₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU:
Since you atheist evolutionist don't believe the universe was created but evolved I see no reason why you should think this website was created.



And yet you use A.D. as a term of reference for whatever happened after Him.



This is why you atheists should ask questions if you don't know what you are arguing about.

OLAADAGBU, pls send the Link to the argument about Jesu there.

Seun:
If God owned Nairaland, he would not operate any account on Nairaland.

He would communicate the rules by sending anonymous messages to random members, the chosen.

The rules presented by each chosen member would contradict the rules presented by the others.

There would be no way of knowing which chosen member had the correct rules.

People would just choose to follow whichever rules the person who invited them to the forum happened to follow.

There would be brutal flame-wars between the people following different sets of rules.

For each set of rules given by the chosen members, there would be multiple interpretations by random members.

The interpreters would claim to have received anonymous clues from the owner which they used to interpret the rules.

There would be brutal flame-wars between people following different interpretations of each set of rules.

Most of the chosen would have deleted their accounts and all posts in which they originally presented their rules.

There would be multiple versions of each set of rules floating about, with no way of knowing if any is correct.

People who broke the rules wouldn't be banned, because the chosen and the interpreters wouldn't have any actual powers.

Interpreters would threaten those who broke their rules that the owner would kill them after they deactivated their accounts.

The most famous interpreter would say that all rules are equally important: typos and posting porn pictures are the same.

That all members have broken the rules, so they deserve to be killed by the owner after they deactivate their accounts.

--

But there's good news: the owner's son joined the forum, and he presented his own version of the rules.

Though he was the only member who never broke any rule, his account was deactivated for the sins of the rule-breakers.

But the account was reactivated later and he was not killed because he was found to be innocent of rule-breaking.

And after his account was reactivated, he sent anonymous messages to some interpreters who are no longer active.

Therefore any rule-breaker who believes that the owner's son's account was deactivated for his errors shall not be killed!

The owner created a new forum, much better than Nairaland, which his son's believers shall be invited to any time now.

The son's profile was transferred to the new forum 3 minutes after reactivation, which is why it cannot be viewed.

But some members recall that some members said that some interpreters said they saw the son's reactivated profile.

--

What a mess that would be.

Hahaha... I bet they can't argue this logically. Nice Analogy, quite analogous.

modik:
Having read and digested your imagery, I am tempted to react with a very simple but fact probing question.

Seun, if God doesn't exist hence no supreme being who crafted and designed nature, now answer me:

Have you seen a building without a builder?

Or, even you, can you come into existence without a master designer?

Please reply.

He evolved from a primordial soup

ScienceWatch:
You will remember that the cruel Pontius Pilate asked Jesus the same question. "What is truth."

Yes I remember. It is, in a sense, what we spend so much time here trying to resolve.

ScienceWatch:
It is good to see you too !!!!
Now you are screwing my head too, when you ask "What is truth."

Good. It shows you are thinking.

budaatum:
You said wiki was subjective. I then found, to my chagrin, that it did not mention that a prominent writer had committed suicide! The evidence you provided was verified by objective fact so I have no choice but to adjust my thinking regarding it and have done so.


Lol
An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'[1][2]

An axiom is not true, it is only taken to be true as a starting point. This is where falsifiability come in. The scientist works on the premise that a thing is so then tries to find ways to debunk the premise.

A bad scientist, on the other hand, assumes an axiom, or premise, is true, and refuses to check if it is true or not, and refuses to acknowledge or accept any evidence that contradicts the assumed premise.


The axioms are first developed, by thought, in the mind. The axioms are then tested to check if they hold true. If they do hold true, then then form the basis on which a scientist may base faith on.

I think that an axiom is so. I check whether said axiom is as I think it is. if I find axiom to be as I thought axiom was, I have faith that axiom is so. And if I find axiom not to be as I assumed axiom might be, I have faith that axiomis not so. Either ways, I should keep checking axiom to solidify my faith further, including asking why I assumed axiom was so in the first place.


Say, I want to build a bridge. I first observe where the bridge will go, check the span it would cover, the depth, width, consider the weights it will carry and how long my bridge will be in place. I then go do some mathematics (you may consider it abstract or not, if you want, but the fact that I took it from my observations mean its not exactly the bridge). My observations and mathematical formulas will inform the parameters by which my final built bridge might meet my expectations.

It is after all written, do not embark on a project without first considering the outcome. Besides, even God is said to have taken readings when it is written "His face hovered over the deep".

I read wiki. You convinced me on that one.

This shows you just cherry pick and you do not go through the whole article....... An "axiom", in classical terminology, referred to a self-evident assumption common to many branches of science. A good example would be the assertion that when an equal amount is taken from equals, an equal amount results." Wikipedia


You need to read the whole page before ressponding, it shows you like presenting half truth......but anyway I will do justice to it..... Axioms is not only taken to be true, Axioms and postulates are the basic assumptions underlying a given body of deductive knowledge. They are accepted without demonstration......Nothing can be deduced if nothing is assumed......Wikipedia

Therefore axioms itself is just an assumptions....

Again.....

Using the mathematical statement, an axioms is statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Whether it is meaningful (and, if so, what it means) for an axiom, or any mathematical statement, to be "true" is an open question. in the philosophy of mathematics itself."" Wikipedia

Therefore your analogy is wrong, this further prove you you do not actually read the wholev article..., you just cheery pick. .....we should not be doing mental gymnastics here.....we should be constructive and honest with the truth..


How is axioms tested? How can you proof numbers and letters are real.....or even this equation ., a + b = b + a) this are all substantive assertion....please this is fallacy on your part....give me one way how you can test axiom... Axioms simply means thought wordy or fit or that which commends itself as evident...... How do you wanner test it..... Waiting for you......


Axioms only set a constraint to work on, it is nether prove nor disproven.. And without it there is no science....



Am holding you on this very statement..... Axioms can be tested..... pls Google and send me any links of how axioms is tested.... I wanner see. read the wiki again pls....

vaxx:
Axioms only set a constraint to work on, it is nether prove nor disproven.. And without it there is no science....


Am holding you on this very statement..... Axioms can be tested..... pls Google and send me any links of how axioms is tested.... I wanner see. read the wiki again pls....

Google for "Axiom testing". Read some of the stuff that comes up. You may cherry pick. That's my evidence that axioms are tested.

Letters are real. If I combine some of them together in the following order:

"Vaxx unfairly accuses me of dishonesty, and I am hurt."

Your response, also presented in letters combined in a certain order, will show that I have used them to represent a thought and that you understand what I mean. Hence, I would not be wrong to claim the letters which convey a thought that I had have been relayed to you, which by effect, must exist, since I have made use of them and you too are aware of them and use them to respond!

If I add a, any number - for that is what the letters infer - to another number represented by b, the result will be the same as if I took the number represented by b and added it to the one represented by a. Essentially, 1 + 2 = 2 + 1. Hence self evident under the parameters that a and b represent discrete numbers (in this particular case).

Without axioms, science does not begin. An axiom has to be postulated, scientific rigour is then used to test its validity. If it holds true, we may use it as an axiomatic foundation for further axioms. If it fails to continue to be true, we discard it. We must therefore test all assertions to decide whether we keep them as axioms or throw them in the axiomatic dust bin.

Please stop making accusation as if you are asserting axioms that are true. I specifically asked you to post the bit from wiki that expressed what you meant. Axioms has many meanings in many different fields, so cherry pick please. Just let me know which meaning you have chosen.

Emmanystone:
He evolved from a primordial soup

Lol

purem:
I think I told you about my headache while reading your shiits My headache necessitate's the need to quote you

But instead of you to modify you're busy advertising your illiteracy all through the thread



It's more than a train speed especially when you forgot to make use of your brain each time your making an unreasonable and flawed assertions



Sir I don't argue am only here to learn

You could see that on my signature

So u eventually didn't correct Wot u perceived as wrong, woe betide u then.

dalaman:
You have allowed others to reason for you so much so that you can not live without their imaginary and mythical thoughts and ideas. You can not compare nairaland with the God idea. Everybody here including you KNOWS and acknowledges that nairaland belongs to Seun Osewa. His objective signature is on nairaland stating very clearly in bold that he owns nairaland. He has a UNIQUE moniker(No other moniker called Seun exist here on nairaland ) and uses his monikers to communicate wit people here. He uses the moniker to seek for employees (moderators), make special announcements, engage people directly in ways through which everybody including you knows that it is him.

What about God? We have so many of them. None of them has any of their names or signature in nature in an objective way stating that they own anything. All we have are diffrent believers telling us that it is thir own version of God that owns the universe. How did you get to know that the planet we live in was created hy Yahweh and not Brahma? Over a billion people in the world today claim that Brahma created the universe, do you have any evidence apart from empty words to show that It is your own God that created the universe and not Brahma. If you try to seriously claim that nairaland is owned by someone else and not Seun and insisit that Seun is an impostor you will be banned for life and any moniker that you open will also be banned for life.

God is a human idea that is why different humans have conceived of different God ideas throughout history. Your own is just one out of the many ideas that have been conceived. Even within your religion there are many different concepts and ideas of how God should be and behave. That is why we have very different sects with totally different beliefs about how your God should behave and act. Take the mordern day word of faith property gospel Christians and the traditional christians and see how different they feel God should act or behave. That alone is enough evidence to show you that bit is all a man made venture.

Seun exist and has a unique moniker here on nairaland that nobody else has. His signature and status as owner exist and nobody can claim that nairaland is owned by someone else . God on the other hand depends on whose story you are listening to. The muslims insist that the universe belong to their God, the Hindus claim the same, the Taoist make the same claim, christians also, etc. Every culture and every group keep insisting that it is their own version and idea of God that owns the universe, none of them has been able to provide any evidence to support their claims.

Seun uses his moniker to make direct comments here on nairaland. As for God it all depends on who you are listening to. Even believers can not tell you exactly the message their God is sending. Just take an example with the speaking in tongues thread here and see how sincere christians are all disagreeing with each other on what the bible really says about speaking in tongues. No agreement at all, only disagreement and even name calling among themselves while laying claim to this holy spirit of confusion. No such thing has ever happened to any of Seun's messages here on nairaland. Go to the thread and use the holy spirit to end the dispute and disagreement btw your fellow christians on the true biblical position on speaking in tongues. Shebi you always insist that you have the holy spirit, will you go there and demonstrate that this your holy spirit is real and not a figment of your deluded imaginations? Put your money where your mouth is and go there and settle the disagreement using the holy spirit let's see how far you'll go. Show some actions, we are tired of your empty claims.

I can insist that Allah is God and that the universe belongs to him and nothing will ever happen to me. I can insist that the uinverse has no owner and nothing will ever happen to me. Try and insisit that someone else owns nairaland or claim that Seun doesn't own nairaland with all seriousness and see what will happen to you.

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD, IT'S YAHWEH, and not BRAHMAN, YOU FOLKS TRY TIRELESSLY TO CONVINCE FOLKS AGAINST. EVEN THOUGH NIGERIA CHRISTIAN POPULATION IS JUST ABOUT 50%, WHY ARE OVER 90% OF POSTS BY FOLKS LIKE YOU DIRECTED SOLELY AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN GOD AND CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES?-YAHWEH, JESUS, PASTORS, CHRISTIANS, TITHES, etc.


IT'S BECAUSE CHRISTIANITY IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY, AND YIU FOLKS KNOW IT SO WELL, SO WHY MAKE EFFORTS AT CONVINCING PEOPLE AGAINST ANY OTHER WAY BUT THE RIGHT ONE?

Emmanystone:
My little sister is growing up. Make una no spoil my sister o. Na dis generation i use get hope.

When i came in newly to NL, i was almost crying every day. Then i ignorantly allowed them to rule me by always making me angry and fighting with words i never imagined i could speak out. Gradually, i overcame that.
Now, i just laugh and pass. When we are done here, satan shall receive his Just Recompense of reward.

I guess I am still in that new comer stage like u were o. I hv been in shock since, cos d rate at which foul mouthed guys flood this thread is alarming. Pple with no atom of etiquette. I am trying to adjust and grow a thick skin like someone advised me to. But e no easy o.
Some folks here are trained pests and r as rude as u can ever come across. U can imagine one kid diverting d topic by myopically alluding to my English expression. I will tutor his teacher !

purem:
But instead of you to modify you're busy advertising your illiteracy all through the thread

Hello Mr professor, can u kindly give us d definition of illiteracy and how it is applicable in ur usage?
Mr English, give us d definition and convince us that u shldnt be coming here next with ur lesson notes for rigorous tutorials.
Overgrown baby!

awesomeJ:
WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD, IT'S YAHWEH, and not BRAHMAN, YOU FOLKS TRY TIRELESSLY TO CONVINCE FOLKS AGAINST. EVEN THOUGH NIGERIA CHRISTIAN POPULATION IS JUST ABOUT 50%, WHY ARE OVER 90% OF POSTS BY FOLKS LIKE YOU DIRECTED SOLELY AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN GOD AND CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES?-YAHWEH, JESUS, PASTORS, CHRISTIANS, TITHES, etc.


IT'S BECAUSE CHRISTIANITY IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY, AND YIU FOLKS KNOW IT SO WELL, SO WHY MAKE EFFORTS AT CONVINCING PEOPLE AGAINST ANY OTHER WAY BUT THE RIGHT ONE?

They will tell you that there are 4000 + other gods but for some strange reason out of this 4000 + other gods they have only superglued themselves to Yahweh despite claiming he does not exist. They spend their entire day lamenting and lamenting and typing up long epistles about this God who they already said does not exist while not once mentioning the other so called 4000 + other gods.

It's sad to watch them being psychotic yet claiming we are the delusional ones. I am so sure that even when they look into their own mirrors what they see is Yahweh and not themselves. It's as bad as that now.

They know the truth but deny it by constantly nagging and nagging. Na dem sabi.

budaatum:
Google for "Axiom testing". Read some of the stuff that comes up. You may cherry pick. That's my evidence that axioms are tested.

Letters are real. If I combine some of them together in the following order:

"Vaxx unfairly accuses me of dishonesty, and I am hurt."

Your response, also presented in letters combined in a certain order, will show that I have used them to represent a thought and that you understand what I mean. Hence, I would not be wrong to claim the letters which convey a thought that I had have been relayed to you, which by effect, must exist, since I have made use of them and you too are aware of them and use them to respond!

If I add a, any number - for that is what the letters infer - to another number represented by b, the result will be the same as if I took the number represented by b and added it to the one represented by a. Essentially, 1 + 2 = 2 + 1. Hence self evident under the parameters that a and b represent discrete numbers (in this particular case).

Without axioms, science does not begin. An axiom has to be postulated, scientific rigour is then used to test its validity. If it holds true, we may use it as an axiomatic foundation for further axioms. If it fails to continue to be true, we discard it. We must therefore test all assertions to decide whether we keep them as axioms or throw them in the axiomatic dust bin.

Please stop making accusation as if you are asserting axioms that are true. I specifically asked you to post the bit from wiki that expressed what you meant. Axioms has many meanings in many different fields, so cherry pick please. Just let me know which meaning you have chosen.

You are just showing there is no element of truth in your assertions...... ( not an intended insult) it just an observation

Maybe you need to check how numbers and letter were first formed...., maybe you need to read versed on what is called axioms.....but if you know and you intentionally decide to display mental gymnastics on it......then this is very shocking to me.....


Maybe, I will suggest further reading .....read about axioms in mathematical philosophy , read about Euclid elements..... Pls do... How can you prove axioms mathematically, how will you prove it within the constraint of science..... This is a serious fallacy on your part....

Anyway you said axioms can be tested not me.....can you be kind enough to show me how? You should defend it..... even a quick search on axioms on google should tell you it cannot be proven, but it is more true than conjecture and even theorem..... how can you prove an element that serves as a basis for all proof, then it is no more axioms again...... abeg you need to read further? do you even proof tautology?1 + 2=2+1..... prove this to me? axioms is setting constraint for mathematician to follow, is the unproven evidence that buttress proof. i cannot explain better bro

ZirdoRoray:
Though you didn't address my comment properly and decided dodge it with that bible version, I will still roll with ya.

Hebrews: 13. 8. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.

If Jesus is God therefore:
God mercilessly kills everyone, young and old. He even causes women to eat their children. Lamentations 2:20-22.

And God in his infinite mercy watch Philip die in Hieropolis, Turkey by hanging..lol.

God gave power to the Pharaoh so that he could show off his own power by killing him. Exodus 9:15-16
Why couldn't God also prove himself by saving his apostles?..lol

Apostle peter was saved from prison
Paul and Silas were also saved from prison bondage
Apostle John the beloved escape frying death

The God who save the above is able to continue saving them. God retreat is not incapability but justification of his righteousness. God is righteous bit the world wicked, wickedly ruled by wicked Satan.

If the world is not wicked why would it wanted to kill innocent people.

awesomeJ:
WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD, IT'S YAHWEH, and not BRAHMAN, YOU FOLKS TRY TIRELESSLY TO CONVINCE FOLKS AGAINST. EVEN THOUGH NIGERIA CHRISTIAN POPULATION IS JUST ABOUT 50%, WHY ARE OVER 90% OF POSTS BY FOLKS LIKE YOU DIRECTED SOLELY AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN GOD AND CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES?-YAHWEH, JESUS, PASTORS, CHRISTIANS, TITHES, etc.

That is because Christianity is the ONLY religion I was indoctrinated with and the only religion I know very well. I know little or nothing about Islam until I became an atheist. Even now I don't know much about the religion. I was raised a christian and over 95% of the atheist here were former christians so it is logical to attack only christianity which was our former religionand the religion we know very well.

IT'S BECAUSE CHRISTIANITY IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY, AND YIU FOLKS KNOW IT SO WELL, SO WHY MAKE EFFORTS AT CONVINCING PEOPLE AGAINST ANY OTHER WAY BUT THE RIGHT ONE?

There is NO truth to be found in Christianity talk more of it being the only true way. True way to what? To endless delusions abi? You don't have to lie to yourself. There are many famous ex muslims atheist on the internet that attack ONLY Islam.

The owner of the biggest atheist website on the internet (the atheist republic ) is an ex muslim. If you visit the site his post are directed ONLY on Islam and that's because as an ex muslim that is why the only religion he knows very well. There are atheist forums dedicates to criticizing ONLY Islam by ex muslim atheist. Do some readings and stop assuming things.

vaxx:
You are just showing there is no element of truth in your assertions...... ( not an intended insult) it just an observation

Maybe you need to check how numbers and letter were first formed...., maybe you need to read versed on what is called axioms.....but if you know and you intentionally decide to display mental gymnastics on it......then this is very shocking to me.....


Maybe, I will suggest further reading .....read about axioms in mathematical philosophy , read about Euclid elements..... Pls do... How can you prove axioms mathematically, how will you prove it within the constraint of science..... This is a serious fallacy on your part....

Anyway you said axioms can be tested not me.....can you be kind enough to show me how? You should defend it..... even a quick search on axioms on google should tell you it cannot be proven, but it is more true than conjecture and even theorem..... how can you prove an element that serves as a basis for all proof, then it is no more axioms again...... abeg you need to read further? do you even proof tautology?1 + 2=2+1..... prove this to me? axioms is setting constraint for mathematician to follow, is the unproven evidence that buttress proof. i cannot explain better bro

All that you say above may well be true, however, I do not see any particular portion of it that goes towards showing that "Science evidence rested on faith".

Now, perhaps you think buda knows all. Well, let me inform you that buda does not know all. Buda learns. And all this irrelevant stuff you are throwing at me just confuses my tiny brain more when all I asked for is that you present whatever it is that makes you posit as a valid axiom that "Science evidence rested on faith", (to which you now make me think is even "unproven faith" like the just holding something to be a certain way without any corresponding evidence for it!). Yet here you are asking me to prove things to you first!

Call me whatever names you want. I'm a big girl and can handle it. But stop this your dancing around and just show me what I requested.

Place the title of the post with the evidence in bolded red so I don't miss it.

Do note that until I receive what I requested, this dance stops!

budaatum:
I'll say, "explain yourself".

So, explain yourself please.

Vaxx, how is "Science evidence rested on faith"?

budaatum:
Yeah, I'm set not to accept challenges from people with less than a certain number of games.

On garde! And good luck.

What game? Tell me chess pls..

sonofluc1fer:
What game? Tell me chess pls..

Yep, chess.

budaatum:
All that you say above may well be true, however, I do not see any particular portion of it that goes towards showing that "Science evidence rested on faith".

Now, perhaps you think buda knows all. Well, let me inform you that buda does not know all. Buda learns. And all this irrelevant stuff you are throwing at me just confuses my tiny brain more when all I asked for is that you present whatever it is that makes you posit as a valid axiom that "Science evidence rested on faith", (to which you now make me think is even "unproven faith" like the just holding something to be a certain way without any corresponding evidence for it!). Yet here you are asking me to prove things to you first!

Call me whatever names you want. I'm a big girl and can handle it. But stop this your dancing around and just show me what I requested.

Place the title of the post with the evidence in bolded red so I don't miss it.

Do note that until I receive what I requested, this dance stops!

[/color]

lol big girl, i know you can handle it and that is why i am exposing the truth you are trying to cover by playing around it like Microsoft invented world game. Aka. Xbox . i must say say you are a good player. you wanner hide the truth under the carpet, but you are dealing with someone who will not allow it to happen.

it is two things, it is either you still have some null space to fill on your scientific methodology or you just do not want to accept i cannot be wrong..... i will rather tell you to sometimes adjust your thinking cap positively when responding to my comment because i will always be pulling out the negative thinking out of it... you can not defend your assumptions again ..... HOW IS AXIOMS TESTED? i never said you know, but show it when you do not know instead of playing mental gymnastic..

faith simply means unproven believe that is hold to be true, axioms means self evident that cannot be proven.... how are they are not similar? both of them are base on thought process....

you will get serious problem if you are applying religious definition to it.... i forward you the scientific definition already...

butterflyl1on:
Cutting my comment at the wrong point brought your confusion obviously. Read it through again.

There's nothing confusing about that shiit.

I knew you wouldn't!

Feeling yourself now, ain't you. You were yarning crap!

Complexity only brings more complexity and since complexity cannot be measured beyond a point because for something to be measured you need something equipped for that to do so and since nothing can evolve to match the exponential "infinite regress" you allude then both cannot run parallel to each other. This in essence cancels itself out so infinite regress on science does not exist and is alien to it.

Are we talking about science now? What has science got to do with countering unproven and unprovable speculations with equally unprovable ones? Your claims cannot be empirically verified, same as mine, so leave science out of this and tell me why your imaginary ideas are more valid than mine. As long as it is asserted that complexity connotes design, then a complex God who designed a complex universe must also have a designer----you will ALWAYS generate an infinite regress. Has humanity ever designed anything more complex than it? Never. That's how your imaginary God couldn't have designed a universe more complex than him. His complexity also requires some decent, rational explanation----and if the conclusion is that he has no designer, then the universe doesn't either, which makes him irrelevant, since he's no longer necessary. You can't get around infinite regress if your need for a designer is centered around complexity.

Research about the big bang and dark energy with reference to quantum fluctuations and be enlightened.

COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

Science can neither prove nor disprove God.

That's my point. So leave science out of this.

My reference to vaxx should have made you realise I wasn't referring to religious faith.

What kind of faith were you refering to? What is faith?

vaxx:
ok i will....since we all have different perspective , science work with axioms which aid in experimental of data and logical deduction . these axioms can not be proved and without it science will be meaningless...

If you a lover of Scientific procedure and you do not understand how all scientific findings rest on a foundation of unprovable assumptions, the axioms, then there is a big gap in your basic understanding of how Science works. the starting point of science investigation is rested on assumptions.... there is a coined name for it . it is called hypothesis.

This assumptions is rested on two gigantic faith principle... it goes thus

1 Principle of intelligibility (that secrets of nature can be unlocked by human mind).

2 Principle of objectification. (that all of human experience can be objectified).

so whenever uncertain principle are discover , science suffer a major blow..... for example why is big bang not repeatable, why does it happen once. instead of continues time and so on

You can read further from here ......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_This_Thing_Called_Science%3F

budaatum i am quoting this my comment again for people to see if i have not clarify my point that science rested on faith evidence... i await unbiased response ....

Tohzara:
There's nothing confusing about that shiit.

Feeling yourself now, ain't you. You were yarning crap!

Are we talking about science now? What has science got to do with countering unproven and unprovable speculations with equally unprovable ones? Your claims cannot be empirically verified, same as mine, so leave science out of this and tell me why your imaginary ideas are more valid than mine. As long as it is asserted that complexity connotes design, then a complex God who designed a complex universe must also have a designer----you will ALWAYS generate an infinite regress. Has humanity ever designed anything more complex than it? Never. That's how your imaginary God couldn't have designed a universe more complex than him. His complexity also requires some decent, rational explanation----and if the conclusion is that he has no designer, then the universe doesn't either, which makes him irrelevant, since he's no longer necessary. You can't get around infinite regress if your need for a designer is centered around complexity.

COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

That's my point. So leave science out of this.

What kind of faith were you refering to? What is faith?

I will cut this short for you.

If God isn't physical and God isn't scientifically verifiable and before the advancement of science and these arguments about infinite regress started, the Bible declared that God is the maker of all things and the alpha and omega (beginning and the end) which means he was uncreated yet created all then it's God Vs science in the area of authenticity and God wins hands down because science cannot dispute this since they cannot verify or unverify God. Simple!

You asked me the cause of the big bang and I asked you to read up about dark matter energy and quantum fluctuations and you say it's irrelevant? LMAO

So why did you ask if you were not interested in the answer?

Regarding faith, kindly follow the discussions of vaxx for enlightenment and this time try not to say COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT!

you live to learn and not to be dense.

butterflyl1on

1) You keep saying absolute crap. That science cannot observe any universe outside ours doesn't mean it is IMPOSSIBLE for such a universe to exist, unless you're ready to accept that the fact that science cannot observe your God is definive proof that he doesn't exist.

2) You haven't shown me where I made the claim about other universes.

3) Nothing is an impossible and meaningless idea. What is nothing? What do you mean by empty? That there's not even space there? How do you define it? Nothing cannot exist, because non-existence is impossible. Something MUST be there.

4) I never said man is mindless. I was showing you how absurd and ridiculous it is to call the universe mindless and purpose driven at the same time. You claim the universe is driven by a mind external to it, while I assert that it has its own mind. How is your speculation more valid than mine?

Emmanystone:
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.chai pipo dey o

I know quoting me gets you wet down there. But, while you may think it's fun, unfortunately for you, it's your dissolved brain dripping like sewage outta your pussy. Keep squirting over my posts.

butterflyl1on:
[s]I will cut this short for you.

If God isn't physical and God isn't scientifically verifiable and before the advancement of science and these arguments about infinite regress started, the Bible declared that God is the maker of all things and the alpha and omega (beginning and the end) which means he was uncreated yet created all then it's God Vs science in the area of authenticity and God wins hands down because science cannot dispute this since they cannot verify or unverify God. Simple![/s]

What a stupid argument. Who says it's God versus science? I can provide thousands of equally speculative and unverifiable alternatives to your imaginary God. 2 BILLION intelligent and extremely complex ETERNAL Lizards created the universe. Prove that wrong. I'm waiting.

You asked me the cause of the big bang and I asked you to read up about dark matter energy and quantum fluctuations and you say it's irrelevant? LMAO

So why did you ask if you were not interested in the answer?

Ain't you dumb? How can you tell me to go and read when you claim to know? Can't you inform me?

Regarding faith, kindly follow the discussions of vaxx for enlightenment and this time try not to say COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT!

you live to learn and not to be dense.

I think you're the retãrded one.

budaatum:
Yep, chess.

Cool. Guess that's where the smart people hang out. Im on lichess. Cant give me username here though. ..flies be on it like shit..

[

quote author=Tohzara post=65138933]butterflyl1on

1) You keep saying absolute crap. That science cannot observe any universe outside ours doesn't mean it is IMPOSSIBLE for such a universe to exist, unless you're ready to accept that the fact that science cannot observe your God is definive proof that he doesn't exist.

LMAO you are actually the one not thinking things through and spouting crap everywhere. THE UNIVERSE IS SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFIABLE BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON PHYSICAL OBSERVATION BASED ON AVAILABLE SCIENTIFIC PARAMETERS. is God physical or spiritual?

Regarding the pseudoscience you are spouting about the possibility of other universes existed is simply you trying to justify your error with unscientific talk. Yet you asked me "are we still talking about science "? You are the one being unscientific yet trying to claim I am the one. Please stop being deliberately ignorant by force. Science FICTION is not science.

2) You haven't shown me where I made the claim about other universes.

You just made it again even on this comment. Look up.

3) Nothing is an impossible and meaningless idea. What is nothing? What do you mean by empty? That their's not even space there? How do you define it? Nothing cannot exist, because non-existence is impossible. Something MUST be there.

This is why I said no human mind can analyse NOTHING. it's a stranger to our imagination and reasoning because we are designed to focus on SOMETHING.

4) I never said man is mindless. I was showing you how absurd and ridiculous it is to call the universe mindless and purpose driven at the same time. You calim the universe is driven by a mind external to it, while I assert that it has its own mind. How is your speculation more valid than mine?

Now you are lying. Here was your comment

The universe is mindless but purpose driven. Just like a human being is mindless but purpose driven. Because mindless things can be teleological. Even butterflies are mindless but purpose driven.

When you said mindless things can be teleological it showed you were actually defending your position and not trying to show that what is said was "absurd and ridiculous ".

I think you need to proofread tour comments before posting them next time.

The universe is mindless yet purpose driven (and I made it clear that someone or something is DRIVING this purpose) outside the control of the universe. The universe is simply playing out a script. Tell me you still do not understand.

Tohzara:
What a stupid argument. Who says it's God versus science? I can provide thousands of equally speculative and unverifiable alternatives to your imaginary God. 2 BILLION intelligent and extremely complex ETERNAL Lizards created the universe. Prove that wrong. I'm waiting.

Ain't you dumb? How can you tell me to go and read when you claim to know? Can't you inform me?

I think you're the retãrded one.

It's obvious you are not out to learn and simply wish to insult at every turn even when all you are saying deserve same derogatory responses from me I refrained from offering them.

I think we are done here.

Knowledge or Intelligence isn't based on how many cuss words people know. It is based on how much their quest for knowledge and it's acceptance has developed their reasoning that only intelligence is expressed in clear terms to all who wish to hear.

Have a great day.

butterflyl1on:
They will tell you that there are 4000 + other gods but for some strange reason out of this 4000 + other gods they have only superglued themselves to Yahweh despite claiming he does not exist. They spend their entire day lamenting and lamenting and typing up long epistles about this God who they already said does not exist while not once mentioning the other so called 4000 + other gods.

It's sad to watch them being psychotic yet claiming we are the delusional ones. I am so sure that even when they look into their own mirrors what they see is Yahweh and not themselves. It's as bad as that now.

They know the truth but deny it by constantly nagging and nagging. Na dem sabi.

You're minding them? If they truly didn't believe in God's existence, should they not consider it an utter waste of their precious time and intellect debating on what doesn't exist? but no, Seun will make 7 out of every 10 posts on the Christian God. Doesn't that prove already that he believes in His existence, and is only trying to lead folks astray from Him.
If something isn't existent let alone important, should it even take 2% of your attention, let alone a whopping 70%?

FINALLY WHY DON'T THEY SPEND MUCH TIME TRYING SO HARD TO CONVINCE FOLKS AGAINST SANTA'S EXISTENCE?
They answer 'believing in Santa doesn't cost people as the Christian faith does?'

But that'd be an assumption and are all the other wrong things they think of christianity.

Even if it did cost, why wail? are we paying the price from your pocket? it's only them you see lamenting so bitterly over tithe that's paid with money that doesn't even belong to them. but when people pay taxes without getting any dividend, they don't rant at all.

NOW THE REAL REASON THEY DON'T HAVE TO CONVINCE FOLKS AGAINST BELIEVING IN SANTA IS THAT YOU'LL HARDLY EVEN FIND ANY ONE WHO EVEN BELIEVES IN HIM TO BEGIN WITH, SINCE NO ONE HAS A REAL EXPERIENCE WITH HIM.

REAL CHRISTIANS HAVE REAL EXPERIENCE WITH GOD, AND THAT RATHER THAN THE FEAR OF HELL, OR ANYTHING ELSE, IS WHAT REINFORCES OUR FAITH.