealing to ignorance?

Nothing is actually not empty.

A001:
This is a silly argument. It seems you've reached your limit intellectually because you're not making any sense at all.

You're sounding dumb like religious people.

Agnosticism, atheism, apatheism, and similar positions all exist because of theism.

You are ignorant of your position.
god is a title not a person or a thing. A stone can be revered and called a god, the worshippers will claim absurd qualities of it like it existing etc.

You’re sounding dumb because you lack knowledge on your title”agnostic”.

Theism means believing in god or gods.
Atheism is rejecting any god or gods.

As an agnostic, Why do you think a god like zeus can exist or not?

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

1. Casually: they can argue from statistic here that no one can provide a scenario where something didn't come from another thing. As a matter of fact, with the evidence available, you cannot create something from nothing. If you try this 100 times, you will fail 100times, which means they this deistic claim has 100% level of significance. Although I still insist that their claim is logical but not scientific.

Why do you think something cannot be created from nothing because of the evidence available, is absence of evidence not evidence of absence again? Cc lordreed.

Trollronaldo why are you cherry picking? Are you not committing fallacy of appealing to ignorance?

Nothing is not actually empty.

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

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

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

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

Atheism has so many flaws as well.

Why do you think a cause has the ability to caused the universe?
If this cause is unknowable, how do you think it doesn’t interfere to the universe?

As an agnostic why do you think a god like zeus has the ability to exist?

A001:
Give me a reference where agnostics unanimously tell you a "god" means a creator. Religious people define "god" in various ways, and "a creator" is one of them.

The agnostic position is a response to the "god" position or claim by theists or religious people, based on their various definitions of a "god".

You don't know what agnosticism is, and if you call agnostics monotheists (as silly as that sounds), that makes atheists theists also.

Theist don’t claim “god”, they claim different deities. and a deity by definition is a supreme being e.g allah, yahweh, marduk, ogun etc.
Then agnostics should say they don’t know if gods exist or not.
They should also say they don’t know if thanos or any marvel characters exist or not.
Allah and thanos are the same concept.

The reason an agnostics has his position is because of theism.

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

You are the ignorant one that doesn’t know what you are saying.
Your concept of god and his qualities are gotten from monotheism.

As a deist why do you think any god has the ability to exist?
The same way, why do you think any marvel character has the ability to exist?

A001:
Your point doesn't make sense at all. Think before you type, not after.

Atheists are also theists then because they also have something to do with a god. If you don't know who or what a god is, how then are you sure he/she/it doesn't exist.

You're just confusing yourself unnecessarily. Religious people have defined what a god is, and the agnostic position simply says that god, as defined by religious people, is unknown based on the natural limitations to the human knowledge.

A god is a deity.
Each religion has his own deity.
Is it yahweh, allah, or the other 1000000 gods.
Atheist rejects all and any gods.

Religion people have different definition of their deities and qualities.
The moment you say god is a creator, that’s a monotheistic definition, then tell us which god? Is it yahweh?

A001:
How is agnosticism borrowed from monotheism? What are the rationale behind this notion and the proof?

Is atheism also borrowed from theism?

Agnosticism comes from the Greek word "agnōstos" meaning “unknowable”.

Agnostics claim they don’t know if god exist or not?
How did come up with the word “god”?
This agnostics still went further and say god is a creator, this are attributes of a monotheistic god.
Atheism is the opposite of theism.
The moment you have anything to do with god(theos) you are already a theist.

If something is unknowable, how did you know it is called “god” and it’s a “creator”?

Trollronaldo:
maybe the logic for deism is flawed but, if it has to be flawed, atheism has to be a flawed logic also.

Deism is the flawed one, why do you think a “god” has the ability to exist?
Does thanos have the ability to exist?

Trollronaldo:
Deism is based on logic.

Explain how a thing can be omnipresent? What are the qualities using logic.

A001:
You're the confused one. Your signature says "Divine Light". Mr religionist, can you explain what's divine about the light? Have you seen anything divine and what makes it divine?

Provide concrete proofs. The agnostic position is clear and the monotheistic position is also clear.

If you call one the other, it just shows you don't know what you're arguing about.

It’s a metaphor, the word divine comes from divus, in a mythology book.
Did i make any claim that this “divine light” created anything?
Did i say this divine light is omnipresent?

The agnostic position is borrowed from monotheism.
You and your other agnostics are monotheists hiding from religion.
You take the attributes of a monotheistic god, but you won’t tell us the name of the god? Is it yahweh?

DeepSight:
Scientific time is a dimension of motion. A thing moves, and time exists.
Real Time, which I am preaching to you, exists regardless if anything moves or not.

I think you should give us a complete definition of “god”, you talk about time and space but that’s the only thing scientists can observe now, in the next hundred years there may be other thing apart from time and space, and time and space may just be the least phenomenon.
But if you’ve limited your definition of a god to “time and space”, I hope you’ll be able to be consistent with it and not change those definitions.

Deepsight, why do you think a “god” has the ability to exist?

Agnostics are monotheist that are afraid of religion.

budaatum:
When "they were talking about a particular Abrahamaic deity" in their own human understanding in their own culture, of course other had talked or were talking about their own deity in their own human understanding in their own culture, and whatever their understanding is or was, none have presented acceptable evidence their deity created earth.

Even you here are talking about a particular deity (the universe) in your own culture and human understanding. Or put it this way. I am understanding what you are saying in your own culture and human understanding in my own culture and my own human understanding. It's why I'd say you treat the universe as a proxy for a deity, in this one instance. You don't. I just see it that way. And no. I'm not saying you worship the universe.

As for heaven. Evidence required for its existence first please before we discuss how it came into existence.

I’m talking about the deistic deity and the attributes his worshipper claim of it. They claim they are agnostics and deists but not theists, and I’m telling them that their concept is rooted in theism, especially monotheism.

Heaven means Sky.

yemzone:
You don't want to answer my questions. No problem.

She’s an old woman.

jaephoenix:
Lol. Christians perpetually keep shooting themselves in the foot. An all-knowing god doesn't know the tares from the wheat. An all-knowing god created the world but doesn't know they would get sinful, and then gets angry and destroys it after learning that they are sinful.
Ah, christians…. Very smart bunch

How people believe this stories is amazing bwahahahah

GBTYO:
So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.

An all knowing god.

Trollronaldo:
Does the phlogiston analogy not address this?

How is disproving a THEORY the same as looking for evidence of non existence?

Ayobammi20:
I pity you
In the end time you will know
You are blasphemy against God almighty
When you don't understand the way he works that is why you are talking like that

The Egyptians took his people and slaved them. That was when he told moses to go to pharoah and tell him to let his people go.
Is it a good thing to purposefully enslave someone. They deserved what happened to them.

So you better meditate on the word of God before talking. And mind what you joke with.

I know you must be a Muslim

He is blaspheming against Yahweh, you also blaspheme against other deities.

Trollronaldo:
I understand everything you saying, sincerely.

But my argument is, deism and atheism different sides of same coin.

Deism has to come in frequently into the discussion

Lol.
you claim a deistic god exist, do you also believe the other 100000 gods exist or just the deistic god?
Are you consistent with your fallacy of appealing to ignorance?

Deists are monotheists without religion.

Trollronaldo:
I am trying to prove to you that Atheism is a fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

It can't do that without making you see irrefutable reasons by engaging you.

So please, is the God hypothesis and phlogiston a good equivalence?

Sicne the phenomenon we are using to explain a deistic god actually exist.

Why are scientists not disproving bigfoot, why are scientists not disproving Santa myths
Are they scientific theories?

You are confused.

Trollronaldo:
Ok good, we are getting there.

In this case, if you swap phlogiston with God in this argument and swap the idea of phenomenon phlogiston is trying to explain with the singularity that the deistic god created before big bang, is that a perfect equivalence knowing fully well that the singularity is thing that exist?

where is your scientific hypothesis? Bwahahahah

Trollronaldo:
okay, before I move to the next issue.

Do you agree that deists do not necessarily need to provide evidence before you disprove it based on scientific falsification?

Which scientific theory or hypothesis have you given to him to disprove base on scientific falsification?

I ask again, what’s the composition of an omnipresent material?

Trollronaldo:
you are shifting goalpost I am going to follow you go thr last time carefully.

An example of of seeking evidence for non-existence is in the case of phlogiston in science. Phlogiston was an idea that was regarded as real but was proven to be nonexistent when oxegeb and combustion reaction were discovered.

That been said, it was disprove by another scientist hundred of years after.

If you don't agree with deistic ideas, go on and disprove it before rejecting it

How is disproving a theory the same as looking for evidence of non existence?

Trollronaldo:
I don't think you understand as well, what I mean.

The argument is simple, In science, is it must that the person who the person who created an idea under falsification practice should be the person to disprove or prove it?

You said in science.
Is your topic related to science?
Confused Monotheist.

Are you using scientific procedures to explain your claims?

What is the composition of a omnipresent material?
Any equation to that?