Thorrn's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Thorrn's Profile › Thorrn's Posts
 Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 9:32pm On Dec 31, 2023 |
Dtruthspeaker:================================================================== ^^^^^^ | | | | | So, apparently this is Dtruthspeaker's reason for his decision to abandon ship in our debate over God's existence 😂😂. Well, I'm a very patient and meticulous person who likes to leave no stone unturned. I don't do vague, shoddy arguments (which Dtruthspeaker seems to derive a lot of joy in). I go straight for the jugular, dissecting every bit of information in a post to arrive at a plausible conclusion. For us to critically and honestly scrutinize this allegation Dtruthspeaker is tendering here, we're going to have to backtrack completely to the starting point of our debate on this thread, and follow the trail of my correspondence with him since then, to determine if this accusation has any merit. So here goes, ================================================================== Thorrn & Dtruthspeaker Debate on the Existence of God Prior to the proper start of our debate, I and DT had a little discussion concerning Aemmyjah's OP. I will ignore those conversations, since they technically weren't his arguments and he was just holding brief for the OP. I won't be including links though (for fear of spambot). I'll only just include the link to the starting point of our conversation so that observers can follow up from there. I've taken the liberty to reconstruct parts of our conversation below to illustrate my argument and give his accusation a bit of context. I will be interjecting to give my thoughts on the discussion as it goes along. Our main debate (concerning his proof for God) began here: https://www.nairaland.com/post/126880682 DTRUTHSPEAKER: Clearly I do know God is Real and most certainly exists and my first proof is simply on the ground that it is seen and clearly proven that it is impossible for a thing in this world to create itself. THORRN: Sounds like a non-sequitur to me. How does something not having the capacity to create itself provide conclusive proof that God exists? Going by your logic, God must have been created by something then? DTRUTHSPEAKER: This is goal post shifting for the topic is on proof of God and not on proof that God was created. Let me briefly come in here. The Cambridge Learner's Dictionary defines "proof" as a "fact or a piece of information that shows something exists or is true". Dtruthspeaker's claim that I've shifted the goalposts to "proof that God was created" is dishonestly misleading. The only warrant for me to make such any inquiry as to proof of God's creation would be if someone made a positive claim saying "God was created". To that end, I would say "prove that God was created". However, in this case, the positive claim made here, by Dtruthspeaker was "God exists". And I have asked him to prove it, to which he responded with his reason saying "it is impossible for a thing in this world to create itself". So here I am simply examining the logic behind his "proof that God exists". Ergo, no goalposts were shifted. Keen observers will notice how Dtruthspeaker slyly and deceptively tries to reject my attempt at scrutinizing his logic by spuriously claiming that I've shifted the goalposts. This already betrays a lack of confidence in his own position. So already things aren't looking good for Dtruthspeaker 🤔. Sensing that Dtruthspeaker was feigning ignorance and/or trying to deny the implications of his argument, I simply demanded that he should restate his claim so that we could be on the same page: THORRN: Let's take this step by step because it seems you're not even aware of the scope of your argument. Now, you claimed that everything has a creator; that NOTHING exists that has the capacity to create itself. This was your claim: yes or no? Answer accordingly, and then we may proceed. DTRUTHSPEAKER: No! I said that "no thing in this world created itself." You missed the "in this world" part where all this God/No God issues are and exactly where the bible concentrated its focus. No off point space travel! At this juncture, I'll be dividing the conversation into two parts: (1) Dtruthspeaker's definition of the term "world", and (2) The meaning of the full sentence "nothing in this world created itself". (1) DTRUTHSPEAKER'S DEFINITION OF THE TERM "WORLD" This part of the discussion should be paid very close attention, because right here is where all the confusion begins. Dtruthspeaker himself emphasizes the relevance of the phrase "...in this world" as the core of his argument, claiming that all issues pertaining to God and the Bible are limited to "this world" only. This was where my FIRST REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION was made. I asked Dtruthspeaker to define his meaning of the term "WORLD", to which he responded, DTRUTHSPEAKER: ...this "WORLD" consist of the earth alone in which humans are one of the inhabitants. That's why I kept saying that we are all arguing using our knowledge and experiences in and from this world to make our arguments. Thus, on the definition of the term "WORLD" I was sufficiently clarified. I had gone further to posit that since he's defined the "WORLD" to mean "earth alone", that he had not explained who created the other parts of the universe, but he responded with a superfluous analogy, accusing me of a logical fallacy, which he laughably misapplied. And I rightly called him out on it. NOTE: This part of the discussion involved me trying to understand the terminologies Dtruthspeaker was using in his argument, not me trying to establish God's existence! Now that that's settled, we move onto the second part of the conversation... THE MEANING OF THE FULL SENTENCE "NOTHING IN THIS WORLD CREATED ITSELF" Remember, I've already been clarified on the meaning of the term "WORLD". However, I'm still trying to figure out how his overall argument establishes God's existence. My mission to connect the dots of Dtruthspeaker's overall claim to the establishment of God's existence began thus. THORRN: ...the assertion that everything must have a creator also implies that your God must have a creator as well given that your God also falls into the category of things that exist in this world according to the Christians. DTRUTHSPEAKER: And I have continually stated that I did not say so about "everything must have a creator" i clearly said "no thing in this world created itself. THORRN: In the context of proving the existence of God, what is this statement supposed to mean if it's not supposed to suggest a first cause? So in this conversation, Dtruthspeaker reiterates that "no thing in this world created itself", yet he insists that this claim does not mean that "everything must have a creator", which is basically the Kalam Cosmological Argument (Argument of the First Cause). Obviously, I find this to be a meaningless distinction because it makes the argument self-contradictory. If you must assert that nothing in this world created itself, then surely it follows that those things in the world -- which didn't create themselves, must therefore have a creator! Nevertheless, I refrained myself from preempting him any further and decided to give him the opportunity to explain himself properly. This was where my SECOND REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION was made, which you can see above where I asked, "In the context of proving the existence of God, what is this statement supposed to mean if it's not supposed to suggest a first cause?" Having gone back to check for a response to my query about what the statement "nothing in this world" created itself suggests, I can still confirm that Dtruthspeaker has offered no clarifications as to what his claim implies, if it doesn't suggest the existence of a first cause. CONNECTING THE DOTS And so we're back to the present moment in the timeline of our debate. I started by drawing my conclusions based on Dtruthspeaker's points thus far in the debate. In this next post, I remind Dtruthspeaker that he hasn't clarified what his claim suggests if it doesn't suggest a first cause who created everything, THORRN: You offered the claim that nothing [in this world] created itself as a response to my query to prove your god's existence. Given the context of my request, it is safe to assume that your belief that nothing created itself means that everything [in this world] has a creator, according to you. Since you wilfully declined to make any further clarifications, I simply inferred that you were suggesting that there is a source from which everything that exists [in this world] was created. ....after which Dtruthspeaker unwittingly blundered by responding with this blatant non-sequitur! 🤦🏽♀️🤣🤣 DTRUTHSPEAKER: You clearly asked what "in this world" means asking if I meant "this "WORLD" consist of the earth alone in which humans are one of the inhabitants" ....which, as we can see from prior analysis that has just been carried out, has absolutely nothing to do with the primary topic of God's existence! The definition of the term "WORLD", and the implications of the sentence "it is impossible for a thing in this world to create itself" are completely different arguments as I have satisfactorily demonstrated above. Dtruthspeaker's rebuttal isn't directed towards anything at all as I never contested his definition of the term "WORLD" after he had presented it.= ================================================================== @Dtruthspeaker, As you can see, you literally have no case here. Your "proof" for God is invalid given that it is riddled with numerous flaws that you have left unattended to, even at this moment. Not only did you repeatedly fail to show the connection of your vague and nonsensical statement to the idea of God's existence, but you also clearly misread my arguments to you, and even after you were shown your errors, you did nothing but double down on your ignorance, pretending like you didn't just goof like a helpless rookie 😂. I don't have any problem with your belief in any Gods. However if you want to engage in actual philosophical discourse, at least try not to sacrifice your integrity on the altar of lies and mendacity. In every discussion I've watched you partake in on this section of Nairaland, you've always been a liar, a fraud and a manipulator. You're literally that pigeon who knocks over all the chess pieces, shits on the board, and struts about as if he has accomplished anything worthy of note. I didn't fail to notice that you ignored every other point in my rebuttal to you about prophecies and other religious deities, instead choosing to harp on only one frivolous segment of my post. After reading the room and noticing that the inconsistencies in your argument were eating you up, you immediately defaulted to shamelessly making up lies and awarding yourself an imaginary victory to convince yourself that you're not actually bereft of any intellectual substance. But we know the truth. We know that your sojourn on this thread has amounted to nothing, and your non-arguments have not made any significant impact on this thread. You are empty and your "proof of God" (if it can be called that) shows that you are useless when it comes to discussions aimed at establishing facts. I'm happy to know that you learnt from me in our debate, even though I learnt nothing new from you except the fact that your burning stupidity seems to be a permanent condition 💀. Oh, and when you eventually find yourself cringing in embarrassment after remembering your disgraceful performance here, and are willing to properly debate the subject of God's existence to make up for your lost dignity, as well as the issue of prophecies, and the existence of other non-Christian deities, reach out to me and as always, I will carefully walk you through your self-inflicted minefields. In the meantime, you've continued to validate the axiom that THERE CAN BE NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST A NON-ARGUMENT! Does the illiterate fraud called Dtruthspeaker have another excuse to justify his defeat on this topic? 😭😭😭 Quod Erat Demonstradum ✌️. cc kkins25 jaephoenix Aemmyjah Mayman LordReed 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 9:31pm On Dec 31, 2023*. Modified: 10:00pm On Dec 31, 2023 |
Dtruthspeaker:LOL, please. Your assertions were diligently ripped apart and discarded. Refusing to acknowledge this fact will not alter the reality of how things played out. Everyone here can see it for themselves. You presented your claim (God exists). I asked you to prove your claim. You responded by making another claim (nothing in this world created itself). I then demanded that you show the connection between the two claims, by clarifying what the second claim could possibly suggest. You dodged and ran away 😭. So you can see that I don't have to do anything. You made a non-argument. And you and I both know that THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST A NON-ARGUMENT. 😎 ...for if I have not given any proof......If? You didn't give any proof. You gave a meaningless sentence, with absolutely no context💀💀. Get real my guy 😂. you won't have had the burden of rebutting nor you struggling to find a valid rebuttalA claim need not be valid before it warrants any form of attention. There's a popular axiom within the scientific community that "bad ideas exist to be destroyed". Stupid claims and baseless beliefs deserve even more attention than valid ones, because when taken seriously they can become recipe for disaster, resulting in needless problems and unfortunate events that could have been avoided. And I don't know what you mean by struggling, I've literally been pointing out the same flaws in your position, which you keep trying to dodge and push away 🤷🏽♀️😂. That's how I wonThe only thing you've won is the pity of the onlookers, who are dying with second-hand embarrassment after watching you score own goals and dance naked in the glory of your ignorance 😂😂✌️. 1 Like 2 Shares |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 9:30pm On Dec 31, 2023*. Modified: 10:11pm On Dec 31, 2023 |
Before moving on to the main point of contention, I'll briefly address a few other comments relating to the overall topic: Dtruthspeaker:Then you don't know dick squat about basic principles in logic. In any TRUE dichotomy, the rejection of one alternative lends credence to the suggestion of the other alternative as the truth. Therefore, it follows that if I should deny the facts of alternative A, I am suggesting that alternative B is the truth. For instance, (1) if it is said that there is no peace in a town, it suggests that there is turmoil or unrest in that town. (2) If you claim you didn't fail your final term exams, it suggests that you passed them. With regards to our debate, you claim that "no thing in this world created itself". If this is true, then what it means is that you are suggesting "everything in this world has a creator". So your suggestion is your truth here. Your assertion here that "suggestion is not truth" is an absolute statement, eschewing any plausible caveats or conditions. You have now unwittingly roped yourself into a dangerous corner with this confident assertion. Your only way out is to prove that a FALSE dichotomy exists between the two claims about things in the world having/not having a creator. So, Dtruthspeaker, we have two alternatives: (a) nothing in this world created itself. (b) everything in this world has a creator. If as you claim, suggestion is not the truth, then the burden is on you to prove that the two alternatives above are a FALSE DICHOTOMY. And the only way you can do this is by presenting a third alternative that is completely separate in concept and cannot be married with the other two. Failure to provide a third option will prove that "everything has a creator" has been your claim all along, after you've lied that it wasn't your claim. I'm also anticipating one of two kinds of response from you. (1) You run away stumped without a reply 😂, although (2) I can also guess the exact response you're going to make trying to twist things like you always do, and I should be generous by warning you that if you go down this route, you'll only be helping me to completely bury you and your position in this thread for good. So go ahead. Over to you, sir. Fowl nyansh don open 🤣. kkins25 & Jaephoenix, I don catch am 😂😂😂. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 9:30pm On Dec 31, 2023*. Modified: 9:52pm On Dec 31, 2023 |
Dtruthspeaker:Of course, it's very convenient for you to dismiss my refutations as "noise" because you're at a loss as to which other way you can push your failure of an argument. Clearly you noticed that you were quickly running out of ammo in the debate, so then you tried to dishonestly conflate two unrelated issues and use it as your get-out-of-jail-free card to evade my points and run away from the discussion. But nooooo sire! I'm not letting you off that easy 😇. If truly you had any shred of intellectual integrity, you'd have found a more cogent reason to escape the thread, instead of mendaciously weaving up bald-faced lies about me by quotemining my words out of context and mixing up two entirely different aspects of my argument. That's where you messed up. I can accept and concede to honest refutations of my points. What I will NOT accept is the blatant lies you've fashioned from my comments. Your backup plan to obfuscate the debate when you lose has tumbled over and flopped, and I will demonstrate why shortly. Meanwhile, hold on to your knickers, old man. Cos by the time I'm done rendering your infantile objections baseless, you'll end up looking even more clueless and stupid than when you first began 😂😂. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Why I Became An Atheist by Thorrn(f): 9:28pm On Dec 31, 2023*. Modified: 10:02pm On Dec 31, 2023 |
@Wilgrea7 Wilgrea7:The suggestion that another co-discussant is "shifting the goalposts" or talking "off point" in any forum of philosophical debate must be backed by adequate justification that appeals to the actual known rules of logical discourse, and not some made up, subjective "logic". Unfortunately, Dtruthspeaker chooses to make up HIS own rules of debate which veers off track from conventional logic. He has proven countlessly over the years that he is severely incompetent on the subject of known logical fallacies because not only does he fail to identify them when he uses one, but he also misapplies them when he attempts to call other people out. His approach towards Christian apologetics is often so haphazard and sloppy that any seasoned Christian debater who watches him in action will be wishing he shuts up to save their position from further regression and embarrassment 😂. Your decision to ignore his hubris is entirely justified by his constant intellectual dishonesty. Although one might also consider the fact that there could be impressionable members of the audience who have a very sound conception of logic, but are not familiar with common areas of debate in theology and/or apologetics. That is usually my motivation for engaging in these back and forths -- to make these clowns look as stupid as possible, and use them to unwittingly expose the irrationality, plain dishonesty and dogma that often comes with religious belief. It is a fact that many atheists on this website, used to be hardcore Christians raging against atheists until they eventually realized how untenable there position was, and became atheists themselves. Apart from many other users I can mention here, you went through this same phase on this very website, so I know you understand my position a bit 😉. But nonetheless, I have no desire to argue who was wrong and who was right.I can totally relate to, and understand this decision. ====================================== @Dtruthspeaker Dtruthspeaker:What rules? The rules that everyone pays obeisance to, or the rules that you made up for yourself and personally subscribe to? Is it the rules that cater to your own personal tastes and bias(es), that you can change at your subjective whim if it no longer suits you? There must be an end to debates or argumentsThis assertion is not axiomatic. New information arises everyday, and they often have the potential to change the dimension of any debate. This is the very essence of scientific methods -- research and discovery of novel ideas to modify knowledge on already known facts. as people can argue forever rendering the point of talking and arguing silly since no one can know who is right or wrong.What is right today could be wrong tomorrow. Plus, in any debate, you cannot assert that something is right until you have sufficiently justified your reasons for believing it is. The primary purpose for debates is to promote critical thinking based on honest observations not bogged down by bias and prejudice. So the rules of argument ensure that all forms of distractive, deviative and irrelevant arguments are not made.It is one thing to know the rules, it is another to abide by it, or understand exactly where and when they must be observed. Crying "change of post!" when your opponents make important observations that reveal a clear flaw in your argument does nothing to achieve the purpose of debate -- which is to promote critical thinking. What any honest debate will do is acknowledge the flaw and give his reasons why it isn't a flaw, instead of pretending like the flaw doesn't exist. The Law, THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTH!Truth is not established by mere assertion of a claim, or mindlessly repeating it, without acknowledging the obvious errors and inconsistencies that blemish it. Truth is established by providing rock solid arguments, backed up by undeniable evidence, that even opponents of your position will concede and agree with your facts. Thus, everyone must make valid arguments to be RightIf you know this, then why do struggle so much to make valid arguments? and everyone knows when a foul or infraction is commitedWell, everyone except you apparently. so it is not based on my thinkingOh, it is entirely based on your thinking. Lol. but based on the fact that every reasonable person knows that you cannot be arguing about cars and then a debater is trying to talk about bicycle.LordReed's perfect clapback will suffice here: LordReed: 3 Likes 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 9:27pm On Dec 31, 2023*. Modified: 9:50pm On Dec 31, 2023 |
QUESTION 7: If everything has a creator, then who or what created God? Aemmyjah:Oh really? How so? Everyone does not have a creator as if there are many creators like there are many parents.Nope, this is just you backtracking. Lol 😂. You've been harping on and on for nearly 50 pages now about how it is impossible for something to emerge from nothing, but suddenly when it comes to your God, you believe he came from nothing. Continue 🤣🤣🤣. Science agrees that the universe has a beginningFalse. There is no general consensus on this subject. and logic tells us that the universe cannot be the cause of its own existence.Your own subjective logic, you mean? Physics as we know it breaks down at Planck time. Using your "logic", can you confidently tell us the state of universe at t=0? If god did not need to be created, if God always existed, so too does the universe not need to be created and could always have existed. Did the universe emerge from nothing? No.And you have arrived at this conclusion how? Can you define nothing? Even science doesn't have a definitive answer to this question. Lmao 😂. ... Is it from someone eternal or something eternal? Answer for yourselfYour entire argument right here is a textbook example of the Special Pleading fallacy. Special pleading (or claiming that something is an overwhelming exception) is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading When and where did your God exist before space and time? If you say that God exists outside of space and time, that means that God does not exist in space or time. That's the same as not existing. This is a paradox. If God does not exist in time, God doesn't exist. Is there a superplane of existence? A space-time outside of our space-time that God exists? If so, what created that space-time? When was that super space-time created? Who created it? If space-time didn't exist before God created it, how could there be a "before"? This is another paradox. "Before time" is like saying "square circle". It cannot exist. Time is temporal, sequences are temporal. "Before" requires time. If you wish to say that God existed before time, then that is another nonsensical proposition. I may not have all the answersLol. Nothing better than false-claiming modesty after confidently throwing about a bunch of assertions and insisting they are true without any justification. Even in science, we don't know 1% of the material universe and there are things or phenomena they say is mysterious but that does not falsify everything about them. Our wealth of knowledge is expanding...then maybe you should wait for science to reach definite conclusions on topics such as the origins of the universe and how life came about before spouting baseless arguments that only cater to your subjective beliefs. Savvy? 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 9:27pm On Dec 31, 2023*. Modified: 9:49pm On Dec 31, 2023 |
QUESTION 6: Abraham Lincoln, one of the foremost presidents of the USA was the titular character in the Vampire Hunter book mentioned above, and he hunted vampires. So I guess going by your logic (that the Bible is true because it contains real people and real places), vampires have been proven to exist? Aemmyjah:Answer the question. I'm scrutinizing the logic of your argument. You claimed that the mention of real people in the Bible that existed in history proves that the Bible is true. And in your OP, you used the Bible as your main premise to justify God's existence. Does the existence of real people and places in the book "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" prove that vampires exist? 1 Like 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 9:26pm On Dec 31, 2023*. Modified: 9:48pm On Dec 31, 2023 |
QUESTION 5: If everything in the universe was designed as you claim, how does it prove the existence of the God of the Bible, as opposed to Allah, Vishnu, Krishna etc etc? What if Allah is the true creator deity? Aemmyjah:So? That's not even remotely impressive. The Koran is said to be the literal words of Allah. Go figure. It is scientifically and historically accurate.That's a false claim. The bible is filled with constant errors and inaccuracies that are clearly influenced by the authors' lack of understanding of scientific, historical and geographical knowledge during the period which has been proven to be fundamentally false. If you truly subscribe to Biblical inerrancy, it is impossible to reconcile the statements in the Bible to known scientific facts. I should note that there are some Christians who love to claim that many of the inaccuracies are "metaphors" and it should not be taken as a scientific/historical book. However, this is also wrong because these texts are clearly written in the form of a scientific and historical fact to be taught and spread, they are not written as metaphors. Many of these misconceptions align with common misconceptions that were believed in many different cultures outside the Hebrews until they were debuked scientifically later. It foretells the future including millenia in advance and they have been fulfilled and we are see many fulfilled today.Two things here, 1, To my memory, most of the so-called prophecies touted to have come to pass in the Bible are often sufficiently vague enough -- some in the form of riddles -- that anybody can claim that a particular event was predicted by the Bible in retrospect. Perhaps you should give examples of detailed, specific prophecies that cannot be re-interpreted to have multiple meanings. 2, Prophecies aren't an exclusive signature of Christianity. There are many Muslim, Buddhist and even pagan prophecies that have been claimed to come to pass in recorded history. The Koran itself gives credence to the Bible and confirms the historicity of some of the people and events mentioned in the Bible.I don't know if you're aware of this, but both Islam and Christianity originated from the Hebrew religion called Judaism. So, it shouldn't come as a surprise that they both share similar places and events therein. The Bible is unique as it has been the best seller for centuries. The most widely distributed and translated book by far. We'd expect that from a book of God to mankind.Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Truths do not gain credence by virtue of fame and popularity. 🤷♂️...Oh, the Bible also mentions the name of the God of creation. ☺Other religions also have a name for their own God of creation. What makes the name mentioned in the Bible any more special than the names of other deities? I'm still waiting for the deal breaker that seals the status of the Christian deity as being more valid and reasonable to believe in, as opposed to the other deities I mentioned. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 9:25pm On Dec 31, 2023*. Modified: 9:45pm On Dec 31, 2023 |
QUESTION 3: Since the start of this thread, where did I make any claim that everything came from nothing? Aemmyjah:Lol. This question is medicine after death 😂😂. Why are you asking me what I think? Haven't you been singing all over the thread that I believe something came out of nothing? This is the intellectual dishonesty and laziness of some of you Christians that I keep talking about. Simply because I'm asking you to provide proof of your God, you automatically start making up beliefs and ascribing them to me without having the courtesy to ask me what I really think. There's only one thing that all atheists have in common, and that is the LACK OF BELIEF in God(s). We may not (and often do not) share the same opinions about the origin of the universe, origin of life and existence of a spiritual realm. Ideally most of these topics are within the jurisdiction of physicists and biologists. It has nothing to do with atheism. That's why your tantrums about evolution are irrelevant and hilarious to me, because I don't give a shit about it 💁🏽♀️. Seriously, go read up on what atheism really is before coming here to misrepresent us in your stubborn ignorance. Or if you're just too lazy to do that, then maybe next time ask an atheist his opinion on certain subjects before running amock with your baseless assumptions. As to your question, I don't have any fixed belief on the origins of life or the universe. I only lend credence to what science says because it is our most reliable method for understanding the reality we can observe, and thus far, there is no definitive consensus within the scientific community on how life and the universe came to be. Special attention is often given to hypotheses that are backed by empirical evidence, and so far, I've found that there are lesser flaws with the Big Bang and Evolution theories, than there is with Creationism and Intelligent Design. You said you were a biologist, but I don't know if you're a seasoned researcher and author of research papers. However, if you can present hard evidence proving Intelligent Design and maybe even publish a peer reviewed research work, I'll become convinced that your theory is more plausible than Evolution. Unfortunately, I'm not impressed with your arguments so far because they seem more fixated on pointing out supposed "flaws" in the evolution theory, as opposed to justifying your own claims. 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 9:25pm On Dec 31, 2023*. Modified: 9:44pm On Dec 31, 2023 |
QUESTION 2: Do you mean to tell me that the only thing that motivates you to get up in the morning is your God? Nothing else inspires your energy and dedication? Not even your family? Aemmyjah:While I'm happy that you derive a sense of purpose and fulfillment with regards to the things you mentioned up there, I can't help but be amused by the fact none of those things you highlighted have no direct relationship with religion, (except maybe music if gospel is your favorite genre). Biology (and by extension, Environmental Biology), just like any of the other fundamental sciences, is not subject to religious ideologies and doctrines. Rather, it adheres strictly to the scientific method. There's also no element of religious ideology in sporting activities that I'm aware of. The fact that you consider these things to be of immense value to you practically suggests that you don't actually need religion to enjoy life and derive pleasure or purpose from it. Writing has been a passion of mine ever since I was in primary school. I graduated with first class in English Language, and now I'm a practicing journalist working with the print media. I also love reading philosophy books and novels by Stephen King, Charles Dickens etc, and I write my own novels. I enjoy reading my own works and I derive a huge sense of purpose from my profession. I don't know if you've noticed by now, but the idea of subjective purpose has been firmly established with your answer here. Both Christians and Atheists find meaning and purpose in their lives doing the things they enjoy. So your supposition that Christians are better of based on "purpose in life" is completely null and void. Permit me to ask you this follow-up question to burtress my point: can you list just one thing in this life that Christians enjoy which atheists don't have? I'm not an extremist. All these stuffs are things to expect under the religious section of Nairaland 😉Forgive my curiosity at this juncture, but which "stuffs" are you referring to you here that I should expect? I assume you're talking of the back and forth banter between us, which obviously I know it should be expected because it is a faceless forum where anyone has some degree of freedom to do what he wants under the guise of anonymity. I risk sounding pedantic here, but are you suggesting that because we're in the "religious section of Nairaland", that respect for the basic rules of intellectual debate should be discarded in favor of redundant back and forths that do nothing to further the purpose of the debate? Because I'm well aware that Nairaland is very notorious for this. If that's the case, does it mean it's okay to be dishonest because we're arguing on Nairaland? Just want to hear your thoughts 🤔. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 9:22pm On Dec 31, 2023*. Modified: 9:43pm On Dec 31, 2023 |
Ahn ahn... Lol. Say it ain't so 🤣. Las las Aemmyjah has finally succumbed to the relentless pangs of overwhelming shame building up within him and decided to answer my questions 😃. This probably has to be your finest moment on this thread -- which isn't saying much though, because your conduct in this debate has been appalling. Anyways, all of that is in the past now. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and see if you've learned anything at all from our correspondence so far. Let us now critically examine the answers you have given here. Now, if you don't mind I've decided to split your answers into seven different posts. I want to make sure there is no derailment or mixing up unrelated issues together. It's easier for me that way because I can see what I'm talking about in every given post. QUESTION 1: Can you kindly demonstrate how evolution being false serves as undeniable proof that an intelligent creator deity exists? Aemmyjah:I'd be careful of making such affirmative pronouncements if I were you. The question of the origins of life and the universe are very complex topics, of which active scientific research and philosophical exploration are still being carried out with varying degrees of success. For instance, besides the Big Bang theory which posits an expanding universe, there are less popular theories of a cyclic universe, as well as an infinite universe, both of which easily dispel the notion that the universe had a beginning at all. Clearly the argument that the universe has a beginning is not a general consensus within the scientific community. I'll give you life since there isn't many theories contesting the fact that life has an origin (there's the panspermia theory but it is believed to be speculative at best). There is no evidence that something can emerge from nothing.That depends on what you mean by "nothing". In physics, even seemingly empty space is not entirely devoid of properties. Quantum mechanics includes a concept known as the "vacuum", which isn't actually empty but contains fluctuations and energy. More importantly, I'm still waiting to see how all this points to a creator deity. No evidence that life can emerge from non-life. Have you and jaephoenix considered the mathematical probability of even the DNA evolving by chance or of life itself?There isn't any conclusive evidence yet that life can emerge from non-life, but active research is still ongoing with regards to the topic, and abiogenesis is still a very plausible hypothesis due to several experiments and observations that lend some credence to it. How confident are you that there won't be some sort of breakthrough in this research topic in the next 100-500 years, probably long after you've departed from this earth? You said it yourself later on in your post that "Our wealth of knowledge is expanding." So are now you asserting that evidence showing life came from non-life will never be found? Anyways, I'm still waiting to see the connection to an intelligent creator deity. So far, what I can see here is that you are merely arguing from your ignorance. You can't fathom how certain phenomena came about, so therefore you attribute it to God. I fail to see how this argument even comes close to my demands for you to prove the existence of a creator deity. Google is at your service.If I wanted to have this discussion with Google, then I wouldn't be talking to you. Mutation they said is also responsible is seen to be more harmful than beneficial. We have seen changes in living forms but it has not resulted in anything new. If jaephoenix knows little science, he should know that gametes must be compatible when 2 species copulate and two different species cannot copulate let alone producing offsprings... Darwin's theories has modified time and again and we now have what is called modern darwinism. Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, not a fact or even theory. If an hypothesis is used evolution regrading the origin of life, hiw then is evolution a fact? If it is by natural selection, artifical selection with the best minds with the resources and conditions should do better but that has failed. Even so, a scientist or group of scientists who create life cannot represent blind, irrational and mindless process... Don't forget that evolution does not even bring about complexity.All these are continued rantings against the theory of evolution, which ultimately accomplishes nothing for me. I want to know more about intelligent design. As it stands, you are only just wasting your time with these incessant complaints when you should be developing a model for Intelligent Design or adducing actual evidence for creationist ideas. You seem to appeal to science a lot but you continue to show a lack of respect for the scientific method. The cycles, the inter-relationships, the immune systems, the digestive systems, circulatory system, the human brain... All these and many more show the footprint of intelligent designYou're just pointing at things and saying "this looks designed! that looks designed! Therefore, God exists!". These are all claims, not evidence. I will fully address this part of your post in the next quote below since it coincides with another question I asked you. I have noticed though, that in all your ramblings so far, you haven't still managed to offer any convincing evidence that suggests a creator deity. So tell me again why I should give a damn about evolution being true or not, if it has no bearing on the justification of my atheism? ================================================================== My full critique of your last paragraph above will coincide with my critique to your answer to question number 4, so I'll just merge them both together here, QUESTION 4: How do you measure and/or recognize design? How can you tell the difference between a designed object and one that was not designed? 4. That's deep. Can you mention anything that has no designLol. Now you've just gone around and asked me the very same question I asked you 🤦🏽♀️. Seriously, read my question again. Did you understand it at all 😂? The fact that can run around and point at things, saying they look designed, means that you can easily distinguish a designed object from one that isn't designed! So the onus is on YOU to show me examples of objects that were not designed. What is designed has a purpose right? Chaos cannot bring about design.More rhetorical assertions that have nothing to do with my question. For instance, if you go to a forest where no one has ever visited (and truly no one visited) and you see a toothpick or matchstick. You know someone dropped it there. But who and how and when and from where? You don't know but that does not mean what you saw evolved from the trees. Glass is made from sand particles. If you go to an island where no one has even touched and you see a glass bottle, what will be your conclusion?...and you're still stuck with the same problem -- can you show us an object that was not designed? I asked you how we can recognize design and so far, you have provided no mechanism by which to distinguish "design" from "non-design". The only reason you know the glass bottle is different from the sand it's laying on is because of what? How hard it is? Because you can look through it? How streamlined it looks? Its' chemical composition? Are the atoms in the sand not just as complex and designed? What of the trees in the forest? In the universe, especially in space, there are things that are even more precise than what we have on earth such as the 'traffic' of planetary bodies... Don't forget that many of our designs on earth were inspired from what we observe in the original world. Who deserves the credit?Maybe when you can give an example of a non-designed object, I'll start to appreciate this "design" you keep alludung to. But for now, I think it's safe to say you have nothing to show for your position that God exists. ================================================================== I'll score you nothing for both numbers 1 and 4 because you have not shown me how evolution being false constitutes proof an intelligent creator deity, and you have not shown me how you are able to recognize design. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 9:21pm On Dec 31, 2023*. Modified: 9:42pm On Dec 31, 2023 |
Aemmyjah:Again, poor analogy. In your analogy: The biology textbook says one thing, and the teacher says another thing without referencing that same biology textbook. Obviously the teacher is talking out his ass. He has no basis. In the case of the Bible: Some passages say the earth is flat. Other passages say it is spherical. And there are Christian apologists on both sides of the argument, using the same Bible to support their point. Once again you don miss road dey go where you no know 🤣. Try again. The question remains: WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE YOUR CLAIM THAT THE EARTH IS SPHERICAL WHEN THERE ARE OTHER CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS WHO CLAIM THE EARTH IS FLAT? Remember both views are based on the Bible! |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 9:21pm On Dec 31, 2023*. Modified: 9:40pm On Dec 31, 2023 |
Aemmyjah:Thus far I have addressed and answered all your questions. Nearly all of my questions were asked towards the beginning of this thread, and you have not even acknowledged them, much less answered them until now. I was going to ignore any further questions from you because it was starting to seem like you were not interested in a bi-directional conversation by expecting me to answer your questions when you blatantly refuse to answer mine. But since you've finally obliged my questions, I will give you the benefit of the doubt once more. Although if I'm being honest, it will take a lot for you to really impress me now given your atrocious performance so far on this thread. You think writing long stories to avoid a simple question makes you intelligent shey?How ironic in retrospect, given that you're now writing long notes too to answer my questions. Talk about a proper lack of self-awareness 😂. As you will soon realize, if you do the same diligence to my questions that I do to yours, I bet you won't see me bickering and moaning about it, unless you are completely going off-topic. Whether na Allah or Krishna. Does it dispute the existence of the Creator...It doesn't dispute a creator. However, it disputes Christianity specifically as a religion, since it will be deprived of any special status over other religions. I would then ask you why you don't worship Allah or Krishna instead of Yahweh, after all they are all placeholders for a supreme creator, according to you. It's basic common sense. Haven't you heard of Deism? You clearly haven't thought properly about your objections. I might say my phone brand is Samsung, someone say infinix, someone says Tecno... Does these arguments mean my phone evolved by itself?This analogy is nonsensical. And I've demonstrated why ages ago on this thread 👇🏽 Thorrn:Long story short, you can't compare the universe to a simple phone. See reasons above. Again, no road for you. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 9:20pm On Dec 31, 2023*. Modified: 9:39pm On Dec 31, 2023 |
Aemmyjah:I was going to ignore this question again, until I saw that you had finally grown enough balls to address my questions. I'll look into your answers shortly. Meanwhile, no. Abiogenesis is NOT a scientific fact. Anything else? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 9:20pm On Dec 31, 2023*. Modified: 9:37pm On Dec 31, 2023 |
Aemmyjah:Both questions asked and answered here👇🏽 Thorrn:Why are you repeating answered questions? Oga don jam rock. No road for you again. Kpele 😂😂😂. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 9:20pm On Dec 31, 2023*. Modified: 9:37pm On Dec 31, 2023 |
Aemmyjah:Pffft. Why do you care about science? Your religion has all the answers to life's questions na. Abi no be so? Once, it was generally accepted by scientists that earth was flat and resting on somethingFalse. The idea of a flat earth originated from ancient era of the Greeks and Egyptians. In those times, people interpreted their observations of a similar flat ground as proof that world was flat based on their limited perspectives. The idea was common for centuries but was gradually dispelled with scientific discoveries and explorations demonstrating the Earth's spherical nature. It was generally accepted that abiogenesis / spontaneous theory was fact1, Abiogenesis has never been accepted as fact. It is a scientific hypothesis, albeit a very plausible one, which is why it has never been outrightly disproven. If it has, present your evidence. I'm interested to see it. 2, Abiogenesis is not the same as Spontaneous Generation theory. This is common knowledge in the scientific community. What Louis Pasteur sought to disprove with his swan-neck experiment was Spontaneous Generation, and not Abiogenesis. No amount of desperation on your part will ever make the two similar. Oya fall down and cry 😂. which Thorrn is still preaching.Clearly, you don't even know what it means to "preach" Biogenesis is scientifically proven as fact and I accept.Congratulations. Here, have a cookie 🍪. She wants me to accept abiogenesis.Sorry to derail your agenda, but I never cared about Abiogenesis and never will. I also couldn't care less what you choose to believe. I explicitly said earlier that even if the Big Bang, Evolution etc. and all other scientific theories -- that you Christians cry about because it washes you puerile beliefs in the mud -- were ultimately proven wrong, I'll still be an atheist. You know why? BECAUSE ATHEISM IS ONLY CONCERNED WITH BELIEF / LACK OF BELIEF IN GODS. I'm not stupid as you are.No, you're not as stupid. You're infinitely more stupid. Something that chatgpt describes as an hypothesis is fact?I remember telling you that Abiogenesis has NOT been disproven. That's not the same as calling it a fact. That you'd make this bogus conflation not only accentuates your retardation, but also calls into question your knowledge of scientific methodology. And since you love ChatGPT so much, let's hear his opinion shall we? ChatGPT, Since abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis, does it mean it has been disproven? Answer: Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis that seeks to explain how life could have arisen from non-living matter. It's important to note that being a hypothesis doesn't mean it has been proven or disproven definitively. The scientific community continues to explore and investigate the origins of life through various fields such as biochemistry, molecular biology, and astrobiology. While there is evidence supporting aspects of abiogenesis, it remains a complex and challenging area of study. The origin of life is a topic that scientists actively research, and our understanding may evolve as more evidence is gathered. As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, abiogenesis is considered a plausible explanation for the origin of life, but the specific mechanisms are not fully elucidated. Always check for the latest scientific developments for the most up-to-date information. So your claim that abiogenesis has been disproven is a straight up lie woven out of an unholy romance between ignorance and stupidity. QED. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 12:10pm On Dec 29, 2023 |
@AEMMYJAH, WHERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS BELOW? Thorrn: |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 12:00pm On Dec 29, 2023 |
Aemmyjah:Na you I suppose dey ask o, because evidently there are two contradicting schools of thought relating to the Earth's true geometry and both of them claim that their views are supported by the Bible  . |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 11:59am On Dec 29, 2023 |
Aemmyjah:The answer to this question is literally right there in the screenshot I posted, staring you in your stupid face  . Is your brain paining you? Read it again, dumbo.I never compared spontaneous generation with abiogenesis. They go hand in handYou tried to conflate the two though, as if they were the same. Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis. They are not entirely the same, and I've demonstrated this to you already. Your brain don de increase temperature sheyYou shamelessly plagiarized a post from a JW website without giving proper credit to the source. You infused it into your post to Jaephoenix as if they were your words and it got removed by the spambot . I saw my mention in that post before it got taken down.Usually when posts are taken down like that, the poster usually gets banned. I apologize for my hasty assumption. However, I find it funny how you're latching onto this trivial mistake as if it has any bearing on the main topic. Desperation wan wound you . |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 11:57am On Dec 29, 2023 |
Aemmyjah:Good and evil can be explained via evolution, yes. In fact this article from the Scientific American does a very good job at explaining this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-origins-of-human-morality/ If your child wants to find a purpose as a serial killer or terrorist. It is ok shey?First, this retarded_ question does not actually disprove the fact that purpose is subjective, so the point you tried to make here is about as sharp as a busted rubber ball. In fact, it only reinforces my argument. Your stupidity here is that not only do you believe that "purpose" is external and/or objective, you also believe that it is fixed IE not subject to change. Your question has more to do with the source of human morality. Technically, it has absolutely nothing do with purpose in life. That's a different topic entirely. Secondly, if anybody seriously believes being a serial killer is what gives him a sense of identity, the best I can do to appeal to his sense of logic and empathy is to convince him of the adverse effects of his actions. The utilitarian philosophy captures this idea perfectly: actions that maximize happiness and enhance peace and harmony in the society are inherently beneficial to the greater good of mankind. You've heard this idea commonly as follows: "treat others how you want to be treated. In the event that s/he refuses to acknowledge my advice, I will simply treat that person as a psychopath who is immune to rationality and empathy, even if s/he is my own child. Your philosophy has left you with unreliable guidanceAnd Biblical morality is very reliable, huh? With all its verses which glorify slavery, genocide, patriarchy, violence and supersessionism? Keep wailingYou've been the one wailing since the thread started, spouting unsupported nonsense to cover your lack of ideas, but that's not going to stop me from debunking any rubbish you post on this thread. 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 9:30am On Dec 29, 2023 |
Aemmyjah:I remember AgentOfAllah gave a perfect response to this issue some years back, so I'm going to quote his post here. Your belief that subjective purpose justifies irrational behavior is farcical. AgentOfAllah: 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 9:28am On Dec 29, 2023 |
Aemmyjah:The owner of this blog is a Muslim abi? https://biblicalcosmologybook..com/?m=0 Your delusion is mightyAgain you did not answer my question. You claim the Bible supports a spherical earth. The owner of that blog claims the Bible supports a flat earth. You are both basing your claims on "what the Bible says". Why should I lend any more credence to your claim over his? I just need one reason. Shikena! 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 9:26am On Dec 29, 2023 |
Aemmyjah:Mr. Retard, so it's no longer Spontaneous generation vs Abiogenesis. It's now Abiogenesis vs biogenesis. Oponu. Olodo rabata. 1 Like
|
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 8:19am On Dec 29, 2023 |
Aemmyjah:False equivalence fallacy. Also a form of category error. You're equating the universe in all its vastness and complexity to a house in one corner of our tiny earth, and you somehow believe your analogy is justified? Retard_ is as retard_ does. You are just a retard_ and there's nothing I can do to help you. You're quoting from hearsaysHearsays? Lol. Anyone who opens that link will see that Smith was literally rephrasing Wallace's own words from the book "My Life" which is an autobiography written by Wallace himself. Open the link and find out for yourself. He also rejected belief in the Christian god, but I know this part of the debate will be too inconvenient for your stupid agenda. Anyways I don't actually expect you to read the link because I know you don't actually care for honest conversation. You just want to be "right" by all means, even when your knowledge on a subject is clearly lacking. Also, why do you think I should care if Wallace believed in higher beings? What do you think Wallace's irrational beliefs prove. Like I told before, you are going down a very slippery slope by conflating science with religious beliefs. Science, as a process, is totally independent of the personal convictions, ideologies and bias of the individuals who engage in its practice. Wallace may have believed in a higher mind, but his belief is NOT justified by the theory of evolution. Many of Wallace's scientific propositions, including warning colouration and natural selection are widely accepted across the scientific community, since they have withstood subsequent scientific scrutiny and have become established scientific theories. However, many scientists refused to lend credence to his supernatural beliefs since they were untestable and therefore unscientific. Why should I care for Wallace's own personal convictions over that of countless other scientists? The catholic church was wrongVery interesting, because there are Christians who believe in a flat earth and can justify their beliefs using the Bible. They also reject the law of gravity, saying gravity does not exist. And they believe in a higher being who created everything just like you. This link here (https://biblicalcosmologybook..com/?m=0) redirects to a blog by a Christian who insists that the Bible preaches a flat earth. Why should I believe your claim that the earth is spherical instead of his own claim that the earth is flat? He also goes ahead to lay out his argument citing Bible verses to corroborate his claims. Where is your own detailed argument supporting the belief in a spherical earth using Bible passages? Also, the above example serves to deflate the argument that the Bible represents absolute truth. Pray tell, how can truth of the Bible be absolute when different people derive subjective ideas from its' contents? You clearly need to educate yourself on spontaneous generation and abiogenesis... You don't even know basic sciences. Both are obsolete. Both are the same... Life cannot emerge from non-life, keep wallowing in ignoranceI'll let ChatGPT do the talking: What is the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation? Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are two different concepts related to the origin of life. Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds, through natural processes. This theory is supported by evidence from fields such as biochemistry, molecular biology, and paleontology. Spontaneous generation, on the other hand, is an outdated and disproven idea that living organisms can arise from non-living matter under certain conditions. This concept was popular in ancient and medieval times but was eventually refuted by experiments and observations, leading to the acceptance of the theory of biogenesis, which states that living organisms only arise from pre-existing living organisms. In summary, abiogenesis is a modern scientific concept that explores the natural origins of life from non-living matter, while spontaneous generation is a historical idea that has been replaced by the theory of biogenesis and the modern understanding of abiogenesis. You're retarded_ and wilfully ignorant. Case closed. It's your type of intelligence that can believe that there was a nuclear explosion and Tokyo developed from it either instantaneously or spontaneously... If not, how can the earth and other planets and life emerge from a big bang (cosmic explosion)... You're highly delusionalWhen you're done furiously beating about the bush, please answer my simple and straightforward questions. I've quoted them for you in my previous post. Thanks  2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 8:19am On Dec 29, 2023 |
Aemmyjah:And you're a masochist. A glutton for punishment .What is abiogenesis and what is spontaneous theory.If you don't know the difference, then why, oh why Dundeejah, are we having this discussion? See this ignorant child?Ignorance runs through your bloodstream. It is the very essence of your being. You are like a totem that represents ignorance. The day you die is the day you'll stop being ignorant .Abiogenesis and BiogenesisAnswer my questions and stop making a fool of yourself already. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 8:17am On Dec 29, 2023 |
Aemmyjah:Of course why not, because the only way you Christians know how to refute an argument is to merely assert the opposite. Oh golly, how convincing you sound !"I aM nOt A ReTArd, WAAaAaAAah!" You sound like a 3 year old .You are the retard for accepting what defies proven fact and logicMore infantile "I know who you are but what am I" retorts. Logic can NOT prove anything to exist in reality. At best, logic can suggest at the possibility or likelihood of a phenomenon. You need EVIDENCE to prove something exists in this reality. So your thoughtless assertion here is nothing more than a puerile oxymoron. Logic =/= Evidence Where is your evidence that God exists? If abiogenesis is obsoleteOnce again, you can take your stupid, dishonest questions and shove them right up your diseased cakehole. You obviously don't care for honest debate, if you refuse to answer any of my questions. Go meet a biologist if you really want to know about abiogenesis, and are not just looking for a pointless "gotcha!" moment. The next time you fall sick, why don't you sleep in your church next time, instead of going to the hospital and buying drugs. Your God works in mysterious ways after all. Lol Where are you answers to these questions, Dundeejah? Thorrn: 3 Likes 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 1:21am On Dec 29, 2023*. Modified: 1:47am On Dec 29, 2023 |
Dtruthspeaker:So in the absence of any actual proofs for your claim, you default to consoling yourself with an imagined victory, trying to cover up for your obvious failures and inadequacies in this discussion. What a spectacle . I've never seen anyone so excited by his lack of substance .But if I'm being completely honest, I'm not entirely surprised. I figured it would only be a matter of time before you finally plunged back into the abyss of madness after your brief escape .If it makes you feel better about your incompetence, then fine. I will award you your imaginary victory. Good to know that you're more interested in putting on a facade of success rather than actively seek out the truth. All I see is a coward running away from the implications of his arguments because he doesn't want to be embarrassed further. Well played, sir. You're a natural .Well, I call it shameless avoidance and pathetic cowardice. That is why IT IS THE LAW, THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTHRepeating nonsensical rhetoric was always your favorite sport. Thanks for the debate, it was very intellectually stimulatingWell, of course it was. I literally spent the entire thread educating you on basic concepts in logic, philosophy and apologetics. That's how it has always been. I'm always the teacher and you're always my student . You know nothing on your own. I always have to hold your hand and cut your food for you in digestible nuggets. And this thread is ample proof of that.You presented a half-assed argument, and ran away tail between legs after you were rightly asked for clarification because you knew you would get whipped even more badly than you already were. But as a sad clown with a fragile ego, you obviously needed to make up for it by bragging that you won. Well, I stand by what I said, THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST A NON-ARGUMENT, and your pathetic attempts at debate in this thread is perfect example of that axiom. I was too quick to award Aemmyjah the trophy of the most decorated slowpoke on the Nairaland Religion section. You're still by far the undisputed king of ignorance and stupidity, and I will forever stand in awe of your foolishness in all of its glorious majesty . 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 12:55am On Dec 29, 2023 |
Dtruthspeaker:Lol, y'all are starting to make me feel like a teacher in primary school . Do I have to hold you people's hands through every damn thing? I literally explained all of this in the post you quoted.Okay. Now pay attention, child. Read this post again: Thorrn:Notice the two highlighted parts of this paragraph. As you can see, this passage from which you quoted the SECOND highlighted remark, was focused on the meaning of your claim: nothing [in this world] created itself. Do you see anything to do with the definition of the world here? Are you that dyslexic that you can't see that you just goofed ? Simply put, you're jumbling up unrelated issues in the most unsophisticated attempt at sophistry I've ever witnessed .You've already clarified what you mean by the "world" in your claim. And I've accepted your definition. However, you keep insisting that I've derailed whenever I point out the fact that your argument about nothing creating itself suggests the existence of a first cause, and that is why I still need you to clarify: You've said that nothing [in this world] created itself. What are you trying to suggest here if not the fact that everything has a creator? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 12:29am On Dec 29, 2023 |
Dtruthspeaker:You know you've lost an argument when you can't help but repeat yourself incessantly without offering any new insight. Please don't go the dark route of Aemmyjah. As you can see, he's now languishing in the dark corners of Nairaland hell. Blind and stubborn assertions will not save your position here. Simply clarify things for me. You said that nothing [in this world] created itself. What are you trying to suggest here if not the fact that everything has a creator? 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 12:24am On Dec 29, 2023 |
Dtruthspeaker:You're not actually addressing the paragraph you just quoted with this rejoinder. My primary focus in that paragraph was the meaning of your claim nothing [in this world] created itself in its entirety, not the definition of the qualifier you took the liberty to employ. Allow me to ask the question this way. How does the notion that "nothing [in this world] created itself" suggest that God exists? Can you give a direct answer? You and I already know where you're heading with your argument, but keep denying and pretending to be none the wiser . 3 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Does God Exist? by Thorrn(f): 12:12am On Dec 29, 2023 |
Dtruthspeaker:You didn't give any proof my guy. You just presented a rendition of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but dressed it up in a tattered manner, as opposed to the elegance with which more competent apologists usually portray it. And the KCA has been widely trashed and destroyed in all forums of philosophical debate throughout modern history. Permit me to rephrase your last sentence here: "THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST A NON-ARGUMENT" Safe to say, the case is closed. And you have been dismissed. Next! 1 Like |
