₦airaland Forum

CatfishBilly:
Now you're trolling.

I'm not trolling

At least we've been able to establish one thing. You have no evidence whatsoever for your Creatio ex materia bullshit.

Lol . Since there is no evidence for an eternal universe , the corollary is that there is no evidence for creatio ex materia . Its common sense

Read Aguirre A and Gratton S (2002). Steady-state eternal inflation.
It contains all your answers.

Its a model like you said . Models are not evidence . There are a thousand and one models for an eternal universe with all the crinkum-crankum known to pseudo-science but there is no evidence to support them .

Sorry you hear

Better o.

KingEbukasBlog:
I'm not trolling



Lol . Since there is no evidence for an eternal universe , the corollary is that there is no evidence for creatio ex materia . Its common sense

I said there's no evidence for creatio ex materia, not no evidence for Eternal universe.
I wonder how you came up with the corollary.
An eternal universe can be independent of god, I don't know why you want to force god into this scenario, god doesn't work in this scenario.

Its a model like you said . Models are not evidence . There are a thousand and one models for an eternal universe with all the crinkum-crankum known to pseudo-science but there is no evidence to support them .

Sorry you hear

Sure they were all published in scientific journals that are peer reviewed despite them being pseudoscience.
Your desperation is glaring.

I wonder how you got your thousand and one number, I'm only aware of 2.

CatfishBilly:
An eternal universe can be independent of god, I don't know why you want to force god into this scenario, god doesn't work in this scenario.

Argument from incredulity . Because you don't see how God could work in that scenario does not automatically render God superfluous .

I don't think you understand how logical arguments work . Well , no atheist does .

Sure they were all published in scientific journals that are peer reviewed despite them being pseudoscience.
Your desperation is glaring.
I wonder how you got your thousand and one number, I'm only aware of 2.

Whether its 1 or 2 or 100 , no evidence to support them . You can cry all you want .

Imaginary eternal universe

Keep conjuring up fantasy in your mind to comfort yourself

CatfishBilly:
I wonder how you got your thousand and one number, I'm only aware of 2.

'A thousand and one' means many

KingEbukasBlog:
Argument from incredulity . Because you don't see how God could work in that scenario does not automatically render God superfluous .

I don't think you understand how logical arguments work . Well , no atheist does .

Lol, you present an argument from incredulity proof, I counter with my own, I don't see how that's a problem.

And you have the nerve to say I don't understand how logical arguments work?

Whether its 1 or 2 or 100 , no evidence to support them . You can cry all you want .

Imaginary eternal universe

Keep conjuring up fantasy in your mind to comfort yourself

You and your mentor WLC should go and cry to the scientific communities that published it, don't come and cry to me since you have no idea how these things work.

KingEbukasBlog:
What did Jesus Christ (God Himself ) do Isn't it telling humans that he wants a personal relationship with them ?

Was it Jesus that told you about Jesus? When did Jesus tell you anything about himself personally and what did he tell you?

CatfishBilly:
I said there's no evidence for creatio ex materia, not no evidence for Eternal universe.
I wonder how you came up with the corollary.
An eternal universe can be independent of god, I don't know why you want to force god into this scenario, god doesn't work in this scenario.



Sure they were all published in scientific journals that are peer reviewed despite them being pseudoscience.
Your desperation is glaring.

I wonder how you got your thousand and one number, I'm only aware of 2.

You have joined the league of those who use pseudoscience as logical arguments to back actual science ba? I thought you were purely a scientific mind? Can pseudoscience be tested scientifically and evidence found which supports it? You are supposed to be the atheist grand medical guru o. So how did your desperation to defend a no God assumption land your guru head in pseudoscience? Pure science don finish?

Multiverse is a hypothesis! I sure say you sabi what a hypothesis means.

CatfishBilly:
Lol, you present an argument from incredulity proof, I counter with my own, I don't see how that's a problem.

And you have the nerve to say I don't understand how logical arguments work?

An omnipotent God who expresses freedom of will can end the existence of a coexistent material object ,since God is both necessary and non-contingent . Its not argument from incredulity , its simply what it is

You and your mentor WLC should go and cry to the scientific communities that published it, don't come and cry to me since you have no idea how these things work.

Red herring

There is no evidence for an eternal universe . End of story

Carry your fantasy go oo my brother

KingEbukasBlog:
An omnipotent God who expresses freedom of will can end the existence of a coexistent material object ,since God is both necessary and non-contingent . Its not argument from incredulity , its simply what it is




Red herring

There is no evidence of an eternal universe . End of story

Carry your fantasy go oo my brother

The confused soul is pretending he does not know what evidence means. Is a model evidence? My brain just dey smoke as I dey try understand how a supposed medical mind would term a model as scientific evidence. A hypothesis for that matter o.

The guy is just clutching at straws.

butterflylion:
You have joined the league of those who use pseudoscience as logical arguments to back actual science ba? I thought you were purely a scientific mind? Can pseudoscience be tested scientifically and evidence found which supports it? You are supposed to be the atheist grand medical guru o. So how did your desperation to defend a no God assumption land your guru head in pseudoscience? Pure science don finish?

Multiverse is a hypothesis! I sure say you sabi what a hypothesis means.

So 2 models published in a peer reviewed scientific journal that even your precious Vilenkin's tried to discredit now counts as Pseudoscience?
Please, tell me, when did science journals start publishing Pseudoscience?

CatfishBilly:
Lol, you present an argument from incredulity proof, I counter with my own, I don't see how that's a problem.

And you have the nerve to say I don't understand how logical arguments work?


You and your mentor WLC should go and cry to the scientific communities that published it, don't come and cry to me since you have no idea how these things work.

Okay using evidence, explain to us how the multiverse model works since you seem to know how those things work better than anyone.

1,2,3.... Go!

KingEbukasBlog:
An omnipotent God who expresses freedom of will can end the existence of a coexistent material object ,since God is both necessary and non-contingent . Its not argument from incredulity , its simply what it is

Now we have veered off into Pseudo philosophical bullshit territory. God is necessary, how convenient.

Red herring

There is no evidence for an eternal universe . End of story

Carry your fantasy go oo my brother

Channel your complaints to the people that published the article, not me.
If a counter article is published, I'm willing to change my stance, but till then, there's a model for an eternal universe. Suck it up.

butterflylion:
The confused soul is pretending he does not know what evidence means. Is a model evidence? My brain just dey smoke as I dey try understand how a supposed medical mind would term a model as scientific evidence. A hypothesis for that matter o.

The guy is just clutching at straws.

Funny how they are the ones that scream evidence every time and they'd end up disappointing you when you ask them for evidence to support their fantasies .

CatfishBilly:
So 2 models published in a peer reviewed scientific journal that even your precious Vilenkin's tried to discredit now counts as Pseudoscience?
Please, tell me, when did science journals start publishing Pseudoscience?

Oga Abeg bury your head in shame joor. The idea of the multiverse or the theoretical possibility of infinite parallel universes straddles a strange world between science fiction and a plausible hypothesis. Though scientists have no direct evidence for the multiverse's existence, they still tinker with it.

Some theories about the multiverse, lack the falsifiability required to render them legitimate scientific theories. For instance, multiverse explanations that rely on string theory which itself is not yet verified are not testable, and fundamentally speculative.

Why are you relying on speculation ogbeni and attempting to push it as fact by fire by force?

KingEbukasBlog:
Funny how they are the ones that scream evidence every time and they'd end up disappointing you when you ask them for evidence to support their fantasies .

Pure undiluted fantasy o. The thing tire me.

CatfishBilly:
Now we have veered off into Pseudo philosophical bullshit territory. God is necessary, how convenient.

Anything that exposes your illogical arguments is considered false by you .

Channel your complaints to the people that published the article, not me.
If a counter article is published, I'm willing to change my stance, but till then, there's a model for an eternal universe. Suck it up.

There can be a model for anything . Even multiverses have models , it does not make it true !

Atheists and their fantasies

Imaginary multiverse
Imaginary eternal universe
Imaginary universe from nothing

KingEbukasBlog:
Anything that shows illogical arguments is considered false by you .




There can be a model for anything . Even multiverses have models , it does not make it true !

Atheists and their fantasies

Imaginary multiverse
Imaginary eternal universe
Imaginary universe from nothing

Tiri gbosa for you boda mi.

Imaginary anything and imaginary everything. You then wonder if any part of their minds function for real when all is clouded in fantasy.

KingEbukasBlog:
You keep repeating this nonsense . I have explained what it means . There is no Christian that even believes God does evil and repent from it . Only atheists . It shows who is making stuff up

You've not explained what it means. You've only refused to accept what was written inside the bible.

If ye will still abide in this land, then will I build you, and not pull you down, and I will plant you, and not pluck you up: for I repent me of the evil that I have done unto you


Jeremiah 42:10

Here is your God doing evil and repenting from doing it. Like most christians you refuse to accept what is stated inside the bible.

As an atheist ,where is your foundation for morality ?

For the last time , understand the moral argument for the existence of God .

1. If objective moral values and duties God does not exist , God does not exist

2. Objective moral values and duties exist

3. Therefore , God exists .

Now if you still don't understand what objective moral values and duties are , don't bother responding .

The society is the foundation of my morality. Just like you and every other person. God has nothing to do with objective morality because your bible God has violated everything we consider to be morally objective. Read the bible. All his evil deeds are there.

@Ermacc,

This is why atheists are smarter than theists!!!

1.Atheists do not eat grass!!!

2.Atheists do not worship poo in the shape of a cross!!!

3.Atheists do not drink toilet water!!!

4.Atheists do not eat live snakes!!!

NairalandSARS:
So what if God exists but decides not to take part in this "test"?

then he doesn't exist

chemystery:
then he doesn't exist

No, it shows your test in not foolproof.

KingEbukasBlog:
I don't know what Christian god is . As a theist , I deify the First Cause/Necessary being/Sustainer and Container of all realities ( a conscious being ) , as a Christian I believe this conscious being revealed Himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ whom according to history lived , died and resurrected .

I always knew you know the difference between Deism and Christianity; but you decide to appear unreasonable to avoid reasonable questions about your belief(christianity) by presenting an argument for Deism instead.

butterflylion:
You are the one who insisted on having facts and begged that we drop our faith so we logically and with open minds view your facts. We did ooo. But now you refuse showing us your facts but insist on seeing our faith. This is nothing but confusion raised to power infinity.

Do the practicals ogbeni and stop whining. I only gave you a preliminary test you could do with your faith and you failed woefully. How then do you expect to pass the main test without nothing like faith to hold on to? If you can't pass with expo, is it without expo you want to pass?

KingEbukasBlog:
You keep repeating this nonsense . I have explained what it means . There is no Christian that even believes God does evil and repent from it . Only atheists . It shows who is making stuff up



As an atheist ,where is your foundation for morality ?

For the last time , understand the moral argument for the existence of God .

1. If objective moral values and duties God does not exist , God does not exist

2. Objective moral values and duties exist

3. Therefore , God exists .

Now if you still don't understand what objective moral values and duties are , don't bother responding .

Objective morals and values do not exist, morals, and values are determined by societies for their collective benefit. The things done in the name of gods or a god in different societies and civilizations like human sacrifice and ethnic cleansing shows that if objective morality does exist, it is not tied to any god, and also shows that morality is truly subjective as the things that are considered permissible to do or say in the name of a god vary across different societies.

NairalandSARS:
No, it shows your test in not foolproof.

No, It shows god's existence cant be practically proven. Talk is cheap you know. Anyone can talk any nonexistent into existent

chemystery:
Theism deal with faith while atheism is concerned with fact. Faith is an instinct and intelligent people (atheists) are known to be better at rising above their instincts.

What is Fact in assuming that the Birds Evolued from Fishes without giving us detailed information of how it happened or that life originated from inanimate substances and till date no Atheists has givien us a hint of how it happened but they believe it, is that not Faith?
Atheists and double standard.

Niflheim:
@Ermacc,

This is why atheists are smarter than theists!!!

1.Atheists do not eat grass!!!

2.Atheists do not worship poo in the shape of a cross!!!

3.Atheists do not drink toilet water!!!

4.Atheists do not eat live snakes!!!

Is that how you measure "smartness"?

NairalandSARS:
No, it shows your test in not foolproof.

Guy why you dey mail me?

chemystery:
Theism deal with faith while atheism is concerned with fact. Faith is an instinct and intelligent people (atheists) are known to be better at rising above their instincts.

It takes more faith to believe in no creator than to believe in one.

LightandDarkness:
Objective morals and values do not exist, morals, and values are determined by societies for their collective benefit. The things done in the name of gods or a god in different societies and civilizations like human sacrifice and ethnic cleansing shows that if objective morality does exist, it is not tied to any god, and also shows that morality is truly subjective as the things that are considered permissible to do or say in the name of a god vary across different societies.

So it means I can kill anyone and have no qualms about it. Because we are basically just animals? Because there's no point of morals.

Horlufemi:
So it means I can kill anyone and have no qualms about it. Because we are basically just animals? Because there's no point of morals.

There is a mutual understanding to not go around killing people because it endangers everyone, it's not like humans are naturally averse to killing. We have just decided when it is or could be okay to kill-Death penalty, War, and Self-defence- and when it is not okay to kill-killing someone who annoys you, killing to steal, killing for pure pleasure. Furthermore I did not say there was no point to morals, I said objective morality does not exist.