₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
There are other concepts different from “create” “exist”. In fact, is "create-exist a concept?

Not all things that exist are created. Some just are.

Exactly, and “create” and “exist” are even human words and definitions, there may be other terminologies that may be different from these 2, as you know earth is very tiny, can such things use our earthly human concept of “ create” and “exist”?

budaatum:
I do agree, you shouldn't. Especially not qualify it for others. But that does not mean you can't or mustn't or shouldn't or don't use your human logic to qualify it for yourself. In fact, one should and must use one's human logic to qualify it for oneself, or at least attempt to.

Then there's here. After you've qualified for yourself, don't you create a thread to inform the universe of your qualifications, and don't we all wade in with our own qualifications?

We "shouldn't", perhaps, but that's all we do.

Since i was not there, i have no human logic to qualify it with, i can only make wild assumptions.
And what’s even the importance of knowing?

Yea, i create a thread because i know a thread can be created, I don’t know if a universe can be created, haven’t seen one yet.

[quote author=budaatum post=120457502][/quote]We know things can be created because we have seen things been created. I don’t know how the universe came to be, I shouldn’t use my human logic to qualify it.
There may be things that can be created and not exist and things that can exist without been created. What if there are other concepts different from “create” “exist”?
When we say something is alive and dead, what does it really mean?
Is our definition of alive and dead concept valid somewhere different from here? I don’t know.

For you to say you don’t know if a god exist or not, you’ve already ascertain that a god can exist. Now what are gods? Gods are deities. If you claim just one god, you are already leaning towards MONOTHEISM.

All the concepts and attributes you know about “god” is gotten from theists especially monotheists , they honor their gods and call them those sweet names(God is typically conceived as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, as well as having an eternal and necessary existence.)
why do you think a thing or a god can be omnipresent? Or have eternal existence Or powerful to “create” a mountain, now why do you think the universe can be “created” or there will be a “creator”? . The only reason you think something can be created is because we humans create things, are you now using the same concept for this god?
What if we don’t even have the correct words in English to explain how the world came to be.
I know a car can be created by humans, i know a nest can be created by birds, but I don’t know what can create a universe or even if I’m suppose to use the word “create”, all these I don’t know and i reject any any opinion be it gods(atheism) without evidence and i stick to I Don’t Know until i see evidences.

Agnostics and Deists are very funny, You are using the qualities and attributes of Deus and Theos (In MONOTHEISTIC thought, God is usually viewed as the supreme being, CREATOR, God is typically conceived as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, as well as having an eternal existence), but you refuse to tell us the name of your Deus and Theos?

Why do you think a thing being omnipresent, omniscience and omnipotent is enough to “create” a universe? Maybe these are the least qualities. What if it lacks Omnikenesis?
Why do you think a “thing” is powerful enough to create everything on earth or other million planets.
A drop of water doesn’t make the ocean.

Your idea of a deistic god is borrowed from Monotheism.

A christian pastor went to a Christian Hell bwahahahah

[quote author=OLAADEGBU post=120447322][/quote]Yahweh Worshipper

Thank you, humanity before Religion.

IMAliyu:
Yes this is correct.
Theism does sort of have a monopoly on the concept of god unfortunately.

But why do you think a thing can be this and that?
Theism is broad, maybe you meant monotheism.

All the attributes you know of this thing was given to it by worshippers of different deities(God is typically conceived as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, as well as having an eternal and necessary existence.)
They keep giving their it ridiculous claim to revere there favorite deities, monotheists does this.

IMAliyu:
Which fallacies?

Yes this would be correct.
Is it possible to have an idea of a god that's somehow no tied to previous and existing ideas of god(s)?


Yes, I have no reason to discount either possibility.

However I just have no solid position for either one.


I personally have no reason to think the world should have been created.
I just haven't discounted it as a possibility.

And by created I mean the cause of the origin of our world/universe/reality, and not necessarily a deliberate action by something or someone.
It's just pure speculation born out of a limited information and imagination.


I think there is some miscommunication somewhere if you're replying to this part of what I wrote
"A statement like "multiple beings with power and knowledge beyond what any human brain could ever grasp, were responsible for constructing our reality"
This to me would be indistinguishable from the deistic god claim, and is equally plausible and undisprovable."

I am making a case on the unfalsifiability of such a statement, on the deist god and there being no reason someone would assume only a singular god is possible, if they're coming from an agnostic position.
It was not a statement of my beliefs.

Your concept of a god is gotten from theism.
The concept that a thing can be this and that is gotten from theism.

Workch:
I am tired of arguing with him.

It's not gonna end, he likes long unending arguments

For you to say you don’t know if a god exist or not, you’ve already ascertain that a god can exist.
All the concepts and attributes you know about “god” is gotten from theists, theists honor their gods and call them those sweet names, why do you think a thing or a god can be omnipresent? Or powerful to create a mountain, now why do you think the world can be “created” or there will be a “creator”. The only reason you think something can be created is because we humans create things, are you not using the same concept for this god?

IMAliyu:
I've read through the thread and I don't fully understand the disagreement between you workch.

Agnosticism and Atheistism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

A statement like, I don't know if any deity(s) exist, but I don't believe in any because "insert reason here". Is possible.

As for the plausibility of the existence of a singular deistic god over multiple, I think this is more of a subject of individual bias.

workch is correct in his statement that it's not possible to invalidate the deistic god claim, as no disprovable or narratively contradictory attributes are assigned to it.
But this is a matter of the claim being made.
Someone could equally create a similar claim to the deistic god's, but just add the possiblity of there being multiple gods and that wouldn't be any less disprovable, as long as no narratives or attributes are assigned to them.

A statement like "multiple beings with power and knowledge beyond what any human brain could ever grasp, were responsible for constructing our reality"
This to me would be indistinguishable from the deistic god claim, and is equal plausible and undisprovable.

You are making a lot of fallacies lol.
First off, your idea of god is gotten from other gods, the attributes you give to a god is gotten from it.
You saying that a creator exists or not, you’ve already confirmed that there can be creator or not.

Now why do you think the world should be “created”, you are using the word “created” because of our present knowledge in English and because you’ve read somewhere that there can be a creator.
We humans create things, that’s why we have creators, are you using the same concept for that god too?
Why do you think a god or a thing can be omnipresent, or why do you think a god can transcend time and space, there are so many things that can transcend that we don’t know of , it’s even our present knowledge Through science that we can know that there’s time and space.
Why do you think a god can be all this, how did you get the idea? Out of all explanations?

Workch:
However, a deistic god is hard to disprove, because there is no attribute whatsoever to test. Hence I will conclude that I don't know if a creator exist or not based on that reason

You are making a lot of fallacies lol.
First off, your idea of god is gotten from other gods, the attributes you give to a god is gotten from it.
You saying that a creator exists or not, you’ve already confirmed that there can be creator or not.

Now why do you think the world should be “created”, you are using the word “created” because of our present knowledge in English and because you’ve read somewhere that there can be a creator.
We humans create things, that’s why we have creators, are you using the same concept for that god too?
Why do you think a god or a thing can be omnipresent, or why do you think a god can transcend time and space, there are so many things that can transcend that we don’t know of , it’s even our present knowledge Through science that we can know that there’s time and space.
Why do you think a god can be all this, how did you get the idea? Out of all explanations? Workch

Workch:
all gods can be demonstrated not to exist except from certain concepts of deistic gods

Deistic theos.
All the attributes you know about theos was given to him by his worshippers.
Your immediate thinking of a theos that has those attributes already points you as a theos worshipper(God is typically conceived as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, as well as having an eternal and necessary existence.).Your argument is coming from a monotheistic point of view, why do you think this theos is that powerful to do that magic, why do you think it transcends time, why only one god why not 2 gods transcending time? Then just one god transcend space.
Think about it. Why do you think only one god did everything? Why am I attributing so much attributes and features to one theos?
Out of all the billions explanations i can get, why do i find “theos” interesting? Workch

Workch:
all gods can be demonstrated not to exist except from certain concepts of deistic gods

Your concept is rooted in Theism. All deists are theists, but not all theists are deists.
Deism from Deus.

Workch:
it's more like, I am neutral because ntheres no evidence for or against God and its impossible to know if God exist or not based on available evidence.

Seems you are using the Monotheistic definition of god, which god then, yahweh?

Workch:
okay, i thought you were an atheist

Atheism means non belief in god or gods.
The capital G, is religion people trying to honor their various deities.

Agnosticism is saying they don’t know if god or gods exist. That’s understood.

If you look at the word “atheism”, it comes from “atheos” which means godless.
Theos refers to the Olympus gods, before it was use in the Christian text, New Testament was written in greek.
Atheists reject all gods.

Workch:
if I ask you if a God exist and you give this second answer, would that not be pure Agnosticism?

Can we add s to this to make it, GodS.
Is that also pure Agnosticism?

If you say one god you are already on the side of monotheism.

Workch:
So why can't you just leave it at you don't know instead of you don't know if no one can know?

as long as you take a similar position on other things without evidence. (“I don’t know whether Bigfoot exists; I don’t know whether Santa Claus exists, etc.”) And also you would judge the probability of any gods’ existence to be 50.00000%. Any evidence you receive should tip your belief in one direction or the other.

Workch:
here.

This picture

I can’t see “ Darwin used fossils to proof evolution”?

Workch:
How does this mean that Darwin used fossils to proof evolution? Tell me

Where did i say he used fossils to proof evolution?
Can you screenshot it?

Workch:
I take that back, darwin knew about fossils but darwin never knew how fossils got there.

The first person to argue fossils for evolution was lamarck. He did that more than 20years after Darwins death. I was wrong thee

Alright man, i also want to say that darwin worked on pre existing facts, evidences and he also craft his own evidences to arrive at his conclusions.

You made this statement first, when i used it on you, you started wailing.
Agnostics are hypocrites

I hope you take similar position on other things without evidence. (“I don’t know whether Bigfoot exists; I don’t know whether Santa Claus exists, etc.”) Without taking positions similar to those, being agnostic toward god(s) is usually inconsistent.

Workch:
lol, this guys.

Atheists know how to ask for evidence, but they runway when you ase them too 😂😂

I'm sure that everyone will now see that Atheism is just same idea with theism but from an opposite angle.

Both runway from evidence when it's not in their Favour.

Bye dude

Waiting

Workch:
just open the book and show me where he linked evolution with fossil


hey here, download the Darwins paper for natural selection.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.vliz.be/docs/Zeecijfers/Origin_of_Species.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjI1Lq9tur8AhUjgP0HHTvqD1oQFnoECAYQAg&usg=AOvVaw0uatI9ajtKJqqiZsJU-Q7e

Go through it and show me where he provided fossil evidence

Waiting

Workch:
show me where he linked evolution and fossil in the book

Waiting

Workch:
hey here, download the Darwins paper for natural selection.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.vliz.be/docs/Zeecijfers/Origin_of_Species.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjI1Lq9tur8AhUjgP0HHTvqD1oQFnoECAYQAg&usg=AOvVaw0uatI9ajtKJqqiZsJU-Q7e

Go through it and show me where he provided fossil evidence

What year was fossils found?
Darwin didn’t know about fossils right?

Workch:
should I share a link to download Darwins original paper so you can show me?

Darwin didn’t know about fossils right?

Workch:
is that from Darwins paper? On the origin of species?

If you point to anywhere on Darwin paper, where he used fossil evidence to demonstrate evolution, I will believe you.

I'm willing to change.

I can give you a link to download the paper

What year was fossils found?

Workch:
If you show me evidence of Darwin using fossil to explain evolution in his paper, I will believe you.

Show me

Don’t believe me.
What year was fossils discovered again?

Workch:
this was after Darwin, show me in the original paper, origin of species where darwin presrned fossil evidence.

If you show me, I will believe you

Don’t “believe” me.
Read slowly.

Workch:
I have proven to you that both ahtiestd and theists will not provide evidence for their claims when questioned.

It's what you re doing

And i have proven to you that agnostics cherry pick when they use their logic.

Workch:
So you have no evidence of Darwin using fossils as evidence.

I am right when say that Atheism is not really different from theism. But have no evidence for anything they claim

So you have no evidence for your “deistic god”?

Agnostics are hypocrite oo