₦airaland Forum

KingEbukasBlog:
@ 4kings bro , please , can you peruse this thread so you can explain exactly what this young man has failed utterly to grasp

Now you need help obviously.

akintom:
Now you need help obviously.

For the umpteenth time , anecdotal evidence is the best proof for a Personal God - this means it can't serve as evidence for an Impersonal God , the type the deists believe in . Deists repudiate anecdotal evidences no matter how cogent they are - to them there is no divine presence of the creator in the universe . Precis : To the deists , anecdotal evidence isn't proof for God's existence .

Is the Supreme Being also a personal God - that's another argument entirely and that is where anecdotal evidences can be scrutinized to ascertain if indeed The Supreme Being is a personal God .

If you can't understand this with its perspicuity , then I can't help you !

KingEbukasBlog:
For the umpteenth time , anecdotal evidence is the best proof for a Personal God - this means it can't serve as evidence for an Impersonal God , the type the deists believe in . Deists repudiate anecdotal evidences no matter how cogent they are - to them there is no divine presence of the creator in the universe . Precis : To the deists , anecdotal evidence isn't proof for God's existence .

Is the Supreme Being also a personal God - that's another argument entirely and that is where anecdotal evidences can be scrutinized to ascertain if indeed The Supreme Being is a personal God .

If you can't understand this with its perspicuity , then I can't help you !

You're just wirlwinding, i understood all these your unnecessary reiteration, from the very post i quoted you from.

All my writings are focused on the idea of a PERSONAL GOD.

And in this my present post, am challenging this your outrageous claim of "anecdotal evidence is the best proof for a Personal God".

Anecdotal evidence is as useless as any other evidences advanced for the existence of a personal God.

akintom:
You're just wirlwinding, i understood all these your unnecessary reiteration, from the very post i quoted you from.

All my writings are focused on the idea of a PERSONAL GOD.

And in this my present post, am challenging this your outrageous claim of "anecdotal evidence is the best proof for a Personal God".

Anecdotal evidence is as useless as any other evidences advanced for the existence of a personal God.

You never did young man . Saying that the God idea was dead because you felt anecdotal evidences are untenable . That's why I kept saying that if you reject anecdotal evidence , it does not impugn the existence of the Supreme Being.

Well if anecdotal evidence isn't cogent enough to prove that the Supreme Being is a Personal God , what do you suggest ? Or are you saying the Supreme Being is not a Personal God ?

KingEbukasBlog:
You never did young man . Saying that the God idea was dead because you felt anecdotal evidences are untenable . That's why I kept saying that if you reject anecdotal evidence , it does not impugn the existence of the Supreme Being.

Well if anecdotal evidence isn't cogent enough to prove that the Supreme Being is a Personal God , what do you suggest ? Or are you saying the Supreme Being is not a Personal God ?

You simply take pleasure in unnecessary advances of arguments. Perish it, it's irritatingly infantile.

Now that you're ready, let's get started.

Issues to debate:

1. God/Supreme being/personal God

2. Anecdotes/Anecdotal evidence


God idea is man created idea. There's no empirical evidence yet, of a REAL or TRUE God being. Therefore, God as a being doesn't exist.

A "personal God" is a consequential follow up to the God idea created and conceptualized by man. Of a necessary manifestations, that God must take on personal attributes.

Anecdotes are uniquely personal human experiences. All kinds of mental level of health can have experience. Psychiatrist and psychologists, have presented to us, all kinds of Anecdotes tied to God.

I not only reject anecdotal evidences, i consider them nonsensical.

akintom:
You simply take pleasure in unnecessary advances of arguments. Perish it, it's irritatingly infantile.

You lack proper understanding of the issues you want to debate .

Now that you're ready, let's get started.

Issues to debate:

1. God/Supreme being/personal God

The Supreme Being is the precursor of the universe - the creative force behind the existence of nature . "God" is simply an appellation of the Supreme Being and in some depictions like in pantheism God is the universe .

A Personal God is simply an immanent God whose divine presence is experienced in Nature - interested/ intervening in the affairs of man etc

2. Anecdotes/Anecdotal evidence

I already said that anecdotal evidence are empirical and verifiable . There are also well documented anecdotal evidences for levitation

E.g There are documented evidence of Catholic priests and levitation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_and_levitation

And there is the popular Joseph of Cupertino : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Cupertino

People witnessed these acts of levitation happen right before their eyes but of course the usual skeptics which involved believers of an impersonal God like the deists and the non believers like the atheists contravened the stories .

God idea is man created idea.

Prove it

There's no empirical evidence yet, of a REAL or TRUE God being. Therefore, God as a being doesn't exist.

Logical fallacy argumentum ad ingnorantim - it asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This means it is illogical to assert that God does not exist because you have not found empirical evidence or a lack of contrary evidence .

The evidence for God's existence is overwhelming - including the design and complexity of Nature , intelligence in humans , social interaction , morality etc

A "personal God" is a consequential follow up to the God idea created and conceptualized by man. Of a necessary manifestations, that God must take on personal attributes.

Anecdotes are uniquely personal human experiences. All kinds of mental level of health can have experience. Psychiatrist and psychologists, have presented to us, all kinds of Anecdotes tied to God.

I not only reject anecdotal evidences, i consider them nonsensical

.

You have prove that anecdotal evidences are absurd - its illogical to claim they are absurd without actually proving it .

[quote author=KingEbukasBlog post=51015343]You lack proper understanding of the issues you want to debate .




The Supreme Being is the precursor of the universe - the creative force behind the existence of nature . "God" is simply an appellation of the Supreme Being and in some depictions like in pantheism God is the universe .

A Personal God is simply an immanent God whose divine presence is experienced in Nature - interested/ intervening in the affairs of man etc



I already said that anecdotal evidence are empirical and verifiable . There are also well documented anecdotal evidences for levitation

E.g There are documented evidence of Catholic priests and levitation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_and_levitation

And there is the popular Joseph of Cupertino : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Cupertino

People witnessed these acts of levitation happen right before their eyes but of course the usual skeptics which involved believers of an impersonal God like the deists and the non believers like the atheists contravened the stories .



Prove it



Logical fallacy argumentum ad ingnorantim - it asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This means it is illogical to assert that God does not exist because you have not found empirical evidence or a lack of contrary evidence .

The evidence for God's existence is overwhelming - including the design and complexity of Nature , intelligence in humans , social interaction , morality etc

.

You have prove that anecdotal evidences are absurd - its illogical to claim they are absurd without actually proving it . [/quote


Using Anecdotes to prove the existence of God that doesn't exist is = absurdity and delusion.


All that you have claimed as the evidence of your existence, is derived from your Bible. Just as evidence of a personal Spiderman can be established by script and cinema.

akintom:
Using Anecdotes to prove the existence of God that doesn't exist is = absurdity.

You have to prove that there is no God .

Honestly , I expected a profound rebuttal but its you so ...

KingEbukasBlog:
You have to prove that there is no God .

Honestly , I expected a profound rebuttal but its you so ...

I have told you that there's no empirical evidence of God existence. What you claim to be your evidences are mere assumptions.

The burden of prove is now on you.

KingEbukasBlog:
You have to prove that there is no God .

Honestly , I expected a profound rebuttal but its you so ...

The evidence for God's existence is overwhelming - including the design and complexity of Nature , intelligence in humans , social interaction , morality etc


You call the above evidences of your God existence? A slowpoke will do better.

akintom:
The evidence for God's existence is overwhelming - including the design and complexity of Nature , intelligence in humans , social interaction , morality etc


You call the above evidences of your God existence? A slowpoke will do better.

You keep talking foolishly and I just deign every damn time to respond to your rigmarole . You need to relish the attention I'm giving to someone like you

KingEbukasBlog:
You keep talking foolishly and I just deign every damn time to respond to your rigmarole . You need to relish the attention I'm giving to someone like you

I gave you attention because i needed to checkmate your mischievous attempt to derail my thread. And to prevent your religious hogwash, from having foothold on the mind of any reader viewing this page.

You obviously don't understand any word of "empirical evidence".

Every of your claims of existence of God is referenced from the Bible, some Anecdotes (subject to all kinds of flaws, skews, and manipulations). How can all these your sources be taken seriously? Or accorded any authority?

Do you really take all these your religious buffoonery seriously?

akintom:
I gave you attention because i needed to checkmate your mischievous attempt to derail my thread. And to prevent your religious hogwash, from having foothold on the mind of any reader viewing this page.

You obviously don't understand any word of "empirical evidence".

Every of your claims of existence of God is referenced from the Bible, some Anecdotes (subject to all kinds of flaws, skews, and manipulations). How can all these your sources be taken seriously? Or accorded any authority?

Do you really take all these your religious buffoonery seriously?

Empirical Evidence Definition : Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).

The empirical evidence for God exists in nature through careful examination , observation of the design and complexity of nature , its cause and functionalities of its constituents etc . So intellectually , its more of deduction that a creator is responsible for/orchestrated the existence , complexity and functionality of nature .

Intellectually/Logically , since the universe has a cause and a beginning , it must have a creator . The universe owes its cause of existence to its creator , God is simply the appellation of this Creator who exits in a transcendent reality which is immaterial and causeless - existing eternally.

KingEbukasBlog:
Empirical Evidence Definition : Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).

The empirical evidence for God exists in nature through careful examination , observation of the design and complexity of nature , its cause and functionalities of its constituents etc . So intellectually , its more of deduction that a creator is responsible for/orchestrated the existence , complexity and functionality of nature .

Intellectually/Logically , since the universe has a cause and a beginning , it must have a creator . The universe owes its cause of existence to its creator , God is simply the appellation of this Creator who exits in a transcendent reality which is immaterial and causeless - existing eternally.

EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence.

This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.

Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists.

This is the primary source of empirical evidence. Secondary sources describe, discuss, interpret, comment upon, analyze, evaluate, summarize, and process primary sources. Secondary source materials can be articles in newspapers or popular magazines, book or movie reviews, or articles found in scholarly journals that discuss or evaluate someone else's original research.

Empirical evidence may be synonymous with the outcome of an experiment. In this regard, an empirical result is a unified confirmation.

In this context, the term semi-empirical is used for qualifying theoretical methods that use, in part, basic
axioms or postulated scientific laws and experimental results. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods, which are purely deductive and based on first principles .

In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community.

Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results , conference presentation, and journal publication .

This requires rigorous communication of hypothesis (usually expressed in mathematics), experimental constraints and controls (expressed necessarily in terms of standard experimental apparatus), and a common understanding of measurement.


Do you still claim that your prove of God existence, has gone through this process?

Catholic priests levitating is evidence of god? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! Someone saw them levitating? No pictures? No video evidence?!!! Just the same old empty and worthless words that someone saw it?!!!

Chai!!! These guys have run out of ideas!!! Uptil now no evidence except "men of god wey dey float like balloon"!!!

Niflheim:
Catholic priests levitating is evidence of god? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! Someone saw them levitating? No pictures? No video evidence?!!! Just the same old empty and worthless words that someone saw it?!!!

Chai!!! These guys have run out of ideas!!! Uptil now no evidence except "men of god wey dey float like balloon"!!!

Theists on this platform are now bunch of deflated wheels.