PulsingPurple's Posts

Nairaland Forum › PulsingPurple's Profile › PulsingPurple's Posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 29 pages)

Christianity Etc › Re: All ATHEIST Arguments Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 10:35am On Jul 23, 2025

MaxInDHouse:
Please try to be sure of whatever you are going to say about the beliefs of any group {1Thessalonians 5:21} instead of saying what others say about them ask members of the group to know scripture upon which such beliefs are based! Act 17:11

Thanks!

Don't worry you're safe.
I think it's okay since it goes in the reverse as well.

If everyone tried to be be "sure" of what they were pushing about the other's religion, then to me you've said many wrongs about my religion, and I've said many wrongs about yours too.

We won't go there sha, we've been there before 😏

Christianity Etc › Re: All ATHEIST Arguments Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 7:01am On Jul 23, 2025

MaxInDHouse:
The highlighted is misconstrued!
Millions of people will be saved but only 144,000 will become Christ's corulers and he promised to take them to another destination {John 14:1-3} after Jerusalem has been profaned with the blood of God's prophets! Matthew 21:43; 23:37-38

So don't think it's only 144,000 people will be saved because even i that's talking to you am not one of the 144,000 and none of God's servants who lived before John the baptist qualifies to be part of that list! Matthew 11:11

Okay oo... 🙌

Christianity Etc › Re: Another Invitation To Critical Reasoning by PulsingPurple(op): 10:45pm On Jul 22, 2025

Dtruthspeaker:
Ah! You go wait tire.

I'm serious tho. 😅

Christianity Etc › Re: All ATHEIST Arguments Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 10:42pm On Jul 22, 2025

AlbertNewton:
What makes them the "true worshippers" ? Who declared them as such ?
So you're basically saying that billions of other Christians don't know what they are doing ?

If it is this argument, after commending Max for being a fellow believer, I'll still join and bash the claims and as usual he might respond till we hit redundancy. 😅

All in all, the idea that about 144,000 people only will be saved means that a majority of the JWs will face the same fate with me.

Every body pushing true Christianity will somehow convince you to just love and contribute your best towards humanity, especially to those who might be at the lowest of lows (in the morally upright ways).

Combine this with the mindset that there's a loving creator somewhere and that he's reached out to you, and that's where most of us agree, and I'm sure we can gain some points for passing basic requirements, without needing to go into details of doctrines.

Christianity Etc › Re: All ATHEIST Arguments Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 10:30pm On Jul 22, 2025

AlbertNewton:
Let me state my stance again as an atheist.
Since I do not really know how the universe came about, I'm open to all kinds of possibilities, including the possibility that some supernatural entity did it (though I'm not persuaded this is the case). Now because I was raised in a Christian home, the god I grew up to know is the biblical god, the God of Isaac, Jacob and Abraham. And based on the stories and accounts recorded in the bible about what this god did and said, I was not convinced this biblical god is real. Realising that the biblical god is perhaps the best among all the various gods people believe in, my rejection of the biblical god invariably led to the rejection of all the other (known) gods, thereby making me essentially an atheist.

So as you have rightly noted, the points you are raising (which are sensible by the way) do not really apply to me. If there is something that created the universe (and there ought to be), I believe the nature of such creator might be completely beyond what our limited mind/intellect can grasp. But I maintain that the biblical god CANNOT be this ultimate creator.

Well noted sir... You pass the point, I get the it, it's a very common pattern sef:

People start in a certain religion, at some point, they hit a life changing moment and make a final stance.

In your case, Christian to atheist (I think you mean agnostic or something but yhh we understand you well enough that there's no need to ponder on definition of terms).

Then, what if I say there's people who had that turning point but moved from Islam to Christian, or vice versa, or even Christian to Christian?

So yhh very normal to reach the point in life where the brain becomes capable of logical reasoning and one can try to think, draw conclusions and act with intentions.

Personally, I also grew up in a Christian household luckily.
However it was after my own turning point that I became an actual Christian, and I realised the thing I thought to be Christianity, as a supposed Christian for 19 years was flawed.

Spent about 3 years minimum navigating a new approach to the understanding of this God.
Before then, I was just religious enough to know that going to church and praying regularly is good, but after that I've been well aware of every decision I make and every conclusion I draw, of everything I claim to stand for.

So just like something solidified your stance in atheism, for many people here, something also solidified their stance in whatever they chose to walk with. It's not like we're all babbling because we were born here.
Max for instance was Muslim I guess.

Then there's no intention to sway your stance. (I'm low-key saying that the same explanation for your choice is someone else's same explanation for standing firmer in Christianity for instance 😅).

All is well... always and ever will be
To each a right to his own beliefs after all.

On a normal day the frustration is with people who actually claim they can't process the possibility of a God, especially those who end up being obsessed with every God talk out there.

Meanwhile we could just casually talk about stuffs... There's much you haven't said.

Christianity Etc › Re: Another Invitation To Critical Reasoning by PulsingPurple(op): 7:42pm On Jul 22, 2025*

MaxInDHouse:
The truth of this matter is that there are 98% of atheists practicing false religions while some believers are claiming atheists it's just 2% that are atheists and knows what they are doing.
The screenshot below explains it all!

Simple!

“I believe in God but I hate Him and won't give Him credits” ≠ Atheism.

There's only two definitions: “I don't believe in your own God“ and “Personally, I don't believe at all“.

The aggressive version of no. 1 is too popular on NL unfortunately.

Christianity Etc › Re: Another Invitation To Critical Reasoning by PulsingPurple(op): 7:36pm On Jul 22, 2025

LordReed:
LoLz. I told you what I was interested in, evidence, you want to talk about arguments yet you responded to me as if you actually were going to produce evidence. Then when I insist we stick to what I am looking for you start a tantrum and chicken out. You are obviously the one who can't handle the discussion.

Okay.

Anyone who's interested in playing judge or just wants to understand why you randomly appear and start defending (or abi starting a counter offensive).

Or anyone who's even interested in understanding why I said this:

PulsingPurple:
...Meanwhile I'm looking for one serious atheist to come and continue a conversation that one of their friends couldn't hold together.

OR, anyone who understands what I'm looking for and how to start this evidence debate you were pushing for will follow the thread and our conversation here:

https://www.nairaland.com/8477516/all-arguments-existence-god-explained

Christianity Etc › Re: All ATHEIST Arguments Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 7:25pm On Jul 22, 2025

AlbertNewton:
I believe you didn't make your points with intentions of debate or anything.

So this is just a casual conversation, casual thoughts. Especially focusing on the last things you said:

What counts as right or wrong?
To an ion it's +be or -ve...
To a computer bit it's 1 or 0.
In boolean, it's true or false.
To a plant it's? See it starts to get complicated? Nutrients or not, light or not, water or not, depending.
To a baby it's? Complicated too? Comfortable or not, happy or not, etc, depending.
As you climb the ladder, you realize that things with a lower capacity for reasoning don't even have the capacity to comprehend what is right or wrong for something of the higher capacity, no matter how much you explained.

A computer bit could evolve tho... Could end up being part of a machine learning model that's able to simulate better reasoning, AI.

Saying all these to say by normal logic, a human wouldn't be capable of reasoning far beyond their scope, to the extent of fully understanding God.

So in summary (from my first reply):
1. The argument that the idea of God can't be right because "I don't believe in any of the personalities I've come to see" can't be counted as valid.
That's basically the same argument behind "relationship na scam".
2. The argument that the idea of God can't be right because "I don't fully understand any of the personalities that I've come to see" can't be counted as valid.
That's almost the same thing like saying a black hole isn't real because I can't see it. By mere definition I wasn't meant to be able to see it.
By mere definition we weren't supposed to fully understand the decision of an entity who's supposedly infinitely more intelligent than ourselves.

All these come in after acknowledging that there's good possibility for a God, and then we're trying to see which one fits our measurements

I know it feels pointless saying most of these things because according to you, you're not in any of these categories.
Just thought to restate it, it's where most of the "atheists" I've encountered approach the arguments from.

Christianity Etc › Re: All ATHEIST Arguments Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 7:00pm On Jul 22, 2025

AlbertNewton:
The bolded is true. And I think that's largely because the biblical god has become the most popular of all the numerous gods out there. Furthermore, there's a book, the bible, that's purported to contain accounts of the deeds and words of this god, providing disprovable grounds to argue for or against the realness or existence of such an entity. Through the omniscience and omnipotence qualities often attributed to it, the biblical god also comes the closest to what might "make sense" for a creator of the universe to be like. In a way, if it can be established that the biblical god is not real, then we can safely say that none of the other gods can be real!

Brother, you articulate your points so well that I don't necessarily have to bother asking for clarity or even contributing. I think I agree with you so far.

Want to try pointing something from what you've said, especially the first few lines (people trying to look into the supposed personality of this "God" and then try to disprove Him from there).

Sometimes the argument is not even trying to validate the personality of God himself.
It's an argument that tries to push claims that there's the room for anything at all that fits the dimensions for, and hence count as "God".
No one is interested in Bibles, religion, whatever. Just pure observations.

This to me is the simplest form of this kind of argument.
Then from here, people can now accept there's the possibility of God existing, before arguing on His personality or reverting on the belief entirely.
I'm not sure it's possible to argue that a "mythical character exists", and your argument points already assume that it exists.

Let me try to put it better using this analogy:
Someone says Rajal Adeobi is bluest man on Earth.
You already believe Rajal Adeobi isn't real at all, but your argument isn't yet trying to understand why people say He's even real because there's a bigger picture to focus on.
Your argument is focusing on the possibility of blue humans in the first place, then what qualifies as blue humans, before looking at the details of Rajal and looking for proof of his existence. That's the idea.

Once you start arguing that Rajal Adeobi isn't the bluest human, that means you've agreed there's a thing as blue humans.
If you didn't agree that there's blue humans, and your reason is solely because description of Rajal didn't seem blue to you, then there's a flaw in that argument.

I don't know if this makes sense. I've probably wasted your time. 😂😂

I was raised in a Christian home, but as a result of the stupid and evil things that were recorded God did (and said) in the bible, as well as the ridiculousness of the idea of heaven and hell, I couldn't see the biblical god as real let alone as the creator of the universe. And because I can't find a better replacement for the biblical god, I ended up an atheist.
Since we are yet to fully grasp existence (the cause and the purpose of it), I'm all for the possibility that there could be some entity out there that actually created the universe, but I'm convinced it's not the blood-thirsty, tribalistic monster talked about in the bible.

Here, you somehow validate what I was trying to pass ahead—that the argument at the top stage isn't even about God (as in Jehovah), but about the concept of a God (as in a normal creator who just happens to be capable of doing whatever a creator would be capable of).

This is where many arguments here draw the line.
Using the perceived personality of God to draw the conclusion that the concept of a God shouldn't exist.
Just like failing to make it through school and concluding that school is scam.
Or growing up through failed parenthood and relationships and concluding love na scam.
Or bulking up through steroids and concluding that workouts are scam.

You say you aren't one of them, there's peace there.

But yhh, I've never opposed an argument or discussion, I just prefer when it's approached well: logically, without sentiments, etc etc.

Christianity Etc › Re: Another Invitation To Critical Reasoning by PulsingPurple(op): 6:28pm On Jul 22, 2025

MaxInDHouse:
An individual may claim he is a Christian, Muslim, Traditionalist, Buddhist, Judaist, Hindu, Atheist, Agnostic or Freethinker one secret behind the title "GOD" that affects us all is the meaning of that title:

SUPREME BEING!

No matter what you claim to be the thoughts, words and actions of people around you will continue to affect you in one way or another positively or negatively.

But how do we come to terms on how to cohabit peacefully as one family?

Surely we need a source of guidance that's effective in this regard so that we can all live peaceably with one another.

Well that brings us all back to what most choose to ignore or avoid the importance of a supreme being who is not partial.

Of course we can't easily choose one as we all know that there are thousands of deities worshiped in ancient times till today.

That's why i believe the man from the city of Nazareth called Jesus that truly he is the Son of God because throughout history no philosopher has influenced mankind to the point of gathering people in their millions from different nations so that they are able to prove this man once walked this planet just as he predicted saying:

"You will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Ju·deʹa and Sa·marʹi·a, and to the most distant part of the earth.” Act 1:8

What power could make individuals from different nations form a global family of peace loving worshipers {Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-3} in a world that's filled with hatred if not the power from GOD who created us all?

So anyone can claim anything but one thing is certain Jesus of Nazareth has proved through the activities of his disciples today that there is one loving SUPREME BEING who is willing to unite people of all races! Zephaniah 3:9

At this point it's just like someone telling me that water is liquid. I already know, believe, trust.
Those who don't believe, I can only try to understand them, even possibly convince, I don't gain or lose anything.

It's not even worth arguing sometimes. The very concept of a God is self explanatory in itself, the proofs are so obvious that people have to set up structures to worship they just can't hold the idea that all these is just some random coincidence in the middle of nowhere, by nothing.

Science displays what can be interpreted as a hierarchy of ranking across all species, substances, plants, social ranking, name it, but people choose to say the highest tier in the ranking of the universe is some random dust that appeared from nowhere.

Earth alone has shown us there's always a creator—creation relationship everywhere (look around you and point anything) but they choose the idea that whatever created this level of intelligence somehow has zero capacity of intelligence. To any atheist out there: Make this claim sound intelligent please.
Their fellow scientists are already adjusting, allowing space to attribute everything to an intelligent designer.
Reaching out to space hoping to hear they're not alone and that something more intelligent is out there.

At the end of the day I think there's two main types of atheists:
Those who just hate God from a personal perspective, and just like critics, they'll criticize every idea that aims to glorify their enemy.
Take a cue from Messi vs. Ronaldo arguments, iPhone vs. Samsung... Arguments that could sound sensible but these category of people are just here to spew before thinking. (Same goes for religious people btw).

There's the other calm group of atheists who just don't believe.
They're sensible enough to analyse all the points from both end but they can't convince themselves of God's existence. Those types are rarely seen on Nairaland 😂

Christianity Etc › Re: Another Invitation To Critical Reasoning by PulsingPurple(op): 6:09pm On Jul 22, 2025

LordReed:
LoLz. You chickened out and still have mouth to talk about being serious and holding it together. Dude you don't know what is worrying you.

Whatever is worrying still allows me mind my business and respond to everyone with a clear head.

The stuff that's worrying me hasn't ever lead me to start what I won't finish, doesn't let me beg for audience.

You made me interested in starting these types of debate btw, really wish you were capable of handling proper arguments.

Christianity Etc › Re: Another Invitation To Critical Reasoning by PulsingPurple(op): 12:39pm On Jul 22, 2025

Dtruthspeaker:
Very accurate description of what atheists do when they are caught and cornered!

We're only human, pride won't let us... 😅

Meanwhile I'm looking for one serious atheist to come and continue a conversation that one of their friends couldn't hold together.

Christianity Etc › Re: Another Invitation To Critical Reasoning by PulsingPurple(op): 10:08am On Jul 21, 2025

MaxInDHouse:
The highlighted is true!
I joined Nairaland to help interested ones know that it's possible to find the one and only true religion so once i discover you are not interested there is nothing more to discuss with you!

Most feel religion is of no practical sense because they are into false religion so i try to reason with them that falsehood is the direct opposite of truth so there can't be falsehood if truth doesn't exist!

Well well well... We sha continue trying till end of these times and everyone finally know the actual TRUTHS. Goodluck on your quests.

Christianity Etc › Re: Another Invitation To Critical Reasoning by PulsingPurple(op): 6:42am On Jul 21, 2025

MaxInDHouse:
I don't drag anyone but can't be silenced by anyone, if you say you're not interested in what i'm saying off i go but trying to outsmart me won't work!

Some have noticed:

And rightly so, maybe I should also add my praises/observations too. For the consistency.

I don't like disturbing anyone but never should an atheist think he is smarter than me that will never ever work so it's better if they don't quote me at all!

Omoo, we move. 😅
The whole idea is that people will pick a style of argument where they think they'll have the upper hand. Once you start playing a bit wider than their expectations or introducing twists they didn't anticipate, the whole conversation crashes, they convert it to sentiments, redundant lines, misquotes, insults, jokes, etc etc.

Most of the regulars here are still guilty sha, even you sef. 😏

Christianity Etc › Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 10:35pm On Jul 20, 2025

LordReed:
LoLz. This is too funny. I said I would rather have evidence but instead of providing the evidence or even simply defining what you think evidence is, you've gone on this long rambling rant about different things that get nowhere close to examining any evidence.

The problem here is you so whatever you wanna do is up to you.

You ask for evidence to argue on and disprove, I ask for a proper argument while we're at it.

You don't want that, I don't accept your invitation to argue either.

I guess we're done here. 🤝

Christianity Etc › Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 10:18pm On Jul 20, 2025

Cashme29:
I was just responding to your earlier comment about whether or not we have something to lose if we chose to accept the existence of a god. And I totally disagree with this assessment that choosing not to accept a god is a gamble. Nah! I think we are are intelligent enough to make deductions and and arrive at informed decision; these are not gambles. If we are to consider it a gamble, what's stopping me from gambling on, let say Vishnu? Or Prophet Mohammad? Why at all should I gamble my sanity over some words written by some herders 1,500 years ago? This is exactly what I meant when I said I will rather wait for a god to find me, because their supposed scripture are not worth gambling on.

Yhh I didn't mean to portray the idea that every action is made without thinking too far, hence gambling. Sorry 😅

I just meant the simplest definition of gambling: A situation where you have to choose because there's different possible outcomes, each with its own risk—big or small, material or immaterial, serious or unserious. The whole idea behind this saying that “Life itself is a risk“.
That's just side talk tho, if you chose to test other claims of God, or even stay where you are it's still your choice. Each choice with its own outcome in the grand scheme of things, that's what I referred to as the gamble not any form of sheepish behaviour. 🙏

Was just side talk.

Ok! I understand you here and I totally agree. I just don't want to come on as some proponent of atheism, or some defender of "reason" over faith. I could spend decades trying to disprove the teachings of, lets say the Jehovah Witnesses (whose teachings I consider the most reasonable Bible teaching so far). And if I should succeed at all, I still have an array of other denominations to deal with. Because every church believes we are atheists because we do not see GOD their own way. And if I get done with the church, I still have many other religions to consider their arguments for divinity. These are some of the reasons I avoid the debate altogether. But I have all week. Lets talk.

Ehh true. But then here the argument is not even about the one true God, whoever He may be (or it/she/he if you prefer).
The idea here is just establishing a vague definition of an entity that fits the role of what we (the majority) keep in mind when we refer to a 'God', and then proceeding to question all claims that point to the possible existence of this entity.

It's basically saying, “Take a look at this world, shouldn't it have a creator? A creator who has to be powerful enough to create, and knows everything because He created. Creator? Superiorly powerful? Superiorly intelligent? Hence fitting the basic definition of a God?“
No specifics yet, just the idea.

If the above is the question, what would be your response if I may ask?

Christianity Etc › Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 9:42pm On Jul 20, 2025

LordReed:
I have stated my preference. I do not refer to any god with a capital g. So when I am responding you will not see it except as contained in a direct quote.

Your god doesn't get any special treatment from me.

Refrain from trying to attribute any motivations to me, that is not how to have a polite discussion.

Irrelevant, you have been given the chance to provide a definition of evidence.

Let me call you sir.
You're my elder after all.

I'll give you an easy exit, sir.

There's a way lawyers and other relevant bodies speak in court, and you can see that all their words are intentional, their points, precise, even when they have their own preferences and personal emotions to display.
I'm betting you've seen a written legal agreement before (plenty times).

If we can't try to achieve that here, then I'm no longer interested in any sort of argument here on Nairaland (till further notice).
We've spoken before, nothing came out of it. Why repeat the exact same pattern? That's REDUNDANT.

You saw my thread and called for an argument because you have contrasting opinions. I paused to emphasize there should be terms to this conversation. I was particular about properly defining all words we'll be using going on, from God to evidence.
I also talked about open-mindedness, being logical, answering what's presented before you.

In all this (like every single one fr fr), you fail. There's no sense in moving forward.

Not like I've even introduced any new thing, I just created some analogies, asked some questions, tried to start clarifying some terms, isn't that HOW ARGUMENTS WORK?... The definition of God as a proper noun is something you could easily Google, the meaning of evidence and the concept I'm pushing is something you could also crosscheck, but only IF YOU WANTED TO.

There's the ISSUE—You don't want to.
And that's a very obvious sign of close-mindedness.
In the process you dismissed everything you were told/asked.
It can very easily be inferred that you're not up for a logical conversation.

See how you directly match the opposite of my terms... the opposite of who I'm willing to discuss with?

So what can I say?
NO, I refuse to indulge you sir.

Christianity Etc › Re: Another Invitation To Critical Reasoning by PulsingPurple(op): 9:19pm On Jul 20, 2025

MaxInDHouse:
They think believers shouldn't have sense of humor when you are serious they turn to jokes so i often pay them back in their own coin!

Normally. 😅
Sha rest small, you sef don too drag person for this platform

Christianity Etc › Re: Another Invitation To Critical Reasoning by PulsingPurple(op): 9:13pm On Jul 20, 2025

Lucifyre:
I'm out 😅, my aim here's done.

You try small sha. 😅
A for effort

Christianity Etc › Re: Another Invitation To Critical Reasoning by PulsingPurple(op): 8:22pm On Jul 20, 2025

Mek una leave my thread 😂😂

Una no well at all 😅

Christianity Etc › Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 7:43pm On Jul 20, 2025

@LordReed

If you clear me, I can proceed to define the word "evidence".

Christianity Etc › Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 7:35pm On Jul 20, 2025*

LordReed:
Since we are being pedantic, the word god is not a proper name therefore I will not be capitalising it in any discussion except when it is in a direct quote of someone else.

Ok so I expect any evidence you present to reflect your definition of the god.

A proper noun is a proper noun, whether it comes from a myth, fable, or reality. A placeholder name for a proper noun is also a proper noun. When referring to the God I'm talking about, it's a deity who has a specific personality, whose name we replace with a simple "God". See how the word "deity" isn't capitalised even though it also means god?
This is not something to argue about, I believe you can easily look up grammar. Open-mindedness.
Or you simply state it's your own preference and we know where to proceed to.

I wasn't pushing arguments for the existence of gods. I was talking about God, the monotheistic being. Check the thread again.

Feel free to provide your own definition of evidence.

Sorry but this is too distracting from the topic at hand. The purpose was to demonstrate what evidence should look like. I am not going to go further with this. I think what I have said is sufficient for you to continue on.

Again, you are free to expand on what evidence means.

Ahhh, or simply put, your answers will implicate you maybe?

Since you've skipped that part, I understand you grab the point and would rather not indulge.
But in case you didn't, I was saying all that to say:

1. Your (most atheists hoping for an easy argument) concept of of evidence is/was flawed: narrow, unrealistic in terms of what we're talking about.
2. Just like Love cannot be empirically/scientifically proven, but can be inferred from patterns, relations...
Just like you can't provide an exclusive prove for Love which is metaphysical—a concept, you cannot depend on empirical/scientific standards to prove other non-physical things/concepts. You can infer tho, you can imply if you want.
This is basic epistemological principle, we won't be using the standard scientific approach to address something on an entirely different epistemic space. After all, we're trying to prove "existence", a concept.

Christianity Etc › Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 6:19pm On Jul 20, 2025*

LordReed:
You will have to be the one to define god since you are the one with the positive assertion.

Not sure I need to define "god", the being I'm making this "positive assertion" about is God. There's proper ways to write out different types of nouns, to separate proper nouns from common nouns, and from different concepts entirely.

Now my definition of God is a supreme being who's responsible for creating the universe as we know it. Most prominent characteristics would be all-powerful, all-knowing. An expansion of explanations will involve religious books so we hold on.

Evidence is a collection of facts that point exclusively to a certain conclusion.

Yes, but your definition of evidence doesn't fit the general definition of evidence, it's not extensive.
We can go with it though, only if by your definitions, you have "evidence" to prove that love is real and...

I have evidence my wife loves me. If I gave you the evidence of my wife's love towards me you won't have an other reasonable conclusion. Love is a word we use to describe a collection of attitudes and behaviors exhibited by individuals towards others or towards things. It is very possible to show evidence of love.

Okay? I'd like to see the evidences that will leave me with no other reasonable conclusion.
(Sorry for bringing your actual wife into this little conversation. Let's take an imaginary wife instead if you don't mind, same concepts).

Then, you say it's very possible to show "evidence" of love.
If I'm rephrasing with your definition of evidence, you're saying you have a collection of facts that exclusively point to the conclusion that this wife certainly loves you?

You forget that by the mere definition of love you gave, you can't actually prove it per se, your "evidences" will only point to the "fact" that there's those collection of behaviours, attitudes... Then from there you'll infer love: Since love is a collection of these behaviours and attitudes, and she displays these behaviours and attitudes, then this implies she loves me.
I don't know if you get my point.

But then let's add to that, you know how people use this type of explanations, for instance: “Every orange is a fruit, but not every fruit is an orange“.

What if we take it and apply to the collection of behaviours and attitudes that define love: “Every claim of LOVE should display [insert_behaviours_and_attitudes_here], but not every display of [insert_behaviours_and_attitudes_here] should be called LOVE.

If you understand these points, that means:
1. Not only can you not actually prove love itself without proving other things and implying,
2. You cannot also totally prove love without actually just listing out characteristics/behaviours that fit your views and inferring/implying.
3. You have to start making exceptions and trying to see the best ways to articulate your "belief" because you're trying to prove something that's not physical/tangible using methods that work best with physical matters.

Remember, open-mindedness.
All this is allowing your definition of evidence to stand, even when we know it should be more extensive than what you give.

Christianity Etc › Re: Another Invitation To Critical Reasoning by PulsingPurple(op): 5:51pm On Jul 20, 2025

Everyday247:
Didn't you say you were not interested in argument?

Did you change your mind?

What terms are you talking about?

I skipped stuff cuz you said you weren't interested.

Okay.

Christianity Etc › Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 5:38pm On Jul 20, 2025

LordReed:
But it is if you make the positive assertion.

Sure but I am not interested in arguments, I prefer evidence and stated as much in my post. I thought your response to my post was you willing to produce the evidence.

I'm willing to make it.

I'm also not interested in arguments.

Again you talk about evidence, you haven't said anything regarding this:

PulsingPurple:
We can also start somewhere else, how about we address what God is and what even counts as evidence in the first place.
There's some posts you made to suggest you're married.
If yes, does your wife love you?
Is that true or that's just what you believe?
Or perhaps what you were made to believe, drawing conclusions from the things that have been happening along the way with you guys?
Do you think I will know the correct answer to that, seeing that I don't know what you know?
Wait, does love as a whole even exist?
If yes, prove? What counts as prove?
Or is it just humans pledging to each other in their minds and following a set of logics that they hope will best portray the "love", behaviours that they won't replicate even with this person's robotic clone or twin..?

These questions set the table for matters that relate to "evidence". You ignore.

Christianity Etc › Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 3:35pm On Jul 20, 2025

LordReed:
Since the topic is the existence of the god and you are supporting the positve assertion then the onus is on you to present evidence in support of your position.

Inasmuch as that's the idea and I'm a Christian who believes in God, I didn't come here saying all that.
I made two threads, one for arguments against God and vice versa. Both are transcripts of a video I saw, not my personal opinion or thought, or a call for debate at all.
Picture someone just sharing a reel with you, they don't necessarily ask you to respond or comment, just, “See what I saw...”

All this to say I don't really think the burden of proof is on me, but nonetheless, I've given my terms, and also asked some stuff, you didn't respond.

Christianity Etc › Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 3:22pm On Jul 20, 2025

Cashme29:
I actually have a feeling "loving" GOD (since it makes you feel good that I write the word in uppercase) should not be a gamble. You either accept GOD or you don't. You either are sure of yourself, or you accept you are lying to yourself.

Yhh it makes me feel good. 😂
Made that particular sentence more valid as well.
Writing proper nouns with capital letters shouldn't be a debate in 2025 na, even if I'm typing Al-Qaeda or Church of Satan, I'd still use capital letters. I also understand the part of using small letters when referring to the common noun 'god' but mehn...

Back to you. Who makes the rules tho?
I mean, choosing not to take the gamble is still a gamble right? Same with every other decision in life, especially with decisions where you can't tell the endgame, or decisions that involve any sort of emotional/soulish attachment like starting/joining friendships, relationships, investing in them.

Sorry I don't want to give my own counterpoints to your arguments so it won't feel like I am here to argue, but I will be following the debate here closely. Not because I need convincing; I know where I stand on the matter already and it's liberating, but I grew up in the church and I still find it fascinating how much people whom I consider smart actually still accept and build their lives on something I consider a total hogwash. Surely, there must be some reason to this "delusions" which I can't see.

No please, it's those counterpoints that validate this conversation in the first place. A conversation has never been one person just talking. Besides, I'm learning, wrapping my head around other POVs, scenarios, so please carry on...
If you want to say something that you don't want a reply to, just state it and instruct me not to reply, then we'll not go there.

In summary you've just finished saying you're just like myself and LordReed, who already know where we stand but just want to discuss again on this old topic. I think we should carry on.

Christianity Etc › Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 3:06pm On Jul 20, 2025

Cashme29:
No need for apologies. I love long replies; they can be engaging. I am just here to learn and also pour out myself.

Ahh... We stand gidigba 😂🤝

Christianity Etc › Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 2:54pm On Jul 20, 2025

LordReed:
Maybe, maybe not. 8½ years ago I was a Christian, 8 years ago I was not. Sure I wasn't swayed by anything anyone said on here but it made me think for myself. I don’t come on here attempting to make people change their beliefs, I am here to make people think more carefully about the things they say, whatever it is.

Okayyy... You know how sometimes the best of friends were once enemies and the strongest of hates was once love between two people. Iyk,yk 😏
Not concluding, just psychology and a little of history, statistics.

And yhh, everyone should think about what they say and choose to believe, no room for sheep-ples who follow the master first, never bother to understand why and are ready to start fighting for their cause. 🙂

As for rules of engagement, I think simple works for me. Present your evidence, let us discuss the validity and the reason why you think it points to a god.

Okay. Can I add that there must be open-mindedness, there's no monopoly of knowledge and of course, every response should logically address all that was presented?

If that's okay, I'll like you to present your evidence instead, seeing that it goes both ways: to you I have to strong evidence God exists, and vice versa.

We can also start somewhere else, how about we address what God is and what even counts as evidence in the first place.
There's some posts you made to suggest you're married.
If yes, does your wife love you?
Is that true or that's just what you believe?
Or perhaps what you were made to believe, drawing conclusions from the things that have been happening along the way with you guys?
Do you think I will know the correct answer to that, seeing that I don't know what you know?
Wait, does love as a whole even exist?
If yes, prove? What counts as prove?
Or is it just humans pledging to each other in their minds and following a set of logics that they hope will best portray the "love", behaviours that they won't replicate even with this person's robotic clone or twin..?

Christianity Etc › Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 2:15pm On Jul 20, 2025*

Cashme29:
Maybe they already know from the start that the whole idea of a "god" will not make sense to someone like me, yet they chose to create me anyways just so they can use me as fodder for their furnace.

Well, maybe?
Goes back to the definition of God tho.

Question: What if I say my God isn't the one who throws people into furnaces JUST LIKE THAT?
Would you have a reason to discard this point then?

Anyhow it goes, first of all I wish I had a better way to put it but I believe we were made for "God's pleasure", yhh. Just like the programmer and his video game.

Secondly, I'm not sure my God is big on putting people into fire and just burning them.
I believe He's big on punishing every wrong doing in the exact way each one deserves.
I also believe He's big on rewarding every right doing in the exact way each one deserves. Both according to His PRINCIPLES of course.
I believe there's introduction of ways to escape punishment just like a parent would ignore certain wrongs from a child.
And I believe there are ways to compensate for undeserved suffering.

So question again: If there's a possibility that all these are true, would it calm down your takes a bit?

For me, I have finally given up even trying to convince myself of the existence of a god; because after all the arguments I give myself for and against, I always end up with an even bigger question: "If there is a god at all, and he/she/it is everything we are told they are, then why do I or anyone at all need to be convinced of their existence? Why should anyone at all need to argue for their existence? There shouldn't even be a debate.

True, true...

But then it would now depend on:
1. What you were told God is right? What if there's wrong ideas there or more to know too?
Just like the idea of multiverses, time travel and quantum realms seemed stupid and all that till a scientist gives you more in depth breakdown behind each reasoning. Not to convince you, not planning to convince you in the first place, but just so you understand why people even speculate on it.

Maybe there is a debate only because there truly is no god anywhere and we know deep within us.

But if there IS a GOD, then honestly, he/she/it has to find me him/her/itself, because obviously, I am too dumb to see it, and all I get is the believers telling me I am just too arrogant to admit something they consider all too obvious. I, on the other hand, know that I am being very honest with myself.

I don't ever want to turn anyone into an atheist; I will rather they "open their eyes" themselves to the "truth" of it. And if there is a god, I also hope I get to get my eyes opened to this "truth;" but much more than that, I hope I get to accept this god, because honestly, I don't like what they are doing with the world.

I like that you finally typed out God in capital letter. And the statement you made there? I 100% approve.
If there's a God, He's going to find you. He's going to reach out. He won't force Himself tho, wherever you see aggressive marketing, that's one of the first signs that it's probably not the God I believe in.

Last question: If the God finds you and reaches out, will you take the hand, or spend the whole time pondering? Especially seeing that according to atheists, you don't gain or lose anything.
If I'm blending in the idea from atheists with my take on Christianity, it's more or less picking a new hobby (or whatever it should be called) like hitting the gym, starting a personal growth journey, trying a new sport.
It's basically just trying to love this "imaginary" God and trying to love your neighbours too.
In a scenario where God isn't real, it's like just loving an imaginary friend right and doing things that make you a better person in the process, just so you don't offend the friend.

Christianity Etc › Re: All Arguments For [The Existence Of] GOD Explained by PulsingPurple(op): 2:14pm On Jul 20, 2025

Cashme29:
For me though, believing in something is not something I "choose" to do. NO! I must have reason enough to totally convince me, not just to shut me up in an argument. It's why I don't argue about the existence of a god or spirits.

Absolutely, for you. I also think that should be the way. But you know it still gets complicated, seeing what people take as conclusions to draw this "conviction".
For instance, people who unapologetically support the idea that trans-women are to be considered as real women have a lot of points up their sleeves. You (who might not support) will see those exact same points but you'll lack the capacity to draw conclusion that lead to convincing...

I'm just saying. It's like a paradox, believing ends up being something we choose to do. 🌚
But don't mind me, I get you perfectly. I think I'm like you sef.

I am not convinced yet. I still see it this way:
If there is a god, then he/she/it is not all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving.
He/She/It cannot be all of these.

Because if they are all-powerful, it means they can actually stop human and animal suffering, but they won't; so they are not all-loving.
If they are all-loving, then they want to stop all these suffering, but they can't; so they are not all-powerful.
Or maybe they are just some all-knowing, all-powerful sadistic maniac who enjoys seeing animals kill each other, people suffer sickness and enjoys playing games with his creations.

Yes we've heard this point, and it's a good one.
But here's another POV:

What if we start by defining God, Love, the idea of being all-Powerful, all-Knowing?
What if your concept of God is different from mine, and mine allows me to believe in a God that allows for all you've mentioned?

Here's a deal breaker first of all: If there's a God that's supposedly infinitely wiser than we mere mortals, then I think mere mortals will lack the capacity to understand why he acts the way he acts. It's all over biology.
The argument here is trying to accept only a God that fits into your conceived personality. But you don't believe in God right? So that leaves this types of arguments to theists who already believe in a God and are now trying to sort out which personality seems best for the one true God.

That aside, I believe God is all about His own PRINCIPLES.
Picture a programmer creating an open world game and setting all the rules, every single rule down to the detail including the consequences for rights and wrong, a judgement system, the physics behind movement, stuff like that.
A character in the game jumps forward from the edge of a tall building and falls to death, no one complains, they blame the character because they understand those part of the rules.
A random police car is driving by, no one really complains, they don't really know the rules (the lines of code) behind that particular timing but they're kinda used to it so no p.
A random maniac in the game does something that leads to chaos, plenty characters die, do you blame the creator for the deaths?

Now replace the whole analogy with the scale of this world and add one term: Butterfly Effect. Things lead to things that lead to things and compound over time to lead to more things, which wouldn't have been obvious from the beginning and might have not been intentional, but since the possibility was there, there was always room for it to happen.

The God I believe in illustrates that the time we have here is like the tip of an iceberg, compared to the time after this which is supposed to be filled with perfect living conditions.
Then also the God I believe in is in the process of clearing the mess, according to Him so in my case I'm just waiting it out.

Then a thought: If God were to use his full God power to repay precise punishment for each wickedness and wrongdoing in general, wouldn't that also contradict His God-ness? Seeing that He isn't patient, a key characteristic of someone who's meant to be displaying Love.
From human nature, how have parents shown Love?
If God were that precise and instantaneous with punishments, don't you think you might be getting some form of punishment for something you're not even aware of, maybe indirectly killing someone?

Sorry my replies might be a bit longer at times, bear with me. 🙏

Christianity Etc › Re: Another Invitation To Critical Reasoning by PulsingPurple(op): 12:45pm On Jul 20, 2025

Dtruthspeaker:
...you are trying to use to attack her just because she has threaten your beliefs

Him. 🤝

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 29 pages)