Daejoyoung:
So tell me then, what would you accept as objective evidence?

If you don't know what the words objective and evidence mean, then might I suggest you learn this most basic concept. You offered subjective opinion, and you labelled everything creation, these are bare subjective assertions, and thus are meaningless. You might as well insist blue is a magical colour.

Daejoyoung:
"Independent designer" and "evolved to be", are not mutually exclusive. Are they?

Nor are they synonymous either, as one is objective fact, and the other unevidenced superstitious myth. What's more the god claim fails independently of evolution, or any other scientific fact, it fails on it's adherents inability to offer a shred of objective evidence to support the claim. As your posts are confirming in a startlingly clear fashion, with unevidenced assertion and ubiquitous logical fallacies trotted out in tandem, in post after post.

Daejoyoung:
So why did they evolve to be that way?
Why did evolution take the path it took?

Why do you ask? If you want to study evolution go do it elsewhere. This is the religion section of Nairaland, and I believe there exists a Science/Technology section on this forum as well.

Daejoyoung:
Why was there something rather than nothing?

I have no idea, why do you assume there is a reason, why do assume nothing is even possible??

Daejoyoung:
You are not asking the deep questions( or probably you chose to ignore them), you are rather just blabbing away.

Young man, I'm not blabbing. And if you use ad hominem again you'll really start to get it back. I'm taking the time to wade through your asinine apologetics for your sake not mine, as I already know why it is subjective irrational superstitious guff.

Daejoyoung:
I never said we are not animals,

I never claimed you had, so that is another straw man fallacy. I merely pointed out the fact, to illustrate how it made your constant assertion that humans are different to other animals meaningless, as many species of animal have evolved characteristics that are unique to them, not just humans.

Daejoyoung:
you accuse me of straw man fallacies, but your posts are always full of them.

I have quoted verbatim where you have used known logical fallacies, and you have never once addressed this, but now offer a bare claim without any evidence. So your response is pretty childish.

Daejoyoung:
You simply replied without understanding there, read again.

Au contraire, it is you who clearly hasn't understood, sadly expanding on my previous explanation does seem rather pointless as I can't really dumb it down, but I will give it a shot with bullet points.

[1] You repeatedly claimed humans are "different" to animals, then claim this makes them special.

[2] I pointed out that many species have evolved unique characteristic, not just humans. Ipso facto it is absurdly irrational to claim humans are special because they have evolved unique characteristics.

[3] I also pointed out that species of dinosaurs existed for hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and some still exist, yet humans only evolved a couple of hundred thousand years ago. So again how does this evidence suggest humans are special and those species not? A clue for you here, it doesn't.

[4] I also pointed out that there are more evolved bacteria alive in a single human that there are humans alive on this planet, so again how does this evidence support your claim that humans rule the world? The corona virus seems to be doing what it wants despite us, and not what we want, so are diseases like malaria and cancer, and the AIDS virus to name but a few. So no, the evidence does not suggest we rule the world, and since we didn't even exist just a few hundred thousand years ago your unevidenced subjective claim is rendered demonstrably absurd by the objective evidence

Daejoyoung:
Read my reply above, and this time read it slowly. Comprehend first.

I am more than happy for others who might be reading to decide who lacks comprehension here, and this is your very last warning about ad hominem. My reply cited objective evidence, yours was merely bare subjective assumption citing unevidenced superstition.

Daejoyoung:
As for dinosaurs, they ruled the earth but they never had that great intellect or did they? Don't you get it? if you do, then why waste my time with this myopic reply?

Given you are the one insisting one type of uniquely evolved characteristic suggest that one species is "special" and all the other species who have evolved unique characteristics are not, then your claim I am being myopic is as hilarious as it is stupid. The significance of my examples are manifest to any reader with the wit to fathom it, sadly based on your ever increasingly stupid replies that use ad hominem fallacy in place of substantive content, I fear this may rule you out. No more warnings about your trolling ad hominem, Bullwinkle, from now on I am taking the gloves off.

Daejoyoung:

Lol, no presupposition is logical? are you fvcking kidding me? [s]then in that case there would be no need for philosophy or we can say there are no logical philosophical arguments. Mind you, philosophy gave birth to science.
Many philosophers in ancient times by mere presuppositions gave arguments confirmed by science today, they made premises from their observations and drew conclusions they termed logical. At the time many of them had no objective evidence or proof for them.
Tamaratonye5, for fvck sake, what the hell are you talking about?[/s]

If I was, I suspect it would fail to penetrate your mahogany pate, which is a shame, as I have a wicked sense of irony.

Now one more time, since you clearly have none, but are too dishonest to admit it.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

When you're done with that you can start to offer objective evidence for the particular version of the particular superstition you adhere to. Though I suspect you will fall at the first hurdle anyway, as you'd have offered objective evidence by now if you had any. Just another theist holding an empty bag.

For your edification - "A presupposition must be mutually known or assumed by the speaker and addressee for the utterance to be considered appropriate in context."

Daejoyoung:

Well the evidence for a higher intelligence is that creation seem to be more orderly than it is disorderly.

What creation? How you theists love to assume your beliefs. Why does your subjective perception that things are orderly evidence anything at all, least of all a deity? What evidence have you reality can be otherwise? You don't get to simply assume this, or simply call everything "creation" and think you won't be called on such dishonesty. And I asked you what objective evidence you could demonstrate for any deity, not for your unevidenced subjective opinion.

Daejoyoung:
I mean it just cannot be a coincidence that your mouth is where it is to aid talking and your hands are where they are.

[1] I'm sorry, but you eventually contradicted this assertion yourself when you said: "at some point in our evolution..." later in your reply. So, which is it then? Body parts tend to be where they are because some independent ‘designer’ made a conscious decision to place them there or they are in those places because they evolved to be?

[2] You committed another straw man fallacy. Where did I ever claim to think this arrangement was a coincidence? We already know for an objective fact that they evolved that way. You don't get to assume otherwise, or make up lies about what I think. Please stop presuming, as unlike your religion, my atheism has no doctrine or dogma, so beyond my lack of belief in any deity, you know nothing about what I believe until I tell you. Evolution is not based on mere coincidences, though of course random chance must necessarily play some part. One has only to randomly roll some dice to know that random events are capable of producing complexity.

Daejoyoung:
Think about this more deeply before you give me a reply. There must be an higher intelligence somewhere.

What an arrogant assumption, the global scientific thought that has amassed the overwhelming objective evidence that establishes species evolution as a scientific fact, refutes this arrogant assumption as well. You don't get to just assume "there must be" anything at all, that is not debate. And I can assure you from your few posts thus far that I have given this far deeper thought than you have based on your posts and responses to the most basic tenets of reason and evidence.

Daejoyoung:
Self consciousness and self awareness are often used interchangeably, though you are right that they are different,

Here then is the fundamental difference:

"Self-consciousness is a heightened sense of self-awareness. It is a preoccupation with oneself, as opposed to the philosophical state of self-awareness, which is the awareness that one exists as an individual being, though the two terms are commonly used interchangeably or synonymously."

If they are different then you need to explain which you mean and why, when you are using them.

Daejoyoung:

Spark of mind means, at some point in our evolution we began to have minds different from mere animals, our big brains alone cannot account for this.

Since we are demonstrably animals this statement makes no sense, and again you are simply asserting without even the pretence of evidence. As I already pointed out, other species have attributes unique to them, so it is absurd to assume our evolved intelligence denotes us being special among evolved living things. Why do you keep claiming evolution can't evidence things, are you an expert in evolution? I am growing tired of your endless unevidenced assertions now.

Daejoyoung:
We think, We create,

As do other evolved species. This is well researched and well evidenced.

Daejoyoung:
we have been chosen by nature or the gods to rule the world

What deity, and what objective evidence have you for one, let alone that it chose us over other species? Another string of assumptions you don't even try to demonstrate any objective evidence for. We have existed for a mere 200k years, there are species alive right now that have existed for many millions, dinosaurs ruled the earth for many hundreds of millions, and their ancestors exist now, so this assumptions is risible, sheer numbers then, well there are a mere 7+ billion of us, how many bacteria exist in one human being?

Daejoyoung:
Isn't that a logical presupposition? no?

No, for the reasons stated, and because no presupposition is logical, that is a rational contradiction.

You keep making unevidenced assertions, you have even made up lies about what I have claimed or think, used known logical fallacies, then when these have been pointed out, you just roll past them and repeat your unevidenced and irrational claims? I don't have limitless patience, for this dishonest approach to debate.

I am still waiting for you to demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity?

As a theist, which you are, the honest thing would be for you to focus on evidence that deity, by demonstrating objective evidence for it. Instead all you keep doing is making unevidenced assertions, and implying something vague about things you claim we do not fully understand, again this is a textbook god of the gaps polemic. It's a known logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam, and nothing that contains or is based on a known logical fact can be asserted as rational.

Daejoyoung,

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

That is your starting point, not this straw man non-sequitur non-argument you're using to try and evade the burden of proof your belief in a deity incurs.

Daejoyoung:

Humans are extraordinary, the fact that we are even having this arguement is a testament to the fact.

Another strawman, unless you can quote me stating otherwise. Your dishonesty does not bode well, here then is a repetition of my response to your claim, since you are determined to ignore it, and simply repeat your claim:

Tamaratonye5:

There is something extraordinary about many species, so what? What exactly are you loading the dice here in order to claim humans have, other than a natural physical brain, whose functions require natural processes? The more you do this without being specific the more disingenuous your unevidenced assertions appear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daejoyoung:
We have a kind of self consciousness, and spark of mind. You know all these already, so why the denial?

I see the lies are coming thick and fast now, where did I deny this? I think you mean humans are self aware, not self conscious, which means something else entirely, though we are conscious beings, as are other species of course. I have no idea what "spark of mind" means, so I cannot comment, nor have I, so do please stop lying.

Now...

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

This question is not going away, in fact I will bet that you go before it does. In my experience questioning theists, you people always run away when you finally realise that having no answer cannot be waved away with vapid unevidenced rhetoric. Can you prove me wrong?

Daejoyoung:

The human brain is an advanced computer software,

Repeating your unevidenced claim doesn't make it any less meaningless, and of course this disingenuous red herring is not what you originally claimed. You claimed that "The human brain is exactly like the computer,". This is demonstrably false, even with the equally unevidenced assertions you qualified it with.

Daejoyoung:
As to your second point, if I publish a research paper on it, or get a theist who has published a research paper on it, would you believe it then?

What a particularly useless and pointless question. Why would I bother answering hypothetical questions about non existent evidence? And what has this got to do with your penchant (like many theists) for making unevidenced assertion ad nauseam?

Daejoyoung:
I never used any God of the gaps polemic. I didn't even mention God in my reply, so why make unnecessary fallacies?

You absolutely used a text book god of the gaps polemic, and no deity need be mentioned for the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to be just that, and here is your fallacy from your OP, quoted verbatim then:

There must be something still mysterious about the human mind,

Given you are a theist, it was also perfectly reasonable to infer where you were taking this.

Daejoyoung:
I only made an assertion, which is self evident, humans are more complex than working machines like computers.

Well that's simply a lie, you made several other assertions which you offered zero evidence, or even rational argument to support, and which I challenged. So it's doubly dishonest to now rehash the one assertion I did not challenge, this is clearly a straw man fallacy, since I never mentioned that claim in my response.

Daejoyoung:

Humans do not have only the brain( which is an advanced computer software) but it also seems there is something extraordinary about humans.

So you keep claiming, but as I already said you don't offer a shred of objective evidence for your claim. Computer software is a human creation, the human brain is a natural physical organ, and all there is no evidence its functions are anything but natural. There is something extraordinary about many species, so what? What exactly are you loading the dice here in order to claim humans have, other than a natural physical brain, whose functions require natural processes? The more you do this without being specific the more disingenuous your unevidenced assertions appear.

Daejoyoung:
the computer is just a machine

Daejoyoung:
The human brain is exactly like the computer,

Oh dear, whilst your assertion about the human brain is entirely unevidenced, it's pretty idiotic to contradict your own assertion, in the same post you made it.

Daejoyoung:
I do not think evolution all by itself can account for that.

Who cares what you think, are you remotely qualified to make sweeping assertions about a scientific theory? Have you publish any research to support your assertion in a worthy peer reviewed journal? You don't need to answer, as the answer is self evidently no.

Daejoyoung:
There must be something still mysterious about the human mind, that makes it function like a computer but also beyond that.

You are just trying to use a god of the gaps polemic. Species evolution through natural selection is an observed scientific fact, that is supported by ALL the objective evidence. You don't get to just add unevidenced assertions to a scientific theory based on gaps in our knowledge, and claiming unexplained magic is involved. Occam's razor applies.

As a matter of fact, your starting point should be to first demonstrate objective evidence for a deity before you are qualified to attempt this strawman non-sequitur non-argument you're using to try and evade the burden of proof your belief in a deity incurs.

OLAADEGBU:


You.

Unfortunately for you, your attachment of that cute little meme betrays your lack of understanding of grammer. For if you did, you would know that you cannot use a double negative because they can cancel themselves out. So let us eliminate those two negatives and see the message.

If there was no God there'd be no reason to become an atheist

If there was God there'd be reason to become an atheist.

That is not logical. Period. Lesson two: "there'd" should be spelled "there would".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now back to your claim that I am the proof for your god,

Are you trying to tell me that the best evidence for a gods existence is disbelief that he exists? So, he must exist, because people don't believe he does?

SMH

Basic reason is the religious believers' nemesis...if you are serious, you may need to restart your learning at, maybe kindergarten. LOL

You seem to think that one simply chooses to become an atheist. Becoming an atheist was never a matter of choice for me. Rather it was simply an inevitable conclusion over years of study and reflection. I can no more make myself disbelieve than I can make myself believe.

Did you decide to believe and to be a christian, or as I suspect, was there no decision involved?

I have a serious suggestion: Look up the difference between a claim and evidence, as well as the meaning of the word 'atheist'. I suggest this in sincerity because it's clear to me you have not grasped the meaning of those things. This matters not a jot nor a tittle to me you understand. I have made my suggestions simply because I'm not a sadist. It gives me no pleasure to see you ridiculed and disrespected. If you act on my suggestions, you might seem less of an ignoramus and a fool. Perhaps then you might then be accorded some respect and credibility (in terms of your sincerity). Right now, you have neither as far as I can tell

Anyways, cute attempt at logic OLAADEGBU. Can you come up with anything original, rational, or logical? Do try this question, as its only the fifth time asking you...

DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE THAT YOUR VERSION OF A GOD EXISTS?

OLAADEGBU:


Are you for real, do you exist in reality?

What is the most compelling objective reason you have for believing a deity is real?

Since you ignored my question (at least twice) I'll repeat it, and I will also point out, how bizarrely inconsistent it is when theists like you come here and loudly proclaim evidence in post after posts, and yet don't open in your very first post with the most compelling piece of evidence you people think you have? It's almost as if at some level you suspect yourselves that you are all holding an empty bag.

You have posted once and then disappeared without comment and now, because "maybe" doesn't suit your tastes, you refuse to even explain your truth, let alone defend it. Are you reluctant to engage here because the details of this truth confuse you? Maybe you aren't ready to share or defend? Maybe you need more time to understand why that truth confuses you?

I think you may have expected, like the prophets of old, to be magically embued with confidence, certainty and clarity of expression.

Take your time.

Most atheists have been in the very same position you seem to be in yourself right now. We have learned to be extremely patient.

OLAADEGBU:


You are yet to meet my terms and conditions for answering your questions.

Well, atheism is a disbelief in what you personally think is real. You need to validate what you believe, so your belief can exist in reality. That is reason enough to answer everyone for your unfounded assertions. Believing in something that is not objectively evidenced in reality, makes people not only disbelieve your assertion, but also makes people question your sanity. So it might be something you should always answer.

Being religious prior to learning about critical thinking, belies being ever confused about religion, or what you believe to be "the truth".

Now speaking about confusion, How is something real or the absolute truth, when it does not exist in reality, or has zero validation ever? That was a rhetorical question, I already know the answer.

Now all I am trying to do, is give you a chance to address the people that think you are nuts, and you are dragging your feet? LOL.

Here you go, another chance

Do you have any objective evidence of your version of a god?

OLAADEGBU:


Maybe is not good enough. Why should I confuse you with the truth when your mind is already made up?

Your version of truth? Maybe you’re the one that’s confused?

What is the most compelling objective reason you have for believing a deity is real?

OLAADEGBU:


If by answering your question, would you then believe that the Bible is true and become a Christian?

Maybe.

However, if your answers are not constructed with valid objective evidence, then your answers will be disregarded, and not worth consideration.

But maybe, I will be surprised with new information. Stranger things have happened.

Let me try...

Do you have any objective evidence of your version of a god?

OLAADEGBU:


If the Bible (Christianity) is true will you believe?

Are you really asking if I would believe the bible is true, if I believed the bible is true?

OLAADEGBU:


Does it resonate with you.

Of course it doesn't.

I had already tagged this thread of yours as a classic drive-by. That is, you post your "authoritative" drivel and then when challenged do not respond, most likely due to not being able to construct a coherent thought of your own. On that note, I am glad to see your response.

From your OP it is supposed that when you die and go to your expected judgment before your god you will have a relevant Microsoft Powerpoint presentation ready by the lake of fire, so that God won't think you are a goat. Do not offer him a url link.

Just to show you how discussion and debate works on any online chat forum, I (properly this time) offer the following rebuttal on a single item in your generous copy'n'paste of a url which you offer as a claim to the depth, width and strength of your faith in your glorious god who must be really impressed with your witness to his ineffable glory...a website reference...*sigh

Isaiah 7:14 is one of the most Christian abused verses of the Old Testament.
Isaiah 7:14 was the prophecy meant for King Azah of Judah (c. 730 BC), a prediction Isaiah made about his deliverance from the rival kingdoms of Syria and Israel through their invasion by Assyria.

There is no direct reference to a baby being born 700 years later. The baby referred to is to be named "Emmanuel" which means "God is with us", a most comforting idea for a king in fear of an invasion.

In fact only several verses later, Isaiah 8:3 Isaiah has sex with his wife "the prophetess" with witnesses (kinky)and before the son born of this union "shall have knowledge to cry" (good and bad) Assyria will take care of Ahaz's foes. The boy was named Maher-shalah-hash-baz, "swift are the spoils, speedy is the plunder" which adequately describes the short sharp plunder of Assyrian forces in the state of Israel and in Syria. And in case you overlooked it "Jesus" is never mentioned.

And in the end Isaiah's prophecy did not guarantee a complete deliverance. Ahaz became a vassal of Assryria, paying tribute to avoid annihilation. It seems the deliverance was achieved by going "belly up". This verse is also the origin of the fatuous virgin myth where almah (a maiden) was translated as betulah (a virgin). The original Hebrew text used the word "almah".

Now OLAADEGBU, I have taken time out of my day to read, consider and answer your OP or rather Mr Ham's Answers in Genesis article. Your glib and easy url reference contains a multitude of claims, you apparently can't be arsed enough to disseminate yourself. Click and paste witnessing just doesn't reveal what you believe or think, only what Mr Ham does.

Because of time restraints and a sense of being insulted by your indifferent and casual brevity I answered, in my own words, only the one reference to the Isaiah prophecy. I did so with my own research and without resort to parroting predigested third party opinions. I researched the KJV Bible, the Orthodox Jewish Bible, the Webster and Macquarie dictionaries and summarised some observations from independent sites.

Do you think you might spend just a little time responding and preferably without another lame cut and paste effort?
Otherwise I am done.

Argument 1 was that the bible is unique. Well duh, all books are unique.

Argument 2 was that some of the physical places described in the bible are real. Big deal, NYC is real, but that doesn't make Spider-man non-fiction.

Argument 3 was about the continuity between the stories in the bible. What that establishes is that the New Testament was written by people familiar with the Old Testament; but we already knew that!

That article isn't designed to convince the skeptic, it is designed to convince those who already believe. Don't expect it to resonate with everybody.