₦airaland Forum

naijadeyhia:
Sorry if you are butthurt.

https://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/132/280/1307651951001.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/07/08/71/0708719d6fe2fb9063e66f3b24f5087c.jpg

jonbellion:
lol but I'm not naaa. Seems like you keep a lot of that cream with you so it sounds like it's a constant thing you face

jonbellion:
-

jonbellion:
lol but I'm not naaa. Seems like you keep a lot of that cream with you so it sounds like it's a constant thing you face

KingEbukasBlog:
Its obvious you don't know what special pleading is

naijadeyhia:
Stop playing confused young man. My reasoning is beyond what you are used to which is why you have this struggle. How would you even know a hallucination isnt real is it because someone said so or until you experience it and discover it truely isnt? How many hallucinations have you disproved beyod what you read on the internet or read up in books? Have you carried out a self assessment experimentally?

If i say God speaks to me how can you disprove that without providing your own exeperience under same conditions as mine? If i say God used me to cast out a demon how would you say the demon never existedn when you were not the person it was cast out from and did not experience what they experienced?

In a nutshell my simple response is actual experience in the realm of sanity.

Have you given your life to Christ as your Lord and Savior? If you have, have you received his spirit? Have you tasted of His power and seen that everything became different the moment you yielded to Him? Have you done a before and after comparison?

I believe you know what i am getting at.

naijadeyhia:
This guy reminds me of you JB




https://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/004/420/91f.gif

KingEbukasBlog:
Its obvious you don't know what special pleading is

naijadeyhia:
Stop playing confused young man. My reasoning is beyond what you are used to which is why you have this struggle. How would you even know a hallucination isnt real is it because someone said so or until you experience it and discover it truely isnt? How many hallucinations have you disproved beyod what you read on the internet or read up in books? Have you carried out a self assessment experimentally?

If i say God speaks to me how can you disprove that without providing your own exeperience under same conditions as mine? If i say God used me to cast out a demon how would you say the demon never existedn when you were not the person it was cast out from and did not experience what they experienced?

In a nutshell my simple response is actual experience in the realm of sanity.

Have you given your life to Christ as your Lord and Savior? If you have, have you received his spirit? Have you tasted of His power and seen that everything became different the moment you yielded to Him? Have you done a before and after comparison?

I believe you know what i am getting at.

CoolUsername:
You just asserted yourself that there's no way to know the difference.

naijadeyhia:
Look at it this way. If you were a fetus in the womb would you actually believe there is another world outside the womb? Would you even believe your mother who is currently carrying you in her womb exists? You wouldnt because all you have know for 8+ months have been the womb and there is absolutely nothing around you that suggests a world outside the womb exists. True or false?

CoolUsername:
You just asserted yourself that there's no way to know the difference.

CoolUsername:
If a foetus were to study it's environment (the womb) then it would know that the nutrients it receives come from an external source. It would see that its development is facilitated by cell division and conclude that it came from one itself. If it studied it's immediate environment, it would see the womb is also made up of cells too. It would then be reasonable to conclude that the carrier of the womb came from cells too and that there must be some form of cycle to sustain reproduction and an environment to receive nutrients.

Flawed analogy.

naijadeyhia:
Kids everywhere!

So the foetus would leave the comfort and confines of the womb and trace its umbilical Cord to the source of external nutrients when it clearly cannot do this due to its limitations (natural vs spiritual)

So the foetus is able to understand all about cells and the composition of its environment when it is yet to evolve to the state required to have access to such a level of knowledge (again natural vs spiritual)

Are you sure you are a critical thinker?

KingEbukasBlog:
Wow !!!!

How ? What the ? Oh my

Forget it

CoolUsername:
Don't be twit. You're the one who first used the foetus analogy. Do foetuses reason? You're the one who said the foetus can make an assertion. Well, if the foetus was smart enough to make such an assertion then it should be smart enough to practise the scientific method.

Why would you use an analogy if you don't know what an analogy is? Disgusting!

naijadeyhia:
C. Fallacies of Presumption (Faulty Form)

1. False Dilemma (Either/Or): Dawkins presents a false option between two extremes. On the one hand he portrays science as the heroic, rational pursuit of facts. On the other hand he portrays religion as the hypocritical, irrational pursuit of faith. Some of his criticisms may apply to certain cults and false religions, but not to historic Christianity. Faith and facts are not opposites. There’s no necessary contradiction between the two. In fact, the Pulitzer-prize winning historian, Rodney Stark, has argued: ”not only that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, but that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science". Dawkins argument is clearly distorted and false. For almost a millennium fides quaerens intellectum (“faith in search of understanding”) has been a Christian motto expressing the Christian motivation to seek the truth. It was Anselm’s dictum, echoing Augustine, about the positive relationship between faith and reason. All Biblically literate Christians know that they have been exhorted to use their minds to the best of their ability (Phil. 4: 8 ); to “be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matt. 10:16); and to “always be prepared to make a defense to any one calls you to account for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15). The oldest universities in the world, including Oxford, were founded by Christians who shared that conviction. Granted that Dawkins’ criticism may apply to some individuals or groups in the history of Christianity, but they have been the exception, not the rule.

Eminent historians and philosophers of science have acknowledged the unique formative role of Christianity in the origin of modern science. French-born American historian, teacher and cultural critic Jacques Barzun wrote that the ‘so-called warfare between science and religion [could] be seen as the warfare between two philosophies and perhaps two faiths, a dispute between the believers in consciousness and the believers in mechanical action; the believers in purpose and the believers in pure chance’”. Dinesh D’Souza points out in his recent study, What’s So Great About Christianity, modern science relies upon an “unsupported belief” both in the rationality of the universe and of our own minds. In a lecture at Harvard University in 1925 the eminent British philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, asserted that “faith in the possibility of science… is an unconscious derivative of medieval theology”.

Herbert Schneidau, in his widely acclaimed study of mythical cultures, Sacred Discontent, concluded that the Biblical worldview led to the rise of science and technology. By “desacralizing” nature, the Bible sanctioned critical, objective investigation of the world and a linear concept of time. Loren Eiseley, the late distinguished professor of Anthropology and the History of Science at the University of Pennsylvania went so far as to suggest that science was an “invention” of Christianity: “it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear, articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself”. John Lennox, a Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Oxford, has pointed out to Dawkins (in formal debates) that the Natural History Museum (where they have debated) was originally “dedicated to God and the investigation of divine design” please see:

http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/

2. Begging the Question (circular reasoning): Dawkins constantly assumes that which he purports to prove, namely, that a godless process of evolution is the cause of everything, including “apparent design.” For example, he asserts that: “Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it”. Although Dawkins claims that he will “show” the reader evidence for this belief, he fails to deliver. When the issue comes up again later, he simply repeats the assertion: “Entities that are complex enough to be intelligent are products of an evolutionary process” . Dawkins announces his “commitment to naturalism. He explains that: “An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe”. He seems unaware that he is making the same kind of unsupported faith commitment which he otherwise finds so inimical. In other words, Dawkins’ foundation is not facts or evidence, but a reductionistic faith in materialism. Naturalism assumes that nothing exists besides matter and energy. The end result of naturalism is self-contradiction. If our thoughts are nothing more than a random, bio-chemical process, then we have no basis to believe that our thoughts are true. They are equivalent to the secretions of our kidneys and other physical organs. In Darwin’s (and Dawkins’) world, our thoughts need not be “true,” only “useful”. But there’s no way to know which ideas are most useful at any given time. Only later will it be revealed which ideas “survive.” People are reduced to random metabolic units which receive and emit random sensory input. Although others might find this view dismal and dehumanizing, Dawkins claims to find it “liberating” and “emancipating".

When Dawkins is so transparent about his dislike for God, he opens himself to the charge of ‘theophobia,’ that is, a fear of (or revulsion against) God. C. S. Lewis identified this phenomenon and applied it to Sigmund Freud. As a result, Dr. Armand Nicholi, a professor at Harvard University has taught a course comparing the ideas of Freud and Lewis. In 2002 he published his findings in a book entitled: The Question of God:. Lewis agreed with Freud on one basic thing, that human beings have a tendency to "suppress" unpleasant truths." However, Lewis disagreed with Freud regarding which truths we find most unpleasant, and which truths we try hardest to suppress. Like Dawkins, Freud asserted that we are most afraid of "being alone" (i.e. without God) and of "being unloved" (i.e. without God's love). Lewis disagreed. Lewis said that when he became a Christian he reaIized that for many years his greatest fear had been "not being alone" (i.e. not being free to do whatever he wanted) and afraid of "being judged" (i.e. accountable to God). Similarly, whereas Freud argued that we "project" our "wishes" for moral order and life after death by "creating" (an imaginary) heaven, Lewis argued that we "project" our "wishes" for personal freedom and supremacy by "creating" (an imaginary) kingdom of our own.



3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause): This fallacy makes the unjustified assumption that when one thing precedes another, the first must cause the second. Dawkins adds a peculiar twist to this fallacy by arguing that the ‘simple’ must always precede the ‘complex.’ He insists that in the history of the universe simple processes must always have preceded (and produced) more complex systems. On the one hand, as mentioned earlier, Dawkins asserts the creative power of (simple) naturalistic evolution: “Entities that are complex enough to be intelligent are products of an evolutionary process“. On the other hand, Dawkins denies the admissibility of (complex) divine creative agency: “Any entity capable of intelligently designing something as improbable as a … universe would have to be even more improbable than [a universe]”.

The renowned philosopher, Anthony Flew, has called Dawkins’ argument “bizarre.” Dawkins offers no evidence in support of these assertions other than his admitted preference for any viewpoint which precludes divine activity. The logic of Dawkins’ argument (‘simple-always-precedes-complex’) is disproved by all human artistry and engineering as well as all forms of biological reproduction. The artist always precedes the work of art; the chicken always comes before the egg. If Dawkins’ logic was valid, then any human agency capable of designing something as improbable as a watch, a cathedral, or a spaceship would have to be considered “improbable.” There’s obviously something wrong with that. It is an accepted practice in logic to “infer to the most sufficient explanation.” In the debate about human origins, a strong argument can be made that only divine agency can account for human life and reason. By refusing to consider the possibility of divine creativity and causation, Dawkins ends up by threatening human creativity and causation as well.

Can a man be any more Fallacious than this?


[size=4pt]http://www.oxfordtutorials.com/Dawkins%20Debunked%20Summary.htm[/size]

akintom:
How does all these copy and paste on illogicality of reasons why Richard Dawkins didn't believe God exist, now translate to evidence of existence of God?

All the rebuttal books written by religious apologists, against the God Delusion, were mere emotional outburst, bereft of anything close to intelligent defense of their imaginary skydaddy.

naijadeyhia:
So you clearly do not see your own failure to grasp a simple analogy.

What is the link between the natural and the spiritual? Is it a door you open and close? If a foetus cannot know if there is a world outside the womb without being given a sneek peek or even know if the mother exists without a sneek peek, how then can you say the spiritual does not exist without having a sneep peek of your own? Which was why i talked about personal experiences and giving your life to Christ then receiving His spirit.

in fact you deserve another facepalm

CoolUsername:
Oh now you want to limit the ability for the foetus to study itself and its surrounding environment? Can you see the problem? You started imposing more limits once your analogy imploded. I gave a simple way for the foetus to know about the outside world just by studying itself. Now you're just trying to hide under memes.

This is the problem you face when you argue with unreasonable people.

CoolUsername:
@ KingEbukasBlog.

I wish, sometimes that you would provide actual evidence instead giving links of your friends' posts or those that don't support your point more than they do mine. Did you even read the Hawking's link to the end?

If you're going to make categorical statements then provide proof, at least.

I've been arguing with you and cohorts for days on end but only receive further speculation or thinly-veiled insults when I ask for proof.

This is what is gonna happen. I have a life and I can't keep going on and on about the same thing. If you're not going to provide some sort of source, then don't make such assertions.

CoolUsername:
First, there's nothing to indicate that the Universe needs one to exist.

CoolUsername:
You also used the same Game simulation theory that I already addressed when I said that the simulations we create work with the same principles as reality. If God doesn't work with the same principles then how does he creature the stimulation? But obviously, you glazed over that and said you don't take atheists seriously. Really?

akintom:
How does all these copy and paste on illogicality of reasons why Richard Dawkins didn't believe God exist, now translate to evidence of existence of God?

All the rebuttal books written by religious apologists, against the God Delusion, were mere emotional outburst, bereft of anything close to intelligent defense of their imaginary skydaddy.

KingEbukasBlog:
God is eternal - this precludes infinite regress . I understand that God is eternal and incorporeal . Please show me how I committed special pleading

naijadeyhia:
https://img.memecdn.com/unborn-facepalm2_o_125676.jpg

https://img.pandawhale.com/60981-Quadruple-Facepalm-meme-V9jF.jpeg


So you clearly do not see your own failure to grasp a simple analogy.

What is the link between the natural and the spiritual? Is it a door you open and close? If a foetus cannot know if there is a world outside the womb without being given a sneek peek or even know if the mother exists without a sneek peek, how then can you say the spiritual does not exist without having a sneep peek of your own? Which was why i talked about personal experiences and giving your life to Christ then receiving His spirit.

in fact you deserve another facepalm

[img]http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i55/2/2/13/frabz-ALL-You-have-to-do-is-PAY-ATTENTION-DAMN-f5d45b.jpg[/img]

CoolUsername:
If a foetus were to study it's environment (the womb) then it would know that the nutrients it receives come from an external source. It would see that its development is facilitated by cell division and conclude that it came from one itself. If it studied it's immediate environment, it would see the womb is also made up of cells too. It would then be reasonable to conclude that the carrier of the womb came from cells too and that there must be some form of cycle to sustain reproduction and an environment to receive nutrients.

Flawed analogy

akintom:
It's now your simple task, to prove following:

* what is the empirical basis of the cause of the uncaused (personal God).

* by what means shall you establish eternity empirically?

* by what means shall you refute infinite regression empirically?

Remember your claim of a "personal God", as you attempt this.

naijadeyhia:
Chai now i feel your pain. Are you this close minded not to realise why i had to use a foetus to give my analogy? This is too simple to miss but you have clearly missed it on 3 attempts. Gosh!

Let me ask you a simple question....

Is man not limited? If your answer is yes then consider the foetus.

If a foetus has absolutely no knowledge of a world outside the womb or no knowledge of its mom then consider the Atheist and his there is no God position.

If a foetus does not have the ability to understand its own environment then consider the Atheist vs God (spiritual)

Please if you are going to make a 4th attempt kindly get it right this time or i will not bother breaking it down any further.

CoolUsername:
[b]You cannot compare the womb (man's immediate environment) to spirituality because it was the inability for man to understand his immediate surroundings that gave birth to religion in the first place. [/b]The spiritual realm is the interchange unreachable place (outside the womb). Why are you now extending that to even inside the womb?

Your own analogy sends to change to suit your argument with each post.

KingEbukasBlog:
You keep repeating the same questions over and over again .

KingEbukasBlog:
You keep repeating the same questions over and over again .