johnydon22:

can we then put it that energy is god?

energy is the mother of nature and nature is the mother of the universe...and according to the law of nature, law of predatory and law of civilization..."The fittest survive and the weaker give way"..but when germany started the holocaust..you stood up to condemn it...you say that adolf hitler is evil and you say that dracula is a devil..but they are following the law of nature or rather the law of energy ...if you say that is Energy is God then we are sopposed to behave like pigs that eat their young when hungry, we are supposed to kill our husbands after mating (black widow spider)..we are supposed to kill the weaker guy when battling for a female...we see the law of nature or permit me to say the law of energy (lol), in goats where the stronger male can have upto 300 female goats to himself but why despite the wealth, fame and looks of C.Ronaldo, ur girlfriend sticks to you...why do you feel bad when someone lies to you, why do you not fancy your mother and urge to mate her like dogs...why do you feel joy after passing and feel bad for a friend that fails...dnt tell me its because we are higher organisms because classes are set using the percentage of our brain we can use, unlike goats and cows that use at all at all 3%, we humans use 10% nd shocking to find that dolphins use maximum of 25%..and still yet there do not show signs of love or feel bad to eat themselves when hungry...

You say prove that god doesn't exist, I can't prove that because christians generally refuse to have an open mind. They refuse to think for them selves, because once they do that their bible says they are using human reasoning which is not on the same level as gods apparently

what I have is this. Richard Dawkins and Ricky Gervais said/asked this, I'm just paraphrasing.

You believe in your god because of where you were born, eg
southern nigeria(mostly christians) believe in the christian god,
north believe in allah,
middle east believe allah,
india have hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism,
old greece, zeus hera and other greek gods
old norway sweeden believed in odin, thor and other norse gods
romans jupiter apollo and other roman gods.

the question is would you believe god(christian one) if you were born in any of these other places?

other questions
1, would you still believe in god if you were the only person in the world who believed in him.
2, how do you know that your god is the right one?
3, how old do you think the earth is? According to the bible and it's history the earth is less than 6000 years, but it's but it's been proven to be over 4billion years old.

Noahs ark was filled with 2 of every animal on the planet + noahs family.
questions:
1, why didn't the animals eat each other since predators and prey were put together.
2, how did the animals feed? grass for goats, sheep and cows, trees for girraffes, fresh meat for lions tigers bears etc....
3, there are about 8.7million species of animals on the earth today. and it is said that this accounts for less than 1% of all species that have ever existed and we lose about 1000 species every year to extinction, please tell me how it was possible for noah to fit that into an ark that was
158.7m long by 26.45m wide by 15.87m high keep in mind that the titanic was (269.06 m) long (28.19 m) wide and 10.57m high and could only take about 3,547people

you'll just say god used his mystical powers to expand the ark, and keep the humans and animals not hungry. and make the ark strong enough not to sink due to the combined weight of everything on board. Am I right?

anthoniosp:
energy is the mother of nature and nature is the mother of the universe...and according to the law of nature, law of predatory and law of civilization..."The fittest survive and the weaker give way"..but when germany started the holocaust..you stood up to condemn it...you say that adolf hitler is evil and you say that dracula is a devil..but they are following the law of nature or rather the law of energy ...if you say that is Energy is God then we are sopposed to behave like pigs that eat their young when hungry, we are supposed to kill our husbands after mating (black widow spider)..we are supposed to kill the weaker guy when battling for a female...we see the law of nature or permit me to say the law of energy (lol), in goats where the stronger male can have upto 300 female goats to himself but why despite the wealth, fame and looks of C.Ronaldo, ur girlfriend sticks to you...why do you feel bad when someone lies to you, why do you not fancy your mother and urge to mate her like dogs...why do you feel joy after passing and feel bad for a friend that fails...dnt tell me its because we are higher organisms because classes are set using the percentage of our brain we can use, unlike goats and cows that use at all at all 3%, we humans use 10% nd shocking to find that dolphins use maximum of 25%..and still yet there do not show signs of love or feel bad to eat themselves when hungry...

I'm going to focus on a few points you made.
1, we use 100% of our brains, just like every other animal with a brain. all that 10% crap is just that. complete crap
2, dolphins are smart as Bleep and can be as nasty as humans. ie dolphins rape, they bully other dolphins etc.
3, elephants when they lose a friend or a member of the group, they mourn some cry as well.
4, monkeys chimps gorillas all mourn the death of a friend as well. they have social classes as well.
5, animals in 2, 3, 4 all have great memories form bonds with others of their species + humans, and they remember each other. like a monkey remembering a human friend it had 5-10 years ago.

she sticks to you because not everything is about fame wealth and looks. and you expect humans to act like animals when every animal is unique in its own way. eg why doesn't the monkey eat it's young. why do elephant have 22 month long pregnancies, why do turtles live for over 200, why do some animals eat meat, and some grass?

don't expect a human to act like a spider because humans are not frigging spiders!!!

anthoniosp:
MR man...lay down ur proofs, facts and evidence..give me reasons why you say God never existed

Should I also give you reason why unicorns don't exist or why mermaids are fictional? You're the person claiming to have a unicorn on a leash in your backyard. Someone asks to see your legendary unicorn, you respond by first demanding proof of its nonexistence. If you keep the thing in your backyard, why can't you just show it to me?

fuzzyrambler:


I'm going to focus on a few points you made.
1, we use 100% of our brains, just like every other animal with a brain. all that 10% crap is just that. complete crap
2, dolphins are smart as Bleep and can be as nasty as humans. ie dolphins rape, they bully other dolphins etc.
3, elephants when they lose a friend or a member of the group, they mourn some cry as well.
4, monkeys chimps gorillas all mourn the death of a friend as well. they have social classes as well.
5, animals in 2, 3, 4 all have great memories form bonds with others of their species + humans, and they remember each other. like a monkey remembering a human friend it had 5-10 years ago.

she sticks to you because not everything is about fame wealth and looks. and you expect humans to act like animals when every animal is unique in its own way. eg why doesn't the monkey eat it's young. why do elephant have 22 month long pregnancies, why do turtles live for over 200, why do some animals eat meat, and some grass?

don't expect a human to act like a spider because humans are not frigging spiders!!!

Wait so the same science that said we use just 10% now says we use 100%....intresting...so you says ur bae doesn't stick to you because of welath fame and looks but according to ur law(law of nature) she is not sopposd 2 b with u..instead she shld be with c ronaldo...and wat do you mean by ITS NOT EVERYTHING?? nd Mr Man before you start..please be loading your answer on "why do you condemn the holocaust, boko haram, ISIS when all their actions are jusitified by the laws of nature??" Abi una don dey turn against una mother nature??

Weah96:


Should I also give you reason why unicorns don't exist or why mermaids are fictional? You're the person claiming to have a unicorn on a leash in your backyard. Someone asks to see your legendary unicorn, you respond by first demanding proof of its nonexistence. If you keep the thing in your backyard, why can't you just show it to me?

wait wat is dis 1 saying??...infact are you an atheist or a scientologist..let me know where to handle ur bucket from!!

Mr weah..hope you can without much ado, show me energy..

fuzzyrambler:
You say prove that god doesn't exist, I can't prove that because christians generally refuse to have an open mind. They refuse to think for them selves, because once they do that their bible says they are using human reasoning which is not on the same level as gods apparently

what I have is this. Richard Dawkins and Ricky Gervais said/asked this, I'm just paraphrasing.

You believe in your god because of where you were born, eg
southern nigeria(mostly christians) believe in the christian god,
north believe in allah,
middle east believe allah,
india have hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism,
old greece, zeus hera and other greek gods
old norway sweeden believed in odin, thor and other norse gods
romans jupiter apollo and other roman gods.

the question is would you believe god(christian one) if you were born in any of these other places?

other questions
1, would you still believe in god if you were the only person in the world who believed in him.
2, how do you know that your god is the right one?
3, how old do you think the earth is? According to the bible and it's history the earth is less than 6000 years, but it's but it's been proven to be over 4billion years old.

Noahs ark was filled with 2 of every animal on the planet + noahs family.
questions:
1, why didn't the animals eat each other since predators and prey were put together.
2, how did the animals feed? grass for goats, sheep and cows, trees for girraffes, fresh meat for lions tigers bears etc....
3, there are about 8.7million species of animals on the earth today. and it is said that this accounts for less than 1% of all species that have ever existed and we lose about 1000 species every year to extinction, please tell me how it was possible for noah to fit that into an ark that was
158.7m long by 26.45m wide by 15.87m high keep in mind that the titanic was (269.06 m) long (28.19 m) wide and 10.57m high and could only take about 3,547people

you'll just say god used his mystical powers to expand the ark, and keep the humans and animals not hungry. and make the ark strong enough not to sink due to the combined weight of everything on board. Am I right?

you see ur problem?? U with ur fuzzy rumbling!! Have said that I am a christian?? Have I said that my God is the only God??...wat I asked you is simple "is God alive??"....dnt go and qoute richard dawkins and sam harris for me..

anthoniosp:
just in a thread closeby you said you where a creation of nature and biology..I posed a question 2 you that you answered by saying nature recreates itself...but what ever has a recreation once had a creation...

* The big bang theory*

When the world says 2+2 equals 4...the answer is 4..but diffrent languages pronounce 4 in diffrent tounges and dat is the problem with religion but you atheist have yourselves out and have said no "2+2 is not equal to 4", because the difrrent languages pronounce 4 in diffrent tounges and you have become so confused that instead of trying to understand one language to get the message that "2+2 equals 4," you people keep shouting and jumping up and down that 4 can never b d answer...wat matters is simply how its calculated...some choose to use fingers, some prefer using stones, some abacus, some calculator and some just do the thinking in the head..its ur choice to choose the one that suits you.....






And eheen let it be known that I have already won one argument ooh...
"Since God cannot be created nor destroyed then he does not exist and if energy cannot be created nor destroyed it does not exist but since you guys say energy exist then rightfully God also exist"...#genius


Oyaa next case "is energy the same as God?"......

godsgift233:



* The big bang theory*

abi ooh na true true big bang theory..no b only big bang theory na sheldon cooper...mtcheew

anthoniosp:
Mr weah..hope you can without much ado, show me energy..

E=MC^2.

Mass times speed of light squared is energy. Do you want me to show you something with mass? Have you seen light before?

anthoniosp:
abi ooh na true true big bang theory..no b only big bang theory na sheldon cooper...mtcheew

i cant argue with you because of your sense of reasoning.

Weah96:


E=MC^2.

Mass times speed of light squared is energy. Do you want me to show you something with mass? Have you seen light before?

pls tell them ilogical christians.

yorke1:
Interesting.There is God...that's what I believe afterall what do I have to lose. It is too risky to believe there is no God and found out there is at the end when it would have been late.

Do you mind telling us the risk?

anthoniosp:
wait wat is dis 1 saying??...infact are you an atheist or a scientologist..let me know where to handle ur bucket from!!

You asked for proof showing that your deity is imaginary and non-existent. I replied by saying that you should present proof that it isn't. Why? Because you're making a claim without evidence.

If I told you that I've got a live mermaid in my bedroom who likes to listen to P Square music while playing with her pikin who is a baby angel with wings, you couldn't prove me wrong. My mermaid vanishes if anyone other than me enters the room. She takes her angel pikin with her. Case closed.

No human being on earth can prove me wrong. I can keep adding disclaimers and conditions to the point where you'll have to either insult me or slap me. My mermaid doesn't like to be tested, my mermaid doesn't like to be seen by other human beings, cameras cannot capture her, she knows when someone is planning something... etc.

why are we debating if god is alive when he never existed. Reasons :

1: The consistent replacement of
supernatural explanations of the
world with natural ones.
When you look at the history of what
we know about the world, you see a
noticeable pattern. Natural
explanations of things have been
replacing supernatural explanations of
them. Like a steamroller. Why the Sun
rises and sets. Where thunder and
lightning come from. Why people get
sick. Why people look like their
parents. How the complexity of life
came into being. I could go on and on.
All these things were once explained
by religion. But as we understood the
world better, and learned to observe it
more carefully, the explanations
based on religion were replaced by
ones based on physical cause and
effect. Consistently. Thoroughly. Like
a steamroller. The number of times
that a supernatural explanation of a
phenomenon has been replaced by a
natural explanation? Thousands upon
thousands upon thousands.
Now. The number of times that a
natural explanation of a phenomenon
has been replaced by a supernatural
one? The number of times humankind
has said, "We used to think (X) was
caused by physical cause and effect,
but now we understand that it's
caused by God, or spirits, or demons,
or the soul"?
Exactly zero.
Sure, people come up with new
supernatural "explanations" for stuff
all the time. But explanations with
evidence? Replicable evidence?
Carefully gathered, patiently tested,
rigorously reviewed evidence?
Internally consistent evidence? Large
amounts of it, from many different
sources? Again -- exactly zero.
Given that this is true, what are the
chances that any given phenomenon
for which we currently don't have a
thorough explanation -- human
consciousness, for instance, or the
origin of the Universe -- will be best
explained by the supernatural?
Given this pattern, it's clear that the
chances of this are essentially zero.
So close to zero that they might as
well be zero. And the hypothesis of the
supernatural is therefore a hypothesis
we can discard. It is a hypothesis we
came up with when we didn't
understand the world as well as we do
now... but that, on more careful
examination, has never once been
shown to be correct.
If I see any solid evidence to support
God, or any supernatural explanation
of any phenomenon, I'll reconsider my
disbelief. Until then, I'll assume that
the mind-bogglingly consistent
pattern of natural explanations
replacing supernatural ones is almost
certain to continue.
(Oh -- for the sake of brevity, I'm
generally going to say "God" in this
chapter when I mean "God, or the soul,
or metaphysical energy, or any sort of
supernatural being or substance." I
don't feel like getting into discussions
about, "Well, I don't believe in an old
man in the clouds with a white beard,
but I believe..." It's not just the man in
the white beard that I don't believe in.
I don't believe in any sort of religion,
any sort of soul or spirit or
metaphysical guiding force, anything
that isn't the physical world and its
vast and astonishing manifestations.

2: The inconsistency of world
religions.
If God (or any other metaphysical
being or beings) were real, and people
were really perceiving him/ her/ it/
them, why do these perceptions differ
so wildly?
When different people look at, say, a
tree, we more or less agree about
what we're looking at: what size it is,
what shape, whether it currently has
leaves or not and what color those
leaves are, etc. We may have
disagreements regarding the tree --
what other plants it's most closely
related to, where it stands in the
evolutionary scheme, should it be cut
down to make way for a new sports
stadium, etc. But unless one of us is
hallucinating or deranged or literally
unable to see, we can all agree on the
tree's basic existence, and the basic
facts about it.
This is blatantly not the case for God.
Even among people who do believe in
God, there is no agreement about what
God is, what God does, what God
wants from us, how he acts or doesn't
act on the world, whether he's a he,
whether there's one or more of him,
whether he's a personal being or a
diffuse metaphysical substance. And
this is among smart, thoughtful people.
What's more, many smart, thoughtful
people don't even think God exists.
And if God existed, he'd be a whole lot
bigger, a whole lot more powerful,
with a whole lot more effect in the
world, than a tree. Why is it that we
can all see a tree in more or less the
same way, but we don't see God in
even remotely the same way?
The explanation, of course, is that God
does not exist. We disagree so
radically over what he is because we
aren't perceiving anything that's real.
We're "perceiving" something we
made up; something we were taught to
believe; something that the part of our
brain that's wired to see pattern and
intention, even when none exists, is
inclined to see and believe.

3: The weakness of religious
arguments, explanations, and
apologetics.
I have seen a lot of arguments for the
existence of God. And they all boil
down to one or more of the following:
The argument from authority.
(Example: "God exists because the
Bible says God exists." The argument
from personal experience. (Example:
"God exists because I feel in my heart
that God exists." The argument that
religion shouldn't have to logically
defend its claims. (Example: "God is
an entity that cannot be proven by
reason or evidence." Or the
redefining of God into an abstract
principle... so abstract that it can't be
argued against, but also so abstract
that it scarcely deserves the name
God. (Example: "God is love."
And all these arguments are
ridiculously weak.
Sacred books and authorities can be
mistaken. I have yet to see a sacred
book that doesn't have any mistakes.
(The Bible, to give just one example, is
shot full of them.) And the feelings in
people's hearts can definitely be
mistaken. They are mistaken,
demonstrably so, much of the time.
Instinct and intuition play an important
part in human understanding and
experience... but they should never be
treated as the final word on a subject.
I mean, if I told you, "The tree in front
of my house is 500 feet tall with hot
pink leaves," and I offered as a
defense, "I know this is true because
my mother/ preacher/ sacred book
tells me so"... or "I know this is true
because I feel it in my heart"... would
you take me seriously?
Some people do try to prove God's
existence by pointing to evidence in
the world. But that evidence is
inevitably terrible. Pointing to the
perfection of the Bible as a historical
and prophetic document, for
instance... when it so blatantly is
nothing of the kind. Or pointing to the
fine-tuning of the Universe for life...
even though this supposedly perfect
fine-tuning is actually pretty crappy ,
and the conditions that allow for life
on Earth have only existed for the
tiniest fragment of the Universe's
existence and are going to be boiled
away by the Sun in about a billion
years. Or pointing to the complexity of
life and the world and insisting that it
must have been designed... when the
sciences of biology and geology and
such have provided far, far better
explanations for what seems, at first
glance, like design.
As to the argument that "We don't have
to show you any reason or evidence,
it's unreasonable and intolerant for
you to even expect that"... that's
conceding the game before you've
even begun. It's like saying, "I know I
can't make my case -- therefore I'm
going to concentrate my arguments on
why I don't have to make my case in
the first place." It's like a defense
lawyer who knows their client is
guilty, so they try to get the case
thrown out on a technicality.
Ditto with the "redefining God out of
existence" argument. If what you
believe in isn't a supernatural being or
substance that has, or at one time had,
some sort of effect on the world...
well, your philosophy might be an
interesting one, but it is not, by any
useful definition of the word, religion.

www.alternet.org/story/154774/the_top_10_reasons_i_don't_believe_in_god

anthoniosp:
you see ur problem?? U with ur fuzzy rumbling!! Have said that I am a christian?? Have I said that my God is the only God??...wat I asked you is simple "is God alive??"....dnt go and qoute richard dawkins and sam harris for me..

Okay fine. the answer is no, he is not since he never existed in the first place

anthoniosp:

Wait so the same science that said we use just 10% now says we use 100%....intresting...so you says ur bae doesn't stick to you because of welath fame and looks but according to ur law(law of nature) she is not sopposd 2 b with u..instead she shld be with c ronaldo...and wat do you mean by ITS NOT EVERYTHING?? nd Mr Man before you start..please be loading your answer on "why do you condemn the holocaust, boko haram, ISIS when all their actions are jusitified by the laws of nature??" Abi una don dey turn against una mother nature??

the 10% thing has been since the victorian era, and has been disproved by neurologists. bae? the fact that you don't even understand what you call the law of nature actually irks me.

how are their actions justified? and even if it is, it doesn't mean it's morally right.

fuzzyrambler:


the 10% thing has been since the victorian era, and has been disproved by neurologists. bae? the fact that you don't even understand what you call the law of nature actually irks me.

how are their actions justified? and even if it is, it doesn't mean it's morally right.

look at this man!!the question is..how do you know that something is moral or not??...since when did we start diffrentiating right from wrong??

anthoniosp:
look at this man!!the question is..how do you know that something is moral or not??...since when did we start diffrentiating right from wrong??

what is it that tells you this is wrong or right??

Weah96:


You asked for proof showing that your deity is imaginary and non-existent. I replied by saying that you should present proof that it isn't. Why? Because you're making a claim without evidence.

If I told you that I've got a live mermaid in my bedroom who likes to listen to P Square music while playing with her pikin who is a baby angel with wings, you couldn't prove me wrong. My mermaid vanishes if anyone other than me enters the room. She takes her angel pikin with her. Case closed.

No human being on earth can prove me wrong. I can keep adding disclaimers and conditions to the point where you'll have to either insult me or slap me. My mermaid doesn't like to be tested, my mermaid doesn't like to be seen by other human beings, cameras cannot capture her, she knows when someone is planning something... etc.

Bro it is very simple...he wants proof..the proof is simple His lack of proof that his god exists, is our proof.

godsgift233:
why are we debating if god is alive when he never existed. Reasons :

1: The consistent replacement of
supernatural explanations of the
world with natural ones.
When you look at the history of what
we know about the world, you see a
noticeable pattern. Natural
explanations of things have been
replacing supernatural explanations of
them. Like a steamroller. Why the Sun
rises and sets. Where thunder and
lightning come from. Why people get
sick. Why people look like their
parents. How the complexity of life
came into being. I could go on and on.
All these things were once explained
by religion. But as we understood the
world better, and learned to observe it
more carefully, the explanations
based on religion were replaced by
ones based on physical cause and
effect. Consistently. Thoroughly. Like
a steamroller. The number of times
that a supernatural explanation of a
phenomenon has been replaced by a
natural explanation? Thousands upon
thousands upon thousands.
Now. The number of times that a
natural explanation of a phenomenon
has been replaced by a supernatural
one? The number of times humankind
has said, "We used to think (X) was
caused by physical cause and effect,
but now we understand that it's
caused by God, or spirits, or demons,
or the soul"?
Exactly zero.
Sure, people come up with new
supernatural "explanations" for stuff
all the time. But explanations with
evidence? Replicable evidence?
Carefully gathered, patiently tested,
rigorously reviewed evidence?
Internally consistent evidence? Large
amounts of it, from many different
sources? Again -- exactly zero.
Given that this is true, what are the
chances that any given phenomenon
for which we currently don't have a
thorough explanation -- human
consciousness, for instance, or the
origin of the Universe -- will be best
explained by the supernatural?
Given this pattern, it's clear that the
chances of this are essentially zero.
So close to zero that they might as
well be zero. And the hypothesis of the
supernatural is therefore a hypothesis
we can discard. It is a hypothesis we
came up with when we didn't
understand the world as well as we do
now... but that, on more careful
examination, has never once been
shown to be correct.
If I see any solid evidence to support
God, or any supernatural explanation
of any phenomenon, I'll reconsider my
disbelief. Until then, I'll assume that
the mind-bogglingly consistent
pattern of natural explanations
replacing supernatural ones is almost
certain to continue.
(Oh -- for the sake of brevity, I'm
generally going to say "God" in this
chapter when I mean "God, or the soul,
or metaphysical energy, or any sort of
supernatural being or substance." I
don't feel like getting into discussions
about, "Well, I don't believe in an old
man in the clouds with a white beard,
but I believe..." It's not just the man in
the white beard that I don't believe in.
I don't believe in any sort of religion,
any sort of soul or spirit or
metaphysical guiding force, anything
that isn't the physical world and its
vast and astonishing manifestations.

2: The inconsistency of world
religions.
If God (or any other metaphysical
being or beings) were real, and people
were really perceiving him/ her/ it/
them, why do these perceptions differ
so wildly?
When different people look at, say, a
tree, we more or less agree about
what we're looking at: what size it is,
what shape, whether it currently has
leaves or not and what color those
leaves are, etc. We may have
disagreements regarding the tree --
what other plants it's most closely
related to, where it stands in the
evolutionary scheme, should it be cut
down to make way for a new sports
stadium, etc. But unless one of us is
hallucinating or deranged or literally
unable to see, we can all agree on the
tree's basic existence, and the basic
facts about it.
This is blatantly not the case for God.
Even among people who do believe in
God, there is no agreement about what
God is, what God does, what God
wants from us, how he acts or doesn't
act on the world, whether he's a he,
whether there's one or more of him,
whether he's a personal being or a
diffuse metaphysical substance. And
this is among smart, thoughtful people.
What's more, many smart, thoughtful
people don't even think God exists.
And if God existed, he'd be a whole lot
bigger, a whole lot more powerful,
with a whole lot more effect in the
world, than a tree. Why is it that we
can all see a tree in more or less the
same way, but we don't see God in
even remotely the same way?
The explanation, of course, is that God
does not exist. We disagree so
radically over what he is because we
aren't perceiving anything that's real.
We're "perceiving" something we
made up; something we were taught to
believe; something that the part of our
brain that's wired to see pattern and
intention, even when none exists, is
inclined to see and believe.

3: The weakness of religious
arguments, explanations, and
apologetics.
I have seen a lot of arguments for the
existence of God. And they all boil
down to one or more of the following:
The argument from authority.
(Example: "God exists because the
Bible says God exists." The argument
from personal experience. (Example:
"God exists because I feel in my heart
that God exists." The argument that
religion shouldn't have to logically
defend its claims. (Example: "God is
an entity that cannot be proven by
reason or evidence." Or the
redefining of God into an abstract
principle... so abstract that it can't be
argued against, but also so abstract
that it scarcely deserves the name
God. (Example: "God is love."
And all these arguments are
ridiculously weak.
Sacred books and authorities can be
mistaken. I have yet to see a sacred
book that doesn't have any mistakes.
(The Bible, to give just one example, is
shot full of them.) And the feelings in
people's hearts can definitely be
mistaken. They are mistaken,
demonstrably so, much of the time.
Instinct and intuition play an important
part in human understanding and
experience... but they should never be
treated as the final word on a subject.
I mean, if I told you, "The tree in front
of my house is 500 feet tall with hot
pink leaves," and I offered as a
defense, "I know this is true because
my mother/ preacher/ sacred book
tells me so"... or "I know this is true
because I feel it in my heart"... would
you take me seriously?
Some people do try to prove God's
existence by pointing to evidence in
the world. But that evidence is
inevitably terrible. Pointing to the
perfection of the Bible as a historical
and prophetic document, for
instance... when it so blatantly is
nothing of the kind. Or pointing to the
fine-tuning of the Universe for life...
even though this supposedly perfect
fine-tuning is actually pretty crappy ,
and the conditions that allow for life
on Earth have only existed for the
tiniest fragment of the Universe's
existence and are going to be boiled
away by the Sun in about a billion
years. Or pointing to the complexity of
life and the world and insisting that it
must have been designed... when the
sciences of biology and geology and
such have provided far, far better
explanations for what seems, at first
glance, like design.
As to the argument that "We don't have
to show you any reason or evidence,
it's unreasonable and intolerant for
you to even expect that"... that's
conceding the game before you've
even begun. It's like saying, "I know I
can't make my case -- therefore I'm
going to concentrate my arguments on
why I don't have to make my case in
the first place." It's like a defense
lawyer who knows their client is
guilty, so they try to get the case
thrown out on a technicality.
Ditto with the "redefining God out of
existence" argument. If what you
believe in isn't a supernatural being or
substance that has, or at one time had,
some sort of effect on the world...
well, your philosophy might be an
interesting one, but it is not, by any
useful definition of the word, religion.

wait...have I qouted bible for you??...stop giving me why you think God does not exist..give me facts that show that God does not exist...

johnydon22:

Bro it is very simple...he wants proof..the proof is simple His lack of proof that his god exists, is our proof.

you people keep striking diffrent match boxes at a time...just now one of you said that you guys are from energy..after I win that one..una con come say na energy be God..after una confuse una selves ..una con begin ask me for proof say my God exist..and told you that an evidence is our morals that counter or disagree with the survival of the fittest. (Predatory law of nature)...now you are saying that I lack proof!! And now you guys are in the christians language of "he exist and that is all I know".... And one is saying "his lack of proof is our proof"..meaning you guys virtually don't have any proof that God does not exist..I can easily turn it around d same way that "your dependence on me for proof means that you have no proof that God does not exist and so i rightfully infer that ur lack of proof shows that God exists"...

anthoniosp:
you people keep striking diffrent match boxes at a time...just now one of you said that you guys are from energy..after I win that one..una con come say na energy be God..after una confuse una selves ..una con begin ask me for proof say my God exist..and told you that an evidence is our morals that counter or disagree with the survival of the fittest. (Predatory law of nature)...now you are saying that I lack proof!! And now you guys are in the christians language of "he exist and that is all I know".... And one is saying "his lack of proof is our proof"..meaning you guys virtually don't have any proof that God does not exist..I can easily turn it around d same way that "your dependence on me for proof means that you have no proof that God does not exist and so i rightfully infer that ur lack of proof shows that God exists"...

lmao... their is need for you to review what you just wrote... sorry i am way to advanced for this...You lack basic comprehension...

johnydon22:

lmao... their is need for you to review what you just wrote... sorry i am way to advanced for this...You lack basic comprehension...

so una don run abi?? All these atheist una think say una dey craze abi una don jam who mad pass una today..after fustrating xtians, be like "may God help you to understand"...now una dey come with "you lack basic comprehension"...make una come ooh..una never see anything yet...bunch of confused organisms...

anthoniosp:
so una don run abi?? All these atheist una think say una dey craze abi una don jam who mad pass una today..after fustrating xtians, be like "may God help you to understand"...now una dey come with "you lack basic comprehension"...make una come ooh..una never see anything yet...bunch of confused organisms...

You see the problem?...you cant even have a good discussion, just yap rubbish and think any atheist or agnostic will ever care to waste time with you... smh...

johnydon22:
You see the problem?...you cant even have a good discussion, just yap rubbish and think any atheist or agnostic will ever care to waste time with you... smh...

I can't even have a good discussion??...this thread has been on since yesterday and you came along and started with the insults and you say that I can't even have a good discussion!!!wait...I know atheist to be good thinkers not people that go about looking for the slightest chance to lay insults...what you all have been on this thread doing is telling me that you don't think God exist and you have failed to back it up with proof...I know you atheists always question religious people when they say God exist but you people become powerless when the question becomes "how can u prove that God does not exist??".......confused looser

anthoniosp:
I can't even have a good discussion??...this thread has been on since yesterday and you came along and started with the insults and you say that I can't even have a good discussion!!!wait...I know atheist to be good thinkers not people that go about looking for the slightest chance to lay insults...what you all have been on this thread doing is telling me that you don't think God exist and you have failed to back it up with proof...I know you atheists always question religious people when they say God exist but you people become powerless when the question becomes "how can u prove that God does not exist??".......confused looser

No the question is "how can you prove god exists?"

johnydon22:

No the question is "how can you prove god exists?"

...you are the person that wants to change the whole worlds ideology, you are the ones that go into every possible thread chanting "there is no God"...before atheism there was christianity so by virtue of that you are supposed to explain yourself..

You came into a thread...
ME: there is a God
You: no!! there is no God?...
ME: why do you say such? Can you prove it??
You: No!!
ME: then why do you say God does not exist
You: Nothing..he doesn't just exist...

So who needs to do the explanation??

mentorandfriend:
Someone should give me a mention when the debate heats up, so I can patiently educate the atheists.

hehehe come ooh....this atheist guys are helpless to the core...