₦airaland Forum

KingEbukasBlog:
A prescient God cannot make mistakes

I just answered your question . That God plans to revamp the universe but necessarily to make it perfect .

These so called Natural Disasters help make earth more habitable for advanced life while they also check population . And this supposedly poor or flawed designs have advantages . A popular example is the sickle cell anemia and malaria .

And there is counterexample which is the snowflake which has been described as an impeccable design this counterexample destroys your argument from poor design .

And theistic evolutionists aver that natural selection eliminates supposed flaw design .

Why are we cycling back... Natural disasters have benefits, right?
Could god have created those benefits without those disasters? Yes or no??

felixomor:
Is atheism good?

Uhmmm... Yes??

DoctorAlien:
How is going blind bad for the child?

Why are u repeating questions?? Is the ability to see good?? Or are u claiming nothing is really good or bad??

DoctorAlien:
Aww, how emotional

But don't veer off the track yet.

How is it bad for the child?

A child going blind is bad for the child...
Is the ability to see good? Yes
So inability to see is bad...
See, even logic shows it

KingEbukasBlog:
Death is a part of life .

Why am I not surprised?? U also claim god sending two bears to devour 42 children is a good thing.
Besides, when you say "death is part of life", what point does that suggest or prove really??

DoctorAlien:
Oh, you're the one that said it? How is it bad for the child?

How is getting your eye eating by a worm bad for you?? Seriously?? So a person going blind is good... I wonder why Jesus was healing the blind then...
But I need you to say this... "A child's eye been eaten by an insect is good for the child"... Remember, u would have children, if u don't already

KingEbukasBlog:
Someone who is perfect can decide to do something that is not perfect for logical reasons . The 'Christian God' describes what he created as good but He promises to revamp the universe to eliminate these so called flaws at a certain time (we can see that in the book of Revelations)

The system is complex orderly and functional and that can mean that the designer is intelligent and powerful

Someone who is perfect can only do perfect things... Or are u claiming there are some of God's actions that are flawed??
The system is functional but not perfect, snow blizzards, tsunamis and earthquakes kill people... A perfect god will be able to create a functional universe without those natural disasters...

DoctorAlien:
This statement is confusing what is bad in the worm eating the eye? who said it is bad? is the worm not trying to survive?

U are still arguing my point for me... It's good for the worm and bad for the child... If u think it is good for the child please just state it categorically...

DoctorAlien:
Who said it is bad? What is bad about it? Is the worm not tryna survive?

It's not bad for the worm but bad for the child... Are u claiming a child's eye being eaten by a worm is good??

DoctorAlien:
You said so:

In other words, you argue that GOD did not create a perfect system.

Now the question is: who stipulated that a perfect system is that in which life forms survive independent of each other?

A perfect system will be devoid of flaws... Are using claiming the world is perfect as it is??

DoctorAlien:
Why should He do so?

Because a worm eating a child's eye is bad... Are u claiming a child having his eye eating is good... Are u also claiming that the thousands who die in tsunami are a good thing..

DoctorAlien:
Who said so? Who said life forms have to survive independent of each other?

I never said so... In fact, the system created by god is that the only way some things survive is by harming others... That's an imperfect system...
This is the question, could god have created both the child and the worm without making it necessary for the worm to harm the child... The answer should be yes, if God is omnipotent. If yes, then why didn't he do so... We're left with the second option, god is not good

DoctorAlien:
You're trying to appeal to my emotion.

1. Why is the worm burrowing into the eye of the 4-year old wrong?

2. The worm is doing what it has to do to live. Is the worm's life not important?

U are just proving my point... The worm's life is important, the child's eye is important... A system where the worm has to feed on an important eye to survive is not perfect. That's the system god created, god is not perfect...

Richirich713:
What should he debate other than the resurrection?

He should debate the killings and genocide of God in the old testament... He should so show why his god is still good despite the genocide

DoctorAlien:
You're shifting the goalpost to the problem of evil argument. In fact, you're confused.

Why is eye-eating wrong/bad? Who cares whether only eye-eating worms survive in the universe? It is still life. Therefore GOD is benevolent.

It was the problem of evil exactly that I was arguing before...
Picture this: a worm burrowing into the eye of a 4 year old, who goes blind because of that... How on earth is that right or good

felixomor:
U still ran away.

Ur question on Judas is from bible?
I didnt write the bible.

My simple question is on you and it a closed True or false question.
They are different.
Besides if ur question on Judas was True/false
It would av been answered.

I don't even remember where u asked me the Judas que.

U have shown dishonesty.

U don't remember, seriously?? When u were trying and was failing to show that there were no contradictions in the bible??

DoctorAlien:
This question is non sequitor.

Meanwhile, which life are you talking about?

I simply stated: Life exists and is sustained. Therefore GOD is benevolent since He put all the conditions in place.

The question is not non sequitur...
If God could have sustained life without creating the Eye- eating worm, then he is not a good god... If the creation of the Eye- eating worm is necessary for God's creation to work then god is not infinitely powerful...
The argument of necessary evil is incompatible with an omnipotent god... Evil will not be necessary for god if he's truly omnipotent

KingEbukasBlog:
I have told you that as at 1996 in Mensa only 3 percent of Mensa members are atheists . Mensa is an organization of people with high IQ .

But IQ does not actually define intelligence totally . Because here's social intelligence and there's emotional intelligence.

The greatest minds were theists and deists from the Ancient Greeks to the medieval age to the modern time . It has all been theists and deists

Albert Einstein , Max Planck , Leonardo Da Vinci I can go on and on and on

I also discovered that the grandmasters in Chess have high IQs and they are very religious too .

An except from a Pew research article
"A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that members of this group are, on the whole, much less religious than the general public.1 Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. "
The greatest minds from time past were theists right?? Well, there is much more knowledge now than there was during the medieval times. And atheism is becoming more acceptable... So the increase of knowledge is directly proportional to the growth of atheism...
IQ doesn't define intelligence?? OK, is there any evidence to show that theists are more emotionally Intelligent than atheists. Even at that, IQ is still very important.
U have failed to contradict the proposition that scientists are more likely to be atheists than other people.
U have also failed to counter the argument that atheists are on an average more intelligent than religious people.
Am expecting your rebuttals

4everGod:
When you get a taste of your own medicine you suddenly turn to a wet pussy cat. I thought you had a leaking mouth and a seemingly lewd cesspool of gutter language in the reservoir of your brain.

You joined NL and i warned you early that your language was terrible and your lack of manners was irritating but you kept at it. You never know when you are messed up in the head but only see others. FYI everyone knows you have been morally bankrupt here on NL even kingebukasblog so much so even he at a point also wanted to stop conversing with you as all you do is throw insults in the name of having debates.

My position still stands. This is 2017 and i will not tolerate any trashy talk from anyone. Stop mentioning my moniker deliberately or in error. I have already asked 2 others of your sort to also desist and so far even the one i thought would find it hard to do has respected my wish. I believe you also can respect my wish. I have not mentioned you ever since i told you to stop mentioning me and i never break my word. Mentioning you ow was to issue you a reminder after you failed to keep my request.

If you love trolling and you feel trolling means advantage then i wonder the kind of common sense you acquired in the theater of life.

Cease and desist from mentioning my moniker forthwith. I am not Atheist so get your fill of mentioning the monikers of your tribe of atheists.

I don't have the time for childish rants, come back when am less busy... In fact, I will mention u when am less busy

DoctorAlien:
What is ugly and what is good? Who determined the standard?

GOD is still benevolent because the eye exists for the proliferation of life(the worms). The life of those organisms is sustained by their parasitic activities on man/other things. All in all, life is sustained. Therefore GOD is benevolent.

Does god have the power to sustain life without the eye-eating worm?

KingEbukasBlog:
Lol . This is simple common sense . Pay attention carefully

Omnipotence means enormously powerful .

See how vast and great the universe is , it is only an enormously powerful being can cause it to exist .

God is cognitively perfect and this is greater than omniscience - this means that God knows all propositional knowledge or truths and the appropriate non propositional knowledge .

And since God is immutable or changeless then he is perfect . If anything changes, it must change for the better or the worse . For a change to take place, either something that is needed is added, which is a change for the better; or something that is needed is lost, which is a change for the worse.

But, since God is perfect (good) , He does not need anything. Therefore, He cannot change for the better. If God were to lose something, He would no longer be perfect; therefore, He cannot change for the worse.

Evil is a deviation from good. And since God is perfect then He is good

Remember from the cosmological argument , we can deduce the properties of the First cause - changeless , spaceless , beginless , timeless , immaterial , non physical , enormously powerful etc and this coincides with the Christian God

Omnipotence doesn't mean enormously powerful, it means infinitely powerful, can do all things... There is no logical basis for suggesting the creator of the universe can do all things... The word 'can' implied potential, so how do u deduce he CAN do all things, when he has not done all things... An assunption borne out of laziness...
And assuming without conceding that God can do all things, this omnipotence contradicts his benevolence in two ways:
1. If he can do all things, does that mean that he can do evil?? If he can do evil, then he isn't infinitely good. If he can't do evil, he's not infinitely powerful...
2. If God is both infinitely powerful and infinitely good, that means he has the will and the power to create a perfect universe. The universe is imperfect, therefore either god doesn't have the will to create a perfect universe- which means he's not good, or he doesn't have the power, which means he's not all powerful... Basically the problem of evil.

The properties u claim u deduce from the cosmological argument, what's actually the basis... Has it been proven that God in fact possesses these characteristics? It hasn't, therefore you can't use them as premises from which to draw the conclusion of the existence of God.
And, again assuming these properties are proven, they also coincide with a Muslim god, and many other Gods. What makes yours more valid??

4everGod:
If you knew what being uncouth meant you would have asked your father to tell you how he managed to drop you on your head while you were still a baby and that would explain how you managed to use such a language as "go fvck yourself" on anyone. Only people with terrible manners would easily spill such gutter talk from their mouth. Like i said, whenever you feel the urge, pour them all out on your father at home and if that does not quench your urge then the rest of the family are available to take turns.

Am tempted to recount all the other circumstances when u have been uncouth towards other people including myself but I don't need to do that, everyone here is familiar with your style of speech... As I said the other time, u get what u deserve. U want civility, try to be civil...

KingEbukasBlog:


Welcome sir.

The atheists here have been evasive all these while . They won't just let you score .

Randomperson even said I should prove that the creator of the universe is God . I mean I'm just nonplussed here . Even when the definition of God has been given .

Remember that atheism is deleterious to the brain and that research concludes that greater levels of atheism emerged when the pre frontal cortex - responsible for logical thinking - was frazzled .

Though I'm nonplussed at their reasoning , its not surprising .

Atheism is deleterious to the brain but there is a higher number of atheists among scientists and philosophers than u find among ordinary people. On an average, atheists happen to be more intelligent than theists... Of course that's not causation but correlation but the there's a relationship nonetheless
There's also a relationship between the development and literacy level of a country and atheism...
Say what u want about atheism but Christians are definitely not faring any better

4everGod:
You do not take me serious yet you enjoy mentioning me everywhere you go like a groupie. Seriously take your vile self and exhibit it on the highest and most exposed shelf in your fathers house in which you are still a tenant and spew all your vitriol to him whenever you feel the urge. Learn to keep your dirty linen within the confines of your home and not making it a public display in moral decadence and devolution.

U love stories... I only mention your moniker when am giving examples of people who either make silly arguments or are uncouth. If you don't like it, that's your business. There's nothing u can do about it... Now can u finally swerve??

DoctorAlien:
GOD is benevolent because He made conditions which support life. GOD is all-powerful because He brought the universe into existence from nothing.
This would lead to an infinite regress which is logically impossible.

God is benevolent because he made conditions which support life... What about the things made by god which don't support life... Like the Eye- eating worm, tsunamis, the organism that causes anencephaly... It's double standard to ascribe the good things to god and ignore the ugly ones...

And so in order to avoid infinite regress, we assume the creator is the uncaused cause... That's not logic, it's assumption

KingEbukasBlog:
I've asked you this question and since you have not responded for obvious reasons

Does God exist ?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Indifferent

4. Not sure

If you say

'Yes' you are a theist

'No' means you an atheist ,

'Indifferent' means you are an apatheist
and

'not sure' means you are an agnostic

I don't consider agnostic atheism as a rational position . Its a barefaced appeal to ignorance fallacy . I also don't see the reason for the 'agnostic' or 'gnostic' attachments to either theism or atheism .

You're wrong again... The definition of atheism, even the one quoted by felixomor includes BELIEF THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST or LACK OF BELIEF THAT GOD EXISTS...
unless u want to show us why we should believe u over the Oxford dictionary

4everGod:
Isnt that what you have been doing to your father all this while as an atheist?

The best advice you can receive this year is what i just offered you. Desist from mentioning my moniker deliberately or in error.

Take your vile language back into your home and use it on your father.

Story... I dont take u serious... U are basically persona non Grata... U are just getting vexed in vain... Now swerve

KingEbukasBlog:
'God' is just the appellation (title) we give to the creator of the universe . You can call God the First Cause

Really?? So God= the creator= the first cause?? Assumptions, all of 'em.
If God is simply the creator, then we can't automatically attribute properties like benevolence, omniscience or omnipotence to him. There's no rule, scientific or logical that says the creator is good or all powerful.
Also equating the creator with the first cause or uncaused cause is a leap of faith... The uncaused cause could have created the creator of the universe
Theism basically claims that God is the uncaused cause that is omnipotent, benevolent bla, bla bla... Not one of those properties have been proven to belong to god

4everGod:
I have asked you to desist from mentioning my Moniker whether deliberately or as a typo. If you seem fixated on me then get over that addiction. Thank you.

Here is an honest piece of advice... Go fvck yourself

jimmyjenseng:
I also asked that clown whether it was the evangelists or the holy spirit who suffered from tritanopia since the writers couldn't reach a universal consensus on the colour of robe Jesus wore. What that clown was ignore my question. I'm beginning to perceive that some of these xtians folks are teens who don't worth a modicum of my time.

That's how Christians roll... They argue with u for hours and when u corner them, they suddenly develop a reticence to argue with u... They might even quote a verse showing why they shouldn't argue with atheists

KingEbukasBlog:


What in God's great name did I just read ?

Wawu

Before I started this thread I was asked to define God . Here's my definition :

So your definition of God is what exactly?? Are u like an authority on the nature of God or have u proven that God has the nature u ascribed to him??

felixomor:
So u still ran away?
Even after I answered your question abi?

Boy, you're not interested in an intellectual argument. Or maybe it's not lack of interest, maybe it's incapability. And you can't even say someone is running away.. No one runs away more than u and 4everGod...
Just yesterday, I asked u a simple question. If one account says Judas bought the Potter's field, how come another account says the chief priests bought it... A totally normal question...
U are trying to redefine atheism to suit your opinion.. So...