MuttleyLaff:


Her truth is, what in the industry, is called the alternative fact

You'll be surprised what nonsense some cook in their heads, claiming there is no God
It is not only foolhardy to believe that to be the truth but it's also unwise

Sometimes people dont want to face fact, know and discover the truth
so what do they do in a situation like that
They create a fiction and invent a different narrative, just like the way the lady in that video did.

Budaatum, what do you think of the Anthony Ekundayo Lennon aka "African born again" furore?
What kind of truth is his?

LordReed:


Yet when asked to provide evidence you cannot show what and how you tested it and how your results point to god. That is the mean of baseless.

Blah blah blah subjective yet you cannot provide anything. I asked you

Instead you come up with vague nonsense on subjectivity. Provide clear solid answers instead of the vague shit you are always bringing up.

vaxx:
i wrote earlier proving god empirically is very difficult but not immpossible.it is difficult because we don't have the data for every single atom or particle in the universe (the set containing all physical phenomena). And even if we did it might change the next year or there might be dimensions were not even checking in. Unless you yourself can provide a guaranty or impressive data to test it. And not the usual measurement you bring forth, it sound illogical. So even if you go further, by changing your question to be more scientifically relevant (i.e falsification instead of simply testing ) then your “God” is poorly defined. Your God is different to the next guys even if you are using christainity/muslim standard.
Science can only falsify things that objectively have the same properties to any observer (with all other things constant).as i made mention earlier

what you are asking for is illogical as i had earlier explained, you can't ask me to provide evidence that we don't have constraint for or we are yet to unanimously agree to the kind of specific data to check. It is like you asking me to start looking for where turkey is situated in europe map.( when consensus agreement had not proven the exact location, The only evidence we can give is logical proof (i.e)by the location of the map, we know turkey is staggering between Europe and Asia) and hence calling it asia is not false idea and likewise seeing it as europe also is not entirely wrong..



i am sure you are mot making any meaningful point apart from the usual adjective.


I am asking you once again, what is this clear solid answer you will want, hope you will find a meaningful and consensus data to pin on this time around.

LordReed:


If a god created the material universe and continues to interact with it, then it stands to reason that his activities would have measurable material impact. Please direct us to how we can measure God's material impact.

When I look at everything, the more I am convinced no god exists.

LordReed:


You are illogical in asking me this question when I repeated the answer twice now.



Provide an answer to that, that is clear and concise.

budaatum:

I disagree! Every truth is not subjective! One can't cook up nonsense in their head and claim it is the truth!

Here, for instance, is one person's cooked up in the head truth.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFZT_o8oYZQ

Would you agree that her 'truth' is the truth?

budaatum:
A gift or a present is an item given to someone without the expectation of payment or anything in return.

budaatum:
I repeat, whatever intellectual abilities or intelligence I may have were not gifted to me.

budaatum:
I worked really hard to acquire the little intelligence I may seem to have.
And the ability itself, I take your word that it is inherent in all humans

budaatum:
An ability or capacity, however, is not exactly a skill.
I am very certain I have the ability to fly an aeroplane and perform open heart surgery,
but that would not make you claim buda can fly an aeroplane or perform open heart surgery.
You most certainly most likely would not allow me to perform either on you!
In order to be able to fly an aeroplane or perform open heart surgery, buda would have to do some work to be able to,
just as buda has had to work to acquire the skill that makes you say buda has the particular skill being discussed.

budaatum:
No! Buda does not believe buda is intelligent.

budaatum:
You believe buda is intelligent!
buda, herself, hopes she is somewhat intelligent

budaatum:
and constantly works at becoming intelligent.

budaatum:
To be specific, my ability to acquire and develop knowledge, is not a figment of the imagination of my mind.
It is a fact that one can acquire knowledge if one works to acquire it.
"Seek, and you shall find" is a fact.
So the answer to the first part of your question is, no, it is not a figment of my imagination.

budaatum:
As to applying it, I can only take your word that I have applied it and therefore assume that I am able to apply it therefore, and thank you immensely for stating that I do.
It may very well be a figment of your imagination that buda is intelligent,
but from what I know of you, I am inclined to accept your observation that it most likely isn't a figment of your imagination.
Do not hesitate to let me know if you have observed buda wrongly please, in the figmentation of your imagination perhaps, without regard to evidence.

budaatum:
Interesting, and tricky, this one is.
I would repeat you and say "Everyone has intellectual/mental capacity".
I am simply one of those "everyones".
I responded in detail above.
In short form, the source is all the work I claim to have done.

budaatum:
Yes, I am most certain of my "ability to acquire, apply and develop knowledge".
You yourself say I have such abilities and I place much weight on your observation.
If I were one to talk through my ass you most likely would have said so, instead of stating otherwise.
As someone once said, "you say so". I merely take your word for it.

budaatum:
As to the "origination" too, yes.
I have done a lot of work to acquire the ability to apply and develop the knowledge that I do exhibit and which you seem to observe.

budaatum:
This is so off topic that I am inclined to kindly request that you start a thread for it please.
However, and just so I am not accused of avoidance, a shift in understanding occurred between the Genesis understanding of god, and that of Psalm and John.

budaatum:
In the former, an entity lorded it over others,
and the latter was recognition of how gods are created, and by whom.
It is specifically the latter that informs my "gods are figments of the imagination created by those in who's minds they are created".

budaatum:
Gen 3:5 says,
"one day you shall know that gods are figments of the imagination created by human beings".
A certain Jesus Christ took this to it's logical conclusion and is now bowed down to and worshipped instead of emulated, bar all the miracles, literally, that is.

budaatum:
And even that, much more than he did (raising the dead, healing the sick) do we now do, just as he said we would.
I stand as a testimony to this fact.

budaatum:
I still think this is worthy of a thread please.
The fact that you ask it is like you read my mind, and I wonder how you connected this to the topic at hand.
It is very relevant despite being off topic!

vaxx:

Science can only falsify things that objectively have the same properties to any observer (with all other things constant).as i made mention earlier

vaxx:
You are still reaping this illogical statement when i have ask you to provide what and what should be measured ( at lesst consensus agreement) and i had even try to expose you to 100 yard football length as an example of consensus measurement

Give us what should be measure base on consensus agreement.?

budaatum:
Wrong! The girl in the video does not seem to have anything resembling "same properties to any observer", yet you claim her assertion is false, and that she is deluded, and on drugs - and specifically because her properties do not correspond to those observed by you!

The fact that someone is being subjective has no relevance to truth that is objective. When a tree falls in a forest, it falls, whether seen or not. And there is no way that I could possibly convince a Ferrari salesperson to give me a spanking brand new red Ferrari in exchange for the imaginary million pounds in my bank account, yet, at least. One can cook up anything in one's own head and call it truth, but if the observables do not correspond to the cooked up, deluded, is the right response.
Do note however, that since we can't seem to agree on what the properties of gods are,
we cannot objectively prove whether gods exist or not, so we cook up things in our heads and call it 'objective truth', falsely.

MuttleyLaff:
Have you paid anyone for your intellect, the ability to think, to acquire and apply knowledge?

MuttleyLaff:
How are you so sure, I most certainly, most likely would not allow you fly an aeroplane and/or perform open heart surgery?

MuttleyLaff:
You believe you have the ability to acquire, apply and develop knowledge.

MuttleyLaff:
From what you know of me, do you remain inclined to accept my observation that God exists
and that it most likely isn't a figment of an imagination, without regard to empirical or fantastic evidence

MuttleyLaff:

You didnt give a valid answer though
All the work you claim to have done, is product of your ability,
and is not the source of your ability
Kini orisun agbara, agbari ati abinibi yi gbogbo, ti oun demonstrate kaakiri?
Where's the ability from, who and/or what gave you the ability?

MuttleyLaff:

Let me rephrase the question
Are you 100% certain of the origination source of your ability to acquire, apply and develop knowledge?
Whats behind your ability to acquire, apply and develop knowledge?

MuttleyLaff:

Please dont go off the wrong foot.
Very importantly recognise that, Genesis used "God", whilst Psalm and John, used "gods"

MuttleyLaff:

Gen 3:5 didnt say that inverted commas comment
What kind of bible is that read and deduced from?

MuttleyLaff:
In the style of Psalm 82:6 or John 10:34, dont you know you are gods?

LordReed:


Please stop being deliberately obtuse. I don't believe a god exists so why should I propose a method to examine that which I don't believe exists? You who claims a god exists should be the one proposing a method by which we can both look at and agree that it would be a good starting point.

Please don't give me stupid shit about subjectivity, please.

LordReed:


Please stop being deliberately obtuse. I don't believe a god exists so why should I propose a method to examine that which I don't believe exists? You who claims a god exists should be the one proposing a method by which we can both look at and agree that it would be a good starting point.

Please don't give me stupid shit about subjectivity, please.

vaxx:
I said you are lying as there are probable evidence(i.e)physical universe is enough evidence because that is what we have as consensus reality, we both can see it and can scientifically scrutinise it.

budaatum:

Wrong! The girl in the video does not seem to have anything resembling "same properties to any observer", yet you claim her assertion is false, and that she is deluded, and on drugs - and specifically because her properties do not correspond to those observed by you!
.

budaatum:
Yes muttley, I have paid a huge portion of every penny I ever owned and most of my time alive acquiring the ability you mention.
My parents started it off by paying for my education, and I continued it by investing in books and learning to reason.

budaatum:
You just sound way too smart to be that stupid!

budaatum:
I believe nothing of the sort! I know it as a fact!
I afterall have sufficient evidence that I am able to acquire, have acquired, and developed in knowledge over a long period.
It would be silly considering, to continue to believe what I know for a fact.

budaatum:
No. I am not inclined to accept you observation that God exists, since I have no corroborating evidence to support what you say you observe.
The best I can do is say, you say so.

budaatum:
I still insist that the ability is developed through learning.
I did start from "gogo gaga" at age 0, you know!

budaatum:
Learning, muttley. You can state this question however you like and I'd still give you the same answer, I think.

budaatum:
We have done this before, and I asked you to know that my choice is intentional and that I never mistake the two. I mean 'god' here as that exactly what I mean despite how they appear in the texts.

budaatum:
The bav, buda authorised version. A translation based on buda's understanding. No copies available, I'm afraid.

budaatum:
Sorry vaxx, that I seem to be pointing out errors in your reasoning, especially knowing they are likely to rub you up the wrong way. I am just incapable of ignoring.
First, "probable evidence" is not evidence. And there is no consensus that the physical universe is evidence for gods. If there were consensus that it was, we would not be arguing about it.

vaxx:
LOL.......The evidence strike you at the face now, (you can only hide under this statement.) But remmeber you were the one promoting the assertion of ""No evidence"" for God existence in which i quote you for. I said you are lying as there are probable evidence(i.e)physical universe is enough evidence because that is what we have as consensus reality, we both can see it and can scientifically scrutinise it. Yet you still demanded for emperical claim of this God (probably you think he should be the one sitting on the throne with golden crown on his head and white beard all over his face while some 24 elders are shouting halleluya by his sides Or perharps you have your unique identification of God. If it is the later, can you pls tell us, if it is fhe former, i must tell you, your idea of God is myopic, even christain will laugh at you.

budaatum:
Yes. Except good cooks like Jesus cook it up in the heads of others too,
but most don't seem to comprehend it.

LordReed:


Show me anywhere I claimed god is sitting on a throne.

Look if you have nothing better to do you can go and count the sand on the seashore and stop disturbing me with inane ramblings.

MuttleyLaff:
You're kicking off target.
Have you paid anyone for the inherent ability, the inborn ability?

MuttleyLaff:

Pardon my choice of word
So from or at what age did you start to know you have the ability to acquire, apply and develop knowledge then?

MuttleyLaff:
"It may very well be a figment of your imagination that buda is intelligent,
but from what I know of you, I am inclined to accept your observation that it most likely isn't a figment of your imagination.
Do not hesitate to let me know if you have observed buda wrongly please, in the figmentation of your imagination perhaps, without regard to evidence"
- budaatum at 5:00am

You earlier, didnt need corroborating evidence to support what I say I observe about you, but now changing tune, you fascinatingly do.
Interesting.

MuttleyLaff:
Before learning, what brought on the ability and/or where did the ability come from?
What's the brain behind this ability phenomenon?

MuttleyLaff:
What instilled the learning desire?
Who injected it, where did learning quest come from?

MuttleyLaff:
Be sincere now and stick to how they are used in the bible. Genesis 3:5, used God, and gods, is used in Psalm 82:6 or John 10:34

MuttleyLaff:
Jesus, in John 10:34, re-echoed what, David, in the spirit mentioned in Psalm 82:6
so what exactly was ccoked in the heads of others too
and what is it, that most dont seem to comprehend?

budaatum:
We agreed that the inherent ability is something all humans have,
and that's the limit of my knowledge.
I am not one to fill in ignorance with things cooked up in the head!
Nor do I claim to know it all.

budaatum:
I became aware at seven years old after ma beat reading into me.

budaatum:
You are being disingenuous!

budaatum:
There is corroborating evidence, some which you even provided, which allows me to be inclined to take your word for it in this case, and none for the case fod God or gods.
Besides, you know from experience that the above does not imply that I take your word it all the time!

budaatum:
I repeat:
We agreed that the inherent ability is something all humans have, and that's the limit of my knowledge.
I am not one to fill in ignorance with things cooked up in the head!
Nor do I claim to know it all.

budaatum:
First, I became aware of pa hallowed by a lamp with his head stuck in what I latter understood were books. I cannot say how old I was at the time, but my observation was made from inside my cot which I lost use of at exactly 2 years, 2 months, and 19 days into my existence. So let's say by 3 years old.

budaatum:
Ma beating the contents of a book it into me at age 7, made me realise I could learn. Prior to that, I was "a for apple, b for ball, c for cat, dog, elephant, fish, sheep", at which point a three pronged koboko landed on my head followed by "is that sheep"? With finger pointing to what seemed to me to be a sheep, since where I was coming from goats did not exist. It was at this point, koboko landing on my head a few more times and tears streaming down my face, that I was eventually clued in to the fact that those squiggly things under the picture were relevant, and after a few more landings of the koboko I could read.

budaatum:
I am being very sincere!
The use in the Bible does not convey my understanding!

budaatum:
You are not God, Yahweh, which does not exist, or at least, is irrelevant, as far as I am concerned.
And Christ taught me this when he surrogates you whom I see for some god, Yahweh God, to be specific, an idol and graven that is claimed to be in heaven, both of which I see not and have no evidence for.

budaatum:
One is a god, if one realises one is one, which I chose to do.

budaatum:
I may not bow down and worship you, god Muttley,
since I am bade not to create and bow down to graven images and idols,
but hopefully the regard and respect I show you,
if I so happen to show any, suffices.

budaatum:
Please get the meaning of what I say,
instead of trying to make me say what you want me to mean.

MuttleyLaff:
I admire your admission of the limit of your knowledge.
Perhaps, as regards to the existence of God, there is a limit of your knowledge you're Ok with to admit too.
It's astonishing, here is you being one not to fill in ignorance with things cooked up in the head
and one who doesnt claim to know it all but yet is adamant God doesnt exist

MuttleyLaff:
You see, your unawareness didnt mean the ability to acquire, apply and develop knowledge wasnt existing before you became aware of it.
Same applies to the existence of God budaatum.

MuttleyLaff:

Remember you ended the entire inverted commas with "... without regard to evidence"

You are so sure of non existence God
You easily cook up in your head that there is no God
You fill in your ignorance of God with things cooked up in your head that God doesnt exist

MuttleyLaff:
2 years, 2 months, and 19 days yeah?
You got more jokes?

MuttleyLaff:
Let's break it very very down
Your first pee, your first cry, your first yawn, your first body stretch, your first sleep, your first smile etcetera who implanted those abilities?

MuttleyLaff:
Let's stick with the bible way and using the bible designations first.
When done, we can afterwards do it your way, if you're still interested

MuttleyLaff:
You're intelligently arguing that God doesnt exist and at least is irrelevant.

MuttleyLaff:
1/ Dont know that God is Christ, and Christ is God?

MuttleyLaff:
2/ Please tell, how Yahweh God is graven

MuttleyLaff:
3/ Dont you know that God is a Spirit, and you can not ordinarily see God with physical eyes?

MuttleyLaff:

4/ You're opaqued to ample evidences for/of God, arent you?

MuttleyLaff:
Please explain in toto, the intricacies of one being a god, according to how Jesus, in John 10:34, re-echoed what, David, in the spirit mentioned in Psalm 82:6
John 10:34-37 has the full gist

darkchild64:
Enough said,u guyz are derailing this wonderful thread,Op do something unless u want ur thread to die off

joseph1013:
GOD IS DEAD--OFFICIAL

While theists continue in their search for the evidence to prove to us that their version of god exists, we can only continue to remind them of our findings.

For one, theists believe God is not an inanimate object but a living thing. But is there any sense in which God could be living? A living thing must have ALL of the following characteristics:

1) An organised structure
Since God is immaterial, he cannot have a structure, organised or otherwise.

2) Requires energy to sustain existence
God cannot require energy to exist, since he is said to have existed for an infinite time before anything existed, so he must exist independently of an energy source.

3) The ability to grow
God is said to be unchanging, so we can safely conclude that he cannot grow. It's not even coherent to say that an immaterial thing could grow.

4) The ability to metabolise
Without a material body, it is inconceivable that God could either breath or eat, digest and excrete, so we have to conclude he cannot metabolise.

5) The ability to respond to stimuli
This characteristic is untestable, since we do not know of any way to apply a stimulus to an undetectable, immaterial being. Consequently, we cannot say God passes this test.

To be classified as a living thing, God must pass ALL of these tests, yet we find God is unable to pass ANY of them. If this were an exam, we could not talk about God getting a poor mark--he can't even turn up to sit the exam! This is absolute and total failure.

So take down all your God is Love! and Jesus lives! posters. God is now dead. Officially.

joseph1013:
GOD IS DEAD--OFFICIAL

While theists continue in their search for the evidence to prove to us that their version of god exists, we can only continue to remind them of our findings.

For one, theists believe God is not an inanimate object but a living thing. But is there any sense in which God could be living? A living thing must have ALL of the following characteristics:

1) An organised structure
Since God is immaterial, he cannot have a structure, organised or otherwise.

2) Requires energy to sustain existence
God cannot require energy to exist, since he is said to have existed for an infinite time before anything existed, so he must exist independently of an energy source.

3) The ability to grow
God is said to be unchanging, so we can safely conclude that he cannot grow. It's not even coherent to say that an immaterial thing could grow.

4) The ability to metabolise
Without a material body, it is inconceivable that God could either breath or eat, digest and excrete, so we have to conclude he cannot metabolise.

5) The ability to respond to stimuli
This characteristic is untestable, since we do not know of any way to apply a stimulus to an undetectable, immaterial being. Consequently, we cannot say God passes this test.

To be classified as a living thing, God must pass ALL of these tests, yet we find God is unable to pass ANY of them. If this were an exam, we could not talk about God getting a poor mark--he can't even turn up to sit the exam! This is absolute and total failure.

So take down all your God is Love! and Jesus lives! posters. God is now dead. Officially.

Mujtahida:

It seems You don't know your own scriptures. It seems You don't know the import of the New testament. It seems You have no spiritual understanding of what the incarnation means.

Hebrews 8:11
And they will not need to teach their neighbors, nor will they need to teach their relatives, saying, 'You should know the LORD.' For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will know me already.


You've been brainwashed by the greatest lie of priestcraft. When the sun shines, it shines on all but when Jehovah wants to speak his supposed word of life, his word that would bring me onto personal relationship with him, he speaks through proxy. So if your father wants to speak to you, he does it indirectly.

Jehovah is a fraud!

SimplySEA:


You took that scripture completely out of context. That's terrible of you.

jesusjnr:
I can see the level your frustrations has gravitated to, for i'm very certain it didn't begin this way but this is the product of the culmination of your frustrations towards God in this respect over a long period of time.

Next thing it would be that you directly want to work for the devil, to crown all your frustrations and rage in this respect!

I can emphatize with you to an extent, because I walk with God, and frustration is part and parcel of man's walk with God on earth! If you doubt me, you can ask Noah, Abraham, Moses, Job, David, Elijah, John the Baptist etc., and you'll see that frustration with God was something they all had in common.

I mean when you have a certain John the baptist, who was so sure that Jesus was the messiah for whom he was sent to prepare the way, that he said with full confidence of him, "behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world", but would later now send people to ask the same Jesus, "are you the one that was to come or shall we look for another?" then you would understand that the difference was frustration.

But even if we assume that it was because they were just men who inherited the condemnation of sin from Adam, then what about Jesus the only begotten Son of God, who had no such condemnation but also asked God out of frustration, to take the cup away from Him, which of course God didn't oblige him. And then when He was on the cross, also asked out of frustration, "My God My God, why has Thou forsaken Me?"

So certainly frustration is very integral to man's walk with God, hence anyone who doesn't expect to be frustrated in this respect should not even bother entering in, otherwise you'd only see yourself starting a journey you are not able to finish.

Perhaps that's the only difference between those of us who make it, and people like you who give up, the fact that such frustrations didn't stop or deter us, but only made us stronger in who we are, and what we believe in!

By the way in your post at the beginning of this thread you said you asked a question when you were still a child which you didn't get an answer to, I don't know if that's still the case. But if so you should understand that Adam was said to have also had daughters(Gen 5:4), and then it was not unusual if one married his blood sister, and then also take into consideration their average lifespan at the time, meant that someone could marry someone five hundred years their junior or even more. So if Cain had married, he could have married any one of them!