₦airaland Forum

johnydon22:

Hunger is an effect of human anatomy and so is a feeling.
Love is an emotion
Desire also is an emotion. . . These are all projections of human mind and biological anatomy.

God is supposedly an independent existential being and so is not a feeling like the examples you gave.

Unless you think God is an emotion or feeling like those examples then it is proven that your God actually is a psychological projection..

KingEbukasBlog:
It does not answer my question though . Is that to be considered as a negative proposition . Yes or no ? I admire the skillful evasion though .

Plus ...
Life cannot come from the non living and then evolve to super complex forms like us . God (supernatural) orchestrated the process of life formation . I remember you telling me that you dont support the theory of evolution though you use it to explain the genesis of life formation .
Its a dumb theory beautified with flowery language in the name of science to deceive the weak . Admit it John , its a dumb theory

Taa ... mechigonu ... see ya mouth . I give you the audience so that should be my pay

KingEbukasBlog:
Those examples he gave are evidences that the human body is a design . Why do you think nature gave us emotions ? Please be plain and simple , no rigmaroles

This is more like asking me why do gravity form stars from matter..

Because you have left out the vital fact that the "Brain" is the organ in charge of emotions.

So emotions is not an external thing but a projection of your senses, emotion is a projection of the brain and is simply as a result of millions of neurointeractions in a biological entity..

Now by saying "Why" you have personalized nature by instigating a purpose for emotion therefore steering the phenomenon of emotion from the fact that it is simply a result of natural interactions of neurons and ultimately perception.

This is just like when you asked me "Why do we use the eyes to see"

Another logical fallacy... wonder when you will start leaving logical fallacies out of your discussions or maybe you don't even realize when you use them

KingEbukasBlog:
Lest I forget

@johnydon22 . We believe in an un- created God - a supreme being . Why do you think there is no possibility such can happen or there is such thing as a supreme being ?

johnydon22:
An evolutionist asking a creationist to prove evolution is not real is as ludicrous as a creationist telling an evolutionist to disprove creationism... Both postulations should be proven by the postulator and the burden of proof not reversed. . .

That's different from a statement being a negative proposition . So you understood me and chose to beat round the bush ba

Aaaaaah you once told me you don't know Biology you just showed it more... Actually evolution does not deal with emergence of life from non-living matter, that is an entirely different theory on it's own known as Abiogenesis. . .

Maybe you just need to go study more of your biology in order to see how absurd your assertion above sounds.

I purposely choose to leave the evolution part out of this now so as to not to make you mistake me for an evolutionist if i try teaching you what it is exactly evolution says, so i'd rather simply ignore and leave it..

johnydon22:
This is more like asking me why do gravity form stars from matter..
Because you have left out the vital fact that the "Brain" is the organ in charge of emotions.

So emotions is not an external thing but a projection of your senses, emotion is a projection of the brain and is simply as a result of millions of neurointeractions in a biological entity..

Now by saying "Why" you have personalized nature by instigating a purpose for emotion therefore steering the phenomenon of emotion from the fact that it is simply a result of natural interactions of neurons...

Another logical fallacy...

KingEbukasBlog:
Is asking you why cars have tyres a logical fallacy too ?
You are obviously insinuating that you dont know why and it just happened . Init ?

johnydon22:
First there is no evidence of such a being nothing what so ever simply a postulation based on "Faith" for basis which surely is a ludicrous form of deduction.

you believe in an unproven being, being uncreated then assert that the universe (which is proven to exist ) must require a creator?

When you employ the principle of causation as regard existentially it works like a double edged sword.

You assert nothing Can exist without a creator therefore the universe must have a creator, for this to hold sway (nothing can exist without a creator) that creator must also have a creator and this employs chain of infinite regress...

If you assert something can exist without a creator then the universe simply can be said to exist without a creator, so you see. . Either way it doesn't work.

And the best part is; The universe is actually a known existential entity but a deity is not (still an unproven claim)

KingEbukasBlog:
Based on Faith ? LOL

Something has to exist outside time to cause the existence of our universe . Its a simple as that .

You mock me for "asserting" that an uncreated God made the universe and then you distance yourself from the inanity of an always existing universe with "an unproven claim" gibberish . LOL again

johnydon22:
[b][i]You see?

By reconciling an inanimate entity as a car with a biological entity you have also committed another logical fallacy.

Man is a biological entity and so like every other biological organism is known to regenerate on it's own, improve to adapt .

Again by saying "Why" you have shifted emotion from the perception and has determined "emotion" is an external construct which obviously is a lie... "

KingEbukasBlog:
@johnydon22


If the universe has always been existing at what point was time , matter , planets , gases formed ?

The universe is comprised of all these . So if the universe is an always existing entity then its constituents have always been existing

johnydon22:
[b][i]You see? In a feeble attempt to try and make sense of your assertion you throw in more absurd assertions.

First "Outside space and time" is another claim which you have to prove that there is such a thing as outside space and time.

You probably didn't grab a simple analogy.

KingEbukasBlog:
Its based on one concept - design
Man and any other organism were designed to adapt . Simple

The so called improvement is the gradual attainment of an organism's full capabilities . Evolution gives a false impression of a gradual improvement over a long period of time .

The primitive men had the same level of intelligence as the modern man . Its like they were fresh after creation by God

Yes that is why Adam flew an airplane

"Why" begs for reason and then purpose

KingEbukasBlog:
[size] There is no proving [/size]its common sense and you agreeing means you have to believe in God so you see then see it as illogical or a "theory" worth proving . Unless you can explain the initial conditions of the Big Fraud Theory and why it denies the first cause

Actually , there was nothing to grab there . It does not even hold water

johnydon22:
[b][i]Let me reverse this question too.. If God always existed at what point was Angels, Cherubs and co formed?

I believe there is a scientific theory called the "BIG BANG" theory that stipulates this point, i will simply leave you go read this theory cus i have no need arguing with the big bang which is yet to be perfected and i don't yet agree with..

Simple. . . all these constituents are constructs of interactions within the entity mainly Gravity and matter...going from scientific observations.

johnydon22:
[b][i]lmao. . still clinging on it? When a scientific theory as evolution asserts organisms modify to adapt, you shout "i don't believe it" at the same time leaning towards that premise now by instigating adaptation which you now heaps on design. .

Can't you just simply say like me "i don't know" and save yourself this ludicrous assertion of assumptive constructs?

Save yourself the embarrassment of asserting what you can't prove

You are now the one leaning towards evolutionary
trend. . First you have agreed to improvements which is typically evolutionary assertion. . See how you just dabbled into the premise you argue against yourself?

Yes that is why Adam flew an airplane

KingEbukasBlog:
God is the creator of all things and Angels are His creations .

Time is a characteristic of our universe and not God's "universe " . So obviously at some point the were created . By the way , the angels witnessed creation

Meaning that another God must exist outsides Gods universe in order to create God's universe. . Following your ludicrous analogy of unrelated causation, see how you killed your own argument?

God exists outside this universe in order to create this universe (in your own words exists in his own Universe) Now another God must have existed outside God's universe in order to create God's universe. . .And so we are back again to the chain of infinite regress. . you can never escape it

But ... but .... We are arguing for an uncreated God and not the Angels Johnny is reaching his breaking point

I think you just reached that by not knowing what is called reversed psychology. . . You still have not told us at what point Angels were created

You mean the Big Fraud Theory ? You don't agree with the Big Fraud Theory beautified into find garden of language and don't agree with the SCAMvolution theory ?

My friend ya a christian with style sha

Aaaaw thats cute, the muslims think so too...

So at what point in an always existing universe did time start then accretion of the earth then abiogenesis and then evolution ?

Am sure i referred you to a theory that asserts this point. . "BIG BANG theory"

johnydon22:

You see what i mean? You intend to lay out your assumptions without proof and is proud to lay out this postulation.

I think the bolded settles it and has now revealed how absurd and illogical the assumptions you employed are...
Read it again i made it very basic..

KingEbukasBlog:
So then can we conclude that you dont know why man has emotions ? Because that was the basis of the above argument

Am sure i laid out what emotions are, perceptive projections as a result of neurointeractions in a biological entity. . .You probably didn't understand that

We have concluded that now you have leaned your argument towards agreeing with the idea of evolution by instigating modification for adaptation. . You are an unknown evolutionist

From your way of reasoning , babies should hold academic degrees

Aaaaw am so so sure people reading this can identify which among us is still quite juvenile in reason.

When a sane human compares the intellectual prowess of modern man and primitive men in order to deny development in intellectual capabilities which is evidently clear by simply looking at both civilizations make me want to cover my face in shame for you ooo

johnydon22:
Bullseyes.. You just landed.

Same way all the components of the universe are constructs of the universe ...you see?
Meaning that another God must exist outsides Gods universe in order to create God's universe. . Following your ludicrous analogy of unrelated causation, see how you killed your own argument?


God exists outside this universe in order to create this universe (in your own words exists in his own Universe) Now another God must have existed outside God's universe in order to create God's universe. . .And so we are back again to the chain of infinite regress. . you can never escape it


[b][i]I think you just reached that by not knowing what is called reversed psychology. . . You still have not told us at what point Angels were created

Pheeeeew i simply will just leave you to take that up with evolutionists and big bang advocates.

[b][i]Aaaaw thats cute, the muslims think so too...

KingEbukasBlog:
Without proof ?

SOMETHING EXISTS OUTSIDE TIME - ITS COMMON SENSE

Hahahaha is this where it landed you? . . .Hmmm pity.

First you have not told us what outside time is exactly, you are still laying claim of which demands proof. .

It is not common sense, it is actually common insanity

KingEbukasBlog:

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
What kind of ludicrous fatuous deduction is this ? And I even put the universe in quote ooo ... LMAOOOOOOO
We are discussing about an uncreated God and not where He dwells or His angels

And so betrays when someone runs out of juice... You see the condition your assumptions has put you into.

Now you want to deny the principle of causation which you employed? . . Chai. . . weak

By now asserting an uncreated God that exists on it's own without another God existing outside it's dimension in order to bring it into existence shows the universe do not also need a creator existing outside it to create it.

If you assert the universe must require such then you employ back the chain of infinite regress..

Go on, choose again..

Cam here and defend science osiso

Hahaha defend? You simply should have said, please come and teach me science and we would go down to basics at least start from simple definition of biological organism because you probably would freak out if i dabble into quantum mechanics..

johnydon22:
Am sure i laid out what emotions are, perceptive projections as a result of neurointeractions in a biological entity. .

We have concluded that now you have leaned your argument towards agreeing with the idea of evolution by instigating modification for adaptation. . You are an unknown evolutionist ;

Aaaaw am so so sure people reading this can identify which among us is still quite juvenile in reason.

When a sane human compares the intellectual prowess of modern man and primitive men in order to deny development in intellectual capabilities which is evidently clear by simply looking at both civilizations make me want to cover my face in shame for you ooo [/i][/b]

johnydon22:
And so betrays when someone runs out of juice... You see the condition your assumptions has put you into.

Now you want to deny the principle of causation which you employed? . . Chai. . . weak

By now asserting an uncreated God that exists on it's own without another God existing outside it's dimension in order to bring it into existence shows the universe do not also need a creator existing outside it to create it.

If you assert the universe must require such then you employ back the chain of infinite regress..

Go on, choose again..

Hahaha defend? You simply should have said, please come and teach me science and we would go down to basics at least start from simple definition of biological organism because you probably would freak out if i dabble into quantum mechanics..

KingEbukasBlog:
LMAO ... its a frecking design !!!! You are just explaining how it works.
Science studied the human brain and understood emotions .

Hhmmm you just ran out of argument.. . You sure do know according to Christians God get angry which is an emotion, this is also design? hahahahahahahaha lets hear it.

2NDLY I simply postulated how natural interactions bring about results which debunks your assertion of unrelated causation. . .Just calm down and learn..

Modification ?
I never said that oo . I said attainment of full capabilities . There were no
modifications

And this shows such a thing in it's initial state had to develop in order to attain the present capabilities still leans you towards evolutionary postulation.

Bros Evolution is a wacky theory huh?

Its simple analogy
Man was created and then developed intellectually over a long time through
experience and study just like a a young one gaining knowledge passing through
stages of education - nursery , primary , secondary , tertiary .
The mental state is the object now

KingEbukasBlog:
Breaking point reached

Is God living in a material/physical world ? Again ... we are arguing for an uncreated God and not where He dwells

You don't even understand your own arguments. .

You are still the one who asserts God exists (dwells) outside space and time and now you want to dump that premise?

That's not too good an argument bro. . .You are still trying to boycott the principle of causation and the same time employ it for the universe. . Ayam sorry

Does everything that exist require a creator? Yes. then for God to exist it must also require a creator.

No. .then the universe needs no creator...

johnydon22:
Hhmmm you just ran out of argument.. . You sure do know according to Christians God get angry which is an emotion, this is also design? hahahahahahahaha lets hear it.

2NDLY I simply postulated how natural interactions bring about results which debunks your assertion of unrelated causation. . .Just calm down and learn..

And this shows such a thing in it's initial state had to develop in order to attain the present capabilities still leans you towards evolutionary postulation.

Bros Evolution is a wacky theory huh?

Knowledge is a mental product.

So now you have agreed to the development of intellectual capabilities after aimlessly rejecting it. .

Hhmmm. . .quite bleak...lol...

johnydon22:
You don't even understand your own arguments. .

You are still the one who asserts God exists (dwells) outside space and time and now you want to dump that premise?

That's not too good an argument bro. . .You are still trying to boycott the principle of causation and the same time employ it for the universe. . Ayam sorry

Does everything that exist require a creator? Yes. then for God to exist it must also require a creator.

No. .then the universe needs no creator...

KingEbukasBlog:
Unrelated causation ? But the Big Fraud Theory comes to mind quickly

Lmao. . .take that up with big bang theorists or better still scientists.

Fun fact: Big bang theory was first postulated by a theist not just any theist but a christian, in fact a catholic priest named Georges Lemaître . . It is a scientific theory you just seem threatened by it because it goes contrary to your beliefs.

Basically , Evolution as in physical modification . Do you even get what I mean ?

So you saying a baby evolves to an adult but intellectually and otherwise?

Evolution simply means development and for development to occur their must be changes.

Now you want to reconcile primitive men and modern with babies and and adult differences. .Good.

You continue to prove man's intellect developed with time and so primitive men were never as intelligent as modern man is now neither are we going to be as intelligent as coming generations of humans.

Development is a constant process..

johnydon22:
First there is no evidence of such a being nothing what so ever simply a postulation based on "Faith" for basis which surely is a ludicrous form of deduction.

2nd you believe in an unproven being, being uncreated then assert that the universe (which is proven to exist ) must require a creator?

When you employ the principle of causation as regard existentially it works like a double edged sword.

You assert nothing Can exist without a creator therefore the universe must have a creator, for this to hold sway (nothing can exist without a creator) that creator must also have a creator and this employs chain of infinite regress...

If you assert something can exist without a creator then the universe simply can be said to exist without a creator, so you see. . Either way it doesn't work.

And the best part is; The universe is actually a known existential entity but a deity is not (still an unproven claim)