budaatum:


Sorry, but not important enough for the time investment. Post a link to where you posted your answer so I can go straight to it instead of wading through looking for it.

Let me respond to you as follows since I am short on time finding links to send you: Except for the facts I received, I am agnostic of all gods. Sango and Sopana never claim to be the creators. We are talking about the universe's creator here. Our five senses—sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell—provide us with information about the physical world. However, they are limited to perceiving the observable and measurable aspects of the natural world.

gisevak:


Let me respond to you as follows since I am short on time finding links to send you: Except for the facts I received, I am agnostic of all gods. Sango and Sopana never claim to be the creators. We are talking about the universe's creator here. Our five senses—sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell—provide us with information about the physical world. However, they are limited to perceiving the observable and measurable aspects of the natural world.

Your senses are not limited when it comes to doing the work to find out how universe creators are created or how many creators are claimed to have created the universe. And that alone should make you do more research as opposed to claiming you are incapable of doing the research.

It's after all not possible that all the creator deities created this one universe.

gisevak:

Would this solve the existence creator mystery?

I am not interested in solving the mystery since there isn't a creator mystery in the first place. If you can show cause for why a creator should be considered in the first place then I'm all eyes.

budaatum:


Your senses are not limited when it comes to doing the work to find out how universe creators are created or how many creators are claimed to have created the universe. And that alone should make you do more research as opposed to claiming you are incapable of doing the research.

It's after all not possible that all the creator deities created this one universe.

You are not completely right concerning the limitations of our five senses. Our senses can easily give us subjective views of something. Reading through the links you provided. I would want to know those things those gods created, when and how they do so. And if, by the time I finished reading, I couldn't see any proof there, I would be disappointed. Well, there may be a creator or an infinite number of creators. Maybe those links can prove it.

LordReed:


I am not interested in solving the mystery since there isn't a creator mystery in the first place. If you can show cause for why a creator should be considered in the first place then I'm all eyes.

Since you know there is no universe-creator mystery, why don't you bring forward facts or proof to unleash the mystery? Did you read my stand on whether creators exist or not? How can you ask questions that I have already answered? You seem to not pay attention to the details being discussed. It's normal for humans to assume things are created or not, but your stand is highly illogical.

gisevak:

Since you know there is no universe-creator mystery, why don't you bring forward facts or proof to unleash the mystery? Did you read my stand on whether creators exist or not? How can you ask questions that I have already answered? You seem to not pay attention to the details being discussed. It's normal for humans to assume things are created or not, but your stand is highly illogical.

I should bring evidence for a mystery that doesn't exist? Can you even hear youself? LoLz.

LordReed:


I should bring evidence for a mystery that doesn't exist? Can you even hear youself? LoLz.

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

gisevak:


How did you arrive at this conclusion?

What conclusion?

LordReed:


What conclusion?

The statement I quoted, or simply put, "There is no mystery of a creator or creators": how did you come to this conclusion?

gisevak:

The statement I quoted, or simply put, "There is no mystery of a creator or creators": how did you come to this conclusion?

Because the idea of a creator or creators has no basis in reality. If you think it does, provide such a basis.

LordReed:


Because the idea of a creator or creators has no basis in reality. If you think it does, provide such a basis.

See how you are running away to provide an answer to how you came to your conclusion. That's what I have predicted here about self-acclaimed atheists without proof of their stands. They have no proof of their stand and still come to a conclusion about something they have no proof of. Is that logical?

gisevak:

See how you are running away to provide an answer to how you came to your conclusion. That's what I have predicted here about self-acclaimed atheists without proof of their stands. They have no proof of their stand and still come to a conclusion about something they have no proof of. Is that logical?
 
 

Which running away? What is there to run away from? I'll tell you what is illogical, expecting me to provide proof for an idea that has no merit. Meanwhile you who thinks the idea has merit can provide no basis for why such an idea has merit. You are always pointing the fingers that implicate you.

LordReed:


Which running away? What is there to run away from? I'll tell you what is illogical, expecting me to provide proof for an idea that has no merit. Meanwhile you who thinks the idea has merit can provide no basis for why such an idea has merit. You are always pointing the fingers that implicate you.

Simple question: how did you arrive at the conclusion that the mystery of a creator does not exist? Did you just make a guess without a fact? Is this how atheists reason—they just make up any idea for us to accept without proof or facts?
So, if you're accused of a crime, would the police legally throw you into prison without being convicted?

gisevak:
You are not completely right concerning the limitations of our five senses. Our senses can easily give us subjective views of something.

Indeed if you a passive receiver of what your senses perceive perhaps, or a slave to your senses like a certain Adam who's subjective senses informed him that seeking to know would kill him.

Those who first learn to use their senses like Eve did, would know who the master is and who is the slave between one's senses and oneself and would therefore not easily be led.

Temptation of Christ, for Bible readers.

gisevak:

Reading through the links you provided. I would want to know those things those gods created, when and how they do so. And if, by the time I finished reading, I couldn't see any proof there, I would be disappointed. Well, there may be a creator or an infinite number of creators. Maybe those links can prove it.

Instead of asking and seeking and knocking with your own heart and soul and mind so you can prove for yourself and know, you expect to be given so you can receive? Do tell if that does not sound like some who are given a book and therefore believe.

Texts are not to be read as, "by the time I finished reading I should know", and links don't prove things. What you read is for you to consider, then research and learn more and eventually know.


The below is a reminder to self, and may be ignored.

budaatum:
Objectivity in science is a value that informs how science is practiced and how scientific truths are discovered. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, a priori commitments, emotional involvement, etc. Objectivity is often attributed to the property of scientific measurement, as the accuracy of a measurement can be tested independent from the individual scientist who first reports it.

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.

gisevak:


Simple question: how did you arrive at the conclusion that the mystery of a creator does not exist? Did you just make a guess without a fact? Is this how atheists reason—they just make up any idea for us to accept without proof or facts?
So, if you're accused of a crime, would the police legally throw you into prison without being convicted?

There is no mystery because there is no valid ground to consider the idea of a creator or creators. The idea is simply nonsense. How do you now want me to manufacture evidence for the nonsense?

With no evidence of a crime so where is such an accusation going to come from? You'll just dream it up?

LordReed:


There is no mystery because there is no valid ground to consider the idea of a creator or creator. The idea is simply nonsense. How do now want me to manufacture evidence for the nonsense?

With no evidence of a crime so where is such an accusation going to come from? You'll just dream it up?

You made the claim that there is no mystery behind a creator. OK, "the origin of consciousness in the universe and human existence", is also not a mystery to you. I wonder at your level of ignorance.

gisevak:


You made the claim that there is no mystery behind a creator. OK, "the origin of consciousness in the universe and human existence", is also not a mystery to you. I wonder at your level of ignorance.

Are you stupìd? What has the origin of consciousness got to do with a creator?

LordReed:


Are you stupìd? What has the origin of consciousness got to do with a creator?

This shows how your mother trained you. I don't need to trade words with you. This thread is about the existence of humans and consciousness in the first place. If you can't talk about it, you can shamefully leave my thread for more logical people.

gisevak:


This shows how your mother trained you. I don't need to trade words with you. This thread is about the existence of humans and consciousness in the first place. If you can't talk about it, you can shamefully leave my thread for more logical people.

Look at this this one crying crocodile tears. When you were calling me ignorant e dey sweet you bah, now that you are on the receiving end you want to cry. Bwahahahahaha!

I asked you a simple question that you not been able to answer only to be dodging and trying to turn it on to me. If you have any shame yourself you'll stop posting and go think of what to do with your life instead of navel gazing and thinking of fairytale creators.

LordReed:


Look at this this one crying crocodile tears. When you were calling me ignorant e dey sweet you bah, now that you are on the receiving end you want to cry. Bwahahahahaha!

I asked you a simple question that you not been able to answer only to be dodging and trying to turn it on to me. If you have any shame yourself you'll stop posting and go think of what to do with your life instead of navel gazing and thinking of fairytale creators.

Smh! What is that question you are asking?

LordReed:


There is no mystery because there is no valid ground to consider the idea of a creator or creators. The idea is simply nonsense.

Every human knows that there are a lot of mysteries in the world, of which the universe creator is one, and human existence is part of them. And many more mysteries. But you said there was no mystery behind the creator of the universe. Please don't mention me, nor do you quote me with your bunch of ignorant and illogical guesses again.

gisevak:


Simple question: how did you arrive at the conclusion that the mystery of a creator does not exist? Did you just make a guess without a fact? Is this how atheists reason—they just make up any idea for us to accept without proof or facts?
So, if you're accused of a crime, would the police legally throw you into prison without being convicted?

Because you have not done the research to ask and knock and seek so you may may know, it's likely hard for you to consider that others might have done the research so they may know. And you expect the research they may have done to be given to you instead of you doing your own research.

Believers accept made up ideas without proof or facts. Good thing is you are agnostic, which means you will ask and knock and seek until you do know, or you'd be lazy and just believe.

gisevak:

Smh! What is that question you are asking?

Go back and read my posts not going to repeat something I have repeated more than thrice already.

gisevak:

Every human knows that there are a lot of mysteries in the world, of which the universe creator is one, and human existence is part of them. And many more mysteries. But you said there was no mystery behind the creator of the universe. Please don't mention me, nor do you quote me with your bunch of ignorant and illogical guesses again.

LoLz! Says the dumbass looking for what is not lost.

gisevak:

Every human knows that there are a lot of mysteries in the world, of which the universe creator is one, and human existence is part of them. And many more mysteries. But you said there was no mystery behind the creator of the universe. Please don't mention me, nor do you quote me with your bunch of ignorant and illogical guesses again.

Mystery!!! You know who to call!!

jaephoenix:

Any evidence of this creator? His or their names? How did it/they pop up? Who was his/their creator? etc

If you see an ancient house
You need to have the names of the builders and how they built it to believe it was built by someone right?

Irrational atheist in an irrational planet

danielistics:


So the world started 5000 years ago?

No

gisevak:

The evidence of a creator is in the creation, except you would tell me creation can exist without a creator. Nature and its laws are its evidence we cannot just reject. Can you address the subject of discussion?

Jaephoenix actually believed that nothing can emerge from nothing
So leave him to his folly

Wilgrea7:


why THE creator? why not the creators? when you say creator, what are you referring to, and how is it different from a god? I'd like to know so i understand what you mean

Whether Creator or creatorsssssss

The universe give evidence that it was the work of a hand

LordReed:


They are not evidence of a creation.

The laws and order and organization came by itself right? The earth rotation, revolution, it's perfect position and tilt and distance in the galactic system could have been by chance? What about the ecological balance, cycles and the designs of the human body? Intelligent design or chance?

Give me just one evidence that the DNA could emerge by chance and I'll be an atheist forever... Just one evidence. Even if na fake evidence

mysticwarrior:
Who created alliens?

Which alien have you seen?

KnownUnknown:


The “laws” of nature are descriptive not prescriptive. They are not akin to legal law formulated by humans. The “laws of nature” are descriptions of how the world functions not how it’s designed to function. That’s why the laws of physics “breakdown” at the quantum level.

What about the law of gravity?
The same law also guide the movement of the planetary bodies