₦airaland Forum

FRANCISTOWN:
A person of my reputation should not indulge this kind of intellectual depleting discourse.

In my own opinion. The most thoughtless question to ask is "what evidence do I have that Jesus is not the son of God?"
Like, there is no evidence that Jesus was the son of God to begin with. There is no evidence for Yahweh himself, who is the supposed father.

There is something called the consistency paradox or the grandfather paradox under the concept of time traveling and parallel universe in quantum physics.

To put it very shortly. An offspring cannot exist without the parent.
Jesus cannot exist without Yahweh. The whole existence of Jesus rests on the existence of Yahweh. But there is no evidence of the existence of Yahweh himself. Hence the consistency paradox.

Have you seen why I said I shouldn't waste my time on such IQ depleting discourse?

I'm sorry, but if that's the best you could do. You need to up your game.

The biggest headache I have with layman atheist is they don't know how to argue.

You came here and said U rejected the bible because it said Jesus is the son of God.

Is this now what U wrote...

If you said Jesus was a normal human being and not a special son of God and not alive. It would have been better. We could say, fine. He went down in history like any other.

But saying he is a son of God and that he is one special thing is nothing but a joke.

When I asked for evidence of why U rejected Jesus as Son of God, U started ranting about metaphysics

What does metaphysics and quantum physics has to do with a statement in the bible?

Next time just say U don't believe in the bible because it's content contradict the law of physics or Yahweh doesn't exist. Simple and spare us all the unnecessary headache.

If U don't believe God exist, we shouldn't be talking about the bible at all.

That's what we call external evidence!!!!
Do U get it now.

I don't think I want to take U on metaphysics because my experience with atheists is they don't understand metaphysics in the first place.
Atheist contradict themselves so much when it comes to metaphysics. They just like throwing fancy and big words around to sound intelligent; terminologies they themselves do t understand

And what U wrote up there supports my assertion.

You wrote Jesus can't be Son of God because U believe there's no existence of God in the first place. And since Jesus can't be come out of nothing, then Jesus being son of Yahweh is a lie meaning Jesus saying he's the son of a non existent thing makes no sense.
This argument is related to the law of infinite regress which brings us to law of cause and contingency.

Now here is the problem.

Atheist will want to us to believe that our universe and every existence we know came out of nothing.
Matter, mass and time that comprise the universe came into existence out of nothing.

To atheist the law of infinite regress makes sense when it comes to the universe and our existence- we don't need a first cause to exist.
But when it comes to Jesus being the Son of God- suddenly law of infinite regress no longer makes sense and there has to be a cause.

According to atheist, for Jesus to be Son of Yahweh, the principle of 'necessary being' must be applied- Jesus must come from a cause. But when it comes to the universe, the principle of contingency thing should be rejected- universe can exist without a cause.

Above is a clear contradiction. And that's why debating atheist on metaphysics is a waste of time.

SIRTee15:
The biggest headache I have with layman atheist is they don't know how to argue.

You came here and said U rejected the bible because it said Jesus is the son of God.

Is this now what U wrote...

If you said Jesus was a normal human being and not a special son of God and not alive. It would have been better. We could say, fine. He went down in history like any other.

But saying he is a son of God and that he is one special thing is nothing but a joke.

When I asked for evidence of why U rejected Jesus as Son of God, U started ranting about metaphysics

What does metaphysics and quantum physics has to do with a statement in the bible?

Next time just say U don't believe in the bible because it's content contradict the law of physics or Yahweh doesn't exist. Simple and spare us all the unnecessary headache.

If U don't believe God exist, we shouldn't be talking about the bible at all.

That's what we call external evidence!!!!
Do U get it now.

I don't think I want to take U on metaphysics because my experience with atheists is they don't understand metaphysics in the first place.
Atheist contradict themselves so much when it comes to metaphysics. They just like throwing fancy and big words around to sound intelligent; terminologies they themselves do t understand

And what U wrote up there supports my assertion.

You wrote Jesus can't be Son of God because U believe there's no existence of God in the first place. And since Jesus can't be come out of nothing, then Jesus being son of Yahweh is a lie meaning Jesus saying he's the son of a non existent thing makes no sense.
This argument is related to the law of infinite regress which brings us to law of cause and contingency.

Now here is the problem.

Atheist will want to us to believe that our universe and every existence we know came out of nothing.
Matter, mass and time that comprise the universe came into existence out of nothing.

To atheist the law of infinite regress makes sense when it comes to the universe and our existence- we don't need a first cause to exist.
But when it comes to Jesus being the Son of God- suddenly law of infinite regress no longer makes sense and there has to be a cause.

According to atheist, for Jesus to be Son of Yahweh, the principle of 'necessary being' must be applied- Jesus must come from a cause. But when it comes to the universe, the principle of contingency thing should be rejected- universe can exist without a cause.

Above is a clear contradiction. And that's why debating atheist on metaphysics is a waste of time.

Stop it now! What are you saying?

If I said I've got a unicorn right in my house. And you say I do not have. And I ask you to give me a proof that I do not have the unicorn.

That only means that I'm demented and deranged.
Because, even a primary school kid knows that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders
of whoever claims the existence of stuff.

Have you seen why I said this discourse is intellectually depleting?

FRANCISTOWN:
Stop it now! What are you saying?

If I said I've got a unicorn right in my house. And you say I do not have. And I ask you to give me a proof that I do not have the unicorn.

That only means that I'm demented and deranged.
Because, even a primary school kid knows that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders
of whoever claims the existence of stuff.

Have you seen why I said this discourse is intellectually depleting?

Your analogy is weak because I don't live in your house to know if U have a unicorn or not. I can only made decision based on what U tell me.

We both live in this world and dwell in it. Nothing I have access to is denied for U. We both exist in the same space.

Evidence that made me conclude there's a God is equally accessible to U.

Anyway, Let me ask U a question.
Before mount Everest was discovered, what was the tallest mountain in the world?

FRANCISTOWN:
Stop it now! What are you saying?

If I said I've got a unicorn right in my house. And you say I do not have. And I ask you to give me a proof that I do not have the unicorn.

That only means that I'm demented and deranged.
Because, even a primary school kid knows that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders
of whoever claims the existence of stuff.

Have you seen why I said this discourse is intellectually depleting?

Y are you convinced that the universe exists without avin sumtin b4 it, thatz what he is saying,



I think both of you are confused.

At the emboldened, a right thinking Atheist would point out evidences that would trigger your thoughts on the said discourse, but believing it after pointing those evidences to you is totally on you.

Secondly, we are yet to confirm in total certainty if the universe is eternal or came to exist by a first cause.

So the fair answer that you would get from an Atheist would be "i don't know yet". Religious folks are the people that claim to be sure that the universe came to exist by a first cause, and it always triggers that infinite regress question of how did the first cause came to exist?

So Bros, hope u get it now?🤷

SIRTee15:
The biggest headache I have with layman atheist is they don't know how to argue.

You came here and said U rejected the bible because it said Jesus is the son of God.

Is this now what U wrote...

If you said Jesus was a normal human being and not a special son of God and not alive. It would have been better. We could say, fine. He went down in history like any other.

But saying he is a son of God and that he is one special thing is nothing but a joke.

When I asked for evidence of why U rejected Jesus as Son of God, U started ranting about metaphysics

What does metaphysics and quantum physics has to do with a statement in the bible?

Next time just say U don't believe in the bible because it's content contradict the law of physics or Yahweh doesn't exist. Simple and spare us all the unnecessary headache.

If U don't believe God exist, we shouldn't be talking about the bible at all.

That's what we call external evidence!!!!
Do U get it now.

I don't think I want to take U on metaphysics because my experience with atheists is they don't understand metaphysics in the first place.
Atheist contradict themselves so much when it comes to metaphysics. They just like throwing fancy and big words around to sound intelligent; terminologies they themselves do t understand

And what U wrote up there supports my assertion.

You wrote Jesus can't be Son of God because U believe there's no existence of God in the first place. And since Jesus can't be come out of nothing, then Jesus being son of Yahweh is a lie meaning Jesus saying he's the son of a non existent thing makes no sense.
This argument is related to the law of infinite regress which brings us to law of cause and contingency.

Now here is the problem.

Atheist will want to us to believe that our universe and every existence we know came out of nothing.
Matter, mass and time that comprise the universe came into existence out of nothing.

To atheist the law of infinite regress makes sense when it comes to the universe and our existence- we don't need a first cause to exist.
But when it comes to Jesus being the Son of God- suddenly law of infinite regress no longer makes sense and there has to be a cause.

According to atheist, for Jesus to be Son of Yahweh, the principle of 'necessary being' must be applied- Jesus must come from a cause. But when it comes to the universe, the principle of contingency thing should be rejected- universe can exist without a cause.

Above is a clear contradiction. And that's why debating atheist on metaphysics is a waste of time.

Busybrain2233:
At the emboldened, a right thinking Atheist would point out evidences that would trigger your thoughts on the said discourse, but believing it after pointing those evidences to you is totally on you.

Secondly, we are yet to confirm in total certainty if the universe is eternal or came to exist by a first cause.

So the fair answer that you would get from an Atheist would be "i don't know yet". Religious folks are the people that claim to be sure that the universe caim to exist by a first cause, and it always triggers that infinite regress question of how did the first cause came to exist?

So Bros, hope u get it now?🤷

Very fair and logical answer.

Now as an atheist, answer this question
B4 mount Everest was discovered what was the highest mountain in the world?

HellVictorinho9:
Y are you convinced that the universe exists without avin sumtin b4 it, thatz what he is saying,



I think both of you are confused.

Well, we've not said anything about the universe.
Please follow the flow of engagement.

Right about now we are at the existence of Jesus.
Let's maintain that point.

SIRTee15:
Your analogy is weak because I don't live in your house to know if U have a unicorn or not. I can only made decision based on what U tell me.

We both live in this world and dwell in it. Nothing I have access to is denied for U. We both exist in the same space.

Evidence that made me conclude there's a God is equally accessible to U.

Anyway, Let me ask U a question.
Before mount Everest was discovered, what was the tallest mountain in the world?

Mr! The analogy is not weak. Both a unicorn and a supposed son of God are things that do not have any form of interaction and observation with humans.

They both are things that are not ordinary. Y'all claim a man who supposedly died about some two thousand years ago is alive and living.

I said okay. Show us the evidence that the man is truly an offspring of a supposed God and by extension that he is still alive.

You answered and asked me to show you the evidence that he is not the son of God, and by extension that he is not alive.

Now, you yourself. Sit down and think about what you just said.

The evidence that anyone who dies is no longer alive is everywhere. Do you know the greatest evidence? It is non-interaction.
The greatest evidence for the non existence of every human being is non-interaction.
They don't breathe and they don't interact with any other human being.

If you're asking me to present the evidence that Jesus is not the son of a God. Then I present to you that, though you argued that he lived. I tell you that he is not alive and by extension he is not a son of a suppose God.

Do you now agree that I have a unicorn at my house or not?

FRANCISTOWN:
Well, we've not said anything about the universe.
Please follow the flow of engagement.

Right about now we are at the existence of Jesus.
Let's maintain that point.

That guy don mention universe sha

FRANCISTOWN:
Mr! The analogy is not weak. Both a unicorn and a supposed son of God are things that do not have any form of interaction or observation from humans.

They both are things that are not ordinary. Y'all claim a man who supposedly died about some two thousand years ago is alive and living.

I said okay. Show us the evidence that the man is truly an offspring of a supposed God and by extension that he is still alive.

You answered and asked me to show you the evidence that he is not the son of God, and by extension that he is not alive.

Now, you yourself. Sit down and think about what you just said.

The evidence that anyone who dies is no longer alive is everywhere. Do you know the greatest evidence? It is non-interaction.
The greatest evidence for the non existence of every human being is non-interaction.
They don't breathe and they don't interact to any other human being.

If you're asking me to present the evidence that Jesus is not the son of a God. Then I present to you that, though you argued that he lived. I tell you that he is not alive and by extension he is not a son of a suppose God.

Do you now agree that I have a unicorn at my house or not?

U dey folo unicorn talk tru xyz book na