₦airaland Forum

Trollronaldo:
I don't know if it was created or not because there no evidence.

Reaching a conclusion without evidence is fallacy of appealing to ignorance

Exactly, so we should not use the world “created”. Those that use it should explain how they came to know it was created.

I hope you are consistent with your fallacy of appealing to ignorance, as long as it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.

Trollronaldo:
There are just two explanations. It's either a creator did it or not.

You reject on and accept the other without evidence and knowledge

Fallacy of appealing to ignorance

That explanation is only gotten in theism.
That’s why atheists mean godless.

Trollronaldo:
But you don't know how the universe was created.
So you don't know if a creator actually did it.

Fallacy of appealing to ignorance

How did you know it was “created”?

I hope you are consistent with your fallacy of appealing to ignorance, as long as it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.

Trollronaldo:
No one is saying you should accept it.

I am not accepting it myself. But I a reaching a conclusion from ignorance, I just prefer to say that I don't know and then remain neutral

There are billions of explanation, i reject the explanation of gods, the same way i reject explanation of a dog being a creator.
I’m neutral.

Trollronaldo:
So what's wrong in just saying that you don't know and wait until we find out?

Do you now see how flawed atheism is?

Of course I don’t know, and i reject all gods, i also reject claims that a Dog could have created the world.

Trollronaldo:
So literally you conclusion was reached because of unavailability 9f evidence which is a classical example of appealing to ignorance

Exactly, I hope you are consistent with your fallacy of appealing to ignorance, as long as it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.

Trollronaldo:
So you dont know how the universe came about but you reject the possibility of a creator.

Fallacy of appealing to ignorance

Because I don’t have an answer to a thing, doesn’t mean I should accept someone else answers without evidence.

I hope you are consistent with your fallacy of appealing to ignorance, as long as it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.

Trollronaldo:
So if don't know how the universe was created and then you reject a creator, is that not a fallacy of appealing to ignorance?

Because I don’t have an answer to a thing, doesn’t mean I should accept someone else answers without evidence.

Trollronaldo:
So did you know that the universe wasn't created then if you reject a creator?

I don’t know how a universe came to be, I can’t say it was created or not, i have no idea.
If i see a car, I know it can be “created” by humans. But universe I don’t know if we even have the correct English to qualify how it came to be.

Trollronaldo:
I don't know, that's why I am asking deist and you atheists how they know it was and it wasn't.

So atheist ls, how did you know the universe wasn't created?

I don't know

Atheists doesn’t claim they know how the universe came to be, atheists just reject all gods. Simple

Trollronaldo:
Diests and atheists are both wrong.

Atheists are wrong because they don't know as well.

Athiests rejects all gods.

Trollronaldo:
If no one created the universe then how did it come into existence?

How did you know the universe was “created”?

Trollronaldo:
I am a deist.
I am telling you that you cannot disprove deists.

Diests and atheists are both wrong

Deists from deus.
Atheist rejects all deities.
All the attributes you think of this deistic god is gotten from monotheists, they use those attributes to honor their various deities.

Trollronaldo:
You still haven't read the OP carefully because you are not relaxed, you are just interested in the argument.

Read it and address issues on it

The op said nothing, the characteristics he gave to this god how did he come up with it?
Why does he think a thing can transcend time and space?

The concept of “god” where did he get it from?

Trollronaldo:
How did you know that a deistic god doesn't exist before rejecting it?

How did you come with a deistic theos?

Trollronaldo:
if you carefully read the OP, you will realize I wrote it.

Learn to calm down and read. Go back and read it, this time carefully

The op said nothing, the characteristics he gave to this god how did he come up with it?
Why does he think a thing can transcend time and space?

Trollronaldo:
I am not a deist.

I won't accept their ideas and that of atheists until an evidence for or against suffices.

Atheists reject all gods. What are “gods”?

Good, as long as it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.

Trollronaldo:
read the op

He said nothing, he is a monotheist apologist.

Trollronaldo:
The idea of a deistic god is not jargons.

How did you come up with a deistic god? Is it not though theism?
Why do you think a thing can transcend time?

Trollronaldo:
Did you read the Op?
This has been resolved there

What was resolved?

Trollronaldo:
Nope, I want say it cannot exist until proven right or wrong.
I will remain skeptical.

The moment I reach a conclusion, I have committed a fallacy

Very good, i also hope it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.

Trollronaldo:
If they have been proven not to exist, does it mean that they do not exist?

How did you come up with the conclusion that they exist in the first place?
I can just cook up jargons and claim they exist, then ask people to prove that it doesn’t exist.

Trollronaldo:
Okay,
A resplendent rainbow fish was discovered last year in 2022.

Does it mean that the species didn't exist in 2021?

It was after it was discovered you knew right?
If someone said it exist before 2022, why can’t they also prove it?

Trollronaldo:
the capital G nonsense doesn't matter to me.
How did you know that atleast one of the many versions of God don't exist?

None of the Deities has been proven to exist, we have millions of them, if they make a claim of their deities they should prove it.

Trollronaldo:
How did you know flying horses don't exist?

There’s no evidence to it.
If you think it can exist fine, just be consistent thoroughout.

Trollronaldo:
But Atheism arrives at a conclusion of "there's no God"

How did they arrive at that conclusion if there's no evidence against it?

That There’s no god or gods.
You putting capital G there, you already going in the way of monotheism.
Yahweh is a god, allah is a god, yahweh and allah are 2 gods, atheists reject all gods!

Trollronaldo:
okay?

How did you arrive at rejecting it?

Because they are gods, the same way i also reject Santa and flying horses existing.

Trollronaldo:
Yes, atheism is a fallacy of appealing to ignorance, same as deist

This fallacy of appealing to ignorance is not limited to gods, it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.

Workch:
Same thing I was trying to explain to Maynman yesterday

Atheism means godless, we reject the notions of all gods.

budaatum:
That's an odd question, considering the undisputed following:


I don't "use the same concept for this god"


The definition changes as humans understand more.

Like, 3000 years ago, some human understanding was "In the Beginning, God created the heaven and the earth", and those who wrote that described their understanding as we now read it, and since then others have come up with their own understandings for consideration too.

Change, you see, is constant. Its why and how we evolve. My understanding, note.

There was no human understanding that said “ 3000 years ago, some human understanding was "In the Beginning, God created the heaven and the earth".

They were talking about a particular Abrahamaic deity, in another human understanding in another culture, it was not a deity that created heaven and earth.

I don’t think mummy and daddy having sex can be termed “creation”.
I know some things can be created hence a creator, k don’t if all things can be created, because at the end of the day who created the creator? What material was used in creating a creator.

What if the tracing of one’s forefathers goes far beyond “forefathers”? And forefathers was a result of another thing of another thing, and nothing was “created”.

“Creation” is a human concept, I don’t think a “creator” of humans will also use the same concept of “human creation” unless they are of the same material.

budaatum:
When you said knowing, you meant knowing how the universe came to be, which means, first know what the universe is. That's important. It's like asking, where do I stand. After all, in trying to know what the universe is, I must know the little tiny portion of it that I stand on.

As to words to describe it, one can learn how words have been used to describe it in the past and how those words have evolved into our own presence and use that knowledge to refine one's own description.

That said, it's not important for everyone. It's not air, after all.

Yeah of course, so who is the creator of earth that we stand on? And what’s a “universe”, is that word “universe” not our limited human understanding of the things we see. The definition may change later on.

But it’s still humans that are using those words in the past in our tiny earth with their human understanding, can such things use our human terminologies “create” “exist”?
We humans create thats why we have creator, Some animals create, If this thing is not human and not animal, we can’t use “create” for it, or say it has a creator, I don’t know what can create a universe or if universe can be created by a creator or there’s such a thing as a “creator” powerful enough to create anything that magnitude or the universe was even created to start with.

budaatum:
Yet, we do make those wild assumptions. And we make those wild assumptions having spent time investigating because we assumed knowing was or is important.

The importance of knowing is so one is not easily fooled. One also benefits from practising the art of seeking, which is what results in knowing, and is a valuable transferable skill.

The investigation is still limited to our human understanding on this tiny earth. We may not even have the English words to describe what’s the universe and how it came to be.

When i said knowing, i meant knowing how the universe came to be, what’s the importance?