KingEbukasBlog:


Thanks bro. Thank God for everything. What about you, I hope everything is fine?

everything is fine bro, felixmore is still on sabbatical leave ?

KingEbukasBlog:


Again, you don't understand the point as the emboldened text shows. Read my latest response to IamSabrina. If you can't comprehend that too, then there is nothing else I can do man tbh

Apparently it is you who doesn't understand your own argument.

KingEbukasBlog:


The point is clear : atheists subscribing to the positions which are self refuting, irrational and not supported by evidence contradicts their take on theism and God's existence.

Me : so you lack belief in God because, supposedly, there isn't evidence to support that belief... But you think aliens exist without any evidence and you subscribe to positions that are self refuting and not supported by evidence??

Me : so I shouldn't take you seriously then because of the contradictory propositional attitude

You are clearly saying if we subscribe to self refuting positions then the atheist position falls. You are only attempting to disguise it with disingenuous chatter. We see right through you.

KingEbukasBlog:


The point is clear : atheists subscribing to the positions which are self refuting, irrational and not supported by evidence contradicts their take on theism and God's existence.

Here's a simple dialogue to illustrate my point

Atheist : I'm a rational person, I lack the belief in God because there is no evidence

Me : really? But you subscribe to positions like naturalism, skepticism, logical positivism that are self-refuting and not supported by evidence.

Atheist : Errrmm

Me : I understand you also think aliens exist

Atheist : yeah, I do

Me : so where is the evidence that such exist?

Atheist : there is none actually

Me : so you lack belief in God because, supposedly, there isn't evidence to support that belief... But you think aliens exist without any evidence and you subscribe to positions that are self refuting and not supported by evidence??

Atheist : lol yeeaaahhh

Me : so I shouldn't take you seriously then because of the contradictory propositional attitude

Atheist : I'm really sorry for disturbing your peace. I'm clearly irrational

This entire conversation is a heavy strawman fallacy and i can't keep repeating why

Also, If you adopt a scientific view, then you can agree that life is possible on earth because of the specific circumstance of the earth, having the right chemical makeup, being just far away enough from the sun to enable the reactions that created life.

Alien is just a term for a creature existing on something that isn't earth; AKA something similar as to what happened in our circumstance--just somewhere else. Now how many sun-like stars are there in the universe? A number we can't even fathom. So it's not that far-fetched to assume that type of circumstance happened elsewhere, is it?

Now we go to the concept of god. In a common perception, he is an entity that created everything and it is a totally human concept. By that I mean that god is centered around us wanting to feel safe--heaven, being forgiven, having a reason to live, moral definition. It's almost like an organized defense mechanism to existence, right?

So aliens are just a reasonable assumption based on what we've observed, where the other is not that at all.

PS: You are yet to demonstrate what is "self-refuting" about those philosophies. And even if you do, atheism is still independent of them.

LordReed:

You are clearly saying if we subscribe to self refuting positions then the atheist position falls.

You are the one who keeps on making this false conclusion.

It's laughable to subscribe to self refuting, unproven positions and to hold beliefs in general that have no evidence while claiming to lack the belief in God because there is supposedly no proof. Your propositional attitude should be consistent : you shouldn't subscribe to unproven positions like naturalism *or hold beliefs that have no evidence just like you don't with theism(which you believe isn't supported by evidence)

Do you and IamSabrina understand it now?

IAmSabrina:

This entire conversation is a heavy strawman fallacy and i can't keep repeating why

Also, If you adopt a scientific view, then you can agree that life is possible on earth because of the specific circumstance of the earth, having the right chemical makeup, being just far away enough from the sun to enable the reactions that created life.

Alien is just a term for a creature existing on something that isn't earth; AKA something similar as to what happened in our circumstance--just somewhere else. Now how many sun-like stars are there in the universe? A number we can't even fathom. So it's not that far-fetched to assume that type of circumstance happened elsewhere, is it?

Now we go to the concept of god. In a common perception, he is an entity that created everything and it is a totally human concept. By that I mean that god is centered around us wanting to feel safe--heaven, being forgiven, having a reason to live, moral definition. It's almost like an organized defense mechanism to existence, right?

So aliens are just a reasonable assumption based on what we've observed, where the other is not that at all.

Lol. I still can't believe you haven't grasped the message yet.

And even if you do, atheism is still independent of them.

No one is saying this. My post is clear. You still have few hours left if you want to have a discussion with me. I don't have that much time for frivolities.

KingEbukasBlog:


You are the one who keeps on making this false conclusion.

It's laughable to subscribe to self refuting, unproven positions and to hold beliefs in general that have no evidence while claiming to lack the belief in God because there is supposedly no proof. Your proportional attitude should be consistent : you shouldn't subscribe to unproven positions like naturalism *or hold beliefs that have no evidence just like you don't with theism(which you believe isn't supported by evidence)

Do you and IamSabrina understand it now?

It is you who fails to understand what you are implying. Does the so called lack of evidence for naturalism et al mean that the lack of evidence for a god fails? Answer that simple question lemme see whether you are honest.

malvisguy212:
everything is fine bro, felixmore is still on sabbatical leave ?

I think so. And I don't think I'd be coming back anytime soon after today because clearly, there has been no intellectual challenge offered by atheists that've ignited my interest. Its even worse, no disrespect to anyone though.

KingEbukasBlog:


You are contradicting yourself. There is no afterlife like you previously claimed or that you don't know for sure

I do not know if there is an afterlife or not. But it’s plausible that there is might not be an afterlife because there is no evidence

LordReed:


It is you who fails to understand what you are implying. Does the so called lack of evidence for naturalism et al mean that the lack of evidence for a god fails? Answer that simple question lemme see whether you are honest.

Uncle, no. The inconsistent propositional attitude is why I said no one should take you people seriously. You are intransigent about the lack of evidence for God claiming all rational and ruled by logic but having hot romantic relationship with naturalism et al and/or having beliefs that ain't supported by any evidence . That's laughable!

hakeem4:
I do not know if there is an afterlife or not. But it’s plausible that there is might not be an afterlife because there is no evidence

Can you bring an argument to support your position? If you think there is none.

"No evidence" is an intellectually lazy response

Earth-flatners also claim there is no evidence for a spherical earth. So anyone can throw "no evidence" to avoid the intellectual rigor of showing their position is reasonable

KingEbukasBlog:


Uncle, no. The inconsistent propositional attitude is why I said no one should take you people seriously. You are intransigent about the lack of evidence for God claiming all rational and ruled by logic but having hot romantic relationship with naturalism et al and/or having beliefs that ain't supported by any evidence . That's laughable!

Very good. So how does this get us any closer to getting evidence for a god since that is the only proposition atheism is concerned with.

KingEbukasBlog:


Lol. I still can't believe you haven't grasped the message yet.

Oh no, sir! I grasped it ages ago but for some reason you want to act like i didn't.

You can't use a select group of atheists to describe ALL atheists and say Atheists Shouldn't Be Taken Seriously

Dognammit, its Logic 101!

No one is saying this. My post is clear.

I know it is. I'm starting though, to wonder if its clear to you

You still have few hours left if you want to have a discussion with me. I don't have that much time for frivolities.

Frankly, i'm already disappointed in this argument. If you fail to and/or cannot see and understand how your argument is Dead On Arrival, i cannot help you. The gigantic fallacy in your OP needs to be taken care of first

Cc. LordReed

KingEbukasBlog:


I think so. And I don't think I'd be coming back anytime soon after today because clearly, there has been no intellectual challenge offered by atheists that've ignited my interest. Its even worse, no disrespect to anyone though.

there defence is just weak. the atheists faith is stronger, they are very certain that UFO exist, in fact they even go extra mile in setting advanced technology hoping to here from the alien. Strong faith indeed.

we Will miss you bro.

were is plaetton ?

So many strawmen and non-sequiturs from the christian apologists on this thread, its hilarious

Dammmm. He's back. Where you go now?

Maybe this section will start bubbling again. Time to learn new words

malvisguy212:
were is plaetton ?

Should anyone be taking kingebukasblog and malvisguy212 seiously in this section ?

plaetton:



Should anyone be taking kingebukasblog and malvisguy212 seiously in this section ?

like play like play I summoned you and you appeared like a Ghost.

malvisguy212:
like play like play I summoned you and you appeared like a Ghost.

lol.

I am omnipresent.

We are all gods, all of us. Are we not ?

plaetton:
lol.
I am omnipresent.
We are all gods, all of us. Are we not ?

yes we are . but don't know were you corrupted your image.

malvisguy212:
yes we are . but don't know were you corrupted your image.

If accept that I am a god, then why do I need a god ? All I need is me.

IAmSabrina:

Alien is just a term for a creature existing on something that isn't earth; AKA something similar as to what happened in our circumstance--just somewhere else. Now how many sun-like stars are there in the universe? A number we can't even fathom. So it's not that far-fetched to assume that type of circumstance happened elsewhere, is it?

Now we go to the concept of god. In a common perception, he is an entity that created everything and it is a totally human concept. By that I mean that god is centered around us wanting to feel safe--heaven, being forgiven, having a reason to live, moral definition. It's almost like an organized defense mechanism to existence, right?

So aliens are just a reasonable assumption based on what we've observed, where the other is not that at all.

I do agree with you that it's plausible to believe that there are other life forms out in the universe even though there is no evidence for it. There's even nothing to say that our concept of a living creature is universal.... Even on our own little planet, that concept can get blurry. E.g, is a virus living?when can we say a fetus is conscious?e.t.c

So to piggy back on your last statement, if we can say aliens are a reasonable assumption based on what we've observed then its also reasonable to believe in a creator God based on what we know about nature and ourselves.
We are a Species of builders and inventors, so its not hard for us to look our universe and see the designs etched into it and conclude there is a mind behind it. Now you can say there are other possibilities like chance and time, but saying that a believe in a creator is irrational; is quite frankly not being honest.

Take for instance, in 2015, a group of archeologist found a shield made of tree bark dated to be 2,300 yrs old. We've never seen any artifact like this before from that time period. But merely looking at it the archeologists recognized a design and worked of the premise that it was made by someone in the distant past. Of course, you can say the tree bark fell off and over a period of time the environment shaped it into what it is,surely that is one possibility, but we wont say the archeologists were stupid for even considering that a mind could have made it.

A quote from Francis Crick's( Respected british physicist, molecular biologist and neuroscientist, most noted for being one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953.) :An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against.
This man was skeptical of organized religion and identified himself as a sceptic and an agnostic with "a strong inclination towards atheism". He made fun of christainity and spent the later years of his life trying to figure out how the brain produces consciousness, but based of his work on DNA molecules, even he had to make such a statement.

To keep the writing from being too long sha, i'm not saying pick up a bible and start believing in Jesus but if one is truly looking for the truth,one has to look at all the possibilities. Delve deeper into the science, look at the philosophies behind it, stack it up against what good theologians believe and see where you land.

plaetton:

If accept that I am a god, then why do I need a god ? All I need is me.

being god mean there is a SOURCE from were that godly nature came from.

malvisguy212:
being god mean there is a SOURCE from were that godly nature came from.

I'm talking about being God, not godly nature.

Ihedinobi3:

I think that you're exactly right. I have spent some time answering atheists and listening to atheism, and my verdict is that there is no real objection that atheists have to theism, and certainly none at all to Christ.

However, free will is the most powerful thing in the Universe. God made it so. This is precisely what makes God say to creatures that He made ex nihilo that they are gods. That is pretty serious. It is also why a human being can look at all existence around him and pretend that they see absolutely nothing. That is what free will makes possible.

For this reason, I don't think it is worth the energy and time to try to reason with atheists. I am happy to answer their questions where it is worth it to answer them, and to correct their misconceptions about the Bible where it is useful for other readers. Otherwise, I am not interested in or concerned with their objections, since they are nothing more than insane excuses.

What a very funny stance to take regarding atheists. Imagine if every religion treated outsiders the way you treat atheists, no one will learn from each other. Everyone has valid objections, be they Christian, muslims or atheists.

I have learned that if someone believes that he cannot be wrong, that person will always come off as arrogant and will not be a good listener to other people's opinions.

omokoladejames:


I do agree with you that it's plausible to believe that there are other life forms out in the universe even though there is no evidence for it. There's even nothing to say that our concept of a living creature is universal.... Even on our own little planet, that concept can get blurry. E.g, is a virus living?when can we say a fetus is conscious?e.t.c

So to piggy back on your last statement, if we can say aliens are a reasonable assumption based on what we've observed then its also reasonable to believe in a creator God based on what we know about nature and ourselves.
We are a Species of builders and inventors, so its not hard for us to look our universe and see the designs etched into it and conclude there is a mind behind it. Now you can say there are other possibilities like chance and time, but saying that a believe in a creator is irrational; is quite frankly not being honest.

Take for instance, in 2015, a group of archeologist found a shield made of tree bark dated to be 2,300 yrs old. We've never seen any artifact like this before from that time period. But merely looking at it the archeologists recognized a design and worked of the premise that it was made by someone in the distant past. Of course, you can say the tree bark fell off and over a period of time the environment shaped it into what it is,surely that is one possibility, but we wont say the archeologists were stupid for even considering that a mind could have made it.

A quote from Francis Crick's( Respected british physicist, molecular biologist and neuroscientist, most noted for being one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953.) :An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against.
This man was skeptical of organized religion and identified himself as a sceptic and an agnostic with "a strong inclination towards atheism". He made fun of christainity and spent the later years of his life trying to figure out how the brain produces consciousness, but based of his work on DNA molecules, even he had to make such a statement.

To keep the writing from being too long sha, i'm not saying pick up a bible and start believing in Jesus but if one is truly looking for the truth,one has to look at all the possibilities. Delve deeper into the science, look at the philosophies behind it, stack it up against what good theologians believe and see where you land.

God is not a reasonable notion. Think about it.

God as described by modern religious people cannot be witnessed by our five senses. They have not seen or heard him. God cannot be measured or tested for scientifically.

God has powers that are not logical. Omnipotence does not compute with the human mind or logic. Omnipotence means that Gods power is limitless. Limitless power is an absurdity; that would mean that God could create a God more powerful than himself. Ridiculous.

Lastly, there is the problem of deciding which God to follow. Thor, Odin, Yahweh, Sango, Zeus. Each God as tribal and superpowered like the rest.

KingEbukasBlog:


Can you bring an argument to support your position? If you think there is none.

"No evidence" is an intellectually lazy response

Earth-flatners also claim there is no evidence for a spherical earth. So anyone can throw "no evidence" to avoid the intellectual rigor of showing their position is reasonable

There is abundant evidence for a spherical earth.

Your analogy is incorrect.


There is however a lack of both physical and scientific evidence for your God. You cannot expect everyone to accept a God based on faith.

omokoladejames:


I do agree with you that it's plausible to believe that there are other life forms out in the universe even though there is no evidence for it. There's even nothing to say that our concept of a living creature is universal.... Even on our own little planet, that concept can get blurry. E.g, is a virus living?when can we say a fetus is conscious?e.t.c

So to piggy back on your last statement, if we can say aliens are a reasonable assumption based on what we've observed then its also reasonable to believe in a creator God based on what we know about nature and ourselves.
We are a Species of builders and inventors, so its not hard for us to look our universe and see the designs etched into it and conclude there is a mind behind it. Now you can say there are other possibilities like chance and time, but saying that a believe in a creator is irrational; is quite frankly not being honest.

Take for instance, in 2015, a group of archeologist found a shield made of tree bark dated to be 2,300 yrs old. We've never seen any artifact like this before from that time period. But merely looking at it the archeologists recognized a design and worked of the premise that it was made by someone in the distant past. Of course, you can say the tree bark fell off and over a period of time the environment shaped it into what it is,surely that is one possibility, but we wont say the archeologists were stupid for even considering that a mind could have made it.

A quote from Francis Crick's( Respected british physicist, molecular biologist and neuroscientist, most noted for being one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953.) :An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against.
This man was skeptical of organized religion and identified himself as a sceptic and an agnostic with "a strong inclination towards atheism". He made fun of christainity and spent the later years of his life trying to figure out how the brain produces consciousness, but based of his work on DNA molecules, even he had to make such a statement.

To keep the writing from being too long sha, i'm not saying pick up a bible and start believing in Jesus but if one is truly looking for the truth,one has to look at all the possibilities. Delve deeper into the science, look at the philosophies behind it, stack it up against what good theologians believe and see where you land.

Nice talk but permit me to help u get some things straight (my opinion)....

The reason why we argue God and reject his existence is not because it has been presented to us as a reasonable suggestion..No.

God has been ingrained into our emotions, he has been said to be REAL, he has been claimed to be seen and spoken with. He is said to be in charge of the earth and watches over us, he gets angry, loves, makes miracles, punishes and has a home called heaven.

No, God is not just a reasonable assumption like seeing an old wooden shield and saying it must be have been carved by an ancient man. God is like seeing an old wooden shield and say is was creates by Mr. Thomas, who had three wives and was a great warrior. His best food was semo and he loved his last child the most.

Yes if we assume aliens exist, we can also assume God is real. But God is not about assumption (according to religionists), God is a confirmation.

plaetton:

I'm talking about being God, not godly nature.

evening bro . its not possible you're given birth and behold you're a god, at lest there must be a Source .

malvisguy212:
evening bro . its not possible you're given birth and behold you're a god, at lest there must be a Source .

Good evening bros.

Yeah, every living thing begets it's kind. Gods are no exception.

If whatever exists has a source, then by the same logic, if God exists, then God must also have a source.

plaetton:

Good evening bros.

Yeah, every living thing begets it's kind. Gods are no exception.

If whatever exists has a source, then by the same logic, if God exists, then God must also have a source.

spirit has source ? I want to learn please.

malvisguy212:
spirit has source ? I want to learn please.

If spirit exists, by your own simple logic, spirit should also have a source.

Whatever exists must have a source .

If want to claim here that spirit is self-existent or self - begotten, then you should also allow me to equally argue that energy would also be self-existent or self-begotten.
Now, since we know that matter is simply condensed energy, therefore we can conclude that matter , all creation, including you and I, are self-existent and self begotten.

NO GOD REQUIRED.