₦airaland Forum

dalaman:
What is God? Does it exist? How can any body get to know that God exist on its own independently, objectively and in a verifiable manner in such a way that any body that looks at it will agree and come to the same conclusion? The burden of proof is always on the claimant.

Look in the mirror and you will discover God

6barz:
I read your post and I actually think you are the one getting it wrong.

Your maths analogy is wrong because you have not only made assertions, your assertions are not even consistent with your position. Firstly, apart from cloudgoddess, you are the second atheist that have alluded to the fact that you do not know if God exists. If you do not know, how come you believe or claim it does not exist?  Seems we might need to start defining our religious perception and God before we start debating but the issue is, if you say you do not know and I say I do not know, how can we then define that which we do not know? Just like dalaman asked me to define what God is and when I told him God is the process through which everything started. He thinks it is ridiculous because he can't disprove that which he does not understand. If I have told him the definition of God based on a construct of my own understanding, then he will be eager to disprove my God theory. As if there's a global definition of God.‎

Back to your equation, it is actually funny that you have:

Made assumptions that W and Y are odd numbers and then asks us to find Z‎
You have introduced a known variable - 15
You have alluded to the fact that the atheist was sure there was no solution but then you have also asserted that the atheist needed to prove that 3 odd numbers cannot give an even number. So the atheist is not looking for Z per se, he's just trying to disprove the solution given by the theist that Z cannot be 50. 

So the theist final answer is Z is 50. But most atheist then say, nope since Z cannot be 50 based on known construct(s), there's no Z. How convenient..‎
‎
If the atheist is sure there is no solution, why is he trying disprove it? That's cherry picking...

If I change the whole scenario to say - since we do agree that we do not know,

If W + X + Y = Z, find Z

Can we find Z? Obviously not, for all we know, Z might be just Z or a number, an integer, a symbol...‎

Now the scenario is 

The theist looks at it and say since God is perfect, God must be even. So if God is even, all numbers should be even. 

So Z is 20 because 20+20+20/3 = 20. Viola.‎

The atheist then say that's not right because 15 + 30 + 15/3 = 20. After all God has some odd properties.

Looking at both, can we really say we know what Z is? ‎

You are busy faulting my analogy. I only gave you a general overview maybe i should break it down further.
Before the cause of lightning was known, the theist said Zeus was the cause of lightning but the atheist said he doesnt know the cause neither does the theist. But there is no proof of zeus causing lightning. What the atheeist dont know is what causes lightening but he knows really well what could cause it can never be a god. And this we know today.

I was shocked you went further to say Z doesnt exist. Bro that is an analogy and you dont expect it to cover precisely everything concerning the god argument. The essence of the analogy is to let you know this: that i don't know the value of Z doesnt mean i can't detect a wrong value of Z when i see it base on existing mathematical logic. Going further to say that since there are three unknowns, then the solution cannot be determined with existing equations. Even if there is an existing solution by substituting arbitrary odd values, i can never get an even number. All these maths logic gives me the authority to disprove and debunk any answer except you prove logically beyond iota of doubt.

Theists: I dont know the solution but i feel it's 50

Atheist: I don't know the solution, but all mathematical logic points that it can NEVER be 50 or any even number. And since Mr. Theist cannot prove that it is 50 using any existing or non-existing mathematical logic, then I strongly conclude it is NOT 50!

onyenze123:
Look in the mirror and you will discover God

you sound like an autotheist

hopefulLandlord:
you sound like an autotheist

"Let's make man in our own image and likeness"

look at your mirror again.


FYI: I don't like labels

onyenze123:
"Let's make man in our own image and likeness"
look at your mirror again.

FYI: I don't like labels

so you accept biblical creation stories?

6barz:
As an Atheist, you are also guilty of the same assertion that you have labeled Christianity with.

No Hypocrisy exist, in the response of atheists, to the claim of existence of something called God (by any group).

What you probably relied on, to assert so, is the idea that atheists accept something called God, as a valid proposition.

The question as to why atheists, can't say God doesn't exist, is a non-existing one, because atheists never came up with God idea.

God idea is a proposition, that crop up, when humans attempt to bridge knowledge-gap, via assumptions.

6barz:
I Just like dalaman asked me to define what God is and when I told him God is the process through which everything started. He thinks it is ridiculous because he can't disprove that which he does not understand. If I have told him the definition of God based on a construct of my own understanding, then he will be eager to disprove my God theory. As if there's a global definition of God.‎

You've just proven my case that God is a man made idea and creation . To you God is the process through which everything started. That is an idea and conception that you just created from your mind. You also admit that there are different concepts and definitions of God which is true because God is a man made creation and idea, that is why there are different conceptions of God, all made by men based of different reasons.

dalaman:
You've just proven my case that God is a man made idea and creation . To you God is the process through which everything started. That is an idea and conception that you just created from your mind. You also admit that there different concepts and definitions of God which is true God is a man made creation and idea that is why there are different conceptions of God, all made by men based of different reasons.

Succinct

Billyonaire:
I took my time, from a busy schedule to write to you about God, and you did not respond but still go on rampage making hasty generalizations about issues outside the faculty of logic of the left brain hemisphere. I will totally understand if your Questions About God is just an egotistic overdrive of an individual who just cares about winning an argument. None of you atheists and theists are wrong, and none of you are right.

Does it occur to you, that there could be something in the middle ground, sorry, not middle ground, but something outside the perspective of left, right and center ? This is 3D thinking, subject to 5 senses, organs located on a vehicle, a container, which the multi-dimensional entity occupies just to experience existence in 3D.

If you want to know my credentials - A former Atheist. I didnt say there is God, I didnt say there is no God. I am just saying....What if God is the one asking the Question...What if you are IT. What if I am IT, what if we are all IT ?

If you are ready to join me in rabbit-hole, and land at the sun as gateway, a wormhole to the next dimension. Then, we can start with me teaching you how to breath, how to look at your palm and know the state of your health if you will die soon.....what if I tell you that you do not know what types of beings have lived and get destroyed on the Earth you walk on billions before things like Humans get even sequenced by the other ETs. They all ask about God. Yet, God they were and we have been told time and again. We refuse to believe because we do not expect to be Gods and be so wicked. You are playing your part in the great orchestra. You will joke about this on the other side.

How do I know all these ? Well, you will soon find out.

Oga Billy kpele for my pranks.So how do once activate his Mekaba?

dalaman:
You've just proven my case that God is a man made idea and creation . To you God is the process through which everything started. That is an idea and conception that you just created from your mind. You also admit that there are different concepts and definitions of God which is true because God is a man made creation and idea, that is why there are different conceptions of God, all made by men based of different reasons.

Your arguments are so poor and irrational . Man deducing a creator's existence does not mean that man created God . With your logic , since man created the idea that God does not exist , therefore God exists .

chemystery:
You are busy faulting my analogy. I only gave you a general overview maybe i should break it down further.
Before the cause of lightning was known, the theist said Zeus was the cause of lightning but the atheist said he doesnt know the cause neither does the theist. But there is no proof of zeus causing lightning. What the atheeist dont know is what causes lightening but he knows really well what could cause it can never be a god. And this we know today.

I was shocked you went further to say Z doesnt exist. Bro that is an analogy and you dont expect it to cover precisely everything concerning the god argument. The essence of the analogy is to let you know this: that i don't know the value of Z doesnt mean i can't detect a wrong value of Z when i see it base on existing mathematical logic. Going further to say that since there are three unknowns, then the solution cannot be determined with existing equations. Even if there is an existing solution by substituting arbitrary odd values, i can never get an even number. All these maths logic gives me the authority to disprove and debunk any answer except you prove logically beyond iota of doubt.

Theists: I dont know the solution but i feel it's 50

Atheist: I don't know the solution, but all mathematical logic points that it can NEVER be 50 or any even number. And since Mr. Theist cannot prove that it is 50 using any existing or non-existing mathematical logic, then I strongly conclude it is NOT 50!

Continue your dumb false analogies .

Theism : x+ y = z

Atheism : x+y = p

Both groups have to provide proof that x+y = p or z . If sum is p , provide proof ; if sum is z , provide proof .

ScepticalPyrrho:
You need to take a class on Logical Reasoning.

This has nothing to do with my post . This a vacuous empty cop-out .

All what you atheists do is to regurgitate nonsense from atheist websites . You support empiricism , I support rationalism . Rationalism has depth because it can logically delve into realms our senses can't decipher .

KingEbukaNaija:
Continue your dumb false analogies .

Theism : x+ y = z

Atheism : x+y = p

Both groups have to provide proof that x+y = p or z . If sum is p , provide proof ; if sum is z , provide proof .

I know you are good with badmouthing, please, i'm not good in that. Why not use more superior analysis to debunk my analogy instead of badmouthing as a defense mechanism. If you can't, can't you just pass by. Gerrit?

Ebuka prove that a substance called whjkrbbdjajbrhuuebiua does not exists. Is it not my duty to define whjkrbbdjajbrhuuebiua, then prove it's existence before asking you to prove it doesn't exist?
The onus probandi remains on the theist to prove god's existence.

KingEbukaNaija:
Your arguments are so poor and irrational . Man deducing a creator's existence does not mean that man created God . With your logic , since man created the idea that God does not exist , therefore God exists .

Man deducing what he feel is a creator remains man's idea and invention. Until the creator come forward and tells man about itself assuming there is one or more creators that assumption remains a man made one.

chemystery:
I know you are good with badmouthing, please, i'm not good in that. Why not use more superior analysis to debunk my analogy instead of badmouthing as a defense mechanism. If you can't, can't you just pass by. Gerrit?

Ebuka prove that a substance called whjkrbbdjajbrhuuebiua does not exists. Is it not my duty to define whjkrbbdjajbrhuuebiua, then prove it's existence before asking you to prove it doesn't exist?
The onus probandi remains on the theist to prove god's existence.

Your analogy was simply false . I gave you a proper analogy devoid of sentiment . Both groups have their part to play in providing reasons why they think there is or there is no God .

If I say that "whjkrbbdjajbrhuuebiua " is a word in English language , you can prove that "whjkrbbdjajbrhuuebiua " is not a word in English language using an English Dictionary (latest version) . I can prove that my books are not made of stone tablets .

Stephen Hawking claimed God does not exist because the universe created itself -this is his reason . The simple rebuttal is that something cannot create itself , a logical absurdity .

Some atheists claim that laws of physics caused the existence of the universe and everything came from natural processes . But laws do not create anything , they simply describe what happens under certain conditions .

Some atheists claim the universe is eternal as a way of explaining away God with no evidence . And they still can't explain how an eternal universe precludes infinite regress and the existence of God . They cannot provide any logical explanation to how God couldn't have co-existed with the universe from past infinitude .

These are atheists who have attempted to prove there is no God . And they have failed and will continue failing woefully because you cannot explain the universe without a creator . You can't explain the existence of laws without a law maker . You can't explain the existence of a contingent entity without a non-contingent necessarily existing entity .

Its like trying to explain that thoughts can exist without a mind or that codes can exist without a programmer . Isn't that ludicrous ?

dalaman:
Man deducing what he feel is a creator remains man's idea and invention. Until the creator come forward and tells man about itself assuming there is one or more creators that assumption remains a man made one.

Like someone told you that in the first page , you will only make assumptions of what you expect the creator to do and if the creator does not do it , it becomes evident that God does not exist ? Have you been drinking sir ? .

What if you are wrong about the creator ? You as an atheist want the creator to be a certain way , and if the creator is not that way , therefore the creator does not exist ?

Brilliant reasoning sir !

KingEbukaNaija:
Like someone told you that in the first page , you will only make assumptions of what you expect the creator to do and if the creator does not do it , it becomes evident that God does not exist ? Have you been drinking sir ? .

What if you are wrong about the creator ? You as an atheist want the creator to be a certain way , and if the creator is not that way , therefore the creator does not exist ?

Brilliant reasoning sir !

You are only making assumptions that the universe must have a creator because humans have the ability to create things. It is only on that basis that you assume that the universe must also have a creator. The universe isnt a human society and it isn't meant to behave as such. What if all yor assumptions about the universe is totally wrong? As a theist you want the universe to act in a certain way and if it doesn't then it must have a creator. Brilliant reasoning.

dalaman:
You are only making assumptions that the universe must have a creator because humans have the ability to create things. It is only o that basis that you assume that the universe must also have a creator. The glucose isnt a human society and it isn't meant to behave as such. What if all yor assumptions about the universe is totally wrong? As a theist out want the universe to act in a certain way and if it doesn't then it must have a creator. Brilliant reasoning.

it is called fallacy of composition

also notice how Kingebuka used the word "Creator" and "God"? using them as though they mean the same thing, its a sleight of hand trick

KingEbukaNaija:
Your analogy was simply false . I gave you a proper analogy devoid of sentiment . Both groups have their part to play in providing reasons why they think there is or there is no God .

If I say that "whjkrbbdjajbrhuuebiua " is a word in English language , you can prove that "whjkrbbdjajbrhuuebiua " is not a word in English language using an English Dictionary (latest version) . I can prove that my books are not made of stone tablets .

Stephen Hawking claimed God does not exist because the universe created itself -this is his reason . The simple rebuttal is that something cannot create itself , a logical absurdity .

Some atheists claim that laws of physics caused the existence of the universe and everything came from natural processes . But laws do not create anything , they simply describe what happens under certain conditions .

Some atheists claim the universe is eternal as a way of explaining away God with no evidence . And they still can't explain how an eternal universe precludes infinite regress and the existence of God . They cannot provide any logical explanation to how God couldn't have co-existed with the universe from past infinitude .

These are atheists who have attempted to prove there is no God . And they have failed and will continue failing woefully because you cannot explain the universe without a creator . You can't explain the existence of laws without a law maker . You can't explain the existence of a contingent entity without a non-contingent necessarily existing entity .

Its like trying to explain that thoughts can exist without a mind or that codes can exist without a programmer . Isn't that ludicrous ?

So after this long epistle you can't prove to me that a substance called whjkrbbdjajbrhuuebiua does not exist. If you can't, or are sure it doesn't exist because i have not defined it or tried to prove it does exists, then the onus is on you to prove god's existence first but i was disappointed not finding any within this long epistle

chemystery:
So after this long epistle you can't prove to me that a substance called whjkrbbdjajbrhuuebiua does not exist. If you can't, or are sure it doesn't exist because i have not defined it or tried to prove it does exists, then the onus is on you to prove his existence first but i was disappointed not finding any within this long epistle

lol, your point flew past his head like a projectile

hopefulLandlord:
it is called fallacy of composition

also notice how Kingebuka used the word "Creator" and "God"? using them as though they mean the same thing, its a sleight of hand trick

His argument now boils down to God is the creator of the universe, something that he knows we as humans hcurrently have no understanding of. He tried using the bible to prove that hisGod is true just yesterday and I showed him how false all the biblical nonsense he threw were. He couldn't even answer my take down and ran away from the thread. He always prefer to dwells more on this murky virtual concept which he terms as God.

dalaman:
His argument now boils down to God is the creator of the universe, something that he knows we as humans hcurrently have no understanding of. He tried using the bible to prove that hisGod is true just yesterday and I showed him how false all the biblical nonsense he threw were. He couldn't even answer my take down and ran away from the thread. He always prefer to dwells more on this murky virtual concept which he terms as God.

As our knowledge of the universe gets more precise, our description of "God" gets increasingly vague and non-specific.

hopefulLandlord:
As our knowledge of the universe gets more precise, our description of "God" gets increasingly vague and non-specific.

Our ignorance is God. Someone here said God is the process that started the universe. I once asked KingEbukasBlog to define God and he ran away. He refused to define God. He doesn't want to use the traditional christian definition because he knows it will be taken down.

dalaman:
You are only making assumptions that the universe must have a creator because humans have the ability to create things. It is only o that basis that you assume that the universe must also have a creator. The glucose isnt a human society and it isn't meant to behave as such. What if all yor assumptions about the universe is totally wrong? As a theist out want the universe to act in a certain way and if it doesn't then it must have a creator. Brilliant reasoning.

It has always been cause-effect , that means it is possible that something would not exist ; if infinite regress of causes is possible , then there will be no universe . And something can't come from nothing . But we have the universe which began to exist , therefore the universe has a cause . Thankfully , this brilliant reasoning that led to the ever tenable Cosmological Argument .

1. Whatever began to exist must have a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore , the universe has a cause .

The universe is not eternal . Everything including energy came into existence in the big bang . And if you think that the universe has existed in different forms from past infinitude , you have provide a reason for this behavior from the eternal past , and how information was being passed from one form to another . That means our universe (U-A) has an explanation , its precursor (U-B) has an explanation , U-C till U-∞ and science is defeated . Evidently , it is pure madness to even assert that the universe is eternal . And this method is super-complex , so we need the obvious : Occam's razor . Choosing a more simple explanation which is God : A simple eternal being , an agent of causation .

hopefulLandlord:
lol, your point flew past his head like a projectile

By God's grace he will grab it this time around

hopefulLandlord:
it is called fallacy of composition

The universe as a whole began to exist . Are you back to insecure mode where you just name a random fallacy to appear like you understand the discussion ?

hopefulLandlord:
also notice how Kingebuka used the word "Creator" and "God"? using them as though they mean the same thing, its a sleight of hand trick

The appellation of the creator is God .

chemystery:
By God's grace he will grab it this time around

his logic is even ineffably stupid, most of the Nigerian gods don't have their names in the dictionary, that to him is "proof" they don't exist

dalaman:
Our ignorance is God. Someone here said God is the process that started the universe. I once asked KingEbukasBlog to define God and he ran away. He refused to define God. He doesn't want to use the traditional christian definition because he knows it will be taken down.

Liar oshi !

I defined God on this thread which you made over 50 posts
https://www.nairaland.com/3553021/conclusion-atheism-illogical-atheist-delusion

chemystery:
So after this long epistle you can't prove to me that a substance called whjkrbbdjajbrhuuebiua does not exist. If you can't, or are sure it doesn't exist because i have not defined it or tried to prove it does exists, then the onus is on you to prove god's existence first but i was disappointed not finding any within this long epistle

Read the post and rebut . I rebutted your post by posting the right analogy . You have not refuted that post and the latest post to you . Its obvious that you have nothing reasonable to say just like your ilks .

Atheist logic : Evade logical thought that disproves my foolishness and use to the pooh pooh fallacy as a way of escape .

KingEbukaNaija:
It has always been cause-effect , that means it is possible that something would not exist ; if infinite regress of causes is possible , then there will be no universe . And something can't come from nothing . But we have the universe which began to exist , therefore the universe has a cause . Thankfully , this brilliant reasoning that led to the ever tenable Cosmological Argument .

You don't know for a fact that the universe began to exist. It is just a hypothesis. There is no consensuous on that even among scientist. Famous Cosmologist when asked as a matter of fact if the ubiverse began to exist have stated that they don't know for sure if the universe began to exist as a mater of fact or not. They just say that they don't know if the universe began to exist or is eternal.

1. Whatever began to exist must have a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore , the universe has a cause .

Give me an example of something in nature that you have ever seen began to exist originally as a matter of fact. Have you witnessed the universe began to exist? What about life? Have you seen life began to exist from its origin? What about stars? Have you witnessed any star begin to exist? How then do you know that they have a cause since you've never witnessed them come.into existence? Why make bogus assumptionsover what you've never witnessed? That you have an assumption which you feel is an answer doesn't make it true.

The universe is not eternal . Everything including energy came into existence in the big bang . And if you think that the universe has existed in different forms from past infinitude , you have provide a reason for this behavior from the eternal past , and how information was being passed from one form to another . That means our universe (U-A) has an explanation , its precursor (U-B) has an explanation , U-C till U-∞ and science is defeated . Evidently , it is pure madness to even assert that the universe is eternal . And this method is super-complex , so we need the obvious : Occam's razor . Choosing a more simple explanation which is God : A simple eternal being , an agent of causation .

If the universe is not eternal then when will it end? Will there ever be a time when everything will dissappear and there will be nothing?

dalaman:
Our ignorance is God. Someone here said God is the process that started the universe. I once asked KingEbukasBlog to define God and he ran away. He refused to define God. He doesn't want to use the traditional christian definition because he knows it will be taken down.

that's why they hide under deist/generic god arguments

dalaman:
You don't know for a fact that the universe began to exist. It is just a hypothesis. There is no consensuous on that even among scientist. Famous Cosmologist when asked as a matter of fact if the ubiverse began to exist have stated that they don't know for sure if the universe began to exist as a mater of fact or not. They just say that they don't know if the universe began to exist or is eternal.



Give me an example of something in nature that you have ever seen began to exist originally as a matter of fact. Have you witnessed the universe began to exist? What about life? Have you seen life began to exist from its origin? What about stars? Have you witnessed any star begin to exist? How then do you know that they have a cause since you've never witnessed them come.into existence? Why make bogus assumptionsover what you've never witnessed? That you have an assumption which you feel is an answer doesn't make it true.

With science , we have determined the age of the universe .

For the one millionth time , prove that Stephen Hawking is false about a finite universe here .

www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

I was able to disprove his claim that the universe created Itself with reasons . So I'm waiting for your reason .

If the universe is not eternal then when will it end? Will there ever be a time when everything will dissappear and there will be nothing?

Because we can't ascertain the time the universe will cease to exist does not mean its eternal . Because I don't know when you will cease to exist , does it make you eternal ?

You have conveniently avoided my refutation of an eternal universe with a cavil , a very petty objection . A blatant red herring as we will surely see in your next post .