₦airaland Forum

SIRTee15:
So tell me exactly what evidence U need.
Newspaper report?

Videos

FxMasterz:
That's not evangelism. There's nothing like 'somehow, it's an evangelism.' If it's evangelism, I'll be mentioning Jesus. This is purely a debate to challenge opposing views regarding Creationism. I could do this as a scientist. Not necessarily as a religionist.

So the creator here isn't Jesus/Yahweh?

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.

What is a religion?

jaephoenix:
So the creator here isn't Jesus/Yahweh?

Discussions should be stage by stage. I'm not discussing any Creator here. I'm discussing the existence of a Creator only.

jaephoenix:
What is a religion?

That's not the topic of this thread. I have no time for that.

FxMasterz:
Off point. Trash!

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

You simply have a short memory or your brain is fvcked. You talked about the creator here several times. So who is this creator? Flying Spaghetti Monster?

jaephoenix:
Videos

Something that happened in 2002?

jaephoenix:
You simply have a short memory or your brain is fvcked. You talked about the creator here several times. So who is this creator? Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Go and sit down. If I talked about the existence of a Creator, did I say who the Creator is yet? Must you claim what I didn't claim?

Very unintelligent atheist.

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

I have offered my own counters which he absolutely ignored, then rushed out to claim victory. Aint these guys sweet?

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

Of course your tiny brain cells would go bust from trying to assimilate the posts. Its beyond your pay grade just like my posts you ignored are beyond your post grade

KnownUnknown:
We were made in their image. Ramen!

All Praise to His Noodly Limbs

FxMasterz:
1. You didn't refute anything. We're not discussing intelligent designs except you don't understand the output of this thread. Abd I've told you also severally that flaws in a design do not eliminate the existence of a maker. A flawed car cannot be said to be to be without a manufacturer because of its flaws.

2. Do you accept there's a Creator before asking who created Him? And who told you that a Creator must be created? By what rule or law?

Moreso, you completely avoided the topic. It's either you're dodging the real issue or you don't understand the topic.

At this point, you really need a shrink. You keep in throwing up stvpid points and when choked, you flat out deny those stvpid points. This is the second time you're doing this on this thread. Against Kingxsamz and now this.
Your very first OP talked about intelligent Design. Please scroll back and check it. Or better still go to a memory clinic. You prolly have a temporal lobe issue or you are stvpidy dishonest like your lawyer StillDFvcktard

FxMasterz:
Trash!

Is that the only thing you have in that your head?

You said may I be healed, so I'm not ready to be healed

FxMasterz:
That's not the topic of this thread. I have no time for that.

But you changed the definition of a religion and declared atheism is a religion. So that's why I asked that question

SIRTee15:
Something that happened in 2002?

Well, I can't help you then. Remember if the roles were changed and I gave you similar stories, you won't believe me. So why should I believe you?

FxMasterz:
Go and sit down. If I talked about the existence of a Creator, did I say who the Creator is yet? Must you claim what I didn't claim?

Very unintelligent atheist.

You talked about a creator. Or do you have a fvcked up brain? Refer to your OP

jaephoenix:
You talked about a creator. Or do you have a fvcked up brain? Refer to your OP

Mtchew.

jaephoenix:
But you changed the definition of a religion and declared atheism is a religion. So that's why I asked that question

Mtcheww.

jaephoenix:
At this point, you really need a shrink. You keep in throwing up stvpid points and when choked, you flat out deny those stvpid points. This is the second time you're doing this on this thread. Against Kingxsamz and now this.
Your very first OP talked about intelligent Design. Please scroll back and check it. Or better still go to a memory clinic. You prolly have a temporal lobe issue or you are stvpidy dishonest like your lawyer StillDFvcktard

Mtcheww. Please give room for intelligent people to engage. I can't be lecturing you on what we have plainly explained on this thread. Kindly take a sit and go find a place to study the very theme of this thread until you understand it, okay?

jaephoenix:
Of course your tiny brain cells would go bust from trying to assimilate the posts. Its beyond your pay grade just like my posts you ignored are beyond your post grade

Your mind is so dirty that you cannot frame a single sentence without getting vile. You're just getting dirtier and filthier each day. Go wash your mind dude.

FxMasterz:
Go and sit down. If I talked about the existence of a Creator, did I say who the Creator is yet? Must you claim what I didn't claim?

Very unintelligent atheist.

Don't you think its ironic you're calling someone unintelligent, afterall you were the one who bragged that you defeated AI 😅. A claim someone with ordinary common sense would cringe at and would be embarrassed by. I expect someone calling another unintelligent to at least not make such an embrassing showcase. Slayer of atheists and defeater of AI, you should slow down on any reference to intelligence.

FxMasterz:
Mtcheww.

Lol. Is that the latest smart come-back? You have run out of excuses and so are dumb?

FxMasterz:
Mtcheww. Please give room for intelligent people to engage. I can't be lecturing you on what we have plainly explained on this thread. Kindly take a sit and go find a place to study the very theme of this thread until you understand it, okay?

Of course you dodged the point there, which was about your uncanny knack of talking rubbish and then denying that you made the rubbish statement.
Floored atheist indeed

FxMasterz:
.

3. Planetary Fine-Tuning: The Earth's:
- Distance from the Sun (allowing liquid water)
- Atmospheric composition (regulating temperature and protecting from radiation)
- Magnetic field (deflecting harmful radiation)
- Axial tilt (enabling seasonal variation)
- Water content (supporting life)

FxMasterz:
3. Planetary Fine-Tuning: The precise calibration of physical constants and planetary conditions that allow for life on Earth, such as the distance from the Sun and atmospheric composition.

Can you elucidate on these sir?

jaephoenix:
Of course you dodged the point there, which was about your uncanny knack of talking rubbish and then denying that you made the rubbish statement.
Floored atheist indeed

Go and sit down! I won't take the bait you're setting to derail the thread.

Open your ears wide!

This debate is not about intelligent design or complexity of systems. It's about Purpose. Purpose. Unintelligent atheist, listen again for the umpteenth time. It's about Purpose, okay?

SIRTee15:
Something that happened in 2002?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Any extraordinarily claim without evidence can be dismissed and trashed just as easily as the claim was made. Anecdotes which are "Them say, them say..." are certainly not evidence, talk less extraordinary for the claims u've made. It's just the usual bark, no bite. Tiring!

jaephoenix:
Ok. So those structures and phenomena are interesting…
If you suggest they were designed, then you have a problem. The problem is they were poorly designed. The immune system for example attacks some body organs, and there are no fail-safe mechanisms to curtail such attacks. So we end up with autoimmune diseases caused by the body itself. Then you have cellular diseases due to inborn error in metabolism, carcinogenic processes etc. These were products of this 'intelligent design'. Also human birth is a messy process. You have an anus sited about 10cm from the vagina, thus you see a baby popping out and covered with feces. Even the DNA is easily corrupted to code diseases like sickle cell, thalassemia etc.
I can go on and on about the errors in this very 'intelligent design' but my point is there is no intelligence in all these

I am an atheist but I'd like to play the devil's advocate here a bit. Let's say we "intelligently" design and produce 500,000 electronic tablets this year and sell them to consumers. All were sold but about 10 of them got returned for errors, glitches, hardware, software, usability issues to varying degrees. Does that mean there was no intelligence? Cuz what you posted about autoimmune disease while true rarely happens

hopefulLandlord:
Can you elucidate on these sir?

Okay,

Planetary Fine-Tuning refers to the idea that the fundamental physical constants and planetary conditions that allow for life on Earth are "fine-tuned" to an extraordinary degree.

This means that if these constants and conditions were even slightly different, life as we know it would not be possible.

Some examples of Planetary Fine-Tuning include:

1. Distance from the Sun: If Earth were 5% closer or farther from the Sun, temperatures would be too extreme for liquid water to exist.

2. Atmospheric composition: The precise mix of gases in our atmosphere allows for the right balance of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and other gases necessary for life.

3. Gravitational forces: The strength of gravitational forces between Earth and the Moon, as well as the Sun, is crucial for maintaining stable ocean tides and planetary orbits.

4. Water's chemical properties: Water's unique chemical and thermal properties make it an ideal solvent for life's biochemical processes. Water is here on purpose. Not accidental.

5. Cosmic radiation: The level of cosmic radiation reaching Earth is balanced to allow for life to thrive without being overwhelmed by harmful radiation.

Each fine-tuning is done on purpose to sustain life on earth. This can't be accidental. The necessary calculations, weighing and accurate placement of these complex things are too magnificent to ignore.

The fine-tuning suggests the presence of an intentional and intelligent Designer or Creator.

FxMasterz:
Okay,

Planetary Fine-Tuning refers to the idea that the fundamental physical constants and planetary conditions that allow for life on Earth are "fine-tuned" to an extraordinary degree.

This means that if these constants and conditions were even slightly different, life as we know it would not be possible.

Some examples of Planetary Fine-Tuning include:

1. Distance from the Sun: If Earth were 5% closer or farther from the Sun, temperatures would be too extreme for liquid water to exist.

2. Atmospheric composition: The precise mix of gases in our atmosphere allows for the right balance of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and other gases necessary for life.

3. Gravitational forces: The strength of gravitational forces between Earth and the Moon, as well as the Sun, is crucial for maintaining stable ocean tides and planetary orbits.

4. Water's chemical properties: Water's unique chemical and thermal properties make it an ideal solvent for life's biochemical processes. Water is here on purpose. Not accidental.

5. Cosmic radiation: The level of cosmic radiation reaching Earth is balanced to allow for life to thrive without being overwhelmed by harmful radiation.

Each fine-tuning is done on purpose to sustain life on earth. This can't be accidental. The necessary calculations, weighing and accurate placement of these complex things are too magnificent to ignore.

The fine-tuning suggests the presence of an intentional and intelligent Designer or Creator.

Okay, but aren't you just moving from conclusion to evidence though. Your point is like changing upon a civilisation of dwarves in a very distant land through a powerful binocular. This tribe have their houses very small so you conclude the houses being small is why they're short. You'd agree that if they were taller you'd have been seeing taller houses, right? This is similar in ways to what yours saying. We are here and the universal constants support us being here so the universal constants were maden for us to be here. That's very circular

I’d be a lot more accepting of the “fine tuning” argument if modern physics showed that it was impossible for the universe to exist given the values of the fundamental physical constants it has discovered.
In that situation some variation of God’s Sustaining Hand™ would become more plausible.
This is largely Dr Sean Carroll's argument. He says that the constants could be anything and God could still create life. He's magic, after all. That we do indeed have life-supporting constants says that we don't need God to sustain life.

hopefulLandlord:
Okay, but aren't you just moving from conclusion to evidence though. Your point is like changing upon a civilisation of dwarves in a very distant land through a powerful binocular. This tribe have their houses very small so you conclude the houses being small is why they're short. You'd agree that if they were taller you'd have been seeing taller houses, right? This is similar in ways to what yours saying. We are here and the universal constants support us being here so the universal constants were maden for us to be here. That's very circular

I’d be a lot more accepting of the “fine tuning” argument if modern physics showed that it was impossible for the universe to exist given the values of the fundamental physical constants it has discovered.
In that situation some variation of God’s Sustaining Hand™ would become more plausible.
This is largely Dr Sean Carroll's argument. He says that the constants could be anything and God could still create life. He's magic, after all. That we do indeed have life-supporting constants says that we don't need God to sustain life.

I've not mentioned God yet. My aim is to establish the fact that a Creator exists. The talk of God does not need to come to play at this time. Thoughts about the Creator should suffice.

The flaw in Dr Sean Carroll's argument is that there's a mind behind those constants. An intentional mind set those constants on Purpose. Without a mind, purpose cannot be created. A varied mix of constants or mechanisms might still achieve same purpose but the possibility of life being sustained by different sets of constants does not eliminate the possibility of a mind being behind them. For example, you can solve a quadratic equation using varied methods. You'll arrive at the same answer regardless. The varied methods do not eliminate the fact that a mind is behind the solutions. Hence, the constants might sustain life if they're varied, still, a mind would be responsible for making them happen in such a way that they can sustain life. The whole intelligent complex systems work together towards one goal - the sustenance of life. Everything was deliberate and intentional. No doubt. Only a mind can set a goal. Only a mind can create a Purpose. A mind set those constants. Those constants didn't set themselves.

Lucifyre:
Don't you think its ironic you're calling someone unintelligent, afterall you were the one who bragged that you defeated AI 😅. A claim someone with ordinary common sense would cringe at and would be embarrassed by. I expect someone calling another unintelligent to at least not make such an embrassing showcase. Slayer of atheists and defeater of AI, you should slow down on any reference to intelligence.

This one off me.

FxMasterz:
I've not mentioned God yet. My aim is to establish the fact that a Creator exists. The talk of God does not need to come to play at this time. Thoughts about the Creator should suffice.

The flaw in Dr Sean Carroll's argument is that there's a mind behind those constants. An intentional mind set those constants on Purpose. Without a mind, purpose cannot be created. A varied mix of constants or mechanisms might still achieve same purpose but the possibility of life being sustained by different sets of constants does not eliminate the possibility of a mind being behind them. For example, you can solve a quadratic equation using varied methods. You'll arrive at the same answer regardless. The varied methods do not eliminate the fact that a mind is behind the solutions. Hence, the constants might sustain life if they're varied, still, a mind would be responsible for making them happen in such a way that they can sustain life. The whole intelligent complex systems work together towards one goal - the sustenance of life. Everything was deliberate and intentional. No doubt. Only a mind can set a goal. Only a mind can create a Purpose. A mind set those constants. Those constants didn't set themselves.

It appears to me that your arguments aren't yours but one you read somewhere. Nothing wrong with that but it seems your understanding of it is shallow

Look at it this way

You: look at the constants of the universe. If it were any different we wouldn't be here so it must've been a creator involved"

Me: That's one way to look at it but what if it were different and another "type" of us were here instead? Like when there are harmful bacteria in the body then you take antibiotics and those are eliminated meaning the constants of the body changed by addition of this antibiotics and anytime those bacteria starts giving issues again you call on the antibiotics to come and do the usual again only to discover one day that you're taking the drugs but the bacterias aren't dying anymore but are now resistant to the drugs. The constant of the body changed but the bugs evolved anyways despite the unfavorable constants