₦airaland Forum

Dtruthspeaker:
This place ehn. You will laugh tire. And it can also be very annoying.

But anyway, I am just proving that belief does not always need to have a reason. Yes, it is supposed to but, it can also be built on air.

Omooo, anyhow una wan run am oo.

If people believe trans women are women, I believe people can "believe" anything.

It's surprising that the champion of "critical thinking" didn't understand your point about believing and instead chose to pursue this dust that you're dispensing. 😅

All is well sha, mek I dey observe small small from sideline.

MaxInDHouse:
Are you really interested in the evidence of God's existence?
Just as you welcomed EXPLANATION for the existence of unseen blackholes!

Unseen blackholes?! Lol! We’ve literally seen black holes and they look exactly like the predictive models based on Einstein’s theory said they would. In 2019, the Event Horizon Telescope produced the first image of a black hole, the one at the center of galaxy M87. Basically a glowing ring of hot gas surrounding a dark shadow, caused by the extreme gravity near the event horizon. It was not baseless claims, it was predicted, observed, and confirmed by evidence. So trying to draw parallels with mythological baseless claims fails badly.

Lucifyre:
Unseen blackholes?! Lol! We’ve literally seen black holes and they look exactly like the predictive models based on Einstein’s theory said they would. In 2019, the Event Horizon Telescope produced the first image of a black hole, the one at the center of galaxy M87. Basically a glowing ring of hot gas surrounding a dark shadow, caused by the extreme gravity near the event horizon. It was not baseless claims, it was predicted, observed, and confirmed by evidence. So trying to draw parallels with mythological baseless claims fails badly.

So understanding blackholes continues and not just what we heard decades ago same applies to the existence of God as predicted, observed and confirmed by evidence.
If you try to explain but your audience insisted on what we heard about this blackholes decades ago it's the same thing!

budaatum:
I not only read your op, I went and read other threads you have begun here and found nothing to engage me, but this thread had you mention critical reasoning, and is the only thing of interest to me in it and hence my addition to your thread.

Now, as an atheist, I not only see no reason to believe in the existence of gods, I have sufficient knowledge to know its like believing you have a million pounds in your bank account at this very moment. But I am not that concerned, since you are not telling me to believe what you believe.

Na wa oh!

I thought you were Buddhist

Why does this post seem like AI generated slop?
Is it just now that you're encountering the redeemed zoomer?
I hope you know that that dude believes that the earth is billions of years old instead of the ten thousand years creationists believe
Anyways..........

PulsingPurple:
[color=#006400]Evidentialism:[/color]
Tries to argue for God by giving evidence of supernatural events.
For example, many Christians believe the [color=#2E8B57]resurrection of Christ[/color] can be historically proven because:
– There were many eyewitnesses

Who were these eyewitnesses?
Didn't the Bible claim that very few people saw Jesus after his resurrection?
Why did Thomas doubt?

Also, bigfoot, Santa Claus, unicorns, flying spaghetti monster and every other gods also have many witnesses too. So it's nothing new. 🤭

– They died for their faith
– And generally, people [color=#8B0000]don’t die for something they know is false[/color]

Terrorists die for their faith, Nazis died for their ideology, ancient Roman soldiers died for their empires etc the concept of dying for an ideology is not uncommon. Fanatics are known to die for their ideologies.

Sometimes, people also cite:
– [color=#00008B]Demonic possessions[/color], where people speak unknown languages

What's the difference between a demonic possessed person and a mentally ill person?

What's the difference between unknown languages and gibberish?

– [color=#2F4F4F]Near-death experiences[/color], where people see things they shouldn't be able to

Like…?

[color=#006400]The Moral Argument:[/color]
Objective morality is only real if God is real. But [color=#00008B]objective morality is real[/color] →Therefore, God is real.
[color=#2F4F4F]Example:[/color]
Is cannibalism good or bad?
A: “I think it’s good.”
B: “I think it’s bad.”
So... which one is [color=#8B0000]actually[/color] correct?
B can only be right if there’s a [color=#00008B]supreme authority[/color] that says cannibalism is bad.
That authority is what we would call God.

Define morality.
What are the criterias makes something good or bad?

Another question is that are gods above morality laws or are they subject to it?

If they are above morality, it means that they can for example command their followers to kill babies or sacrifice their children to them, and it will be considered ‘good’ because they are the one who made moral laws.

But if they are also subject to moral laws it means that morality is above them. So there's something greater that even gods must submit to.

[color=#006400]The Cosmological Argument:[/color]
Everything that happens has a cause.
That cause has a cause. And so on.
But [color=#8B0000]this chain can’t go on forever[/color].
Eventually, there must be:
– A first cause
– An unmoved mover
– An uncaused causer
– An unchanged changer
This being must be:
– [color=#2E8B57]Eternal[/color] (can’t start or stop existing)
– [color=#00008B]Outside the universe[/color] (everything inside is caused)
– All-powerful (can move anything but cannot be moved)
This, we call God.

The statement “Everything that happens has a cause” contradicts the first cause argument because the ‘first cause’ is also part of “everything”.

The statement only makes sense if you say “everything except the first first cause”.
But then this raises questions:

How did you know that there's a first cause?
What makes you claim that everything can't go forever (no beginning and no end)?
Why can't the universe(or multiverse) itself be its own first cause?

[color=#006400]Act and Potency Argument:[/color]
Everything is a mix of:
– Act: What it is
– Potency: What it could become
Example:
– A baby is alive → It could become an adult
– An apple is red → It could be eaten
– You have the potency to be strong, but maybe not yet
When something changes, a potency is being actualized.
But this can’t go back forever.
So, we need an unactualized actualizer—a being who is [color=#00008B]pure act[/color].
This being has no potential, only actuality.
That means:
– [color=#2E8B57]Eternal[/color] (no potential to not exist)
– All-powerful (nothing else can affect Him)
– Unchanging
This is the most complex argument.
Originally from Aristotle, developed by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Contra Gentiles.

This is just another variation of the first cause argument

[color=#006400]Pascal’s Wager:[/color]
A thought experiment, not a proof.
– If you're an atheist and [color=#8B0000]atheism is true[/color]: You gain/lose nothing
– If you're an atheist and God is real: You could [color=#8B0000]lose everything[/color]
– If you believe in God and [color=#8B0000]atheism is true[/color]: Still neutral
– If you believe in God and God is real: You could gain everything
So, [color=#00008B]it's a safer bet to believe in God[/color].

[/b]

This argument doesn't make sense because there are many gods to choose from. The action that will please one god might displease another god

Also, this could be interpreted as: you believe in the gods because there's a gun pointed at your head.

[color=#006400]Teleological Argument (Design):[/color]Nature seems to have [b]purpose, like a machine → implies a [color=#00008B]designer[/color]
Examples:
– [color=#2E8B57]Human cells[/color]
– [color=#2E8B57]The ecosystem[/color]

What is this purpose that nature seems to have?

What is the purpose of the designer's existence?

Darwinian evolution explains some complexity, but not all.
Like:
– The four physical constants:
Gravitational constant
Electron charge
Strong nuclear force
Weak nuclear force
If any of these were even [color=#8B0000]slightly different[/color], the universe would collapse.
[Like if gravity was slightly stronger or weaker, or the force holding atomic particle together was even 2% stronger or weaker. Among the billions of galaxies allegedly out there, the chances of everything happening just right is 1 in 10 duotrigintillion, that's to say you have a better chance at winning the lottery 10 billion billion billion billion times IN A ROW.]

This is a typical god of gaps argument. If we can't explain something, therefore god. We currently do not know what happens inside a black hole so therefore gods live inside black holes.

The god of gaps argument is an argument from ignorance, that uses gods to fill in currently unknown phenomena there by preventing further research and inquiry.

If we do not know or understand something, we should do more research to learn more about it rather than just throwing our hands up and saying “the gods did it”.

[color=#006400]Ontological Argument:[/color]
God = That than which nothing greater can be conceived
Therefore, God must be:
– All-powerful
– All-knowing
– All-good
– Existing (because existing is better than not).
Question: "But you can’t just think something into existence. If a pizza has all these qualities, do we then call it God?"
Actually, you can’t do that with pizza, because:
– Pizza has [color=#8B0000]limitations[/color] (size, perishability)
– A pizza that’s indestructible and infinite wouldn’t be pizza anymore
– It would be [color=#00008B]God[/color]

The concept of “greatest” exists in our minds. The concept of infinity invalidates the concept of greatest. The greatest means a maximum, and infinity means endless. If there's no start or end, no highest or lowest, no smallest or biggest, no maximum and minimum, then there's no greatest or least great (whatever it's called).

[color=#006400]Argument from Personal Experience:[/color]
Not convincing to others, but very convincing to oneself.
– Supernatural events
– Answered prayers
– Unlikely coincidences

another god of gaps argument. You experience something that you can't explain, therefore gods.

[color=#006400]Transcendental Argument:[/color]
Without God, nothing makes sense.
We assume:
– Logic
– Consistency in nature
– Truth
But we [color=#8B0000]can’t scientifically prove[/color] any of those assumptions.
They only make sense if grounded in the mind of God.
Without God → [color=#8B0000]no foundation for knowledge[/color]

This argument is basically saying that without gods nothing makes sense. But here's a quote I read online: “the universe is not under any obligation to make sense to human beings”.

[color=#006400]Argument from Consciousness:[/color]
Consciousness cannot be explained by material means.
– Machines can be reduced to parts
– Brains can be studied
– But experience (like “seeing yellow”) can’t be dissected
You can’t know:
– If we all see the same colors
– If you’re the only conscious being
Consciousness seems to require something immaterial → a [color=#00008B]soul[/color]

Another god of gaps argument.
We currently do not understand how consciousness works, therefore gods.

According to you guys, all scientific research regarding consciousness should stop, because you believe the gods did it.

[color=#006400]Argument from Mathematics:[/color]
Math points to an infinite, immaterial reality.
– Simple math = real-world
– Advanced math = abstract, yet it still works
Important numbers:
– 1, 0, i, e, π
– All come together in [color=#00008B]Euler’s Identity[/color] → an elegant, beautiful equation
Leonhard Euler, who discovered it, saw this as proof that God designed math.
He was also a [color=#2F4F4F]devout Calvinist[/color].
Also: The Mandelbrot Set
– Generated by a simple formula
– Infinitely complex
– Not found anywhere in the universe
→ Therefore, its creator must be [color=#00008B]infinite and beyond our universe[/color]

This is just the delusions of a theist who did not understand a mathematics problem and then decided to fill in gods in things that he did not understand.

[color=#8B0000]And finally… the best argument of all:[/color]
Trust me, bro.

This isn't the best argument, it's the entire argument for theism.

Everyday247:
Why does this post seem like AI generated slop?

There's this YouTuber that loves using this phrase, so simple, yet profound and funny (to me ofc). Meanwhile, which of which looks like the "slop"? My opening post or the two transcripts I posted?

Is it just now that you're encountering the redeemed zoomer?

Most probably. This is the first time I found those particular videos entertaining, any issues there?

I hope you know that that dude believes that the earth is billions of years old instead of the ten thousand years creationists believe
Anyways..........
Who were these eyewitnesses?
Didn't the Bible claim that very few people saw Jesus after his resurrection?
Why did Thomas doubt?

Also, bigfoot, Santa Claus, unicorns, flying spaghetti monster and every other gods also have many witnesses too. So it's nothing new. 🤭

Terrorists die for their faith, Nazis died for their ideology, ancient Roman soldiers died for their empires etc the concept of dying for an ideology is not uncommon. Fanatics are known to die for their ideologies.
What's the difference between a demonic possessed person and a mentally ill person?

What's the difference between unknown languages and gibberish?


Like…?

Define morality.
What are the criterias makes something good or bad?

Another question is that are gods above morality laws or are they subject to it?

If they are above morality, it means that they can for example command their followers to kill babies or sacrifice their children to them, and it will be considered ‘good’ because they are the one who made moral laws.

But if they are also subject to moral laws it means that morality is above them. So there's something greater that even gods must submit to.

The statement “Everything that happens has a cause” contradicts the first cause argument because the ‘first cause’ is also part of “everything”.

The statement only makes sense if you say “everything except the first first cause”.
But then this raises questions:

How did you know that there's a first cause?
What makes you claim that everything can't go forever (no beginning and no end)?
Why can't the universe(or multiverse) itself be its own first cause?

This is just another variation of the first cause argument

This argument doesn't make sense because there are many gods to choose from. The action that will please one god might displease another god

Also, this could be interpreted as: you believe in the gods because there's a gun pointed at your head.

What is this purpose that nature seems to have?

What is the purpose of the designer's existence?

This is a typical god of gaps argument. If we can't explain something, therefore god. We currently do not know what happens inside a black hole so therefore gods live inside black holes.

The god of gaps argument is an argument from ignorance, that uses gods to fill in currently unknown phenomena there by preventing further research and inquiry.

If we do not know or understand something, we should do more research to learn more about it rather than just throwing our hands up and saying “the gods did it”.

The concept of “greatest” exists in our minds. The concept of infinity invalidates the concept of greatest. The greatest means a maximum, and infinity means endless. If there's no start or end, no highest or lowest, no smallest or biggest, no maximum and minimum, then there's no greatest or least great (whatever it's called).

another god of gaps argument. You experience something that you can't explain, therefore gods.

This argument is basically saying that without gods nothing makes sense. But here's a quote I read online: “the universe is not under any obligation to make sense to human beings”.

Another god of gaps argument.
We currently do not understand how consciousness works, therefore gods.

According to you guys, all scientific research regarding consciousness should stop, because you believe the gods did it.

This is just the delusions of a theist who did not understand a mathematics problem and then decided to fill in gods in things that he did not understand.
This isn't the best argument, it's the entire argument for theism.

I don't like the idea of typing long stuff and the person I'm conversing with doesn't reply, apologies cos I might not have anything to say here. To each his own.

Did you see the post I made immediately after the second transcript? Just below... And then the OP here?

No one's really asking for a debate or willing to counter your views. Even if you claim you wanted to counter these YouTuber's point, your opening speech and tone suggests otherwise. I'd rather not indulge.

MaxInDHouse:
So understanding blackholes continues and not just what we heard decades ago same applies to the existence of God as predicted, observed and confirmed by evidence.
If you try to explain but your audience insisted on what we heard about this blackholes decades ago it's the same thing!

🤣 Very good, the loud ignorance has been demonstrated and the false equivalence rubbished. So, then resorting to half baked analogies to defend baseless claims is just typical seeing as there's zero evidence.

PulsingPurple:
Omooo, anyhow una wan run am oo.

If people believe trans women are women, I believe people can "believe" anything.

It's surprising that the champion of "critical thinking" didn't understand your point about believing and instead chose to pursue this dust that you're dispensing. 😅

All is well sha, mek I dey observe small small from sideline.

I believe he did but didn't know that there was the other angle which he is even using as the basis of his belief in atheism. And that is why I played the game on him

Lucifyre:
🤣 Very good, the loud ignorance had been demonstrated and the false equivalence rubbished. So, then resorting to half baked analogies to defend baseless claims is just typical seeing as there's zero evidence.

There is no evidence of any blackholes compared to countless evidences of God's existence but you can choose to ignore it even when it's affecting you very existence!

Everyday247:
Who were these eyewitnesses?
Didn't the Bible claim that very few people saw Jesus after his resurrection?
Why did Thomas doubt?

Thank God a multitude, multitude saw Him before was Murdered, and so it is in perfect order that a few saw Him. And of course it is supposed to be a few since He has already completed His mission of visiting the world.

I no get power for all this long long argument you are trying to use to attack her just because she has threaten your beliefs

PulsingPurple:
No one's really asking for a debate or willing to counter your views. Even if you claim you wanted to counter these YouTuber's point, your opening speech and tone suggests otherwise. I'd rather not indulge.

Really?
I made the assumption due to your choice of words such as "An invitation to critical reasoning".
You should ignore the reply then.

PulsingPurple:
In all my days of argument and till now, I keep marveling at the possibility of atheism. Like fr fr, you just don't see any reason to believe in the existence of a God? Mehnn!

I found some YouTube videos and copied their transcripts. They're long, but it's something I think Christians and atheists might want to read when they have a lot of free time. Might spark some thoughts.

My reply are thoughts that was "sparked" while reading your post.

Have a nice day.

Dtruthspeaker:
Thank God a multitude, multitude saw Him before was Murdered, and so it is in perfect order that a few saw Him. And of course it is supposed to be a few since He has already completed His mission of visiting the world.

I no get power for all this long long argument you are trying to use to attack her just because she has threaten your beliefs

Many saw him before he was killed but afterwards very few.

OP said that many witnessed the resurrection.

Everyday247:
Many saw him before he was killed but afterwards very few.

OP said that many witnessed the resurrection.

Oh.

But na small thing na.

Dtruthspeaker:
Oh.

But na small thing na.

tor

Ok let me address another one

Everyday247:
What's the difference between unknown languages and gibberish?

Unknown language is a language like hearing an Ogoja man speaking his language.

But gibberish s wobbled speech that may be a language or a speech created by the talker.

Everyday247:
Define morality.
What are the criterias makes something good or bad?

That which is Good or Bad is one which is Dictated and set by the Owner/Ruler of the Land/House in which the people who are in it have to obey.

Everyday247:
Another question is that are gods above morality laws or are they subject to it?

I like to always reply this with "when you tell your children and nephew and nieces to be in your house by 9pm", does that Law apply to you? Are you under that law?

Everyday247:
Really?
I made the assumption due to your choice of words such as "An invitation to critical reasoning".
You should ignore the reply then.

My reply are thoughts that was "sparked" while reading your post.

Have a nice day.

You too.
You skipped something tho. I love people who skip stuff, especially questions.

If you interpret my invitation to critical reasoning as a one-to-one conversation, then sí, we can go there.
This means we'd have to agree to each other's terms first. You don't appear as someone who'd agree with my terms.

This takes us back to having a nice day instead.

MaxInDHouse:
There is no evidence of any blackholes compared to countless evidences of God's existence but you can choose to ignore it even when it's affecting you very existence!

Yes yes... Blackholes, Mars, Venus or any of the other planets don't have any evidence as well, guess we should write to NASA & CERN about your brilliant theory. The dedication to ignorance is outstanding. Thankfully ignorance doesn't change facts. Making baseless claims is easy, even schizos do it, demonstrating it is where they all fall down like a pack of cards hit by wind.

Dtruthspeaker:
...you are trying to use to attack her just because she has threaten your beliefs

Him. 🤝

Lucifyre:
Yes yes... Blackholes, Mars, Venus or any of the other planets don't have any evidence as well, guess we should write to NASA & CERN about your brilliant theory. The dedication to ignorance is outstanding. Thankfully ignorance doesn't change facts. Making baseless claims is easy, even schizos do it, demonstrating it is where they all fall down like a pack of cards hit by wind.

Ọmọ other planets are VISIBLE but as for blackholes they are not you have to start explaining and explaining to prove they exist yet you simply want everyone to agree with your explanations but when a believer in God wants to explain you keep on shouting "no evidence!" demanding something you can see with your physical eyes!

MaxInDHouse:
Ọmọ other planets are VISIBLE but as for blackholes they are not you have to start explaining and explaining to prove they exist yet you simply want everyone to agree with your explanations but when a believer in God wants to explain you keep on shouting "no evidence!" demanding something you can see with your physical eyes!

Grasp at straws all you want wouldn't change fact.

Lucifyre:
Grasp at straws all you want wouldn't change fact.

Fact: The only evidence of blackholes is explanation not visibility!

Dtruthspeaker:
Ok let me address another one
Unknown language is a language like hearing an Ogoja man speaking his language.
But gibberish s wobbled speech that may be a language or a speech created by the talker.

What if someone speaks gibberish and tells you it's ogoja language how will you know if what his saying is true?

That which is Good or Bad is one which is Dictated and set by the Owner/Ruler of the Land/House in which the people who are in it have to obey.

I like to always reply this with "when you tell your children and nephew and nieces to be in your house by 9pm", does that Law apply to you? Are you under that law?

If that's the case, does it mean that the owner of the house can for example, murder or rape anybody that's in their house because they make the rule?

Are you saying that morality is just a temporary rule made by those in power?

PulsingPurple:
You too.
You skipped something tho. I love people who skip stuff, especially questions.

If you interpret my invitation to critical reasoning as a one-to-one conversation, then sí, we can go there.
This means we'd have to agree to each other's terms first. You don't appear as someone who'd agree with my terms.

This takes us back to having a nice day instead.

Didn't you say you were not interested in argument?

Did you change your mind?

What terms are you talking about?

I skipped stuff cuz you said you weren't interested.

Everyday247:
Didn't you say you were not interested in argument?

Did you change your mind?

What terms are you talking about?

I skipped stuff cuz you said you weren't interested.

Okay.

Everyday247:
What if someone speaks gibberish and tells you it's ogoja language how will you know if what his saying is true?

What if and True, don't go together.

So you already know when it's true and when it's not and what to do when you suspect he is fabricating a speech.

Everyday247:
If that's the case, does it mean that the owner of the house can for example, murder or rape anybody that's in their house because they make the rule?

Boko haram/Chibok have already answered this. And it was not even their school not to talk about this man. So stop pretending like you do not understand the question.

Everyday247:
Are you saying that morality is just a temporary rule made by those in power?

Where did isay temporary? Are you pretending not to understand the question because you now understand that it's true answer quashes all the rubbish you are thinking?

Or did your father or uncle or boarding school principal not give you this kind of law?

If you find the answer too uncomfortable then it's better you stay silent, we already know why, instead of pretending and changing the question

Dtruthspeaker:
What if and True, don't go together.

So you already know when it's true and when it's not and what to do when you suspect he is fabricating a speech.

Are you saying that you can tell the difference between unknown languages and gibberish?

Boko haram/Chibok have already answered this. And it was not even their school not to talk about this man. So stop pretending like you do not understand the question.

Where did isay temporary? Are you pretending not to understand the question because you now understand that it's true answer quashes all the rubbish you are thinking?

Or did your father or uncle or boarding school principal not give you this kind of law?

If you find the answer too uncomfortable then it's better you stay silent, we already know why, instead of pretending and changing the question

what is your answer here?

Everyday247:
Are you saying that you can tell the difference between unknown languages and gibberish?

Are you 6? Can you not?

Everyday247:
what is your answer here?

I asked you my own question

"when you tell your children and nephew and nieces to be in your house by 9pm", does that Law apply to you? Are you under that law?

Answer this and then we will all see if your question makes sense.

MaxInDHouse:
Fact: The only evidence of blackholes is explanation not visibility!

You are free to say whatever, changes nothing, same way we treat flat earthers insisting the earth is flat. We did not get the images of m87 and Sagittarius from awake magazine. 😌 Feast ur eyes.

Lucifyre:
You are free to say whatever, changes nothing, same way we treat flat earthers insisting the earth is flat. We did not get the images of m87 and Sagittarius from awake magazine. 😌 Feast ur eyes.

God's word has said thousands of years before anybody thought of it that earth is spherical and that it's inhabitants are glued to the surface! Isaiah 40:22

That's not a blackhole because it's not BLACK just as you too won't welcome any information that's not in line with what your former religion taught you so bring a BLACKHOLE not red then i will believe it's visible!

Dtruthspeaker:
Are you 6? Can you not?

Can I then run a test to see if it's true?
I'll give some phrases and in 30 sec you'll tell me which ones are gibberish and which ones are not. Are you interested?

I asked you my own question

"when you tell your children and nephew and nieces to be in your house by 9pm", does that Law apply to you? Are you under that law?

Answer this and then we will all see if your question makes sense.

If it's your house the law doesn't apply to you and you can make any law you like for the house. Including laws that allows you to kill or rape anybody in the house.

This answer implies that gods are above moral laws since they are the law makers. Is this what you are saying?

MaxInDHouse:
God's word has said thousands of years before anybody thought of it that earth is spherical and that it's inhabitants are glued to the surface! Isaiah 40:22

That's not a blackhole because it's not BLACK just as you too won't welcome any information that's not in line with what your former religion taught you so bring a BLACKHOLE not red then i will believe it's visible!

Jesu!!!🙆🏽🙆🏽🙆🏽

Ive been laughing for a min 🤣🤣🤣. Like I said my aim was to demonstrate your loud ignorance - not convince you, that's a fool's errand I ain't running. Wasn't expecting you'd give the killer blow with the bolded. You literally made me lol.

Lucifyre:
Jesu!!!🙆🏽🙆🏽🙆🏽

Ive been laughing for a min 🤣🤣🤣. Like I said my aim was to demonstrate you loud ignorance. Thanks for the bolded. You literally made me lol.

Ọmọ nah BLACKHOLE i talk no be RED o!