₦airaland Forum

kingxsamz:
A mad man in his own world. Chai.
I feel bad for you sha.
It's sad that mad people do not understand that they're mad. Please try and seek help, it's already getting too late. 🙏🏿

StillDtruth:
Proof of Madness?
Answer, More display of more madness and raving lunacy.

Be bold and identify yourself as a waste of humanity .

StillDtruth:
If you were not a raving lunatic demon you would have seen that you only raised a counter and not a contradiction.

What kind of incoherent gibberish is this?

Correction: Yes, I raised a counter. And in that counter, I pointed out the contradiction in your post . Your unnecessary prevarications are reactionary to the simple truth about the pathetic argument you tried to make to prove a stupid point . And all you could do is throw wild, off the mark shots like a dazed boxer caught with a right powerful jab .

You claimed lawyers were not partial, then went ahead to debunk your own claim by pointing out the fact that they do advocate for just one of the two sides on a hearing. Ergo, as long as that case is involved, they are partial ! Read your very own words you demented ape:

As you can see, you're immensely stupid not to see the glaring inconsistency in your argument .

Expectedly, mad.people like you do not know the difference.

StillDFool is busted once again!

Her pusśy was far from ready, but the savage took her anyway . With a barging entrance, her pussy-gate (labia minora) yielded like the Jericho wall as it was brushed aside by a vicious and murderous buffalo, ramming home deep into her cervix. Her cry of pain was trapped in his fist clapsed around her throat, muffling every sound of anguish as he penile-slammed away .

And that man still walks free, enjoying life after disinheriting you. And you're here hiding behind the walls of nairaland, demonstrating your genetic woes .

Kwaaaaakwaaaakwaaa .

FxMasterz:
Did I tell you I came here to evangelize? You lying lot cannot cease from lying. People don't just believe when we preach. They get a conviction by the Holy Ghost. That's something you can never understand till you die.

Here is a thread I created for debate. Not evangelism

StillDtruth:
He clearly proves who atheists are!

I curse people out. You curse people out. The difference is that you claim to live by some divine moral code. Once again your hypocrisy comes back to bite you in your hairy ass yet again .

StillDtruth:
See, the Lies and deflection continue.here.l You have no intergrity and honour. Even from the beginning you willingly broke some rules. So naturally, youwould not want me.

But whether he asked or not, when i read ppsts here i always check for bad arguments, especially the arguments atheists make and point them because, that is the only way you atheists argue.

And most especially, you cannot argue fairly and cleanly!.

Anytime you encounter people who seem far above your cognitive levels, you begin to spaz out and start attacking them for no reason . Little wonder you are one unambitious, unmotivated, premature-contented, under-achieving piece of human garbage. It seems the lady has no time to bother with your madness so I'm going to pick up this battle for J Rabbit. Now can you point out anywhere she broke any rules ?

JessicaRabbit:
You're proposing we include people that can interject in our discussion and possibly even derail it. If you're so worried about breaking rules, then that's why we'll have the jury. They're the ones who will be keeping score. And like I said in my latest suggestion, they'll be free to make whatever comments they want in the "commentary thread", but we need a main thread where it's just you and me contributing with no one else posting on that thread. Basically two threads.

As for StillDtruth, rejecting him as a judge or referee was simply based on his past dishonest behavior and conduct towards debates, and the fact that I don't think he's competent enough to even understand the concepts we'll be discussing. It will be like calling a petulant 6 year old child to referee a political discussion between two scholars. He has no expertise to be making any sort of contributions there, and nearly everything he says would be straight up wrong and misleading.

Rejecting him as a lawyer though is simply because I see no need for a lawyer in this debate. What's the point? It will no longer be a 1v1, it will become a 2v2. And if it's going to be a 2v2, we might as well just allow everyone else to chip in instead of making the debate exclusive. If you've ever seen a real debate, you'll know that the only parties involved are the two individuals debating. I understand that he has fed you with baseless unevidenced lies about me, but I would hope that you're an adult who can think for himself and not let others think for you.

jaephoenix:
But you are here to prove a point, init? You wanna prove that creationism is correct. So yes, somehow, its an evangelism cos some atheists may repent after seeing your post

FxMasterz:
No atheist has been able to offer any counter-argument against the arguments in the OP. One of them was even trying to get me into a different debate while avoiding this current debate. Another one up there has suddenly denied that atheism has anything to do with the subject matter. Atheists are liars. They argue everyday that the world came into being through natural processes but here they're trying to deny because they came face to face with an argument they couldn't counter. This shows you that atheism is actually a RELIGION. Many of the strong atheists on this forum have avoided this thread like a plague. They should keep deceiving themselves. Atheism has been destroyed.

FxMasterz:
The Existence of a Creator: A Challenge to Atheists

I had an argument with Jaephoenix a few days ago. He was completely floored and ran away from the discussion. I observed that unlike what used to be the norm, none of his fellow atheists came to his rescue. I have presented the argument in a more organized way and hereby table it as an open challenge to all atheists worldwide.

Now, let's begin:

Atheism posits that complex designs and functionality in the natural world can be explained without the need for a Creator. However, I argue that certain features of the natural world demonstrate intelligent design, purposefulness, and complexity, necessitating the existence of a Creator.

Key Points:

1. Intelligent Design: Complex structures like the eye exhibit intelligent design, with multiple components working together to achieve a specific purpose (sight).

2. Purposefulness: The eye's design serves a clear purpose, unlike natural processes that may create complex but purposeless structures.

3. Complexity: The eye's complexity and functionality cannot be explained by random natural processes alone.

4. Universality: The eye is a common feature across many living organisms, suggesting a deliberate design rather than a random occurrence.

5. Variety: The existence of different types of eyes (e.g., human, insect, octopus) implies a Creator who adapted designs for specific purposes.

6. Creator vs. Intelligent: The argument focuses on the existence of a Creator, not necessarily an intelligent or supernatural one.

7. Natural Processes: While natural processes can create complex structures, they lack purposefulness and intentionality, unlike the eye's design.

8. Emergence: Complex systems can exhibit emergent properties, but these do not necessarily explain the eye's purposeful design.

9. Evolutionary Explanations: Incremental adaptive changes may contribute to the eye's development, but they do not fully account for its complexity and purposefulness.

Conclusion:

The existence of complex, purposeful designs like the eye necessitates the existence of a Creator. This challenges atheistic views that rely solely on natural processes to explain the natural world. While the nature and identity of this Creator are open to discussion, the evidence from intelligent design, purposefulness, and complexity demands consideration of a Creator's role in shaping the world around us.

Wilgrea7:
Imagine my excitement when I saw this thread, thinking finally someone would be able to prove that a god/gods exist, only to be met with a false presupposition from the very beginning.

To correct you, atheism does not posit that the external world CAN be explained without a need for a creator. That is to presuppose that atheists have an explanation for the natural world that does not include a god. That is simply not true.

Certain aspects of the natural world are currently unexplainable, or unknown to us. But regardless of that, it doesn't mean a god magically fits the explanation.

As an atheist, I have found no evidence to suggest that a god is responsible for the complexity of the universe. It doesn't mean I know why the universe and things are the way they are. I don't, and I would really love to know. But if you're going to say a god did it, there has to be some sort of evidence other than "I don't know any other reasons, so I'll go with the big G"




Congratulations. You just discovered the argument from complexity. Little tip. It also applies to a god. Also, please remember what I said earlier. Your excuse for something cannot just be "I don't know any other reason, so X." I will bring it up quite often during our subsequent discussions.

Also, I'm going to apply the argument from complexity to a god in my next reply, so you see exactly what I'm talking about.

Everyday247:
Who are the strong ones?
Drop names.

FxMasterz:
The Existence of a Creator: A Challenge to Atheists

Key Points:

1. Intelligent Design: Complex structures like the eye exhibit intelligent design, with multiple components working together to achieve a specific purpose (sight).

2. Purposefulness: The eye's design serves a clear purpose, unlike natural processes that may create complex but purposeless structures.

3. Complexity: The eye's complexity and functionality cannot be explained by random natural processes alone.

4. Universality: The eye is a common feature across many living organisms, suggesting a deliberate design rather than a random occurrence.

5. Variety: The existence of different types of eyes (e.g., human, insect, octopus) implies a Creator who adapted designs for specific purposes.

6. Creator vs. Intelligent: The argument focuses on the existence of a Creator, not necessarily an intelligent or supernatural one.

7. Natural Processes: While natural processes can create complex structures, they lack purposefulness and intentionality, unlike the eye's design.

8. Emergence: Complex systems can exhibit emergent properties, but these do not necessarily explain the eye's purposeful design.

9. Evolutionary Explanations: Incremental adaptive changes may contribute to the eye's development, but they do not fully account for its complexity and purposefulness.

Conclusion:

The existence of complex, purposeful designs like the eye necessitates the existence of a Creator. This challenges atheistic views that rely solely on natural processes to explain the natural world. While the nature and identity of this Creator are open to discussion, the evidence from intelligent design, purposefulness, and complexity demands consideration of a Creator's role in shaping the world around us.

FxMasterz:
Off point. Trash!

Read again and find anywhere I made any allusion to a God or Gods.

FxMasterz:
No atheist has been able to offer any counter-argument against the arguments in the OP.

Wilgrea7:
The OP hasn't offered any reasonable argument to begin with. What exactly are we countering? Your preconceived notions on what atheists believe?

Wilgrea7:
is the use of the word "god" your problem? You can switch it out for creator if it's easier for you to grasp. We both know both words in this context denote the same thing.

Wilgrea7:
Permit me to sum all these up under the branch of "complexity". Why?

To me, complexity is more than just different varying components coming together to create something different. It also comes from the very essence of a thing. For a thing to have purpose, for a thing to even be at all... both the tiny constituents that make it up, as well as the thing as a whole.

Your argument seems to come from 2 questions.

1. How complexity
2. Why complexity

Basically, we observe things around and within us, and we've seen great, incredibly great complexities (how), and in SOME cases, a sort of function for the complexity (why).


The problem is, this also applies to the idea of a god. Plugging a god into the equation doesn't solve it. It just pushes the question from the universe to the god. Explanation

A god would have to be incredibly complex, perhaps more incomprehensibly complex than the things it 'created'. Such an agent being able to act on it's own denotes a purpose. Not a mission. A purpose, even if self-given. To be able to want to do something, to be able to will and decide something.. that's also a kind of something. How exactly would the nature of this being have come to be? Why exactly is it the way it is?

Just saying "that's because it's god" or "that's the way it is" doesn't answer the question. And you very much as well would not accept that answer from someone who says that about the universe.

Now I can already guess some things you might want to say. Things like eternity, omnipotence and so on, are abstracts. Words that have absolutely zero quantifiable meaning.

We can actually study things like planets, atoms, elements and the universe as a whole to give it properties like complexity, form, origin and so on.

We have absolutely zero information on what a god is supposed to be in terms of these parameters like the ones I've listed above. So giving it properties like eternity, omnipotence and so on have no meaning. Because even if this alleged god existed, we have no way to observe or verify any of the supposed properties you'd ascribe to it.

So at the end of the day, we both end up at the exact same spot, which is having no explanation for how things are, and why they are that way.

For me, it's the universe, for you, it's a god. The only difference is, I've found no reason to take the extra leap just to end up asking the exact same questions I'm asking now.

FxMasterz:
Please go and sit down. I don't think you even understand what we're doing here.

kingxsamz:
I agree. The spaghetti monster made all of this possible. 👏🏾

Wilgrea7:
You keep making noise about how you've destroyed atheism, and when someone shows you how your arguments fail, your best rebuttal is

1. "No don't use G word.. g word not c word"
2. Claim the person doesn't know what they're talking about.

By the way I changed all the words with god to creator in my first and second response.. maybe now you can face them?

It's also fine if you can't. But don't just go around singing about destroying atheism when you barely made a reasonable argument to begin with

FxMasterz:
You didn't show me anything. You've argued only about a god and Complexity. The OP has nothing to do with any of these. Please read to understanding before presenting any argument.

Wilgrea7:
the OP listed several things which I summed up into "how" and "why". More precisely, how things are the way they are, and why.

I also explained what I meant when I said complexity in the beginning. Once again. It's okay if you reject these things.

I'll summarize in a way that'll be easier to understand. You listed several qualities of the universe/natural world, like purposefulness, universality, complexity, variety.

You're asking why things are the way they are. Your conclusion is that a creator is responsible.

My response is

1. I don't know why things are the way they are. Why we have complexity, variety, purposefulness etc. as you've described. I'd love to know.. but so far, I don't know why.

2. Your conclusion of a creator doesn't answer the question of why things are the way they are. Even if it did exist (which has so far not still been proven) It just pushes the question a step further.

Do you finally get it or do i have to explain it again?

KnownUnknown:
We were made in their image. Ramen!

FxMasterz:
Actually, in summary, I'm talking about intelligently designed complex things that are by their designs enabled to fulfil particular purposes. This cannot be accidental complex designs. They're intentionally designed to fulfil particular purposes hence there's a Creator behind them. The keyword there is PURPOSE or FUNCTIONALITIES being made possible by intentionally designed complexed stuff.

By the way, when did you start identifying as an atheist. You always say you're an agnostic.

Wilgrea7:
I think it's time to address something I've been letting slide ... Which is the idea of "intelligent design". If you notice, I've also avoided using the phrase since the beginning.

That's mainly because I don't see things that way. I agree with things like purpose and functionality.. as clearly seen.. but my issue with the phrase intelligent design is that it looks at things from our perspective, and already tries to establish qualities about a possible creator even before trying to prove one

Jaephoenix promised I'll get the monthly atheist palliative (half a cup of rice) if i promised to identify as one.

On a serious note tho.. I just decided to define my beliefs, or lack thereof more clearly.

As long as people understand what atheism is (lack of belief in a god), then I have no issues identifying as one.

FxMasterz:
May you be healed.

FxMasterz:
No one has debated the topic of this thread yet. Why are you creating another topic and leaving the main topic unattended to?

jaephoenix:
Oh, I have. I have rebuffed your concept of 'intelligent design' with 2 points.
1. Why are the products of this 'intelligent design' seriously flawed?
2.Who created this creator?

jaephoenix:
May you be fvcked