KingEbukasBlog:


What is wrong with this fellow ?

Mister , you have to prove these are indeed flaws before I'll go ahead to refute them . Its becoming obvious you lack an understanding of the quote made by Plantinga .

Superhumanist , the copy and paste atheist who purports himself as a deist but has the beliefs of a pantheist . You claim the universe is God but does not understand that if the universe has an intrinsic conscious creative and divine force then the goal of natural selection wouldn't just be survival because the divine would logically be interested in the realization of truths one of which would be that within it is a conscious creative force orchestrating the formation or development of natural/material objects .

Please take urhara's place as the forum's ...

How ironic. You are throwing straw men now. My deism.has nothing to do with your deluded support of Platinga's dead argument.

superhumanist:



The same Platinga's argument that has been rebutted endlessly.

keep trolling with your alternate self. Kingebukasblog

Lol . Atheist tactic is to claim the argument has been rebutted endlessly while what we have are strawman and other fallacious rebuttals littered everywhere .

plaetton:


False.
And we can easily test that.

You can make sacrifices to your god, and let me use scientific agricultural methods, and let us see who produces surplus and better crops.

There is a good reason why despite using a greater percentage of our lands for agriculture, we still do not produce enough to make food abundant and cheap, compared to smaller countries that we import food products from.

False Dichotomy - which is a fallacy . Its not either god or scientific agricultural methods . The third option is to have both gods and scientific agricultural methods .

Example
The ancient Egyptians worshipped the god Osiris who was associated with the River Nile and the fertility of the land. Yet , they developed irrigation systems like the basin irrigation and other different forms of agriculture like horticulture for their gardens .

Anyone with a good knowledge of history of the Egyptians can attest to the abundance and robustness of agricultural outputs from ancient Egypt .

KingEbukasBlog:


You don't have the knowledge or ability to comprehend arguments for supernaturalism . It's a total waste of time and effort arguing for the supernatural with you . You are so ignorant of the argument that you affirmed the position of a supernaturalist while admitting to be a materialist . You are that confused and ignorant

Chai. It's well o.

urahara:


I just weak for the guy. .

Anyway I don't expect any better from a member if the mud rolling crew .

lolzzzzzzz. He challenged you to open a thread and trash his nonsense, instead of doing that, you are now talking about him in the third person in his presence. Wow.

Just take the bait already.

analize701:

lolzzzzzzz. He challenged you to open a thread and trash his nonsense, instead of doing that, you are now talking about him in the third person in his presence. Wow.

Just take the bait already.

My dear, na their way . He won't take it of course because the ministry of atheism founded on lies and ignorance must move forward .

dalaman:


Sure he is.

Your Majesty, KingEbukasBlog 1 of Nairaland. These people are backbiting you in your presence o. lolzz

analize701:

lolzzzzzzz. He challenged you to open a thread and trash his nonsense, instead of doing that, you are now talking about him in the third person in his presence. Wow.

Just take the bait already.

This days , I'm more active on the politics section.

I ain't got no time for nonsensical arguments.

If he likes let him believe in Yahweh or mumuweh , I no get time.

urahara:


This days , I'm more active on the politics section.

I ain't got no time for nonsensical arguments.

If he likes let him believe in Yahweh or mumuweh , I no get time.

But, i have been observing you running around here scorning YHWH everywhere tho. Any ways, just put him to shame once and for all.

Remember you accused him of recycling arguments which have been debunked. So, you by your very self, take him on and debunk this particular one.

This shd be fun.

KingEbukasBlog:


False Dichotomy - which is a fallacy . Its not either god or scientific agricultural methods . The third option is to have both gods and scientific agricultural methods .

Example
The ancient Egyptians worshipped the god Osiris who was associated with the River Nile and the fertility of the land. Yet , they developed irrigation systems like the basin irrigation and other different forms of agriculture like horticulture for their gardens .

Anyone with a good knowledge of history of the Egyptians can attest to the abundance and robustness of agricultural outputs from ancient Egypt .

And where is ancient Egypt with their robust agricultural outputs today ?

plaetton:

And where is ancient Egypt with their robust agricultural outputs today ?

Totally irrelevant sir . The fact is that Ancient Egypt had both their worship of Osiris and scientific agricultural methods(they were even more innovative as time progressed ) - this proves the dichotomy you presented is a false one .

KingEbukasBlog:


Totally irrelevant sir . The fact is that Ancient Egypt had both their worship of Osiris and scientific agricultural methods(they were even more innovative as time progressed ) - this proves the dichotomy you presented is a false one .

And what were those scientific agricultural methods?

Making sacrifices and waiting for the seasonal flooding of the Nile ?
Get serious.

plaetton:


And what were those scientific agricultural methods?

Making sacrifices and waiting for the seasonal flooding of the Nile ?
Get serious.

They did both and that's the point .

But let's not digress too much from the crux of the matter . I wanted to cut the chase and end it once and for all but where's the fun in that? A slow and painful end is much fun .

In the 1800s during the godless revolutions in Europe which involved the ousting of religious monarchs , atheism was on the rise and suicide seemed concomitant and according to researches , atheism was culpable for the rise in the number of suicide cases . Should we conclude that atheism is a false belief since it hindered the survival of those people ?

Remember , atheism is tied to nihilism which induces the impulse to destroy and views life as purpose , meaningless, irrational, purposeless which in many cases lead to suicide.

KingEbukasBlog:

My dear, na their way . He won't take it of course because the ministry of atheism founded on lies and ignorance must move forward .

They try to sound verbose, but if you calm down and take them on, they scam like mice.

KingEbukasBlog:


False Dichotomy - which is a fallacy . Its not either god or scientific agricultural methods . The third option is to have both gods and scientific agricultural methods .

Example
The ancient Egyptians worshipped the god Osiris who was associated with the River Nile and the fertility of the land. Yet , they developed irrigation systems like the basin irrigation and other different forms of agriculture like horticulture for their gardens .

Anyone with a good knowledge of history of the Egyptians can attest to the abundance and robustness of agricultural outputs from ancient Egypt .

One can indeed "attest to the abundance and robustness of agricultural outputs from ancient Egypt" but to claim it was because of the gods they worshipped is a rather archaic way of seeing things. Its like claiming the farts of Zeus caused hurricanes or that the god Chronos makes Rolex!

The Egyptians took advantage of the natural cyclical flooding pattern of the Nile which deposited fertile soil from upriver and water for irrigation for which they thanked the gods. But we now know the gods had nothing to do with it and when the Egyptians learnt that, Osiris and co 'died'.

KingEbukasBlog:


Remember , atheism is tied to nihilism which induces the impulse to destroy and views life as purpose , meaningless, irrational, purposeless which in many cases lead to suicide.

You do like making unjustified statements don't you! But I'm not going to bother asking about your dead atheists. There's enough live ones here.

In what country and period however, was atheism seen to cause suicides keb?

KingEbukasBlog:


Lol . Atheist tactic is to claim the argument has been rebutted endlessly while what we have are strawman and other fallacious rebuttals littered everywhere .

Everyone is seeing you for the troll you are.


If anyone is interested in thorough rebuttals of alvin platinga's naturalism argument (EAAN) here is a good link-

http://rationallyspeaking..com.ng/2013/07/plantingas-evolutionary-argument.html

For those too lazy to click the link, here is a simple comment I saw on a forum that destroys Plantinga's EAAN-


"The first problem is that beliefs are not inherited traits. Natural selection may well favour individuals whose beliefs lead them to greater reproductive success, and these beliefs may well be passed down culturally to their offspring, but the theory of evolution has nothing to do with this. Prof Plantinga clearly has no idea about the theory of evolution.

The second obvious problem is that the EEAN is that it is based on a dualistic notion that beliefs have a neurophysiological structure and associated semantic content. The example of a hominoid running away from a tiger whilst thinking he is trying to pet it shows how Prof Plantinga thinks about how the mind works. However, the modern way in which the brain is thought to work is that part of the brain controls our flight from a danger, such as tiger, with no semantic content whatsoever whilst a separate part of the brain is responsible for language and the semantic content of thinking. Creatures with no areas of the brain capable of language still have a part of the brain capable of recognizing and fleeing from danger, but will have no beliefs about this. Humans have inherited these brain structures, but have an additional part of the brain capable of forming semantic content and beliefs, but which are not inheritable. Prof Plantinga clearly has no idea of theories of how the brain works."
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/31401/what-are-the-problems-with-plantingas-evolutionary-argument-against-naturalism

superhumanist:



Everyone is seeing you for the troll you are.


If anyone is interested in thorough rebuttals of alvin platinga's naturalism argument (EAAN) here is a good link-

http://rationallyspeaking..com.ng/2013/07/plantingas-evolutionary-argument.html

Why is this fellow very unintelligent? Can you provide a cogent defence of Massimo's rebuttal of the argument ? Or you just assumed that the rebuttal actually defeats the argument ?

superhumanist:
For those too lazy to click the link, here is a simple comment I saw on a forum that destroys Plantinga's EAAN-


"The first problem is that beliefs are not inherited traits. Natural selection may well favour individuals whose beliefs lead them to greater reproductive success, and these beliefs may well be passed down culturally to their offspring, but the theory of evolution has nothing to do with this. Prof Plantinga clearly has no idea about the theory of evolution.

The second obvious problem is that the EEAN is that it is based on a dualistic notion that beliefs have a neurophysiological structure and associated semantic content. The example of a hominoid running away from a tiger whilst thinking he is trying to pet it shows how Prof Plantinga thinks about how the mind works. However, the modern way in which the brain is thought to work is that part of the brain controls our flight from a danger, such as tiger, with no semantic content whatsoever whilst a separate part of the brain is responsible for language and the semantic content of thinking. Creatures with no areas of the brain capable of language still have a part of the brain capable of recognizing and fleeing from danger, but will have no beliefs about this. Humans have inherited these brain structures, but have an additional part of the brain capable of forming semantic content and beliefs, but which are not inheritable. Prof Plantinga clearly has no idea of theories of how the brain works."
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/31401/what-are-the-problems-with-plantingas-evolutionary-argument-against-naturalism

So this is where you copied the rebuttal from. No wonder you couldn't defend it because the author of the post was not even elaborate enough .

KingEbukasBlog:


So this is where you copied the rebuttal from. No wonder you couldn't defend it because the author of the post was not even elaborate enough .

Are you this shameless?

superhumanist:



Are you this shameless?

Yes he actually is!

budaatum:

Yes he actually is!

BudaAtum, Why do you join in to insult Kingebukasblog so aimlessly? The guy you agree with, Superhumanist, dont know anything about the human mind or spirit or how they interact.

He falsely claims that, "The first problem is that beliefs are not inherited traits. What a joke.

ScienceWatch:
Why do you join in to insult Kingebukasblog so aimlessly? The guy you agree with, Superhumanist, dont know anything about the human mind or spirit or how they interact.

He falsely claims that, "The first problem is that beliefs are not inherited traits. What a joke.

Did you inherit your belief in God or Christianity from your parents?

Kingebukasblog ati butterflyl1on come and carry your dumb troll commot.

Cc felixomor

JackBizzle:


Did you inherit your belief in God or Christianity from your parents?

Kingebukasblog ati butterflyl1on come and carry your dumb troll commot.

Cc felixomor

Hi Jackbizzle, Please dont disturb the highly esteemed Fleximor, Kingebukasblog and Butterfly. They debate on a higher level Sir. I have IQ 27 so we are synonymous. Lol. To effectively answer your very profound question, I need to ask you a few questions, if thats OK with you.

JackBizzle:




Kingebukasblog ati butterflyl1on come and carry your dumb troll commot.

I have witnessed these guys tirelessly teach you. You took no heed. Instead you looked out of the classroom window and dreamt of meeting your Prophet Richard Dawkins.

Now you want to order them around like they your niggas.

ScienceWatch:

He falsely claims that, "The first problem is that beliefs are not inherited traits. What a joke.

You really need to stop insulting your parents. They cannot be responsible for the level of stupidity you exhibit!

budaatum:

You really need to stop insulting your parents. They cannot be responsible for the level of stupidity you exhibit!

Here you go again.
You reveal your deep ignorance of the spiritual nature of mankind and the powerful influence that has on all of us from generation to generation.

I repeat what I said to Superhumanist; He falsely claims that, "The first problem is that beliefs are not inherited traits. What a joke.

I stop here because I have been warned that reasoning with a fool is like reasoning with a drunk. Your education or position can not help you understand what I am saying to you. Drink lots of water while I repeat what I also said to you after you insulted Kingebukasblog.
Stop being so childish. Lighten up, it is festive season.

The guy you agreed with, Superhumanist, dont know anything about the human mind or spirit or how they interact.

He falsely claims that, "The first problem is that beliefs are not inherited traits. What a joke.

Do you want to challenge me on this BudaAtum ?

ScienceWatch:


He falsely claims that, "The first problem is that beliefs are not inherited traits. What a joke.

Do you want to challenge me on this BudaAtum ?

So, beliefs are inherited ko? Is that why you worship the gods of your forefathers?

We already have a challenge. Post the response from Google about your 22 year study please.

JackBizzle:


Did you inherit your belief in God or Christianity from your parents?

Kingebukasblog ati butterflyl1on come and carry your dumb troll commot.

Cc felixomor

He has no shame!

budaatum:

You really need to stop insulting your parents. They cannot be responsible for the level of stupidity you exhibit!

I have to agree.

budaatum:

He has no shame!

Yes. lets give him a break. At least his spelling is not so bad.