ediko5:


Yeah I knew you didn't include the last link cos you said you won't quote any religious faith book.

But followed the link till the end which I'm yet to finish.

Yet to finish?? Not really much in content tho.
When u finish let meh know

Blabbermouth:

Are you the same with @davien?. Moreover, I didn't see your counter. Well, Now you know there is God.
cheers.

Your logic doesn't work... So you can't say a god/gods exists based on it.

A rebuttal, proof or even a reassessment of your argument was not provided.

To be honest, it's nothing but false equivalence and misrepresentations.

Something always exists..

You group everything that does into the term "eternal something"

You impose it has no needs not already met by itself and yet again impose a will that requires it to have wants.. Thus not only contradicting yourself but conjuring an unsubstantiated claim that can't be logically proven but require evidence.

You claim all things that create/produce other things are in of themselves greater than their creations while ignoring things like atoms, people, DNA, matter, the gases that form our atmosphere, electrons, protons, that form/produce things greater than themselves through cause and effect.

Then add a gender to which your "eternal something" can be addressed and then finally landing on your preconceived bias and terming it God.

If you have to go to such great lengths of bad logic to believe in god, is it worth the mental loops.. Since it doesn't make sense, why not use faith instead of dishonesty?

A true Christian should only idolize divine truths disseminated by the pastor and not the pastoral personality. Genuine pastors whom the Lord promised to send in place of spurious pastors, that destroy and scatters the sheep of my pasture are rarely eulogized. Pastors implementing the will of God are rarely eulogized.

davien:

In the real sense this statement doesn't make any sense.. For one, "nothing" is what we humans use to define a lack of physical objects.. And no matter how much we push back the notion of "nothing" there is never a pure "nothing" state.

So "nothing" can come out of "nothing" is nonsensical, the only thing we know to be true is something coming from something and so it appears something is what exists with no defined beginning(except the observable universe)

True as we(science) can tell.. Apart from the known universe.

Everything we know to exist is bound by space and time, sorry
Your assertion is false..


What verified object matches this description that we know is real and can ascertain its existence?
This is another assumption put into your logic.

We don't even know what the something that always existed is, nor if it may only make replicas of itself.
This assumption isn't even true in the most part if scrutinized properly... For example, Cats don't produce anything other than Cats.

We live in a cause and effect universe that builds on physical relationships that gives us patterns.
Again... When we apply something and nothing we fail to realize that it only applies to the object in question, they lose meaning and can't be used to make logical deductions.

For example would you say without the something of Nigeria, that whole area would be "nothing", no land, no country, no soil, no people, nothing at all?

Or that without the something of your birth and existence there would be "nothing", no other human being born to your family, no aunty, no uncle to this new human, nothing at all?

What happens is that things still fill in the metaphorical gap of our idea of "nothing" and only is fulfilled when we mean uniqueness, and even that is thrown out the window of our understanding.

Your "epistles" are unsound and lay assumption after assumption to try to insist on even bigger assumptions.
Nothing is not a physical state of anything, it is a term we've used to associate the lack of a predefined thing and without that something... You can't remove things from existence into a state of nothing as nothing has never been known to be a state of anything.

You: There is never a pure state of nothing
I: Agreed, or else that state would still be all what there is till today.
Conclusion: You and I Both agree to "There was always something"

I:This Eternal Something that has always existed isn't bound by space and time
You: Everything we know is bound by space and time. So that means my notion is wrong
I: This guy is pointing a pistol at himself. Any thing that is bound by time has a beginning. Are you telling me that "the eternal something that we both said was always existing has a beginning?? If so, then there would be a time when it wasn't existing at all and that is the time of " nothing" which we both know is actually impossible..
It is bound By space? Every space we occupy in the universe has always been in existence b4 us. Are u now concluding that, The space is the eternal something? if so make a box about the size of a plot of Land. When ur greatgrandson is about age, let him open the box and bring out a cat, infact, not a cat, we want him to bring out a lifeless tennis ball.
SO FAR,
We have agreed on, 'there was always something, and I demonstrated how this eternal something cant be bound by time and space or else, there would be a state of 'nothingness " which is nonsensical.

I: This eternal something has the power to bring other things into existence
You: Not verified, because "cats can't produce any thing other than cat"
I: Don't be ignorant na, look around, see books, see tables, look up see a plane. Infact look at your phone. Are they all Humans? . According to your one-sided logic, "Why can humans produce other things apart from humans". Funny man, Humans have the power to bring " Sex dolls, Humanoids, robots into existence ". In the same scope the eternal something could. If there were no humans that made it, this things can't produce themselves, and won't exist. If there was no eternal something that made it, Humans and every other things u see can't simply create themselves.
You see how logical it sounds, don't you?
The LOGICAL CONCLUSION:
I said from the beginning, we have reasoned logically with " what is existing as we could see".
So, There was always something, which has always been in existence, and has the power to bring other things into existence, in the same scope humans could.
Go thru the epistle one more time for clearer understanding.
I ain't supposed to go thru this stress to reply you, because u see this as an argument and thus argue blindly. Argue with validity next time, all this I said are clear even from epistle and perfectly logical.

davien:
Your logic doesn't work... So you can't say a god/gods exists based on it.

A rebuttal, proof or even a reassessment of your argument was not provided.

To be honest, it's nothing but false equivalence and misrepresentations.

Something always exists..

You group everything that does into the term "eternal something"

You impose it has no needs not already met by itself and yet again impose a will that requires it to have wants.. Thus not only contradicting yourself but conjuring an unsubstantiated claim that can't be logically proven but require evidence.

You claim all things that create/produce other things are in of themselves greater than their creations while ignoring things like atoms, people, DNA, matter, the gases that form our atmosphere, electrons, protons, that form/produce things greater than themselves through cause and effect.

Then add a gender to which your "eternal something" can be addressed and then finally landing on your preconceived bias and terming it God.

If you have to go to such great lengths of bad logic to believe in god, is it worth the mental loops.. Since it doesn't make sense, why not use faith instead of dishonesty?

Anyone that's reading this would think you have a point. But u didn't read the epistle well at all. You keep conflicting, agreeing with some and trying to counter it at the same time.
Look up this post readers, yh read the one b4 this. Even thou they were clearly explained in the epistle. This man Here want to argue blindly.
Well he has been thrown into a loop, it's either he concurs with logic or explain to us how something can come out of nothing. {which is also the same thing he frowned at}.
Hahaha
To God be the glory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZmOrdnj3dY

Blabbermouth:

Anyone that's reading this would think you have a point. But u didn't read the epistle well at all. You keep conflicting, agreeing with some and trying to counter it at the same time.
Look up this post readers, yh read the one b4 this. Even thou they were clearly explained in the epistle. This man Here want to argue blindly.
Well he has been thrown into a loop, it's either he concurs with logic or explain to us how something can come out of nothing. {which is also the same thing he frowned at}.
Hahaha
To God be the glory

LOL.. I like the way believers have to deny both facts, reason and logic to defend their arguments.
Your "epistles" crumbled under scrutiny like all arguments for metaphysical beings.

davien:
LOL.. I like the way believers have to deny both facts, reason and logic to defend their arguments.
Your "epistles" crumbled under scrutiny like all arguments for metaphysical beings.

Argue constructively next time.
Point for point. Just like I did. Look up the post I replied ur nonsense.
Its a hard pill, just swallow it and move on, and stop hiding behind "Everything is nonsense, even tho I can't find a counter".
Once again, don't stress me, if you are to raise something against it, let it be smtin the epistle either didn't cover or u didn't find satisfactory. All those u stated, I went thru a waste of time to re-express. Hope u are cleared.
God bless

Blabbermouth:

Argue constructively next time.
Point for point. Just like I did. Look up the post I replied ur nonsense.
Its a hard pill, just swallow it and move on, and stop hiding behind "Everything is nonsense, even tho I can't find a counter".
Once again, don't stress me, if you are to raise something against it, let it be smtin the epistle either didn't cover or u didn't find satisfactory. All those u stated, I went thru a waste of time to re-express. Hope u are cleared.
God bless

You couldn't construe an argument worth the little mental effort I used to address you. I had a good time laughing at your baby logic though. Thanks

davien:
You couldn't construe an argument worth the little mental effort I used to address you. I had a good time laughing at your baby logic though. Thanks

When i reassessed my epistle to your understanding, U couldnt object. Hope it's crystal clear now?
If u still have any one of the statement dat doesn't go well with you, pls pinpoint. And stop this your "aimless counter" its making u look defenseless
To God be the glory

BY FAITH, and BY LOGIC. God truly exist. What is your purpose of existence? That is what you should ask yourself now. Think about it!!!! God bless

Blabbermouth:

You: There is never a pure state of nothing
I: Agreed, or else that state would still be all what there is till today.
Conclusion: You and I Both agree to "There was always something"

I:This Eternal Something that has always existed isn't bound by space and time
You: Everything we know is bound by space and time. So that means my notion is wrong
I: This guy is pointing a pistol at himself. Any thing that is bound by time has a beginning. Are you telling me that "the eternal something that we both said was always existing has a beginning?? If so, then there would be a time when it wasn't existing at all and that is the time of " nothing" which we both know is actually impossible..
It is bound By space? Every space we occupy in the universe has always been in existence b4 us. Are u now concluding that, The space is the eternal something? if so make a box about the size of a plot of Land. When ur greatgrandson is about age, let him open the box and bring out a cat, infact, not a cat, we want him to bring out a lifeless tennis ball.
SO FAR,
We have agreed on, 'there was always something, and I demonstrated how this eternal something cant be bound by time and space or else, there would be a state of 'nothingness " which is nonsensical.

I: This eternal something has the power to bring other things into existence
You: Not verified, because "cats can't produce any thing other than cat"
I: Don't be ignorant na, look around, see books, see tables, look up see a plane. Infact look at your phone. Are they all Humans? . According to your one-sided logic, "Why can humans produce other things apart from humans". Funny man, Humans have the power to bring " Sex dolls, Humanoids, robots into existence ". In the same scope the eternal something could. If there were no humans that made it, this things can't produce themselves, and won't exist. If there was no eternal something that made it, Humans and every other things u see can't simply create themselves.
You see how logical it sounds, don't you?
The LOGICAL CONCLUSION:
I said from the beginning, we have reasoned logically with " what is existing as we could see".
So, There was always something, which has always been in existence, and has the power to bring other things into existence, in the same scope humans could.
Go thru the epistle one more time for clearer understanding.
I ain't supposed to go thru this stress to reply you, because u see this as an argument and thus argue blindly. Argue with validity next time, all this I said are clear even from epistle and perfectly logical.

This was the summary of all the point davien raised, which I painstakingly replied. HappyPagan, ediko5 and JeromeBlack , how this didn't follow logic is wah I need to know.
He thought I don't know anything abt logical reasoning at all

Blabbermouth:

This was the summary of all the point davien raised, which I painstakingly replied. HappyPagan, ediko5 and JeromeBlack , how this didn't follow logic is wah I need to know.
He thought I don't know anything abt logical reasoning at all

Old troll new username.

Blabbermouth:

This was the summary of all the point davien raised, which I painstakingly replied. HappyPagan, ediko5 and JeromeBlack , how this didn't follow logic is wah I need to know.
He thought I don't know anything abt logical reasoning at all

That was real logic.

HappyPagan:

Hey bee

Haq haq haq. Whats good bro?

One of my friend needed an event planner to plan her wedding..I read the advert about the referral program organized by Tushmyhall Event ,I contacted them confirm if it was real,so I decided to talk to my friend about it.

Read the remaining story on

tushmyhallevents..com

If it has worked for me it will work for you also...

Kindly thank me later..

Christ promised to cure mankind of sin and evil

Thor promised to rid earth of ice giants

Who kept their word??

I am a born again Norseman .

I’ll see you all in Valhalla. May the hammer be with you!!

Odogu9195:
Christ promised to cure mankind of sin and evil

Thor promised to rid earth of ice giants

Who kept their word??

I am a born again Norseman .

I’ll see you all in Valhalla. May the hammer be with you!!

May Odin's all seeing eye guide you.

LordReed:

May Odin's all seeing eye guide you.

See you

The Three Types of Atheist
"" every atheist can be grouped by 3 categories
1.THE HEARTBROKEN
2. THE BROKEN
3. THE BLIND FOLLOWER
The word I used in grouping this pple might sound vulgar and destructive, but it is what it is.
THE HEARTBROKEN: "why can't God stop suffering" "I will sin till I am satisfied and then ask God for forgiveness and enter heaven" "No one listens to prayer, God is a scam".
This are the kind of phrases and Blasphemy u would hear them say. They were once worshippers and believers, during their times of distress, they called unto Him , To them, its like nothing happened, it's like there was no answer . They felt " ohhhhhh, what's all this? Wasn't this God supposed to hearken, all this is bluff. There is nobody to answer and supplication or prayers, No God " They concluded.
TBC....

If only you know,
B4 anything any religion paints the true God as. Foremost, God is THE ULTIMATE CREATOR.
The Ways of the cunning one are quite diabolical and Highly strategic, I give him that.
They said "Logic is the only language we understand" . They said "Logic refutes anything God claim to be"
We said unto them "okay okay, thou art wise in logic, tell us please the origin of creation by logic". THEY ALL RAN. I thought personally, there should be sm1 at least to say something, to show me, enlighten me hw I've been blinded". To my disappointment, they all ran.
If this logic is it that Lead u into dis, it should also guide u, and enlighten u.
Then One Came....
TBC..

He came and said, "well, we also don't know, we could only theorize".
I laughed so hard on seeing the statement, LOGIC ITSELF HATH REALLY FAILED THEM. We then said unto him " What theories do u have that is logically sound". He said "The big Bang" . Even the originator of this theory would have dropped a disclaimer. We said "Okay, Okay, let's assume your theory is Right, Then Big Bang should be God". He felt like taking his statements back, as crude as it sounds, we were right. He began to fret, and we decided to remove the pressure off him, and show him more.
TBC....

davien:
Your logic doesn't work... So you can't say a god/gods exists based on it.

A rebuttal, proof or even a reassessment of your argument was not provided.

To be honest, it's nothing but false equivalence and misrepresentations.

Something always exists..

You group everything that does into the term "eternal something"

You impose it has no needs not already met by itself and yet again impose a will that requires it to have wants.. Thus not only contradicting yourself but conjuring an unsubstantiated claim that can't be logically proven but require evidence.

You claim all things that create/produce other things are in of themselves greater than their creations while ignoring things like atoms, people, DNA, matter, the gases that form our atmosphere, electrons, protons, that form/produce things greater than themselves through cause and effect.

Then add a gender to which your "eternal something" can be addressed and then finally landing on your preconceived bias and terming it God.

If you have to go to such great lengths of bad logic to believe in god, is it worth the mental loops.. Since it doesn't make sense, why not use faith instead of dishonesty?

Lol!

Blabbermouth:
He came and said, "well, we also don't know, we could only theorize".
I laughed so hard on seeing the statement, LOGIC ITSELF HATH REALLY FAILED THEM. We then said unto him " What theories do u have that is logically sound". He said "The big Bang" . Even the originator of this theory would have dropped a disclaimer. We said "Okay, Okay, let's assume your theory is Right, Then Big Bang should be God". He felt like taking his statements back, as crude as it sounds, we were right. He began to fret, and we decided to remove the pressure off him, and show him more.
TBC....

I like that. Refutes none of what davien said above though.

Guys it seems I have fallen in love with the Epicurean philosophy. What other philosophies are you guys looking up?

There were 2 other ways we could have Enlightened you all, But do u convey a message in Spanish to those that understands Yoruba only?, It is logic they understand, and logic it is we used.
'There was always something" , this we all agree on. WHAT THAT SOMETHING/SOMETHINGS IS, is where he was confused.
Just as we would solve an equation with unknown variables, let's test everything and throw every unit that doesn't work out of the equation. The one that works is one that equates back all what the universe is. The Universe itself is its proof and evidence.

Blabbermouth:
There were 2 other ways we could have Enlightened you all, But do u convey a message in Spanish to those that understands Yoruba only?, It is logic they understand, and logic it is we used.
'There was always something" , this we all agree on. WHAT THAT SOMETHING/SOMETHINGS IS, is where he was confused.
Just as we would solve an equation with unknown variables, let's test everything and throw every unit that doesn't work out of the equation. The one that works is one that equates back all what the universe is. The Universe itself is its proof and evidence.

Sharrap.

.......When we removed the pressure and illustrated how logic concurs with God. After some biased scrutiny, he said the epistle was shaky on 2 things
"Not being bound by space and time" and the fact that "It can produce anything other than itself".
Well I painstakingly replied, using Humans that are evident in the universe as a case study.

----@Budaatum, Did u read the epistle? If u did, u would have seen how his argument was just the effect of lack of understanding of a biased mind----
The epistle was in a link, so that, IT IS HE THAT TRULY WANTS TO KNOW THAT WILL KNOW

I am imploring u, take 30mins from the 24hrs you have to ponder, like i said, throw every single stuff that doesn't satisfy the equation away, read the epistle again. COMPARE AND CONTRAST.
Let me give u an headstart,
Time in itself can't produce anything.
I.e A ballon, for example would still contain the same thing in its volume even after 1,000_ or 10,000 years.
Space In itself can't produce anything (self explanatory)

JeromeBlack:


Sharrap.

If u can't do well to prove anything from the epistle wrong, do well to confess "God truly exist" and don't confuse the seed that is being sown in others mind.
(Am very sure, u would rain abuses and run from the task of proving d proof wrong)

Blabbermouth:

If u can't do well to prove anything from the epistle wrong, do well to confess "God truly exist" and don't confuse the seed that is being sown in others mind.
(Am very sure, u would rain abuses and run from the task of proving d proof wrong)

Lol