₦airaland Forum

jaephoenix:
On your first point, you said any intelligent product must have a creator. Then in your second point you said a creator must not have a creator. So are you saying a creator is not an intelligent creation or product?
Lol. You'll committed a big fallacy of special pleading and you don't care.

Badmashiii:
You're actually dumber than i thought. Pray tell,what's your religion?

Let's start from there. Playing around with fools is one of the way i pick fun.

jaephoenix:
Right. So is this number on whatsapp. I wanna take a screenshot and create a thread so as to make it public

TenQ:
I challenge you to show any claims I made on this thread with regards to ghosts or spirits. This is how intoxicated people spew lies from their mouths

jaephoenix:
U said ghosts/god exists since you can't see it

FxMasterz:
Oya, point out where I said those two things you conjured up in your head while I have emboldened above.

FxMasterz:
1. I'm not about whether some stuff were created or not. That's not what I'm discussing with you. I'm telling you that anything that is intelligently put together to fulfil a purpose must have a creator or a manufacturer . The creator created it with an intention to make it fulfil that purpose, he/she then intelligently goes to work to create/make or manufacture that thing that fulfils that specific purpose. If there's an intelligent design in things that are existing to fulfil specific purposes, the existence of a Creator being behind such purposeful designs cannot be argued against. Period!

2. All those questions of 'Who created God' etc are unintelligent questions because there's no rule or law that says a Creator MUST be created. Or that a Manufacturer must be manufactured. Additionally, If you don't know how a Creator or a Manufacturer came into being, it's foolishness to conclude that such manufacturer or creator does not exist based on your ignorance of how He/She came into being.

3. If you missed the entire points of my discussion, of what relevance is rephrasing the words for someone who is discussing matters that were never raised?

Lucifyre:
a

Bro how did this go?? Any demons😁??

TenQ:
Quote me please!

jaephoenix:
So ghosts/god don't exist?

jaephoenix:
Like every other theist clown, I meet on this forum, he dodged. I chatted him up. Til now no reply. I didnt bother sending him more messages. He didn't even pick when i called. He's not the first clown to claim that, not even the third. They all end up disappointing. The last clown before him said he's an Orisa priest. I replied him cool, he bragged and sent me his number, we got chatting(at least he responded), when it got to the crunch time when I asked him to make my boxer shorts disappear(after he says he can conjure anything), he said that is too small. Til today my stubborn boxer has refused to disappear.
The clown before him was begging me for money.

TenQ:
Just quote me!

Like your father satan, this is your modus operandi. Deliberate misinformation so that you can latch on your strawman and claim victory even when no one is competing with you

jaephoenix:
Please answer the question. You seem to be a good artful dodger? Do you believe in ghosts/god?

TenQ:
Why ask me a question on what doesn't concern me?
Was that why you had to create and ascribe a strawman to me.

My interest in this post had been achieved: the OP's logic is flawed!
QED!
Otherwise, I have zero interest on this topic!

jaephoenix:
How is the logic flawed when he's perfectly right: you can't prove ghosts in any way

TenQ:
His claim:
"I slept in a grave yard and I didn't see any ghosts"!
His conclusion:
"Ghosts do not exist!"


My claim:
"I have been breathing for so long now and I have never seen Oxygen gas"!
My conclusion:
"Oxygen does not exist!"



My intention is NEVER to talk about justification or not for ghosts or spirits, my intention was to show how dumb his argument was!
I have done that!

Sorry!

TenQ:
Why ask me a question on what doesn't concern me?
Was that why you had to create and ascribe a strawman to me.

My interest in this post had been achieved: the OP's logic is flawed!
QED!
Otherwise, I have zero interest on this topic!

jaephoenix:
… yet we showed you pictures of oxygen.
Are you this dense?

jaephoenix:
… yet we showed you pictures of oxygen.
Are you this dense?

FRANCISTOWN:
You didn't achieve shit. Tell me how my logic was flawed.
I told you I'd been to the cemetery and not just that, I slept overnight and had my legs rested on a grave and yet neither did I see nothing nor have any unusual experience.

In your defense, you claimed visuals cannot be a germane evidence of existence, and you brought in oxygen into the discussion. You said, in your words that "since oxygen cannot be seen, it doesn't exist".
I attacked that defense that oxygen cannot be seen in it's natural state but you can interact and manipulate oxygen wherein you can see it in it's liquid and other state and with the aids of other laboratory aids. And which Jaephoenix also told you the same.
Therefore! Oxygen can be seen, but your ghosts and all those jargons can't, regardless of whichever state or which ever formula.

Now! For people who've got IQs higher than 10, how has the moniker TenQ flawed my narrative?

TenQ:
Only people of your kind of IQ cannot see where your logic is flawed.

FRANCISTOWN:
Please show me

FRANCISTOWN:
Please show me

TenQ:
Did that change the fact that I never saw oxygen gas?

TenQ:
Did that change the fact that I never saw oxygen gas?

HellVictorinho8:
LET ME HELP YOU

BUT U GATS RETURN FAVOR

normali
dis mata of wetin exist or not don dey over stress me


but he did not see then he concluded


in other words, he did not consider y he was unable 2 see.


now u consider scientists as experts on dis case


if they say dis is how 2 prove sumtin, wud u accept theres any other way?

as in if they say dis is how u can make sumtin visible, wud u accept theres any other way?

if no,then it means u wont accept dat sumtin which mr blade considers 2 av seen ,exists


cuz he was not able 2 make it visible using d way dat ur experts use 4 u


so he 2 cud not ,at least at that moment, use ur experts way,then he concluded that oxygen doesnt exist.


now u may ask which way does he use 2 make his own sumtin visible 2 himself?

well, he has a right 2 call ur question dense when u call his own stupid.


but asides dat

lets do it dis way

what if words 4 his own way arent in d dictionary?

wud u accept 2 continue in ur quest 2 know?


what if he doesnt even use d word know at that level?

and no , it doesnt mean u are entering a trance

what if u arent entering?

letz say d entire dictionary becomes meaningless


u are welcome 2


?;1:/!@



not a mata of d words we use as determined by ur experts


or the clerics

or theists of whatever sort


at dis level

we aint asking if sumtin exists or not

we are either into d deciphering of sumtins ?!/;1@/encryption or not

ok

jaephoenix:
I'm having a headache deciphering your rant

jaephoenix:
Well u lied. Cos we showed u oxygen. You have added dishonesty to your numerous vices

jaephoenix:
Well u lied. Cos we showed u oxygen. You have added dishonesty to your numerous vices

TenQ:
Did that change the fact that I never saw oxygen gas?

HellVictorinho8:
exactly

it is a rant cuz i did not repeat d usual request 4 evidence which ur scientists define 4 you


or d insults u and the theists here throw at one another

it is a rant cuz u did not decipher it





what am saying is that what is enough as a means of proving sumtin 2 you may not be enough
4 another person 2 prove sumtin else


if laboratory experiment is enough 2 prove oxygen 2 you, it may not be enough 4 me 2 prove another thing.


shud we say only what we can prove through our lab experiments exists?

shud we say if we cant prove it AS WE DO in a lab,then it doesnt exist?



give a definite answer

HellVictorinho8:
But what if u dont show him and he says it doesnt exist?

TenQ:
Are you educated at all?
You showed me oxygen!?

Do you know what you just ignorantly said?