Thorrn:


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



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 .



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.



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



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 .

All these perfect conditions are result of mindless chance?
You be mumu

Thorrn:


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.

Who cares about your opinion either?

I asked
A scientist created life or a living cell
Does he represent an intelligent designer or blind, mindless, irrational process

You said neither
Bwahahahahaha
And you claim to have sense
Shame

Aemmyjah:


Greet your ancestors for me
I'm of human descent tho

Now it has been modified from ape to fish shey?
Tomorrow, you'll say you are bacteria descendant

1. For a 'biologist', u sure have zero idea of evolution. All creatures came from an aquatic life(u can call it a fish, that's your business), then this water dwelling creature gave rise to the Great Ape, then finally humans
2. For someone that claim to come from dust, you sure make a lot of noise. At least I came from a living being(fish), yours was dust(inanimate object). Greet your dust ancestors

Aemmyjah:



Oga
Abi madam

Careful. Don't let confusion extinguish your 3 remaining brain cells .

You are just fooling around

And you are just "fooling" in every direction conceivable.

You are living in delusion

I live in a world of reality. You live in a world governed by holy ghosts and boogie monsters and imaginary friends and enemies. Now tell me, Dundeejah, who's really living in delusion ?

Whether you describe as Allah, Amadioha, Buddha... Is that an evidence that the was no creator?

Lol. Are you now accepting that Allah, Amadioha, Buddha etc exist? Talk about desperation .

And I'm not answering your stupid questions until you put on your big boy pants and answer my own questions which you've been shamelessly dodging.

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

Yes. I've linked you to the relevant resources in a separate post.

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

If you have a problem with evolution, take it up with biologists and stop crying to me. My atheism has nothing to do with evolution. If evolution were finally disproved today and eventually got discarded by the scientific community, I'll still be an atheist.

Keep fooling around

Keep crying. I'll still be here to put more pepper under your smelling nyansh .

Aemmyjah:


All these perfect conditions are result of mindless chance?
You be mumu

Mindless chance wasn't even alluded to explicitly in that post, but I'm not surprised that you have no credible defense to the rebuttals. We're used to your low capacity for intelligent contributions by now .

Anyways, I didn't write all that for you. I wrote it for normal people who still have brains. You're just my scapegoat in this thread. I don't even register you as a conscious co-discussant at this point.

Aemmyjah:


Who cares about your opinion either?

I didn't know we were playing a game of "I know who you are but what am I" .

I asked
A scientist created life or a living cell
Does he represent an intelligent designer or blind, mindless, irrational process

You said neither

Intelligent people saw the caveat I gave for my answer, you didn't. Conclusion: you're clearly not intelligent.

Quod Erat Demonstradum.

Bwahahahahaha

I can literally smell the shame and self-disappointment in this fake laugh .

And you claim to have sense

I don't claim to have it. I do have it. I would ask if you did, but... I'm sure we already know the answer .

Shame...

...should be your middle name.

jaephoenix:

1. For a 'biologist', u sure have zero idea of evolution.

Stop the cap .

Aemmyjah..., sorry. Dundeejah is a biologist??!

D D

@Aemmyjah

When you don run finish, come back and answer these questions. Stop being a coward and put your money where your mouth is. I've added one more question which you recently dodged as well.

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?

8. What is the purpose of the eyes and ears in a blind and deaf man, respectively?

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:


All these perfect conditions are result of mindless chance?
You be mumu

That's 0 points for you, and 3 more points in addition to the scores of 3 points Thorn has against you..

Okay, answer this simple question? Were Adam and Eve created on the same day? If so, does that mean Gen 2. is shaky? If not, does that mean Gen 1. is shaky? Please, stop giving out free points. Defend your goal post like Pique and not Harry Maguire.

Aemmyjah:



Explained here
I'm here for a purpose with or without book... Does the earth have a purpose?
Since you prefer what was said not written, you're free to accept that life is meaningless and without reliable guide

What is that purpose?

Aemmyjah:


Which aquatic life?
Pls don't call me a dullard for not accepting science that has not been proved

That has been proven too. I mean the fact that life started from the waters

Aemmyjah:



Consciousness
We intelligent humans have this consciousness that make us want to know more of ourselves, our environment, the future and past and to learn from them.
The consciousness of our purpose is not revealed to us at birth. We must follow a reliable guide. From who? This creator just as you win follow the guide to use an appliance you don't really know it's purpose... That is valid cos common sense tells us that humans life on earth was not by accident but intelligent mind... Only that mind can reveal it to us not we ourselves
... People that say life is useless and purposeless are highly delusional

Again, what is your purpose?
What about people that can't read or write? How are they gonna know their purpose?

Dtruthspeaker:


So Spider-Man exists because we have videos and pictures right? Please you guys are just jokers who also believe in things you have never seen most especially as it is welll known that people do not speak nor relate with unpleasant and evil people.

Did you read the other points I made?
Spider-man videos are acted. These videos aren't.
Are you usually this idioticc in real life

kkins25:
it's been proved that life began from aquatic life. We can deduce that, since water is an essential ingredient for life, then the likelihood that life originated from water is very high.

If God made adam from dust, why does Adam share 97% of his DNA with a Chimpanzee? Was the Chimpanzee also made from dust? Did God use the Chimpanzee as model to design Adam?

We also know vetebrates came from the ocean because we have animals that have incompletely developed vetebra living in the ocean. Perharps, we can call them the "transition stage. It's weird don't you think? That God made man in his image, yet the only thing that resembles man the most is a Chimpanzee. If you ask me, God was a Chimpanzee.

Notice in the Holy Babble, Yahweh made animals from….. thin air, not even dust

kkins25:
Try to burn some calories to think, sir. Imagine a timeline of 1000 years where war tears the earth apart. Historical records are lost. Technology is lost. Language completely changed. And, in a small bush gathering, the oldest man is educating his community members about a man who could spin webs like a spider, and was the savior of humanity. He claims this story was told to him by his father. His father was told by his own father, and so on and so forth.

You see? Spiderman, even though a fictional character, would now be considered an ancestor with super human strength. We already have historical records of people turning men into deities bro. One common example is Buddha. Orunmila is another example from the Yoruba mythology. But, there's concencus that he was a man. Another is Oduduwa. Even in the bible, specifically the book of Hebrews, you find the writer philosophizing about the deification of Jesus. It's a common phenomenon that happens and happened through out man's wretched life.

Put the dots together. If the Indians, who have one of the oldest forms of writing, could turn their fellow man into a deity, isn't it possible that Spider-Man could eventually be seen as God, in the right circumstances?


Okay, let me present this argument from Jesus to you. Suppose you were born a skeptic. How would you discern the true religion? Jesus categorically tells you that a good tree would bear good fruit,right? So, judging by the fruit of the Europeans who whipped Christianity into your blood, is Christianity the "way, the truth, and the life?


if you want to think christ-like, these are the questions you need to ask yourself. Why? Because, like most xtians, you were born in to a Christian home and a Christian nation. Same for Hindus, Muslims, etc. Most didn't choose God, their parents did----on their behalf.

What? Thetruthspeaker think? No! Not possible. His brain is decorating his head

kkins25:

That's 0 points for you, and 3 more points in addition to the scores of 3 points Thorn has against you..

Okay, answer this simple question? Were Adam and Eve created on the same day? If so, does that mean Gen 2. is shaky? If not, does that mean Gen 1. is shaky? Please, stop giving out free points. Defend your goal post like Pique and not Harry Maguire.

jaephoenix:

Notice in the Holy Babble, Yahweh made animals from….. thin air, not even dust

Let there be Monkeys... Kabooom! And there was Monkeys. Let there be Ants..... Kaboomm...

and the lord God saw that it was good. He got tired of naming them though. So he instructed Adam to name the rest...hahaha.

jaephoenix:

What? Thetruthspeaker think? No! Not possible. His brain is decorating his head

He doesn't think... He only speaks D truth, irrespective of how a D it makes him look.

jaephoenix:

Again, what is your purpose?
What about people that can't read or write? How are they gonna know their purpose?

What has reading and writing got to do with ones purpose?

jaephoenix:

That has been proven too. I mean the fact that life started from the waters

Ok

kkins25:

That's 0 points for you, and 3 more points in addition to the scores of 3 points Thorn has against you..

Okay, answer this simple question? Were Adam and Eve created on the same day? If so, does that mean Gen 2. is shaky? If not, does that mean Gen 1. is shaky? Please, stop giving out free points. Defend your goal post like Pique and not Harry Maguire.

I'm sure you were a poor student at school...
You think you are intelligent by scoring yourself 3 points like league football?
If you like, crown yourself and world champions

Whether on the same day or different days is not an excuse that humans did not descend from a parent stock - male and female Apes humans...
Not some foolish idea that humans came from some groups of Apes in east Africa... That is what makes sense to your kind...

Rocket science can never make sense to a bushman no matter how you explain... Same thing explaining Bible with someone who's head is giddy

Thorrn:
@Aemmyjah

When you don run finish, come back and answer these questions. Stop being a coward and put your money where your mouth is. I've added one more question which you recently dodged as well.

Answer this simple question

A scientist created life in a lab or a living cell

Who does he represent? An intelligent designer or mindless process

That question is not too hard

Surprisingly, you did not even say the latter as I expected you which tends to favor evolution, you said neither


Bwahahahahahaha

jaephoenix:

Did you read the other points I made?
Spider-man videos are acted. These videos aren't.
Are you usually this idioticc in real life

As long as you have just admitted that your point on videos and photos is dead then your other points don't exist.

Aemmyjah:


Answer this simple question

A scientist created life in a lab or a living cell

Who does he represent? An intelligent designer or mindless process

That question is not too hard

Surprisingly, you did not even say the latter as I expected you which tends to favor evolution, you said neither


Bwahahahahahaha

================================

Where are your answers to these questions?

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.

Aemmyjah:


According to science
Earth has a
Perfect position in the galactic system
Perfect distance from the sun
Perfect tilt
Perfect rotation
Perfect orbit
Perfect speed, etc


All these programmed to support life
Are all these the work of blind, mindless, irrational process... Yes or No?

Mumu
Perfect amount of water

Nothing new to see here. I've just refuted this garbage. You keep repeating yourself like a broken bot. Here retard. Read it and weep. Again .

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.

@Aemmyjah

Fancy you calling someone else a fraud when you're too busy plagiarizing JW articles from the internet. Unfortunately I couldn't screenshot your post before it got taken down. Lol. I'm sure that is why you got your stupid ass banned. This is the problem with y'all Christards. You find it difficult to be authentic because you are used to living a life full of lies and delusions.

Next time include your source when you copy and paste, you incompetent retard_. I won't quote the post in question so that I won't get banned too.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2009645

cc: Jaephoenix, kkins25

Aemmyjah:
Even Alfred Wallace faulted evolution

Pray tell, how could Wallace have possibly "fault(ed)" evolution when he was literally a pioneer of the theory, alongside Charles Darwin? Christ, you really are thicker than 2 short planks.

and said something that life gives proof of a mind

So apparently Wallace believed in spiritualism IE the existence of a spiritual realm beyond the physical world. Okay, good. Although I think it's funny how you're trying to use Wallace's personal ideologies to support your spurious claim to a higher creator deity. Three things here,

1, you commit the appeal to authority fallacy by hinging the validity of your claims on a passing remark made by Wallace. Why exactly should I care that Wallace believed in a higher mind? I could easily cite a number of even more credible scientists who confidently dismiss any notions of a supreme metaphysical being, and use their ideologies to justify my argument. You have no point here.

2, you are going down a very slippery slope by conflating science with religious beliefs. Science, as a process, is totally independent of the personal convictions, ideologies and bias of the individuals who engage in its practice. Wallace may have believed in a higher mind, but his belief is NOT justified by the theory of evolution. Many of Wallace's scientific propositions, including warning colouration and natural selection are widely accepted across the scientific community, since they have withstood subsequent scientific scrutiny and have become established scientific theories. However, many scientists refused to lend credence to his supernatural beliefs since they were untestable and therefore unscientific.

3, and this is the important bit: Wallace may have been a spiritualist, but he didn't believe in the Christian God and even rejected Christianity as a religion. He also rejected intelligent design. A seasoned scholar on the subject, Charles Smith, addressed this misconception of Wallace HERE. When asked if Wallace believed in Intelligent Design, he said, "No, no, and no--assuming that i.d. leans on the operation of first causes as Creationism does, that is. Don't fall for the facile understanding being promoted by some agenda-driven observers who argue that, just because Wallace was a spiritualist and believed that "higher intelligences" were influencing events here on earth, that he also believed in miraculous, non-law-based kinds of Godly intervention."

So basically, you're just running a fool's errand with this nonsensical argument.

Tell me I'm lying against Wallace

I don't think you're lying here actually. I think you're just too stupid to understand how nuanced Wallace's perspectives towards reality were.

Evolutionist tend to forget that Pasteur has killed and buried the idea of abiogenesis (the subtle mother of macroevolution)

LMFAO @ "subtle mother of macroevolution" . Newsflash, dumbo: Abiogenesis is NOT evolution. It's a separate topic within biology and biochemistry. Secondly, and strictly speaking, Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation with his famous swan-neck experiment, not abiogenesis. You clearly don't know the difference. Finally, spontaneous generation is literally how things were created in the Bible if you read your precious book of Genesis very closely. Your imaginary sky daddy was just popping out random complex subjects, both living and non-living, out of thin air. Lol .

Keep lying to yourself
You are fooling in your delusions

More bitter rants and tears from Dundeejah .

Where are interlinking classes of fossils to prove your points?

Ask a biologist. Evolution is not my business.

Where are the superior ape men we see in books while we have millions of inferior monkeys

Ask a biologist. Evolution is not my business.

Why is the intelligence gap between we and them so huuuuuuuuuge

Why is the human eye vulnerable to dust and impact from very strong light? Why is our eyesight so terrible compared to bats? Why are bacteria and viruses more powerful than the human species given that certain ailments like cancer and HIV are totally incurable, or that COVID-19 almost threatened to wipe out the entire human race? How come only 20% of the Earth is inhabitable for human beings, and within the little are that is habitable, we constantly suffer tsunamis, pandemics, earthquakes, floods, droughts, global warming and tornadoes?

Oh I know the answer! It's InTeLLiGent dESigN!!!



You don't think. You can't think. You only regurgitate bullshit you don't even understand. Pathetic dullard.

Have you seen a unicellular organism either by chance or by engineering become bicellular or multicellular... Show us one, even if na fake one

Ask a biologist. Evolution is not my business.

For thousands of years, the Bible has only one few that all life was created by Gof

Gof? Who's Gof?

How many times has Darwin's theories (Darwinism) been modified? Not once, not twice, not 4 times, not 4 times. Many scientists including those that are atheists do agree on the definition of evolution or the basis of his theory and many have called it obsolete... Where then does the fact come from

Of course you'd make this spurious argument because you cannot decipher the difference between religion (unquestioned dogma) and science. Criticisms of scientific theories are commonplace within the scientific community. That's how science works, dumbo. Scientists collect data for research, carry out experiments and report their findings. These data are readily accessible to other scientists who can carry out the same experiments and attempt to falsify them. And that's where the strength of science lies: it subjects supposed facts to intense scrutiny to establish their veracity. Scientific knowledge is cumulative. It evolves through the process of scientists learning about, criticizing, and improving upon the previous works of scientists.

Religion on the other hand, makes allusions to absolute "truths" and are not open to change or growth. In fact, religion explicitly discourages anyone from honestly and objectively challenging the inherent beliefs that are considered sacred to said religion. For example, the case of Galileo being persecuted by the Catholic Church for his conception of a heliocentric solar system which directly contradicted the Church's belief in a flat Earth.

So long story short, Science establishes truth via thorough experiments, criticisms and continuous revision of theories. Whereas, religion establishes truth via indoctrination, blackmail and threats.

You think say I be mumu like wuna

Bro, it took you 40 pages to finally realize I'm a girl after calling me a guy all along.

We don't think you're stupid.

We KNOW you're stupid.

Now that you've unwittingly gotten your dumb ass banned, I hope you spend the next 24 hours of your sorry life reflecting on your relentless stupidity, and come back a better man. In the meantime, I'll have to clean up this place. The stench of your illiteracy continues to linger on the thread, like a curry fart in an elevator .

Thorrn:

I have asked you (repeatedly) to present your proof that God exists. I have not asked you what the topic is.

And I have given it and the only way you speak against it was to CHANGE POST AND GO OFF POINT.

Since these past weeks I gave my proof and answer, all tou have done is try to raise issues that are outside the argument and you have not been able to get back into the argument.

So, clearly you have nothing for I have given proof whilst you are unable to counter it as off point and change of posts arguments are invalid arguments.

That is why it is The Law that "THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTH"

Dtruthspeaker:


And I have given it and the only way you speak against it was to CHANGE POST AND GO OFF POINT.

Since these past weeks I gave my proof and answer, all tou have done is try to raise issues that are outside the argument and you have not been able to get back into the argument.

So, clearly you have nothing for I have given proof whilst you are unable to counter it as off point and change of posts arguments are invalid arguments.

That is why it is The Law that "THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTH"

You didn't give any proof my guy. You just presented a rendition of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but dressed it up in a tattered manner, as opposed to the elegance with which more competent apologists usually portray it. And the KCA has been widely trashed and destroyed in all forums of philosophical debate throughout modern history.

Permit me to rephrase your last sentence here:

"THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST A NON-ARGUMENT"

Safe to say, the case is closed. And you have been dismissed.

Next!