₦airaland Forum

PulsingPurple:
Let me call you sir.
You're my elder after all.

I'll give you an easy exit, sir.

There's a way lawyers and other relevant bodies speak in court, and you can see that all their words are intentional, their points, precise, even when they have their own preferences and personal emotions to display.
I'm betting you've seen a written legal agreement before (plenty times).

If we can't try to achieve that here, then I'm no longer interested in any sort of argument here on Nairaland (till further notice).
We've spoken before, nothing came out of it. Why repeat the exact same pattern? That's REDUNDANT.

You saw my thread and called for an argument because you have contrasting opinions. I paused to emphasize there should be terms to this conversation. I was particular about properly defining all words we'll be using going on, from God to evidence.
I also talked about open-mindedness, being logical, answering what's presented before you.

In all this (like every single one fr fr), you fail. There's no sense in moving forward.

Not like I've even introduced any new thing, I just created some analogies, asked some questions, tried to start clarifying some terms, isn't that HOW ARGUMENTS WORK?... The definition of God as a proper noun is something you could easily Google, the meaning of evidence and the concept I'm pushing is something you could also crosscheck, but only IF YOU WANTED TO.

There's the ISSUE—You don't want to.
And that's a very obvious sign of close-mindedness.
In the process you dismissed everything you were told/asked.
It can very easily be inferred that you're not up for a logical conversation.

See how you directly match the opposite of my terms... the opposite of who I'm willing to discuss with?

So what can I say?
NO, I refuse to indulge you sir.

LoLz. This is too funny. I said I would rather have evidence but instead of providing the evidence or even simply defining what you think evidence is, you've gone on this long rambling rant about different things that get nowhere close to examining any evidence.

The problem here is you so whatever you wanna do is up to you.

LordReed:
LoLz. This is too funny. I said I would rather have evidence but instead of providing the evidence or even simply defining what you think evidence is, you've gone on this long rambling rant about different things that get nowhere close to examining any evidence.

The problem here is you so whatever you wanna do is up to you.

You ask for evidence to argue on and disprove, I ask for a proper argument while we're at it.

You don't want that, I don't accept your invitation to argue either.

I guess we're done here. 🤝

PulsingPurple:
You ask for evidence to argue on and disprove, I ask for a proper argument while we're at it.

You don't want that, I don't accept your invitation to argue either.

I guess we're done here. 🤝

Bwahahahahahaha! SMH!

PulsingPurple:
Ehh true. But then here the argument is not even about the one true God, whoever He may be (or it/she/he if you prefer).
The idea here is just establishing a vague definition of an entity that fits the role of what we (the majority) keep in mind when we refer to a 'God', and then proceeding to question all claims that point to the possible existence of this entity.

It's basically saying, “Take a look at this world, shouldn't it have a creator? A creator who has to be powerful enough to create, and knows everything because He created. Creator? Superiorly powerful? Superiorly intelligent? Hence fitting the basic definition of a God?“
No specifics yet, just the idea.

If the above is the question, what would be your response if I may ask?

Hello! Sorry, I'd been very busy this past week.
My answer to all these questions will be that asking them in that context already means you are creating the idea for a god already. For me, GOD, if anyone like that exists at all (in the context of a being all-powerful, and all-knowing), should never even be a question. We do not need to create a GOD to have creation. If there is a creator, it should be all too obvious without a possibility of a debate.

I always thought the idea of whether or not there is a GOD should be common sense answer; it should never require a high IQ or some intelligent explanations. If it isn't obvious already, no debate can make it so. A god should not be proven, it should be real, except if this GOD is some impersonal thing; maybe some "all-powerful", impersonal force of creation (like the big bang, or evolution, or universal gravity, or mathematics). Even these forces of nature are all too obvious. They should be open (as they are) for debate though.

So if we talk of a creator as a natural force of nature; Yes! It makes total sense. But as some conscious all-powerful, all-knowing being? NAH!

Cashme29:
Hello! Sorry, I'd been very busy this past week.
My answer to all these questions will be that asking them in that context already means you are creating the idea for a god already. For me, GOD, if anyone like that exists at all (in the context of a being all-powerful, and all-knowing), should never even be a question. We do not need to create a GOD to have creation. If there is a creator, it should be all too obvious without a possibility of a debate.

I always thought the idea of whether or not there is a GOD should be common sense answer; it should never require a high IQ or some intelligent explanations. If it isn't obvious already, no debate can make it so. A god should not be proven, it should be real, except if this GOD is some impersonal thing; maybe some "all-powerful", impersonal force of creation (like the big bang, or evolution, or universal gravity, or mathematics). Even these forces of nature are all too obvious. They should be open (as they are) for debate though.

So if we talk of a creator as a natural force of nature; Yes! It makes total sense. But as some conscious all-powerful, all-knowing being? NAH!

I agree with the core premise of this submission which is why I have no place for these arguments for god. Any real phenomenon has incontrovertible evidence of its existence. We see nothing in this universe that subverts this notion, gods will not be an exception especially if they supposedly do things in this universe.

Cashme29:
Hello! Sorry, I'd been very busy this past week.
My answer to all these questions will be that asking them in that context already means you are creating the idea for a god already. For me, GOD, if anyone like that exists at all (in the context of a being all-powerful, and all-knowing), should never even be a question. We do not need to create a GOD to have creation. If there is a creator, it should be all too obvious without a possibility of a debate.

I always thought the idea of whether or not there is a GOD should be common sense answer; it should never require a high IQ or some intelligent explanations. If it isn't obvious already, no debate can make it so. A god should not be proven, it should be real, except if this GOD is some impersonal thing; maybe some "all-powerful", impersonal force of creation (like the big bang, or evolution, or universal gravity, or mathematics). Even these forces of nature are all too obvious. They should be open (as they are) for debate though.

So if we talk of a creator as a natural force of nature; Yes! It makes total sense. But as some conscious all-powerful, all-knowing being? NAH!

Hello, good morning sir.

Well then?
All is well.

Was a relatively nice conversation. Won't try pushing any agenda

LordReed:
I agree with the core premise of this submission which is why I have no place for these arguments for god. Any real phenomenon has incontrovertible evidence of its existence. We see nothing in this universe that subverts this notion, gods will not be an exception especially if they supposedly do things in this universe.

The human brain is in this universe and it defies explanation.
I know your answer is evolution but as with the human eye, its still hard to justify.

DeepSight:
The human brain is in this universe and it defies explanation.
I know your answer is evolution but as with the human eye, its still hard to justify.

What do you mean defies explanation? The brain has evidence of its existence.

LordReed:
What do you mean defies explanation? The brain has evidence of its existence.

I mean the process by which it came to exist. It's waaaaaaaaaay too super a computer for any explanation such as, oh, it evolved through natural selection, or oh, it just exists. Evolution does not explain the human brain - which is by orders of magnitude more complex than any computer in existence.

DeepSight:
I mean the process by which it came to exist. It's waaaaaaaaaay too super a computer for any explanation such as, oh, it evolved through natural selection, or oh, it just exists. Evolution does not explain the human brain - which is by orders of magnitude more complex than any computer in existence.

That's a different matter. It exists we don't need arguments to determine that.

LordReed:
That's a different matter. It exists we don't need arguments to determine that.

Ah I wasn't discussing its existence.

DeepSight:
Ah I wasn't discussing its existence.

Ok.