Dtruthspeaker:


The topic is proof of God

I have asked you (repeatedly) to present your proof that God exists. I have not asked you what the topic is. I already know what it is, thank you very much. Furthermore, in view of the watery responses you've been giving thus far, I'm inclined to assume that you may have a very poor understanding of what constitutes "proof" of a claim. You cannot present a vague sentence and pretend that it will suffice as proof of your God. You have to properly demonstrate the connection if you really want to convince me that you're not just making things up.

and as I told you from the beginning which you saw, I said no thing about first cause.

A variant of this idea has been pointed out to you already, but I'm going to say it again, in case you missed it or still don't understand. Read this very slowly: in any philosophical discussion, a claim can either be explicit or implicit in nature. You offered the claim that nothing [in this world] created itself as a response to my query to prove your god's existence. Given the context of my request, it is safe to assume that your belief that nothing created itself means that everything [in this world] has a creator, according to you. Since you wilfully declined to make any further clarifications, I simply inferred that you were suggesting that there is a source from which everything that exists [in this world] was created. In which case, you would simply be rehashing the cosmological argument for gods, also known as The First Cause argument. For example, let's say we worked in the same office and you asked me if I had eaten that morning before coming to work. Then I simply just reply saying, "I eat every morning before coming to work". The likely inference you'd make from my response is that I had eaten that morning before coming to work. So far, I can't decipher anything new or original about your argument. Top tier atheist debaters don't even rate the argument these days and can rebut it without having to expend much brain juice.

It's funny though that you keep insisting this is not your argument. What this leads me to conclude is that (a) you have a very shoddy understanding of the depth of the argument you're trying to push forward here, in which case I would suggest you go back and properly study the cosmological arguments for God's existence to see how they mirror the argument you think you're trying to make. However, I'm also tempted to think towards option (b) though, which says you're a dishonest troll that rejects any important critiques of his claims because he doesn't want to cede any ground and admit that his knowledge or understanding of the subject is shaky. As far as I can tell, you are currently presenting the cosmological argument (first cause), and until you can provide further clarifications for the statement "nothing [in this world] created itself", I will continue to treat it as such.

You are the one not being able to continue since you and your other co-debaters are not able to get past my answer.

Lacking any specific context, your answer is technically is a non-sequitur to my question -- which literally means that you didn't actually answer it. So maybe explain your "answer" properly, and then we'll understand how it makes any sense as a response to the question of proving God's existence. As it stands, your "answer" (if it can be called that) reads more like a nonsensical string of words that have nothing to do with the actual subject of discourse.

We understand why you can't.

Who is the "we" in this blathering rejoinder? You and your braindead cheerleader, Aemmyjah? Personally, I would be more skeptical towards the credibility of my own argument if the only person who could validate it was someone with a sleeping brain .

The standard of knowledge requiring me to prove is "All deities" not certain deitie as you can pull any deity from anywhere and immediately I say I do not know it, then you would say, I have not proven God above all other deiies. So,your plan no work.

This paragraph is just another demonstration of your tendency for wilful avoidance of flaws in your arguments by playing semantics. I have noticed that it seems to be your preferred forum style -- to slither and dodge pertinent questions using irrational sophistry and frivolous appeals to semantics. But that's besides the point. What I find even more hilarious here is the fact that your pathetic attempt to redefine "certain deities" into "all deities" is an exercise in pointlessness since it accomplishes absolutely nothing. The question still remains. If you cannot know every deity that exists out there in the world, on what basis can you dismiss their existence, or their involvement in the creation of the world?

And all these are still a departure from post

Pffft. The only person departing from the topic is the one who's running scared of answering straightforward questions based of the implications of his argument. You really didn't think this through, did you ?

and fallacy of demanding the impossible.

1) No such fallacy exists. You literally just made that up.

2) Its funny you think that I'm "demanding the impossible", and it says a lot about the indefensible position you have assumed in this thread. You know deep down that your Jewish deity has no distinct evidence that sets him apart from every other deity in recorded history and that is why you think my simple request is "demanding the impossible".

That's not True. There is nothing vague about marry us"/hardness of buying and selling

If you really think there's nothing vague about predicting an unstable economy or about predicting marriage and/or divorce rates, then it's either you haven't got a single clue or you're just lying to yourself.

Here let me show you. I, Thorrn, am predicting now that rain will fall more than 3 times in the year 2048. If you're still alive by then and this prophecy comes to pass, you'll send me your address for me to come over and then you'll lie down flat on your face and suck on my toes as your lord and commander. You'll also wire any sum of cash I need to my account .

If you refuse to acknowledge this bet, then please tell me the difference between my prediction and that of one illiterate goat herder from ages ago.

Can you see the problem yet?

or the fact that Israel is now a single country returning to the place where they were thrown out from

This "prophecy" in particular will derail this thread if I choose to unpack it in its entirety. Long story short, it lacks any merit because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy IE it required the conscious or deliberate awareness and action of the people concerned to bring it to fruition. For example, if I prophesy that I will buy a car before 2026 and I do, am I therefore a divine entity? etc.

Anyways, if you wish to proceed further with this Israel prophecy debate, I would suggest we open another thread for it and I will talk more on the Israel prophecy. For this thread, I'm more interested in your claim that nothing in this world created itself is proof of God's existence.

And the mere fact that no other deity anywhere did not make any notable prediction like these, is a clear and distinct Proof of God as they were all free to predict their own prediction in whatever manner they wanted the world to see it come to pass but they did not because they are no gods just wood, iron and stone.

This assessment is ridiculously naive. Clearly you have never studied the claims of other religions for you to arrive at this preposterous conclusion. There are many prophecies made in Quran and Hadith by Muhammad that muslims claim to becoming true. For instance, Surah Rome, line 2-4, where Allah pronounces that Romans were defeated but soon within 3-9 years Romans will rise and defeat the Persians. And it did happen. The Romans defeated the Persians. Also there's a hadith where Muhammad said that the arab land will return to being green again, and apparently there are videos circulating the internet, showing that after heavy rain the arab land is slowly becoming green.

Buddhism also has its own fair share of "accurate" prophecies, according to your standard. You should check out the Sixteen Dreams of King Pasenadi Kosol where lots of interesting prophecies were made about the state of our present society including increase in sexual perversion, youths being more disrespectful towards their elders, cheating and nepotism, and even the rise of the feminist movement and men gradually becoming "simps". These prophecies seem almost even more impressive than the ones you profess. To this end, I wonder on what basis you can choose to dismiss Buddhism as lesser or inferior to Christianity.

Then there's the great prophet Nostradamus who predicted the Great Fire of London, the French Revolution as well as the rise and fall of both Hitler and Napoleon. He made all these prophecies as far back as the 16th Century.

I'm curious to know your response to these prophecies. According to your shoddy standards for validating the truth of a prophecy, all of the aforementioned examples (which are just a tiny few among many) should suffice as proof for their credibility. However I'm willing to wager that you can't attack these prophecies without committing the fallacy of special pleading. But go ahead and let me have a laugh watching you try.

So in the end you have nothing here.

Of course, because you're yet to present anything worthwhile for me to "have".

Fallacy of Begging the question and fallacy of composition.

Oh yeah? Let's examine these allegations.

By defining what a ship means does not automatically imply that The Federal High Court does not have jurisdiction over aircraft, territorial waters, airspace etc.

FALLACY OF COMPOSITION: ...occurs when the premise that the parts of a whole are of a certain nature is improperly used to infer that the whole itself must also be of this nature (example: a story made up of good paragraphs is thus said to be a good story)

I already had my suspicions, but it appears that you have indeed spuriously misapplied the fallacy of composition here. Let's backtrack and follow the logic of our conversation.

(1) You claimed that nothing [in this world] created itself.

(2) I noted that you qualified your claim with the adjectival phrase "...in this world", and so I demanded you to define what you meant by the "world" in your claim IE what it consists of.

(3) Your response to my demand above was the following, and I quote you verbatim: this "WORLD" consist of the earth alone in which humans are one of the inhabitants. So clearly, you were talking of the physical earth which houses all the known living organisms in the universe.

...which brings us back to where we are presently. Assuming the earth is a subset of the solar system which exists in our known universe, my premise here, in light of your definition, would be that God created the earth. You have not provided any explanation as to the source of other objects that exist in the solar system? Where did the Moon come from? What of the other planets? In fact let's take it all the way to our entire galaxy sef. Who created the Milky Way? Who created the Black Hole? These questions are totally justified because YOU yourself have limited the scope of your God's involvement in creation to the earth alone. So accusing me of committing a fallacy of composition is terribly nonsensical because I did not make any positive inference or extrapolation in this subject. It might have been a fallacy of composition if I had said,

(1) God created the earth.

(2) So therefore, God created the universe.

If you know anything at all about the principles of logic, you'd know that the syllogism above isn't just a fallacy of composition, but is also a non-sequitur.

Furthermore, the example you attempt to use as an illustration of your point is completely unintelligible, I can't even make any sense from it. What was the ship defined to mean in this farcical analogy of yours? I think I get the idea behind the analogy but your wording if it is just so laughable.

You also mentioned "begging the question". I don't see how your analogy illustrates that fallacy at all. Maybe you can explain this allegation better for me to make more sense of it? So far I haven't made any positive claims. The burden of proof is on you here and your knees seem to buckling under the pressure. Lol.

That's your opinion. The fact is that it is your bad understanding of the bible is which created and causes all the lies you raise against the bible. And this is of course resting on the fact that the bible condemns evil people and consequently evil people will never like it and will always say something is wrong with it. It's as simple as that and everyone knows that is the reason why you people attack the bible.

Look, I can literally make sense out of every single nonsense in this world if I'm determined to give that thing some sort of meaning. It doesn't necessarily mean that I'm correct or that the facts of reality agree with me. The human mind is an interesting phenomenon. You should go read up on Confirmation Bias and Belief Perseverance. You are completely entrenched in the notion that your belief is flawless so your brain will never accept the fact that there is a possibility that you're wrong. I repeat, the Bible is a steaming pile of bullshit contradictions, confabulations and outright lies. Any objective reader who reads books to arrive at truth and important facts that are independent of subjective beliefs or desires can testify to this. And I don't care if the Bible has one or two valuable nuggets for good and righteous living because countless other religious tomes espouse the exact same virtues, yet I don't see you subscribing to Buddhism or converting to Islam, or worshipping Vishnu because of that.

The Bible is a vague text that any idiot can pick up and find something that caters to his own personal and selfish idiosyncrasies. That is why you have different doctrines even within Christianity. Or did you forget that Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Protestants, 7th Day Adventists etc. worship the same God. You people quarrel among yourselves over tithes, the Trinity, divorce, abortion and homosexual relationships with each side using the Bible to justify his/her points. You people can't ever seem to get your stories straight when it comes to Biblical teachings and facts -- like armed robbers giving different alibis after they've been caught and exposed .

I think it's amusing the way you try to presume my reasons for not accepting your childish beliefs. Atheists seem to unnerve you, make you jittery, isn't it? You can't wrap your head around the fact that I'm not encumbered with your religious trifle, so it's easier for you to believe that I just hate God and the Bible, instead of accepting that I genuinely don't see any tangible reason to believe that God exists. If it helps you sleep at night, sure. Keep believing in unfounded fantasies because you're too scared to face the facts of life.

But anyway, this is off point.

My dear, it's looking more likely that you never had a point in the first place.

Aemmyjah:


Your life has no purpose. Ok sir

Says the self-confessed fool who admitted himself that his life has no value besides his belief in an imaginary being. Get a mirror, dumbo.

If your life is so dry, miserable and valueless that removing belief in a God would possibly lead you to kill yourself because "life is meaningless" according to you, then please by all means, don't ever lose your faith.

When you can answer my question and tell me just one thing Christians enjoy in this life that an atheist doesn't, then I'll start to take you more seriously. Until then, you can go take the backseat in the peanut gallery of your own thread and continue to suffer in your ignorance and stupidity, while you cheerlead other Christians who are more willing to put their brain to use.

Aemmyjah:



No
Ask him
If they were able to create it
Who did they (the Makers) represent
An intelligent creator or mindless process?

See that atheists are actually very foolish
Like Thorrn and Jaephoenix

I'm laughing real hard here .

You know, when I first saw your topic and read the contents therein, I actually thought you were a fairly decent apologist, in spite of the fact that your "arguments" for God's existence merely consisted of the usual rhetoric that most atheists have become used to, and have sufficiently dismantled time and time again in countless fora for philosophical discourse. But now that I've engaged you personally, and observing your infantile conduct thus far in this thread with other users, I'm beginning to wonder if you didn't just copy and paste your entire OP because the substance of your subsequent posts doesn't seem to embody the same level of confidence, maturity and articulation that was present in the OP -- or maybe I missed something. I've also realized that you have the intellectual depth of a shoelace and the intuition of a tree branch.

You can't keep up a single line of conversation. You can't muster up any sort of defense when your points have been rebutted. You're only comfortable repeating the thoughtless monotonous soundbites that you've gleaned from your church pastors and other more intelligent and knowledgeable Christians. You're the literal definition of an intellectual midget, and that's not the fault of your religion. You see, belief (or lack of belief) in gods has nothing to do with good reasoning skills. I've met plenty of intellectual Christians in the past who will cover their face in shame after watching you gracelessly fumble like a drunkard in simple apologetics that every 20 naira Christian should be competent in.

Here's a piece of advice for you: If you want to create a topic and discuss about it, you would do yourself a lot of favors by actually making ample research to know what the topic is all about, instead of just parroting about things you cannot understand. You're clearly not properly informed on basic Christian apologetics, so you'd better educate yourself accordingly before making yourself look immensely stupid on an online forum that is accessible across the world. Unfortunately the internet never forgets, and the mental incompetence you have unwittingly exhibited on this particular thread has been recorded for future members to witness at any point in time.

Thorrn:


I'm laughing real hard here .

You know, when I first saw your topic and read the contents therein, I actually thought you were a fairly decent apologist, in spite of the fact that your "arguments" for God's existence merely consisted of the usual rhetoric that most atheists have become used to, and have sufficiently dismantled time and time again in countless fora for philosophical discourse. But now that I've engaged you personally, and observing your infantile conduct thus far in this thread with other users, I'm beginning to wonder if you didn't just copy and paste your entire OP because the substance of your subsequent posts doesn't seem to embody the same level of confidence, maturity and articulation that was present in the OP -- or maybe I missed something. I've also realized that you have the intellectual depth of a shoelace and the intuition of a tree branch.

You can't keep up a single line of conversation. You can't muster up any sort of defense when your points have been rebutted. You're only comfortable repeating the thoughtless monotonous soundbites that you've gleaned from your church pastors and other more intelligent and knowledgeable Christians. You're the literal definition of an intellectual midget, and that's not the fault of your religion. You see, belief (or lack of belief) in gods has nothing to do with good reasoning skills. I've met plenty of intellectual Christians in the past who will cover their face in shame after watching you gracelessly fumble like a drunkard in simple apologetics that every 20 naira Christian should be competent in.

Here's a piece of advice for you: If you want to create a topic and discuss about it, you would do yourself a lot of favors by actually making ample research to know what the topic is all about, instead of just parroting about things you cannot understand. You're clearly not properly informed on basic Christian apologetics, so you'd better educate yourself accordingly before making yourself look immensely stupid on an online forum that is accessible across the world. Unfortunately the internet never forgets, and the mental incompetence you have unwittingly exhibited on this particular thread has been recorded for future members to witness at any point in time.

If a scientist can 'create' life or a living cell
Does he represent an intelligent designer or mindless process...

Which one? Short answer for anyone with a brain

Thorrn:



Says the self-confessed fool who admitted himself that his life has no value besides his belief in an imaginary being. Get a mirror, dumbo.

If your life is so dry, miserable and valueless that removing belief in a God would possibly lead you to kill yourself because "life is meaningless" according to you, then please by all means, don't ever lose your faith.

When you can answer my question and tell me just one thing Christians enjoy in this life that an atheist doesn't, then I'll start to take you more seriously. Until then, you can go take the backseat in the peanut gallery of your own thread and continue to suffer in your ignorance and stupidity, while you cheerlead other Christians who are more willing to put their brain to use.

A remote does not have a value without its designer. True or false?
How much more a complex living entity or being?
My ear has a purpose
My eyes have a purpose
Someone made them

Dolls have these too but what is their purpose and who can deny that someone made them
Keep wailing with insults cos your folly is just glowing
😂

Thorrn:


I have asked you (repeatedly) to present your proof that God exists. I have not asked you what the topic is. I already know what it is, thank you very much. Furthermore, in view of the watery responses you've been giving thus far, I'm inclined to assume that you may have a very poor understanding of what constitutes "proof" of a claim. You cannot present a vague sentence and pretend that it will suffice as proof of your God. You have to properly demonstrate the connection if you really want to convince me that you're not just making things up.




A variant of this idea has been pointed out to you already, but I'm going to say it again, in case you missed it or still don't understand. Read this very slowly: in any philosophical discussion, a claim can either be explicit or implicit in nature. You offered the claim that nothing [in this world] created itself as a response to my query to prove your god's existence. Given the context of my request, it is safe to assume that your belief that nothing created itself means that everything [in this world] has a creator, according to you. Since you wilfully declined to make any further clarifications, I simply inferred that you were suggesting that there is a source from which everything that exists [in this world] was created. In which case, you would simply be rehashing the cosmological argument for gods, also known as The First Cause argument. For example, let's say we worked in the same office and you asked me if I had eaten that morning before coming to work. Then I simply just reply saying, "I eat every morning before coming to work". The likely inference you'd make from my response is that I had eaten that morning before coming to work. So far, I can't decipher anything new or original about your argument. Top tier atheist debaters don't even rate the argument these days and can rebut it without having to expend much brain juice.

It's funny though that you keep insisting this is not your argument. What this leads me to conclude is that (a) you have a very shoddy understanding of the depth of the argument you're trying to push forward here, in which case I would suggest you go back and properly study the cosmological arguments for God's existence to see how they mirror the argument you think you're trying to make. However, I'm also tempted to think towards option (b) though, which says you're a dishonest troll that rejects any important critiques of his claims because he doesn't want to cede any ground and admit that his knowledge or understanding of the subject is shaky. As far as I can tell, you are currently presenting the cosmological argument (first cause), and until you can provide further clarifications for the statement "nothing [in this world] created itself", I will continue to treat it as such.



Lacking any specific context, your answer is technically is a non-sequitur to my question -- which literally means that you didn't actually answer it. So maybe explain your "answer" properly, and then we'll understand how it makes any sense as a response to the question of proving God's existence. As it stands, your "answer" (if it can be called that) reads more like a nonsensical string of words that have nothing to do with the actual subject of discourse.



Who is the "we" in this blathering rejoinder? You and your braindead cheerleader, Aemmyjah? Personally, I would be more skeptical towards the credibility of my own argument if the only person who could validate it was someone with a sleeping brain .



This paragraph is just another demonstration of your tendency for wilful avoidance of flaws in your arguments by playing semantics. I have noticed that it seems to be your preferred forum style -- to slither and dodge pertinent questions using irrational sophistry and frivolous appeals to semantics. But that's besides the point. What I find even more hilarious here is the fact that your pathetic attempt to redefine "certain deities" into "all deities" is an exercise in pointlessness since it accomplishes absolutely nothing. The question still remains. If you cannot know every deity that exists out there in the world, on what basis can you dismiss their existence, or their involvement in the creation of the world?



Pffft. The only person departing from the topic is the one who's running scared of answering straightforward questions based of the implications of his argument. You really didn't think this through, did you ?



1) No such fallacy exists. You literally just made that up.

2) Its funny you think that I'm "demanding the impossible", and it says a lot about the indefensible position you have assumed in this thread. You know deep down that your Jewish deity has no distinct evidence that sets him apart from every other deity in recorded history and that is why you think my simple request is "demanding the impossible".



If you really think there's nothing vague about predicting an unstable economy or about predicting marriage and/or divorce rates, then it's either you haven't got a single clue or you're just lying to yourself.

Here let me show you. I, Thorrn, am predicting now that rain will fall more than 3 times in the year 2048. If you're still alive by then and this prophecy comes to pass, you'll send me your address for me to come over and then you'll lie down flat on your face and suck on my toes as your lord and commander. You'll also wire any sum of cash I need to my account .

If you refuse to acknowledge this bet, then please tell me the difference between my prediction and that of one illiterate goat herder from ages ago.

Can you see the problem yet?



This "prophecy" in particular will derail this thread if I choose to unpack it in its entirety. Long story short, it lacks any merit because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy IE it required the conscious or deliberate awareness and action of the people concerned to bring it to fruition. For example, if I prophesy that I will buy a car before 2026 and I do, am I therefore a divine entity? etc.

Anyways, if you wish to proceed further with this Israel prophecy debate, I would suggest we open another thread for it and I will talk more on the Israel prophecy. For this thread, I'm more interested in your claim that nothing in this world created itself is proof of God's existence.



This assessment is ridiculously naive. Clearly you have never studied the claims of other religions for you to arrive at this preposterous conclusion. There are many prophecies made in Quran and Hadith by Muhammad that muslims claim to becoming true. For instance, Surah Rome, line 2-4, where Allah pronounces that Romans were defeated but soon within 3-9 years Romans will rise and defeat the Persians. And it did happen. The Romans defeated the Persians. Also there's a hadith where Muhammad said that the arab land will return to being green again, and apparently there are videos circulating the internet, showing that after heavy rain the arab land is slowly becoming green.

Buddhism also has its own fair share of "accurate" prophecies, according to your standard. You should check out the Sixteen Dreams of King Pasenadi Kosol where lots of interesting prophecies were made about the state of our present society including increase in sexual perversion, youths being more disrespectful towards their elders, cheating and nepotism, and even the rise of the feminist movement and men gradually becoming "simps". These prophecies seem almost even more impressive than the ones you profess. To this end, I wonder on what basis you can choose to dismiss Buddhism as lesser or inferior to Christianity.

Then there's the great prophet Nostradamus who predicted the Great Fire of London, the French Revolution as well as the rise and fall of both Hitler and Napoleon. He made all these prophecies as far back as the 16th Century.

I'm curious to know your response to these prophecies. According to your shoddy standards for validating the truth of a prophecy, all of the aforementioned examples (which are just a tiny few among many) should suffice as proof for their credibility. However I'm willing to wager that you can't attack these prophecies without committing the fallacy of special pleading. But go ahead and let me have a laugh watching you try.



Of course, because you're yet to present anything worthwhile for me to "have".



Oh yeah? Let's examine these allegations.



FALLACY OF COMPOSITION: ...occurs when the premise that the parts of a whole are of a certain nature is improperly used to infer that the whole itself must also be of this nature (example: a story made up of good paragraphs is thus said to be a good story)

I already had my suspicions, but it appears that you have indeed spuriously misapplied the fallacy of composition here. Let's backtrack and follow the logic of our conversation.

(1) You claimed that nothing [in this world] created itself.

(2) I noted that you qualified your claim with the adjectival phrase "...in this world", and so I demanded you to define what you meant by the "world" in your claim IE what it consists of.

(3) Your response to my demand above was the following, and I quote you verbatim: this "WORLD" consist of the earth alone in which humans are one of the inhabitants. So clearly, you were talking of the physical earth which houses all the known living organisms in the universe.

...which brings us back to where we are presently. Assuming the earth is a subset of the solar system which exists in our known universe, my premise here, in light of your definition, would be that God created the earth. You have not provided any explanation as to the source of other objects that exist in the solar system? Where did the Moon come from? What of the other planets? In fact let's take it all the way to our entire galaxy sef. Who created the Milky Way? Who created the Black Hole? These questions are totally justified because YOU yourself have limited the scope of your God's involvement in creation to the earth alone. So accusing me of committing a fallacy of composition is terribly nonsensical because I did not make any positive inference or extrapolation in this subject. It might have been a fallacy of composition if I had said,

(1) God created the earth.

(2) So therefore, God created the universe.

If you know anything at all about the principles of logic, you'd know that the syllogism above isn't just a fallacy of composition, but is also a non-sequitur.

Furthermore, the example you attempt to use as an illustration of your point is completely unintelligible, I can't even make any sense from it. What was the ship defined to mean in this farcical analogy of yours? I think I get the idea behind the analogy but your wording if it is just so laughable.

You also mentioned "begging the question". I don't see how your analogy illustrates that fallacy at all. Maybe you can explain this allegation better for me to make more sense of it? So far I haven't made any positive claims. The burden of proof is on you here and your knees seem to buckling under the pressure. Lol.



Look, I can literally make sense out of every single nonsense in this world if I'm determined to give that thing some sort of meaning. It doesn't necessarily mean that I'm correct or that the facts of reality agree with me. The human mind is an interesting phenomenon. You should go read up on Confirmation Bias and Belief Perseverance. You are completely entrenched in the notion that your belief is flawless so your brain will never accept the fact that there is a possibility that you're wrong. I repeat, the Bible is a steaming pile of bullshit contradictions, confabulations and outright lies. Any objective reader who reads books to arrive at truth and important facts that are independent of subjective beliefs or desires can testify to this. And I don't care if the Bible has one or two valuable nuggets for good and righteous living because countless other religious tomes espouse the exact same virtues, yet I don't see you subscribing to Buddhism or converting to Islam, or worshipping Vishnu because of that.

The Bible is a vague text that any idiot can pick up and find something that caters to his own personal and selfish idiosyncrasies. That is why you have different doctrines even within Christianity. Or did you forget that Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Protestants, 7th Day Adventists etc. worship the same God. You people quarrel among yourselves over tithes, the Trinity, divorce, abortion and homosexual relationships with each side using the Bible to justify his/her points. You people can't ever seem to get your stories straight when it comes to Biblical teachings and facts -- like armed robbers giving different alibis after they've been caught and exposed .

I think it's amusing the way you try to presume my reasons for not accepting your childish beliefs. Atheists seem to unnerve you, make you jittery, isn't it? You can't wrap your head around the fact that I'm not encumbered with your religious trifle, so it's easier for you to believe that I just hate God and the Bible, instead of accepting that I genuinely don't see any tangible reason to believe that God exists. If it helps you sleep at night, sure. Keep believing in unfounded fantasies because you're too scared to face the facts of life.



My dear, it's looking more likely that you never had a point in the first place.

If you like
Set a record for world's longest comment
You're ij the league of the school ilof thought that your life is meaningless, purposeless, useless and without reliable guidance
So rest
You should be interacting with animals in the bush

Aemmyjah:


If you like
Set a record for world's longest comment

Titters. The fact that you're so scared of reading long detailed posts is just another pointer to your shallow cognitive depth. I've sufficiently proved my point already, so your irrational obstinacy is completely irrelevant to me. Keep crying.

You're ij the league of the school ilof thought that your life is meaningless, purposeless, useless and without reliable guidance

Again. Mindless repetition. Nothing new to see here. I should start calling you Dundeejah. Maybe you need to gather your 3 brain cells together to hold hands and pray so that you can finally come up with something smart for once .

So rest

Trust me, when it comes to handling juvenile bumblefucks like you, I don't need to break much sweat.

You should be interacting with animals in the bush

Pffft. No problem. I'm sure the animals in the bushes will do a better job than you in handling a mature conversation. Out of curiosity, how do you manage to find your way out of your house every day? I imagine it must be so tasking for you, cracking that tiny little blob of a brain just to remember where your front door is. Lol .

Aemmyjah:


A remote does not have a value without its designer. True or false?

False equivocation fallacy. A remote control is not sufficient to represent a fully functional human in any metaphor and/or analogy. Same goes for your "designer". Your pathetic question is dead on arrival. Try again.

My ear has a purpose

Congratulations. Now riddle me this: What is the purpose of the ear that belongs to a deaf living man?

My eyes have a purpose

Very good. Now, same as above. What is the purpose of the eyes that belong to a blind living man?

Someone made them

Okay. Prove it then. Why is that so difficult for you and your buddies to do?

Dolls have these too but what is their purpose and who can deny that someone made them

Another false equivocation. But I expect you won't even understand what it means, let alone how it applies to your spurious examples.

Keep wailing with insults cos your folly is just glowing
😂

I'm sorry you feel insulted by my remarks about your character on this thread. I'm just calling out what I see. If it looks like a dumbass, and writes like a dumbass, then it probably is... a dumbass.

And I can't see anything glowing here, when the cloud of your stark unintelligence is hovering around this thread, obscuring the light of reason.

Aemmyjah:



If a scientist can 'create' life or a living cell
Does he represent an intelligent designer or mindless process...

Which one? Short answer for anyone with a brain

If you truly want a genuine answer, rather than waffle on about nonsense you prefer to make up for yourself, then go back and read all the responses I've made to you since the start of this thread. I can't be arsed repeating myself to a dullard who refuses to humble himself and learn.

Thorrn:



If you truly want a genuine answer, rather than waffle on about nonsense you prefer to make up for yourself, then go back and read all the responses I've made to you since the start of this thread. I can't be arsed repeating myself to a dullard who refuses to humble himself and learn.

Answer my question
If you as a scientist create a living cell
Do you represent an intelligent designer or blind chance?

Only a fool writes epistles and insults to answer a simple question

Thorrn:



False equivocation fallacy. A remote control is not sufficient to represent a fully functional human in any metaphor and/or analogy. Same goes for your "designer". Your pathetic question is dead on arrival. Try again.



Congratulations. Now riddle me this: What is the purpose of the ear that belongs to a deaf living man?



Very good. Now, same as above. What is the purpose of the eyes that belong to a blind living man?



Okay. Prove it then. Why is that so difficult for you and your buddies to do?



Another false equivocation. But I expect you won't even understand what it means, let alone how it applies to your spurious examples.



I'm sorry you feel insulted by my remarks about your character on this thread. I'm just calling out what I see. If it looks like a dumbass, and writes like a dumbass, then it probably is... a dumbass.

And I can't see anything glowing here, when the cloud of your stark unintelligence is hovering around this thread, obscuring the light of reason.

Olodo
😂
You think what is made can answer for his Maker like human birth

You are far from intelligence
No atheist can confidently tell you that the universe is the cause of its own existence
Is it by chance that the earth has its own rotation, revolution, speed, tilt and movement?
Intelligence is very far, billions of miles faraway from you

Thorrn:



Titters. The fact that you're so scared of reading long detailed posts is just another pointer to your shallow cognitive depth. I've sufficiently proved my point already, so your irrational obstinacy is completely irrelevant to me. Keep crying.



Again. Mindless repetition. Nothing new to see here. I should start calling you Dundeejah. Maybe you need to gather your 3 brain cells together to hold hands and pray so that you can finally come up with something smart for once .



Trust me, when it comes to handling juvenile bumblefucks like you, I don't need to break much sweat.



Pffft. No problem. I'm sure the animals in the bushes will do a better job than you in handling a mature conversation. Out of curiosity, how do you manage to find your way out of your house every day? I imagine it must be so tasking for you, cracking that tiny little blob of a brain just to remember where your front door is. Lol .

Those under the school of thought that life is purposeless are supposed to live the Jungle

Lemme ask you a question
Is your brain a product of intelligent design or mindless process? Which one 😂

Aemmyjah:


Those under the school of thought that life is purposeless are supposed to live the Jungle

I agree. Unfortunately for you, my life has a purpose. What I told you is that life itself has no inherent purpose. Objective purpose vs Subjective purpose. I know that by time you finally understand the difference, the value of our Naira will finally supercede that of the Dollar .

Lemme ask you a question

Ask away.

Is your brain a product of intelligent design or mindless process? Which one 😂

The current scientific consensus is that the brain is a result of natural evolutionary processes rather than purposeful intelligent design. That's not my opinion, that is scientific fact.

If you believe otherwise, please go ahead and publish your findings in a peer reviewed research article.

Aemmyjah:


Olodo
😂
You think what is made can answer for his Maker like human birth

Duh... That's the very definition of Christian apologetics. Once again, you demonstrate your illiteracy.

You are far from intelligence

Well intelligence isn't an object, so literally, there can't exist any distance between me and intelligence.

Intelligence is a property of the human brain. Since you've already admitted earlier that you do not have a brain, I can totally understand your confusion here .

No atheist can confidently tell you that the universe is the cause of its own existence

True. In fact atheists are more likely to plead ignorance when it comes to the topic of the universe's origin. We only accept claims which have evidence to support them.

Is it by chance that the earth has its own rotation, revolution, speed, tilt and movement?

Well, I don't know for certain. If you know the answer, please demonstrate using empirical evidence.

Intelligence is very far, billions of miles faraway from you

Intelligence is a property of the human brain. It seems your own intelligence exists outside of your body -- which would explain why you easily come across as a blundering dimwit .

Must really suck to be you, Dundeejah .

Aemmyjah:
Answer my question

What makes you feel entitled to my answers when you refuse to answer my own questions, huh?

If you as a scientist create a living cell
Do you represent an intelligent designer or blind chance?

Neither, because your analogy is a false equivalence. Look it up.

Only a fool writes epistles and insults to answer a simple question

It's not my fault that you can't appreciate robust and detailed explanations because of your shitty attention span. At least I actually make attempts to answer your questions, however puerile they might be. How many of my questions have you answered, Dundeejah? Should I draft a list for you?

SIRTee15:


What's the problem with the highlighted?
What if I told u someone wrote about the strange circumstances of that night- strange things that happened the night Jesus was crucified. The only person that wrote about it.

No, he didn't write about it.
You should first learn what the book is about, and not just pick a line from it. The same way y'all do to jospehus.

Your Jesus is dead and gone, chrestian.

SIRTee15:


Another one with dubious claims. Now let's see if he can defend his claims.

U claim the Europeans gave us the bible, tell me a single European among the authors of the books in the bible.
Mention one white man who wrote one of the books in the bible just one.
Let's see how u will expose your ignorance.

Interestingly an African man was among the bible authors. But according to this one, it was the white man who gave Africans the bible.

At the council of Nicea where the core doctrine of Christianity was established, there were 318 bishops in attendance from all over the Christian churches as far as India, persia and Arabia.
Now how many of these bishops were from the western region- mainland Europe. How many were from Africa?
How many white men were present when the core doctrine of Christianity was established.

Or better still how many English man were present at the council of nicea since they were the ones who whipped Christianity into our blood.

Finally, mention one single bible character who was white. Just one positive character who has blond hair and blue eyes in the bible.
Mention one and I will show u multiple bible characters from Africa including Moses wife who was a cushite from present day Sudan.

Your new testament was created by the Europeans.

You are quoting Jewish tales, outside the Jewish book, where else is this fictional character moses mentioned?

"Or better still how many English man were present at the council of nicea since they were the ones who whipped Christianity into our blood."
How come you are cherry picking when to use "English man" and when to use "European" 😂

Thorrn:


What makes you feel entitled to my answers when you refuse to answer my own questions, huh?



Neither, because your analogy is a false equivalence. Look it up.



It's not my fault that you can't appreciate robust and detailed explanations because of your shitty attention span. At least I actually make attempts to answer your questions, however puerile they might be. How many of my questions have you answered, Dundeejah? Should I draft a list for you?

On the highlighted
I'm being chatting with a foolish person

MaxInDHouse
Pls, see this simple question

If you as a scientist create life or a living cell
Who do you represent
An intelligent designer or mindless process? Pls choose one with explanation

Thorrn said neither. I did not know I was chatting with someone that cannot make up his mind yet does not accept the belief of a creator

Thorrn:



Duh... That's the very definition of Christian apologetics. Once again, you demonstrate your illiteracy.



Well intelligence isn't an object, so literally, there can't exist any distance between me and intelligence.

Intelligence is a property of the human brain. Since you've already admitted earlier that you do not have a brain, I can totally understand your confusion here .



True. In fact atheists are more likely to plead ignorance when it comes to the topic of the universe's origin. We only accept claims which have evidence to support them.



Well, I don't know for certain. If you know the answer, please demonstrate using empirical evidence.



Intelligence is a property of the human brain. It seems your own intelligence exists outside of your body -- which would explain why you easily come across as a blundering dimwit .

Must really suck to be you, Dundeejah .

If you have any intelligence , you should know how to answer a simple question instead of throwing tantrums

Thorrn:



I agree. Unfortunately for you, my life has a purpose. What I told you is that life itself has no inherent purpose. Objective purpose vs Subjective purpose. I know that by time you finally understand the difference, the value of our Naira will finally supercede that of the Dollar .



Ask away.



The current scientific consensus is that the brain is a result of natural evolutionary processes rather than purposeful intelligent design. That's not my opinion, that is scientific fact.

If you believe otherwise, please go ahead and publish your findings in a peer reviewed research article.

Scientific fact?
You no go school walahi
Have you even tested that fact for yourself?
Assumption ia not fact
Another atheist here did not believe that the brain is a result of mindless process
You are just talking nonsense your head feeds you

Thorrn:



If you truly want a genuine answer, rather than waffle on about nonsense you prefer to make up for yourself, then go back and read all the responses I've made to you since the start of this thread. I can't be arsed repeating myself to a dullard who refuses to humble himself and learn.

We know the people that cannot answer a simple question but will rather dance round NL

Thorrn:



False equivocation fallacy. A remote control is not sufficient to represent a fully functional human in any metaphor and/or analogy. Same goes for your "designer". Your pathetic question is dead on arrival. Try again.



Congratulations. Now riddle me this: What is the purpose of the ear that belongs to a deaf living man?



Very good. Now, same as above. What is the purpose of the eyes that belong to a blind living man?



Okay. Prove it then. Why is that so difficult for you and your buddies to do?



Another false equivocation. But I expect you won't even understand what it means, let alone how it applies to your spurious examples.



I'm sorry you feel insulted by my remarks about your character on this thread. I'm just calling out what I see. If it looks like a dumbass, and writes like a dumbass, then it probably is... a dumbass.

And I can't see anything glowing here, when the cloud of your stark unintelligence is hovering around this thread, obscuring the light of reason.

You are more than ridiculous
The sun has its own purpose
The earth
The rain
The vegetation

Science tells us that the earth is in its perfect distance in the galactic system, perfect tilt, rotation, speed, satellite, amount of water, cycles, magnetic shield, atmosphere, gravitational laws which help sustain life. Note the word, perfect
Yet someone says they are product of mindless chance. If we call that person a fool, that's a gross understatement

Maynman:

No, he didn't write about it.
You should first learn what the book is about, and not just pick a line from it. The same way y'all do to jospehus.

Your Jesus is dead and gone, chrestian.

Lol so u finally accept Jesus is historical. For a long time u were so obstinate.

SIRTee15:


Lol so u finally accept Jesus is historical. For a long time u were so obstinate.

Which Jesus is historical, the one that lived up to 50 years old according to Iranueus?

You are still living in your delusion 😂

Aemmyjah:
On the highlighted
I'm being chatting with a foolish person

You've been chatting with someone who has a brain. Remember, you don't have a brain:

Aemmyjah:


Imagine someone with a brain

MaxInDHouse
Pls, see this simple question

Calling out for help ?

If you as a scientist create life or a living cell
Who do you represent
An intelligent designer or mindless process? Pls choose one with explanation

Thorrn said neither.

Yes, I declined to answer your question. The question proceeds from a false equivocation -- which is a well studied logical fallacy, so I do not feel obliged to give an affirmative answer. Your question is dead on arrival.

I did not know I was chatting with someone that cannot make up his mind yet does not accept the belief of a creator

The two actions are not mutually exclusive. I can be ignorant of the universe's origin, and I can also reject claims concerning how it originated if those claims lack scientific credibility. I understand this is rocket science for you.

Thorrn:



You've been chatting with someone who has brain. Remember, you don't have a brain:



Calling out for help ?



Yes, I declined to answer your question. The question proceeds from a false equivocation -- which is a well studied logical fallacy, so I do not feel obliged to give an affirmative answer. Your question is dead on arrival.



The two actions are not mutually exclusive. I can be ignorant of the universe's origin, and I can also reject claims concerning how it originated if those claims lack scientific credibility. I understand this is rocket science for you.

I asked a simple question
You said neither
And you think you're intelligent?

Aemmyjah:


If you have any intelligence , you should know how to answer a simple question instead of throwing tantrums

Oh the divine irony ! I can't believe you just wrote this.

Why don't you practice what you preach, Dundeejah? Hmm? Where are all the answers to my questions that YOU have intentionally ignored for numerous pages now just to throw your infantile tantrums about atheists. In fact I think I'm going to refrain from answering any more of your stupid questions until you do justice to the following questions that I've been asking you for close to a month now. Go on and show me little ol' me how to answer "simple questions" >>>

1. Can you kindly demonstrate how evolution being false serves as undeniable proof that an intelligent creator deity exists?

2. Do you mean to tell me that the only thing that motivates you to get up in the morning is your God? Nothing else inspires your energy and dedication? Not even your family?

3. Since the start of this thread, where did I make any claim that everything came from nothing?

4. How do you measure and/or recognize design? How can you tell the difference between a designed object and one that was not designed?

5. If everything in the universe was designed as you claim, how does it prove the existence of the God of the Bible, as opposed to Allah, Vishnu, Krishna etc etc? What if Allah is the true creator deity?

6. Abraham Lincoln, one of the foremost presidents of the USA was the titular character in the Vampire Hunter book mentioned above, and he hunted vampires. So I guess going by your logic (that the Bible is true because it contains real people and real places), vampires have been proven to exist?

7. If everything has a creator, then who or what created God?

You and I both know say if you make mistakes answer these questions honestly and objectively, in a straight-forward manner, fowl nyansh go open and the stupidity of your position will be 100% evident, even to you. That's why you've been running scared from my arguments like a petty thief because you know deep down that your position lacks any substance .

If you get mind, answer those questions. I will only just continue mocking your foolishness until you do.

Aemmyjah:


Scientific fact?

Yes. Scientific fact.

You no go school walahi

...coming from somebody with obvious cognitive limitations -- as has been demonstrated countlessly on this thread, I won't register this remark as anything more than an emotional outburst. Be careful so you don't pop a vein out of frustration .

Have you even tested that fact for yourself?

Testing it for myself will not change the fact that the scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that the theory of evolution is correct (An Elaboration of AAAS Scientists' Views). That link shows that 98% of all scientists accept evolution and the number rises to 99% when we look at scientists in relevant (biological) fields. There have been several experiments that tested various aspects of evolution. At this point it has been observed repeatedly in the wild and in laboratory conditions.

The real question here is if you can disprove or falsify evolution. And if you want to achieve that, you'll need to do a lot more than just sitting on your ass at home, spouting nonsense from your self-contained apartment. I have no dog in this fight because evolution being true or not does not affect my atheism. Plus, after you're done falsifying evolution and submitting your findings for peer review, you'll still need to go ahead and tender empirical evidence that supports the theory of intelligent design, because evolution being false doesn't automatically make creationism true.

I've hyperlinked the relevant sources for anyone who is interested. I already know you won't read it because not only are you too stupid and thick to understand the methodologies involved, but because you are a coward who keeps running from facts that challenge your infantile beliefs. I'm still indulging you for the sake of viewers who are interested in seeking out the truth. Other than that, I'm already starting to feel like a bully

Assumption is not fact

...and yet you believe in an imaginary being that you have never seen or heard. It has never spoken to you and you don't know what it looks like. You put blind trust in an ancient text riddled with flaws and inconsistencies, and fellow human beings who do not know any better. Remove the log of Iroko in your eye my dear.

Another atheist here did not believe that the brain is a result of mindless process

Who says all atheists are meant to think the same way or share the same ideologies? The only thing we have in common is lack of belief in gods. Atheists are far more dynamic in their views and philosophies. We're not zombies like the Christians. Lol.

You are just talking nonsense your head feeds you

It's brain, not head, if we want to be technical.

And at least my brain feeds me something. Your brain is still on sabbatical .

Aemmyjah:


We know the people that cannot answer a simple question but will rather dance round NL

Okay. So you know yourself then

Aemmyjah:
You are more than ridiculous

I'm more than anything your tiny little mind can fathom.

The sun has its own purpose
The earth
The rain
The vegetation

The tree also has a purpose. But the purpose of a tree to a termite isn't the same to the badger. And the purpose of a tree to humans is something entirely different to both the termite and the badger. Classic case of subjectivity .

Science tells us that the earth is in its perfect distance in the galactic system, perfect tilt, rotation, speed, satellite, amount of water, cycles, magnetic shield, atmosphere, gravitational laws which help sustain life. Note the word, perfect

You're quoting science as if it's your Holy Bible. Science isn't authoritative, such that it makes strict declarations without any form of dissent or disapproval. Science is a process for understanding a world -- a framework, if you will. You observe X, and Y happens…so find out why. Unlike politics or theology, science doesn't claim to know the answer, science helps you FIND the answer. That's why for a discovery to be validated, it must be reviewed by many different people of equal standing to the person who discovered a new phenomenon to form a valid consensus in the community. It's called PEER REVIEW.

As for your waffle about how the earth is "perfect" for life and other nonsense, I'm not going to say much on the subject because it has been sufficiently addressed already in this debate here by atheist Sean Carroll who absolutely reamed his opponent WLC with important facts completely destroying the design argument. Check the timestamps from 38:25 to 48:30. I'll give a bullet point summary of Carroll's points for the sake of possible casual readers>>>

1. We don't actually know if life can still exist if the conditions of our universe were very different, because we only see the universe that we can observe.

2. In theistic religions like Christianity, life is not purely physical. Thus, no matter what state the atoms in the universe are in, God (being omnipotent) can still create life. The only framework in which you can honestly say that the physical parameters of the universe must take on certain values in order for life to exist is naturalism.

3. The "perfect conditions" that you think are there might go away once you understand the universe better. Example: the exact expansion rate of the universe was found to be dependent on other factors, and it was impossible to be otherwise

4. Theism (e.g Christian and Islamic religion) fails as an explanation. If you ask, "what universe would I expect to see under theism or under naturalism", and then compare them to the data, naturalism fits far better.

During all this, he keeps repeating a key phrase, "Theism is not well defined." This is an important idea: theism or even a specific version like Christianity, doesn't provide any actual answers to these difficult cosmological questions, in fact they aren't even positing an actual theory, just hand-waving "it seems amazing, so God must have done it".

Carroll's point #2 is a very novel argument as well: that God wouldn't need to fine tune the universe, after all aren't our souls purported to be made of something beyond just atoms? So why does he need the atoms in such a specific arrangement?

Carroll's response to Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument starts back at 30:30, and is also a very novel rebuttal, he primarily attacks premise #1: "If the universe began to exist, it had a transcendent cause". In short: the correct way to ask this question in the field of astrophysics/cosmology is: can I build a model of the universe that had a beginning and no transcendent cause? The answer is: Yes, it has been done. We are nowhere close to knowing if this particular model of the universe is correct (ie, corresponds to our actual universe), but it is a valid, non-contradictory model, and can't (yet) be ruled out.

Yet someone says they are product of mindless chance.

Well, that's just your pointless strawman which doesn't even close to mirroring my actual argument.

If we call that person a fool, that's a gross understatement

Now that we have all been well acquainted with your acute cognitive limitations, I think every reasonable individual will agree with me that your opinion on the intellectual capacity of other people is as useful as a wet tissue paper.

Give it up already, Dundeejah. We already know you've lost this debate since 20 pages ago, but your fragile ego still spurs you on to have the last word as consolation for your immense failure on this thread .

You've got nowhere to run. You've been trounced and trashed from all angles. I know you want to cry. Let it out .

Thorrn:



Oh the divine irony ! I can't believe you just wrote this.

Why don't you practice what you preach, Dundeejah? Hmm? Where are all the answers to my questions that YOU have intentionally ignored for numerous pages now just to throw your infantile tantrums about atheists. In fact I think I'm going to refrain from answering any more of your stupid questions until you do justice to the following questions that I've been asking you for close to a month now. Go on and show me little ol' me how to answer "simple questions" >>>

1. Can you kindly demonstrate how evolution being false serves as undeniable proof that an intelligent creator deity exists?

2. Do you mean to tell me that the only thing that motivates you to get up in the morning is your God? Nothing else inspires your energy and dedication? Not even your family?

3. Since the start of this thread, where did I make any claim that everything came from nothing?

4. How do you measure and/or recognize design? How can you tell the difference between a designed object and one that was not designed?

5. If everything in the universe was designed as you claim, how does it prove the existence of the God of the Bible, as opposed to Allah, Vishnu, Krishna etc etc? What if Allah is the true creator deity?

6. Abraham Lincoln, one of the foremost presidents of the USA was the titular character in the Vampire Hunter book mentioned above, and he hunted vampires. So I guess going by your logic (that the Bible is true because it contains real people and real places), vampires have been proven to exist?

7. If everything has a creator, then who or what created God?

You and I both know say if you make mistakes answer these questions honestly and objectively, in a straight-forward manner, fowl nyansh go open and the stupidity of your position will be 100% evident, even to you. That's why you've been running scared from my arguments like a petty thief because you know deep down that your position lacks any substance .

If you get mind, answer those questions. I will only just continue mocking your foolishness until you do.

Oga
Abi madam
You are just fooling around
You are living in delusion
Let us agree on something first
Whether you describe as Allah, Amadioha, Buddha... Is that an evidence that the was no creator?

Has the theory of Evolution regarding the origin of life and complexity been tested with scientific approach

Proved science tells us that nin life cannot produce life and parents only produce like offsprings tho variation occurs but nothing entirely different is produced... Mating two different kind of organisms won't produce viable offsprings cos the gametes are incompatible... Jaephoenix the fake doctor should atleast know this but both of you lie to yourself just like a transgender person will use science to say that not only women can get pregnant


Keep fooling around

Aemmyjah:



I asked a simple question
You said neither
And you think you're intelligent?

You must really think I care about your puerile opinions of me. I would care more if your reasoning skills were sufficient enough to warrant some bit of respect.