₦airaland Forum

Workch:
Just provide a method to test your god, whether directly or indirectly

That discuss may not include you as I said. It will only include the other guy for now.

Workch:
whats this one saying na, arguing like kindagerten.

Your God cannot be detected nor directly and indirectly. Still a fallacy of faulty equivalence

That's were you are wrong, God can be PERCEIVED indirectly says Rom 1:20

LordReed:
Take all the time you need.

The other guy is the one distracting me with faulty accusations and logic.

Workch:
sorry it can, even if it can’t, it’s still not evidence for your God

You are just contradicting yourself, where do you stand, so I know how to respond.

Workch:
Just give us a method that is repeatable and that will give same result every time like radio telescope for dark energy.

I may not respond to you about this, but LORDREED. If you show we can follow a logical discussion, I will mention you too.

Workch:
You can detect dark energy and give accurate figures, none for your god.

He exist only in your head

You can't detect it DIRECTLY. You can only PERCEIVE IT. know the difference.

Workch:
But we have measured dark energy to be 70% of the universe with a methodology that is verifiable, no verifiable method can test God.


It’s faulty equivalence oga, you god cannot be tested, dark energy can be tested.

Dark energy can't be tested, that's a fact for NOW!

Workch:
No one is talking about multiverse, straw man

Radio telescopes have become the major tool in mapping the effects of Dark Energy across the Universe, what method do you have to test your God?

Faulty equivalence

Nothing, I repeat NOTHING can DIRECTLY measure DARK ENERGY! you are the one using straw man's argument. Read up!

LordReed:
What in the universe is indicative of this god's power?

That's a good question. It will take me a little while to write it out, so bear with me.

Workch:
so how did they arrive at 70%?

I will help you see your flaws little by little

Do you know the implications when dark energy is finally understood? It might mean we would now have MULTI-UNIVERSES which will shoot the estimation of dark energy in the multi-universes to more than 99.9999999999%, but it will still be based on estimation, as nobody can travel to all the corners of the universe or if we have many universes, multi-verse!

LordReed:
So basically let's attribute the universe to god because we attribute known effects to an unknown energy called dark energy, is what you are saying?

No, don't bring a comparison but follow the simple logic I put forward. Science believes that what can either be SEEN, MEASURED or PERCEIVED INDIRECTLY is real and a fact.

Roman's 1: 20 says God's qualities and his Godship can be PERCEIVED indirectly by his creation. It follow the same logic as science.

Workch:
Dark matter can be measured, that’s why we know it’s 70% of the constituent of the universe.


Why are you arguing like a kindergarten?

It’s faulty equivalence unless you want to tell us how much of universe in percentage in controls with measurable experiment and method which is applicable to dark energy.

Dark energy has not be PROPERLY MEASURED, that is just at best a rough guess. That value can't be compared to other scientific constants, like the speed of light, the rate of acceleration due to gravity, amongst other constant, that have been arrived by instrumental testing repeatedly and methodically.

The value for Dark energy is at best a guess and not a constant. Know the difference.

Workch:
I’m not wrong because you said I’m wrong.

That’s also a fallacy.

Saying God exist because we don’t understand dark energy yet is faulty equivalence and appeal to ignorance at the this same time.

Whether or not we understand black matteris not evidence for God. It’s hilarious.

It’s like saying because we don’t understand gravity before newton, it means god exist.

Refer to LordReed. The fallacy equivalence has been trashed too.

Workch:
Becuase we don’t know what constitute 70% of the universe hence god exist. Lol

That’s Ad ignoratiam. Because we don’t know about dark mater yet doesn’t mean god exist
This is classical case of appealing to ignorance and false equivalence at the same time.

Let me just help you out with the import of my post because many atheist struggled to understand it. It is as follows below:

To be concise, I am saying for a fact: Science accepts as facts what can be SEEN, MEASURED or PERCEIVED indirectly, and not just what can be SEEN or MEASURED as atheist believe.

Workch:
Becuase we don’t know what constitute 70% of the universe hence god exist. Lol

That’s Ad ignoratiam. Because we don’t know about dark mater yet doesn’t mean god exist

You are still wrong, I have addressed this already, go to page 2 and 3 of this post and see where it was trashed.

LordReed:
In what way can these qualities be perceived?

First you need to know what the qualities are: Of all God’s wonderful qualities, four are outstanding: his power (JEREMIAH 32:17), wisdom ( PSALM 104:24), justice ( PSALM 37:28), and love (1 JOHN 4: 8 ).

These are part of his qualities that can be PERCEIVED indirectly from his creation.

LordReed:
Ok, how does this relate to belief in a god?

Boss it is clear from my post. Romans 1:20 points to the fact that God's invisible qualities and his Godship can be PERCEIVED indirectly in a similar way.

Atheist are yet to realize the third aspect.

Workch:
You are trying hard to commit the fallacy of ad ignoratiam

Pardon, I have not committed that fallacy. Go and learn more about that fallacy.

LordReed:
Ok, one more time, what are you trying to say?

To be concise, I am saying: Science accepts as facts what can be SEEN, MEASURED or PERCEIVED indirectly.

LordReed:
Ok

The ball is now in your court to counter my post.

LordReed:
I agree, we do need to clarify meanings from time to time.

Let's start on a clean slate then.

LordReed:
You are trying to make an argument for a god, it's only natural for me to think that you are trying to equate scientific certainty with religious faith. I think it's better we have a discussion so that your position is clearly understood, instead of expecting one to swallow everything without question.

I don't mind you asking questions or trying to disprove what I wrote, but look at the way you have gone about it. I literally had to explain to you several times I was not using the god of the gaps argument despite it been clear I was not using it and so many others.

I am open to discussion provided we are not blinded on our own arguments to see the points/merits in another's.

LordReed:
Is it not clear from all you have posted that posit means to affirm? Or are you just reading the meaning you want into it?

But you also saw posit means in both verb and noun form to assume and to suggest?

When I said science BELIEVES in DARK ENERGY as a FACT, you didn't stand for it. I thought you would have figured out that the BELIEF there is based on scientific evidence which makes it a Fact, so when you used posit, the next logical thing was to conclude that you meant it as an ASSUMPTION, since it Carries that meaning too.

You brought us this far.

LordReed:
Is not that I don't think belief can't apply, it's that you believers in a god usually try to equate them or use it as an argument that science is like religion since belief is involved. If you are going to use belief with science then you should make it clear that you do not mean it as you would mean religious faith.

Excuse me, you thought otherwise. You never took your time to understand my position or write up since the beginning as I said, all you have just been doing is going left, right and back again.

You will still find another piece in my write up to attack and criticize without trying to understand what I wrote there first.

LordReed:
Huh? When did I call dark energy a false teaching? LoL. I said your saying scientists BELIEVE in dark enervy is not a fact, scientists posit dark energy as an explanation, they don't need to believe it.

This is where you brought confusion into your argument. I knew belief can be attributed to science BASED on SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE but you didn't think so.

1Sharon:
You create a thread and responses you get are are from the blue? You will learn.

You threw a tantrum because I quoted you. I quoted you because you asked a question, I took my time to answer and you just ignored.

I have learnt. I'll look at who I respond to in future. Not everyone needs a response.

1Sharon:
You create a thread and resulting comments are out of the blue?


On a thread you created ?

I'll wrap up my thoughts to you in a sentence; don't ask me questions, if you aren't going to respond to the answer.

That's the lesson.

Your questions below directed at me from the blues, which I graciously responded to.

1Sharon:
Since you know so much about God, explain what he looks like?

1Sharon:
Right. So God just created humans, but doesn't want to intervene?

EMILO2STAY:
go sit down , you nothing about science.

You can say that a thousand times, doesn't make a difference. Like I said, you made no difference here.

EMILO2STAY:
all mouth and empty in substance. you are lucky the atheist arguing with you are not grounded in science, they would have put you to rest in 2minutes by using your own science against you.

Thank you for confirming what I knew all along about the atheist on this thread. All the atheist here, take your respective subs from EMILO2STAY.

They are terrible with logical arguments but they made an attempt, they tried at least, can't say the same about you.

1Sharon:
Did your mention have anything to do with my post?


Off point!

Must it have anything to do with it, in the first place? No! I mentioned you as you mentioned me from the blue.

1Sharon:
What logic ?

How did your mention in anyway relate to my post?

Go back to where you quoted me first and start from there. You will figure it out, I trust.

1Sharon:
What does your mention have to do with my previous post?

You quoted me just like I have quoted you, follow the simple logic.