₦airaland Forum

Aemmyjah:
Even Alfred Wallace faulted evolution

Pray tell, how could Wallace have possibly "fault(ed)" evolution when he was literally a pioneer of the theory, alongside Charles Darwin? Christ, you really are thicker than 2 short planks.

and said something that life gives proof of a mind

So apparently Wallace believed in spiritualism IE the existence of a spiritual realm beyond the physical world. Okay, good. Although I think it's funny how you're trying to use Wallace's personal ideologies to support your spurious claim to a higher creator deity. Three things here,

1, you commit the appeal to authority fallacy by hinging the validity of your claims on a passing remark made by Wallace. Why exactly should I care that Wallace believed in a higher mind? I could easily cite a number of even more credible scientists who confidently dismiss any notions of a supreme metaphysical being, and use their ideologies to justify my argument. You have no point here.

2, 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.

3, and this is the important bit: Wallace may have been a spiritualist, but he didn't believe in the Christian God and even rejected Christianity as a religion. He also rejected intelligent design. A seasoned scholar on the subject, Charles Smith, addressed this misconception of Wallace HERE. When asked if Wallace believed in Intelligent Design, he said, "No, no, and no--assuming that i.d. leans on the operation of first causes as Creationism does, that is. Don't fall for the facile understanding being promoted by some agenda-driven observers who argue that, just because Wallace was a spiritualist and believed that "higher intelligences" were influencing events here on earth, that he also believed in miraculous, non-law-based kinds of Godly intervention."

So basically, you're just running a fool's errand with this nonsensical argument.

Tell me I'm lying against Wallace

I don't think you're lying here actually. I think you're just too stupid to understand how nuanced Wallace's perspectives towards reality were.

Evolutionist tend to forget that Pasteur has killed and buried the idea of abiogenesis (the subtle mother of macroevolution)

LMFAO @ "subtle mother of macroevolution" . Newsflash, dumbo: Abiogenesis is NOT evolution. It's a separate topic within biology and biochemistry. Secondly, and strictly speaking, Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation with his famous swan-neck experiment, not abiogenesis. You clearly don't know the difference. Finally, spontaneous generation is literally how things were created in the Bible if you read your precious book of Genesis very closely. Your imaginary sky daddy was just popping out random complex subjects, both living and non-living, out of thin air. Lol .

Keep lying to yourself
You are fooling in your delusions

More bitter rants and tears from Dundeejah .

Where are interlinking classes of fossils to prove your points?

Ask a biologist. Evolution is not my business.

Where are the superior ape men we see in books while we have millions of inferior monkeys

Ask a biologist. Evolution is not my business.

Why is the intelligence gap between we and them so huuuuuuuuuge

Why is the human eye vulnerable to dust and impact from very strong light? Why is our eyesight so terrible compared to bats? Why are bacteria and viruses more powerful than the human species given that certain ailments like cancer and HIV are totally incurable, or that COVID-19 almost threatened to wipe out the entire human race? How come only 20% of the Earth is inhabitable for human beings, and within the little are that is habitable, we constantly suffer tsunamis, pandemics, earthquakes, floods, droughts, global warming and tornadoes?

Oh I know the answer! It's InTeLLiGent dESigN!!!



You don't think. You can't think. You only regurgitate bullshit you don't even understand. Pathetic dullard.

Have you seen a unicellular organism either by chance or by engineering become bicellular or multicellular... Show us one, even if na fake one

Ask a biologist. Evolution is not my business.

For thousands of years, the Bible has only one few that all life was created by Gof

Gof? Who's Gof?

How many times has Darwin's theories (Darwinism) been modified? Not once, not twice, not 4 times, not 4 times. Many scientists including those that are atheists do agree on the definition of evolution or the basis of his theory and many have called it obsolete... Where then does the fact come from

Of course you'd make this spurious argument because you cannot decipher the difference between religion (unquestioned dogma) and science. Criticisms of scientific theories are commonplace within the scientific community. That's how science works, dumbo. Scientists collect data for research, carry out experiments and report their findings. These data are readily accessible to other scientists who can carry out the same experiments and attempt to falsify them. And that's where the strength of science lies: it subjects supposed facts to intense scrutiny to establish their veracity. Scientific knowledge is cumulative. It evolves through the process of scientists learning about, criticizing, and improving upon the previous works of scientists.

Religion on the other hand, makes allusions to absolute "truths" and are not open to change or growth. In fact, religion explicitly discourages anyone from honestly and objectively challenging the inherent beliefs that are considered sacred to said religion. For example, the case of Galileo being persecuted by the Catholic Church for his conception of a heliocentric solar system which directly contradicted the Church's belief in a flat Earth.

So long story short, Science establishes truth via thorough experiments, criticisms and continuous revision of theories. Whereas, religion establishes truth via indoctrination, blackmail and threats.

You think say I be mumu like wuna

Bro, it took you 40 pages to finally realize I'm a girl after calling me a guy all along.

We don't think you're stupid.

We KNOW you're stupid.

Now that you've unwittingly gotten your dumb ass banned, I hope you spend the next 24 hours of your sorry life reflecting on your relentless stupidity, and come back a better man. In the meantime, I'll have to clean up this place. The stench of your illiteracy continues to linger on the thread, like a curry fart in an elevator .

@Aemmyjah

Fancy you calling someone else a fraud when you're too busy plagiarizing JW articles from the internet. Unfortunately I couldn't screenshot your post before it got taken down. Lol. I'm sure that is why you got your stupid ass banned. This is the problem with y'all Christards. You find it difficult to be authentic because you are used to living a life full of lies and delusions.

Next time include your source when you copy and paste, you incompetent retard_. I won't quote the post in question so that I won't get banned too.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2009645

cc: Jaephoenix, kkins25

Aemmyjah:
According to science
Earth has a
Perfect position in the galactic system
Perfect distance from the sun
Perfect tilt
Perfect rotation
Perfect orbit
Perfect speed, etc


All these programmed to support life
Are all these the work of blind, mindless, irrational process... Yes or No?

Mumu
Perfect amount of water

Nothing new to see here. I've just refuted this garbage. You keep repeating yourself like a broken bot. Here retard. Read it and weep. Again .

You're quoting science as if it's your Holy Bible. Science isn't authoritative, such that it makes strict declarations without any form of dissent or disapproval. Science is a process for understanding a world -- a framework, if you will. You observe X, and Y happens…so find out why. Unlike politics or theology, science doesn't claim to know the answer, science helps you FIND the answer. That's why for a discovery to be validated, it must be reviewed by many different people of equal standing to the person who discovered a new phenomenon to form a valid consensus in the community. It's called PEER REVIEW.

As for your waffle about how the earth is "perfect" for life and other nonsense, I'm not going to say much on the subject because it has been sufficiently addressed already in this debate here by atheist Sean Carroll who absolutely reamed his opponent WLC with important facts completely destroying the design argument. Check the timestamps from 38:25 to 48:30. I'll give a bullet point summary of Carroll's points for the sake of possible casual readers>>>

1. We don't actually know if life can still exist if the conditions of our universe were very different, because we only see the universe that we can observe.

2. In theistic religions like Christianity, life is not purely physical. Thus, no matter what state the atoms in the universe are in, God (being omnipotent) can still create life. The only framework in which you can honestly say that the physical parameters of the universe must take on certain values in order for life to exist is naturalism.

3. The "perfect conditions" that you think are there might go away once you understand the universe better. Example: the exact expansion rate of the universe was found to be dependent on other factors, and it was impossible to be otherwise

4. Theism (e.g Christian and Islamic religion) fails as an explanation. If you ask, "what universe would I expect to see under theism or under naturalism", and then compare them to the data, naturalism fits far better.

During all this, he keeps repeating a key phrase, "Theism is not well defined." This is an important idea: theism or even a specific version like Christianity, doesn't provide any actual answers to these difficult cosmological questions, in fact they aren't even positing an actual theory, just hand-waving "it seems amazing, so God must have done it".

Carroll's point #2 is a very novel argument as well: that God wouldn't need to fine tune the universe, after all aren't our souls purported to be made of something beyond just atoms? So why does he need the atoms in such a specific arrangement?

Carroll's response to Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument starts back at 30:30, and is also a very novel rebuttal, he primarily attacks premise #1: "If the universe began to exist, it had a transcendent cause". In short: the correct way to ask this question in the field of astrophysics/cosmology is: can I build a model of the universe that had a beginning and no transcendent cause? The answer is: Yes, it has been done. We are nowhere close to knowing if this particular model of the universe is correct (ie, corresponds to our actual universe), but it is a valid, non-contradictory model, and can't (yet) be ruled out.

Aemmyjah:
Answer this simple question

A scientist created life in a lab or a living cell

Who does he represent? An intelligent designer or mindless process

That question is not too hard

Surprisingly, you did not even say the latter as I expected you which tends to favor evolution, you said neither


Bwahahahahahaha

================================

Where are your answers to these questions?

Thorrn:
Oh the divine irony ! I can't believe you just wrote this.

Why don't you practice what you preach, Dundeejah? Hmm? Where are all the answers to my questions that YOU have intentionally ignored for numerous pages now just to throw your infantile tantrums about atheists. In fact I think I'm going to refrain from answering any more of your stupid questions until you do justice to the following questions that I've been asking you for close to a month now. Go on and show me little ol' me how to answer "simple questions" >>>

1. Can you kindly demonstrate how evolution being false serves as undeniable proof that an intelligent creator deity exists?

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?

3. Since the start of this thread, where did I make any claim that everything came from nothing?

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?

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?

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?

7. If everything has a creator, then who or what created God?

You and I both know say if you make mistakes answer these questions honestly and objectively, in a straight-forward manner, fowl nyansh go open and the stupidity of your position will be 100% evident, even to you. That's why you've been running scared from my arguments like a petty thief because you know deep down that your position lacks any substance .

If you get mind, answer those questions. I will only just continue mocking your foolishness until you do.

kkins25:
That's 0 points for you, and 3 more points in addition to the scores of 3 points Thorn has against you..

Okay, answer this simple question? Were Adam and Eve created on the same day? If so, does that mean Gen 2. is shaky? If not, does that mean Gen 1. is shaky? Please, stop giving out free points. Defend your goal post like Pique and not Harry Maguire.

@Aemmyjah

When you don run finish, come back and answer these questions. Stop being a coward and put your money where your mouth is. I've added one more question which you recently dodged as well.

Thorrn:
Oh the divine irony ! I can't believe you just wrote this.

Why don't you practice what you preach, Dundeejah? Hmm? Where are all the answers to my questions that YOU have intentionally ignored for numerous pages now just to throw your infantile tantrums about atheists. In fact I think I'm going to refrain from answering any more of your stupid questions until you do justice to the following questions that I've been asking you for close to a month now. Go on and show me little ol' me how to answer "simple questions" >>>

1. Can you kindly demonstrate how evolution being false serves as undeniable proof that an intelligent creator deity exists?

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?

3. Since the start of this thread, where did I make any claim that everything came from nothing?

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?

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?

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?

7. If everything has a creator, then who or what created God?

8. What is the purpose of the eyes and ears in a blind and deaf man, respectively?

You and I both know say if you make mistakes answer these questions honestly and objectively, in a straight-forward manner, fowl nyansh go open and the stupidity of your position will be 100% evident, even to you. That's why you've been running scared from my arguments like a petty thief because you know deep down that your position lacks any substance .

If you get mind, answer those questions. I will only just continue mocking your foolishness until you do.

jaephoenix:
1. For a 'biologist', u sure have zero idea of evolution.

Stop the cap .

Aemmyjah..., sorry. Dundeejah is a biologist??!

D D

https://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8g64kY45X1qihztbo1_400.gif

Aemmyjah:
Who cares about your opinion either?

I didn't know we were playing a game of "I know who you are but what am I" .

I asked
A scientist created life or a living cell
Does he represent an intelligent designer or blind, mindless, irrational process

You said neither

Intelligent people saw the caveat I gave for my answer, you didn't. Conclusion: you're clearly not intelligent.

Quod Erat Demonstradum.

Bwahahahahaha

I can literally smell the shame and self-disappointment in this fake laugh .

And you claim to have sense

I don't claim to have it. I do have it. I would ask if you did, but... I'm sure we already know the answer .

Shame...

...should be your middle name.

Aemmyjah:
All these perfect conditions are result of mindless chance?
You be mumu

Mindless chance wasn't even alluded to explicitly in that post, but I'm not surprised that you have no credible defense to the rebuttals. We're used to your low capacity for intelligent contributions by now .

Anyways, I didn't write all that for you. I wrote it for normal people who still have brains. You're just my scapegoat in this thread. I don't even register you as a conscious co-discussant at this point.

Aemmyjah:
Oga
Abi madam

Careful. Don't let confusion extinguish your 3 remaining brain cells .

You are just fooling around

And you are just "fooling" in every direction conceivable.

You are living in delusion

I live in a world of reality. You live in a world governed by holy ghosts and boogie monsters and imaginary friends and enemies. Now tell me, Dundeejah, who's really living in delusion ?

Whether you describe as Allah, Amadioha, Buddha... Is that an evidence that the was no creator?

Lol. Are you now accepting that Allah, Amadioha, Buddha etc exist? Talk about desperation .

And I'm not answering your stupid questions until you put on your big boy pants and answer my own questions which you've been shamelessly dodging.

Has the theory of Evolution regarding the origin of life and complexity been tested with scientific approach

Yes. I've linked you to the relevant resources in a separate post.

Proved science tells us that nin life cannot produce life and parents only produce like offsprings tho variation occurs but nothing entirely different is produced... Mating two different kind of organisms won't produce viable offsprings cos the gametes are incompatible... Jaephoenix the fake doctor should atleast know this but both of you lie to yourself just like a transgender person will use science to say that not only women can get pregnant

If you have a problem with evolution, take it up with biologists and stop crying to me. My atheism has nothing to do with evolution. If evolution were finally disproved today and eventually got discarded by the scientific community, I'll still be an atheist.

Keep fooling around

Keep crying. I'll still be here to put more pepper under your smelling nyansh .

Aemmyjah:
I asked a simple question
You said neither
And you think you're intelligent?

You must really think I care about your puerile opinions of me. I would care more if your reasoning skills were sufficient enough to warrant some bit of respect.

Aemmyjah:
You are more than ridiculous

I'm more than anything your tiny little mind can fathom.

The sun has its own purpose
The earth
The rain
The vegetation

The tree also has a purpose. But the purpose of a tree to a termite isn't the same to the badger. And the purpose of a tree to humans is something entirely different to both the termite and the badger. Classic case of subjectivity .

Science tells us that the earth is in its perfect distance in the galactic system, perfect tilt, rotation, speed, satellite, amount of water, cycles, magnetic shield, atmosphere, gravitational laws which help sustain life. Note the word, perfect

You're quoting science as if it's your Holy Bible. Science isn't authoritative, such that it makes strict declarations without any form of dissent or disapproval. Science is a process for understanding a world -- a framework, if you will. You observe X, and Y happens…so find out why. Unlike politics or theology, science doesn't claim to know the answer, science helps you FIND the answer. That's why for a discovery to be validated, it must be reviewed by many different people of equal standing to the person who discovered a new phenomenon to form a valid consensus in the community. It's called PEER REVIEW.

As for your waffle about how the earth is "perfect" for life and other nonsense, I'm not going to say much on the subject because it has been sufficiently addressed already in this debate here by atheist Sean Carroll who absolutely reamed his opponent WLC with important facts completely destroying the design argument. Check the timestamps from 38:25 to 48:30. I'll give a bullet point summary of Carroll's points for the sake of possible casual readers>>>

1. We don't actually know if life can still exist if the conditions of our universe were very different, because we only see the universe that we can observe.

2. In theistic religions like Christianity, life is not purely physical. Thus, no matter what state the atoms in the universe are in, God (being omnipotent) can still create life. The only framework in which you can honestly say that the physical parameters of the universe must take on certain values in order for life to exist is naturalism.

3. The "perfect conditions" that you think are there might go away once you understand the universe better. Example: the exact expansion rate of the universe was found to be dependent on other factors, and it was impossible to be otherwise

4. Theism (e.g Christian and Islamic religion) fails as an explanation. If you ask, "what universe would I expect to see under theism or under naturalism", and then compare them to the data, naturalism fits far better.

During all this, he keeps repeating a key phrase, "Theism is not well defined." This is an important idea: theism or even a specific version like Christianity, doesn't provide any actual answers to these difficult cosmological questions, in fact they aren't even positing an actual theory, just hand-waving "it seems amazing, so God must have done it".

Carroll's point #2 is a very novel argument as well: that God wouldn't need to fine tune the universe, after all aren't our souls purported to be made of something beyond just atoms? So why does he need the atoms in such a specific arrangement?

Carroll's response to Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument starts back at 30:30, and is also a very novel rebuttal, he primarily attacks premise #1: "If the universe began to exist, it had a transcendent cause". In short: the correct way to ask this question in the field of astrophysics/cosmology is: can I build a model of the universe that had a beginning and no transcendent cause? The answer is: Yes, it has been done. We are nowhere close to knowing if this particular model of the universe is correct (ie, corresponds to our actual universe), but it is a valid, non-contradictory model, and can't (yet) be ruled out.

Yet someone says they are product of mindless chance.

Well, that's just your pointless strawman which doesn't even close to mirroring my actual argument.

If we call that person a fool, that's a gross understatement

Now that we have all been well acquainted with your acute cognitive limitations, I think every reasonable individual will agree with me that your opinion on the intellectual capacity of other people is as useful as a wet tissue paper.

Give it up already, Dundeejah. We already know you've lost this debate since 20 pages ago, but your fragile ego still spurs you on to have the last word as consolation for your immense failure on this thread .

You've got nowhere to run. You've been trounced and trashed from all angles. I know you want to cry. Let it out .

Aemmyjah:
We know the people that cannot answer a simple question but will rather dance round NL

Okay. So you know yourself then

Aemmyjah:
Scientific fact?

Yes. Scientific fact.

You no go school walahi

...coming from somebody with obvious cognitive limitations -- as has been demonstrated countlessly on this thread, I won't register this remark as anything more than an emotional outburst. Be careful so you don't pop a vein out of frustration .

Have you even tested that fact for yourself?

Testing it for myself will not change the fact that the scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that the theory of evolution is correct (An Elaboration of AAAS Scientists' Views). That link shows that 98% of all scientists accept evolution and the number rises to 99% when we look at scientists in relevant (biological) fields. There have been several experiments that tested various aspects of evolution. At this point it has been observed repeatedly in the wild and in laboratory conditions.

The real question here is if you can disprove or falsify evolution. And if you want to achieve that, you'll need to do a lot more than just sitting on your ass at home, spouting nonsense from your self-contained apartment. I have no dog in this fight because evolution being true or not does not affect my atheism. Plus, after you're done falsifying evolution and submitting your findings for peer review, you'll still need to go ahead and tender empirical evidence that supports the theory of intelligent design, because evolution being false doesn't automatically make creationism true.

I've hyperlinked the relevant sources for anyone who is interested. I already know you won't read it because not only are you too stupid and thick to understand the methodologies involved, but because you are a coward who keeps running from facts that challenge your infantile beliefs. I'm still indulging you for the sake of viewers who are interested in seeking out the truth. Other than that, I'm already starting to feel like a bully

Assumption is not fact

...and yet you believe in an imaginary being that you have never seen or heard. It has never spoken to you and you don't know what it looks like. You put blind trust in an ancient text riddled with flaws and inconsistencies, and fellow human beings who do not know any better. Remove the log of Iroko in your eye my dear.

Another atheist here did not believe that the brain is a result of mindless process

Who says all atheists are meant to think the same way or share the same ideologies? The only thing we have in common is lack of belief in gods. Atheists are far more dynamic in their views and philosophies. We're not zombies like the Christians. Lol.

You are just talking nonsense your head feeds you

It's brain, not head, if we want to be technical.

And at least my brain feeds me something. Your brain is still on sabbatical .

Aemmyjah:
If you have any intelligence , you should know how to answer a simple question instead of throwing tantrums

Oh the divine irony ! I can't believe you just wrote this.

Why don't you practice what you preach, Dundeejah? Hmm? Where are all the answers to my questions that YOU have intentionally ignored for numerous pages now just to throw your infantile tantrums about atheists. In fact I think I'm going to refrain from answering any more of your stupid questions until you do justice to the following questions that I've been asking you for close to a month now. Go on and show me little ol' me how to answer "simple questions" >>>

1. Can you kindly demonstrate how evolution being false serves as undeniable proof that an intelligent creator deity exists?

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?

3. Since the start of this thread, where did I make any claim that everything came from nothing?

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?

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?

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?

7. If everything has a creator, then who or what created God?

You and I both know say if you make mistakes answer these questions honestly and objectively, in a straight-forward manner, fowl nyansh go open and the stupidity of your position will be 100% evident, even to you. That's why you've been running scared from my arguments like a petty thief because you know deep down that your position lacks any substance .

If you get mind, answer those questions. I will only just continue mocking your foolishness until you do.

Aemmyjah:
On the highlighted
I'm being chatting with a foolish person

You've been chatting with someone who has a brain. Remember, you don't have a brain:

Aemmyjah:
Imagine someone with a brain

MaxInDHouse
Pls, see this simple question

Calling out for help ?

If you as a scientist create life or a living cell
Who do you represent
An intelligent designer or mindless process? Pls choose one with explanation

Thorrn said neither.

Yes, I declined to answer your question. The question proceeds from a false equivocation -- which is a well studied logical fallacy, so I do not feel obliged to give an affirmative answer. Your question is dead on arrival.

I did not know I was chatting with someone that cannot make up his mind yet does not accept the belief of a creator

The two actions are not mutually exclusive. I can be ignorant of the universe's origin, and I can also reject claims concerning how it originated if those claims lack scientific credibility. I understand this is rocket science for you.

Aemmyjah:
Answer my question

What makes you feel entitled to my answers when you refuse to answer my own questions, huh?

If you as a scientist create a living cell
Do you represent an intelligent designer or blind chance?

Neither, because your analogy is a false equivalence. Look it up.

Only a fool writes epistles and insults to answer a simple question

It's not my fault that you can't appreciate robust and detailed explanations because of your shitty attention span. At least I actually make attempts to answer your questions, however puerile they might be. How many of my questions have you answered, Dundeejah? Should I draft a list for you?

Aemmyjah:
Olodo
😂
You think what is made can answer for his Maker like human birth

Duh... That's the very definition of Christian apologetics. Once again, you demonstrate your illiteracy.

You are far from intelligence

Well intelligence isn't an object, so literally, there can't exist any distance between me and intelligence.

Intelligence is a property of the human brain. Since you've already admitted earlier that you do not have a brain, I can totally understand your confusion here .

No atheist can confidently tell you that the universe is the cause of its own existence

True. In fact atheists are more likely to plead ignorance when it comes to the topic of the universe's origin. We only accept claims which have evidence to support them.

Is it by chance that the earth has its own rotation, revolution, speed, tilt and movement?

Well, I don't know for certain. If you know the answer, please demonstrate using empirical evidence.

Intelligence is very far, billions of miles faraway from you

Intelligence is a property of the human brain. It seems your own intelligence exists outside of your body -- which would explain why you easily come across as a blundering dimwit .

Must really suck to be you, Dundeejah .

Aemmyjah:
Those under the school of thought that life is purposeless are supposed to live the Jungle

I agree. Unfortunately for you, my life has a purpose. What I told you is that life itself has no inherent purpose. Objective purpose vs Subjective purpose. I know that by time you finally understand the difference, the value of our Naira will finally supercede that of the Dollar .

Lemme ask you a question

Ask away.

Is your brain a product of intelligent design or mindless process? Which one 😂

The current scientific consensus is that the brain is a result of natural evolutionary processes rather than purposeful intelligent design. That's not my opinion, that is scientific fact.

If you believe otherwise, please go ahead and publish your findings in a peer reviewed research article.

Aemmyjah:
If a scientist can 'create' life or a living cell
Does he represent an intelligent designer or mindless process...

Which one? Short answer for anyone with a brain

If you truly want a genuine answer, rather than waffle on about nonsense you prefer to make up for yourself, then go back and read all the responses I've made to you since the start of this thread. I can't be arsed repeating myself to a dullard who refuses to humble himself and learn.

Aemmyjah:
A remote does not have a value without its designer. True or false?

False equivocation fallacy. A remote control is not sufficient to represent a fully functional human in any metaphor and/or analogy. Same goes for your "designer". Your pathetic question is dead on arrival. Try again.

My ear has a purpose

Congratulations. Now riddle me this: What is the purpose of the ear that belongs to a deaf living man?

My eyes have a purpose

Very good. Now, same as above. What is the purpose of the eyes that belong to a blind living man?

Someone made them

Okay. Prove it then. Why is that so difficult for you and your buddies to do?

Dolls have these too but what is their purpose and who can deny that someone made them

Another false equivocation. But I expect you won't even understand what it means, let alone how it applies to your spurious examples.

Keep wailing with insults cos your folly is just glowing
😂

I'm sorry you feel insulted by my remarks about your character on this thread. I'm just calling out what I see. If it looks like a dumbass, and writes like a dumbass, then it probably is... a dumbass.

And I can't see anything glowing here, when the cloud of your stark unintelligence is hovering around this thread, obscuring the light of reason.

Aemmyjah:
If you like
Set a record for world's longest comment

Titters. The fact that you're so scared of reading long detailed posts is just another pointer to your shallow cognitive depth. I've sufficiently proved my point already, so your irrational obstinacy is completely irrelevant to me. Keep crying.

You're ij the league of the school ilof thought that your life is meaningless, purposeless, useless and without reliable guidance

Again. Mindless repetition. Nothing new to see here. I should start calling you Dundeejah. Maybe you need to gather your 3 brain cells together to hold hands and pray so that you can finally come up with something smart for once .

So rest

Trust me, when it comes to handling juvenile bumblefucks like you, I don't need to break much sweat.

You should be interacting with animals in the bush

Pffft. No problem. I'm sure the animals in the bushes will do a better job than you in handling a mature conversation. Out of curiosity, how do you manage to find your way out of your house every day? I imagine it must be so tasking for you, cracking that tiny little blob of a brain just to remember where your front door is. Lol .

Aemmyjah:
No
Ask him
If they were able to create it
Who did they (the Makers) represent
An intelligent creator or mindless process?

See that atheists are actually very foolish
Like Thorrn and Jaephoenix

I'm laughing real hard here .

You know, when I first saw your topic and read the contents therein, I actually thought you were a fairly decent apologist, in spite of the fact that your "arguments" for God's existence merely consisted of the usual rhetoric that most atheists have become used to, and have sufficiently dismantled time and time again in countless fora for philosophical discourse. But now that I've engaged you personally, and observing your infantile conduct thus far in this thread with other users, I'm beginning to wonder if you didn't just copy and paste your entire OP because the substance of your subsequent posts doesn't seem to embody the same level of confidence, maturity and articulation that was present in the OP -- or maybe I missed something. I've also realized that you have the intellectual depth of a shoelace and the intuition of a tree branch.

You can't keep up a single line of conversation. You can't muster up any sort of defense when your points have been rebutted. You're only comfortable repeating the thoughtless monotonous soundbites that you've gleaned from your church pastors and other more intelligent and knowledgeable Christians. You're the literal definition of an intellectual midget, and that's not the fault of your religion. You see, belief (or lack of belief) in gods has nothing to do with good reasoning skills. I've met plenty of intellectual Christians in the past who will cover their face in shame after watching you gracelessly fumble like a drunkard in simple apologetics that every 20 naira Christian should be competent in.

Here's a piece of advice for you: If you want to create a topic and discuss about it, you would do yourself a lot of favors by actually making ample research to know what the topic is all about, instead of just parroting about things you cannot understand. You're clearly not properly informed on basic Christian apologetics, so you'd better educate yourself accordingly before making yourself look immensely stupid on an online forum that is accessible across the world. Unfortunately the internet never forgets, and the mental incompetence you have unwittingly exhibited on this particular thread has been recorded for future members to witness at any point in time.

Aemmyjah:
Your life has no purpose. Ok sir

Says the self-confessed fool who admitted himself that his life has no value besides his belief in an imaginary being. Get a mirror, dumbo.

If your life is so dry, miserable and valueless that removing belief in a God would possibly lead you to kill yourself because "life is meaningless" according to you, then please by all means, don't ever lose your faith.

When you can answer my question and tell me just one thing Christians enjoy in this life that an atheist doesn't, then I'll start to take you more seriously. Until then, you can go take the backseat in the peanut gallery of your own thread and continue to suffer in your ignorance and stupidity, while you cheerlead other Christians who are more willing to put their brain to use.

Dtruthspeaker:
The topic is proof of God

I have asked you (repeatedly) to present your proof that God exists. I have not asked you what the topic is. I already know what it is, thank you very much. Furthermore, in view of the watery responses you've been giving thus far, I'm inclined to assume that you may have a very poor understanding of what constitutes "proof" of a claim. You cannot present a vague sentence and pretend that it will suffice as proof of your God. You have to properly demonstrate the connection if you really want to convince me that you're not just making things up.

and as I told you from the beginning which you saw, I said no thing about first cause.

A variant of this idea has been pointed out to you already, but I'm going to say it again, in case you missed it or still don't understand. Read this very slowly: in any philosophical discussion, a claim can either be explicit or implicit in nature. 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. In which case, you would simply be rehashing the cosmological argument for gods, also known as The First Cause argument. For example, let's say we worked in the same office and you asked me if I had eaten that morning before coming to work. Then I simply just reply saying, "I eat every morning before coming to work". The likely inference you'd make from my response is that I had eaten that morning before coming to work. So far, I can't decipher anything new or original about your argument. Top tier atheist debaters don't even rate the argument these days and can rebut it without having to expend much brain juice.

It's funny though that you keep insisting this is not your argument. What this leads me to conclude is that (a) you have a very shoddy understanding of the depth of the argument you're trying to push forward here, in which case I would suggest you go back and properly study the cosmological arguments for God's existence to see how they mirror the argument you think you're trying to make. However, I'm also tempted to think towards option (b) though, which says you're a dishonest troll that rejects any important critiques of his claims because he doesn't want to cede any ground and admit that his knowledge or understanding of the subject is shaky. As far as I can tell, you are currently presenting the cosmological argument (first cause), and until you can provide further clarifications for the statement "nothing [in this world] created itself", I will continue to treat it as such.

You are the one not being able to continue since you and your other co-debaters are not able to get past my answer.

Lacking any specific context, your answer is technically is a non-sequitur to my question -- which literally means that you didn't actually answer it. So maybe explain your "answer" properly, and then we'll understand how it makes any sense as a response to the question of proving God's existence. As it stands, your "answer" (if it can be called that) reads more like a nonsensical string of words that have nothing to do with the actual subject of discourse.

We understand why you can't.

Who is the "we" in this blathering rejoinder? You and your braindead cheerleader, Aemmyjah? Personally, I would be more skeptical towards the credibility of my own argument if the only person who could validate it was someone with a sleeping brain .

The standard of knowledge requiring me to prove is "All deities" not certain deitie as you can pull any deity from anywhere and immediately I say I do not know it, then you would say, I have not proven God above all other deiies. So,your plan no work.

This paragraph is just another demonstration of your tendency for wilful avoidance of flaws in your arguments by playing semantics. I have noticed that it seems to be your preferred forum style -- to slither and dodge pertinent questions using irrational sophistry and frivolous appeals to semantics. But that's besides the point. What I find even more hilarious here is the fact that your pathetic attempt to redefine "certain deities" into "all deities" is an exercise in pointlessness since it accomplishes absolutely nothing. The question still remains. If you cannot know every deity that exists out there in the world, on what basis can you dismiss their existence, or their involvement in the creation of the world?

And all these are still a departure from post

Pffft. The only person departing from the topic is the one who's running scared of answering straightforward questions based of the implications of his argument. You really didn't think this through, did you ?

and fallacy of demanding the impossible.

1) No such fallacy exists. You literally just made that up.

2) Its funny you think that I'm "demanding the impossible", and it says a lot about the indefensible position you have assumed in this thread. You know deep down that your Jewish deity has no distinct evidence that sets him apart from every other deity in recorded history and that is why you think my simple request is "demanding the impossible".

That's not True. There is nothing vague about marry us"/hardness of buying and selling

If you really think there's nothing vague about predicting an unstable economy or about predicting marriage and/or divorce rates, then it's either you haven't got a single clue or you're just lying to yourself.

Here let me show you. I, Thorrn, am predicting now that rain will fall more than 3 times in the year 2048. If you're still alive by then and this prophecy comes to pass, you'll send me your address for me to come over and then you'll lie down flat on your face and suck on my toes as your lord and commander. You'll also wire any sum of cash I need to my account .

If you refuse to acknowledge this bet, then please tell me the difference between my prediction and that of one illiterate goat herder from ages ago.

Can you see the problem yet?

or the fact that Israel is now a single country returning to the place where they were thrown out from

This "prophecy" in particular will derail this thread if I choose to unpack it in its entirety. Long story short, it lacks any merit because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy IE it required the conscious or deliberate awareness and action of the people concerned to bring it to fruition. For example, if I prophesy that I will buy a car before 2026 and I do, am I therefore a divine entity? etc.

Anyways, if you wish to proceed further with this Israel prophecy debate, I would suggest we open another thread for it and I will talk more on the Israel prophecy. For this thread, I'm more interested in your claim that nothing in this world created itself is proof of God's existence.

And the mere fact that no other deity anywhere did not make any notable prediction like these, is a clear and distinct Proof of God as they were all free to predict their own prediction in whatever manner they wanted the world to see it come to pass but they did not because they are no gods just wood, iron and stone.

This assessment is ridiculously naive. Clearly you have never studied the claims of other religions for you to arrive at this preposterous conclusion. There are many prophecies made in Quran and Hadith by Muhammad that muslims claim to becoming true. For instance, Surah Rome, line 2-4, where Allah pronounces that Romans were defeated but soon within 3-9 years Romans will rise and defeat the Persians. And it did happen. The Romans defeated the Persians. Also there's a hadith where Muhammad said that the arab land will return to being green again, and apparently there are videos circulating the internet, showing that after heavy rain the arab land is slowly becoming green.

Buddhism also has its own fair share of "accurate" prophecies, according to your standard. You should check out the Sixteen Dreams of King Pasenadi Kosol where lots of interesting prophecies were made about the state of our present society including increase in sexual perversion, youths being more disrespectful towards their elders, cheating and nepotism, and even the rise of the feminist movement and men gradually becoming "simps". These prophecies seem almost even more impressive than the ones you profess. To this end, I wonder on what basis you can choose to dismiss Buddhism as lesser or inferior to Christianity.

Then there's the great prophet Nostradamus who predicted the Great Fire of London, the French Revolution as well as the rise and fall of both Hitler and Napoleon. He made all these prophecies as far back as the 16th Century.

I'm curious to know your response to these prophecies. According to your shoddy standards for validating the truth of a prophecy, all of the aforementioned examples (which are just a tiny few among many) should suffice as proof for their credibility. However I'm willing to wager that you can't attack these prophecies without committing the fallacy of special pleading. But go ahead and let me have a laugh watching you try.

So in the end you have nothing here.

Of course, because you're yet to present anything worthwhile for me to "have".

Fallacy of Begging the question and fallacy of composition.

Oh yeah? Let's examine these allegations.

By defining what a ship means does not automatically imply that The Federal High Court does not have jurisdiction over aircraft, territorial waters, airspace etc.

FALLACY OF COMPOSITION: ...occurs when the premise that the parts of a whole are of a certain nature is improperly used to infer that the whole itself must also be of this nature (example: a story made up of good paragraphs is thus said to be a good story)

I already had my suspicions, but it appears that you have indeed spuriously misapplied the fallacy of composition here. Let's backtrack and follow the logic of our conversation.

(1) You claimed that nothing [in this world] created itself.

(2) I noted that you qualified your claim with the adjectival phrase "...in this world", and so I demanded you to define what you meant by the "world" in your claim IE what it consists of.

(3) Your response to my demand above was the following, and I quote you verbatim: this "WORLD" consist of the earth alone in which humans are one of the inhabitants. So clearly, you were talking of the physical earth which houses all the known living organisms in the universe.

...which brings us back to where we are presently. Assuming the earth is a subset of the solar system which exists in our known universe, my premise here, in light of your definition, would be that God created the earth. You have not provided any explanation as to the source of other objects that exist in the solar system? Where did the Moon come from? What of the other planets? In fact let's take it all the way to our entire galaxy sef. Who created the Milky Way? Who created the Black Hole? These questions are totally justified because YOU yourself have limited the scope of your God's involvement in creation to the earth alone. So accusing me of committing a fallacy of composition is terribly nonsensical because I did not make any positive inference or extrapolation in this subject. It might have been a fallacy of composition if I had said,

(1) God created the earth.

(2) So therefore, God created the universe.

If you know anything at all about the principles of logic, you'd know that the syllogism above isn't just a fallacy of composition, but is also a non-sequitur.

Furthermore, the example you attempt to use as an illustration of your point is completely unintelligible, I can't even make any sense from it. What was the ship defined to mean in this farcical analogy of yours? I think I get the idea behind the analogy but your wording if it is just so laughable.

You also mentioned "begging the question". I don't see how your analogy illustrates that fallacy at all. Maybe you can explain this allegation better for me to make more sense of it? So far I haven't made any positive claims. The burden of proof is on you here and your knees seem to buckling under the pressure. Lol.

That's your opinion. The fact is that it is your bad understanding of the bible is which created and causes all the lies you raise against the bible. And this is of course resting on the fact that the bible condemns evil people and consequently evil people will never like it and will always say something is wrong with it. It's as simple as that and everyone knows that is the reason why you people attack the bible.

Look, I can literally make sense out of every single nonsense in this world if I'm determined to give that thing some sort of meaning. It doesn't necessarily mean that I'm correct or that the facts of reality agree with me. The human mind is an interesting phenomenon. You should go read up on Confirmation Bias and Belief Perseverance. You are completely entrenched in the notion that your belief is flawless so your brain will never accept the fact that there is a possibility that you're wrong. I repeat, the Bible is a steaming pile of bullshit contradictions, confabulations and outright lies. Any objective reader who reads books to arrive at truth and important facts that are independent of subjective beliefs or desires can testify to this. And I don't care if the Bible has one or two valuable nuggets for good and righteous living because countless other religious tomes espouse the exact same virtues, yet I don't see you subscribing to Buddhism or converting to Islam, or worshipping Vishnu because of that.

The Bible is a vague text that any idiot can pick up and find something that caters to his own personal and selfish idiosyncrasies. That is why you have different doctrines even within Christianity. Or did you forget that Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Protestants, 7th Day Adventists etc. worship the same God. You people quarrel among yourselves over tithes, the Trinity, divorce, abortion and homosexual relationships with each side using the Bible to justify his/her points. You people can't ever seem to get your stories straight when it comes to Biblical teachings and facts -- like armed robbers giving different alibis after they've been caught and exposed .

I think it's amusing the way you try to presume my reasons for not accepting your childish beliefs. Atheists seem to unnerve you, make you jittery, isn't it? You can't wrap your head around the fact that I'm not encumbered with your religious trifle, so it's easier for you to believe that I just hate God and the Bible, instead of accepting that I genuinely don't see any tangible reason to believe that God exists. If it helps you sleep at night, sure. Keep believing in unfounded fantasies because you're too scared to face the facts of life.

But anyway, this is off point.

My dear, it's looking more likely that you never had a point in the first place.

Aemmyjah:
Richard Dawkins (atheist and renowned scientist- Life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

If you like deny it
This is something that many people refuse to identify as an atheist
That is your philosophy too
De play

Well, I didn't deny anything. Life has no objective purpose. However, we can still create meaning for ourselves individually.

Anything else?

Aemmyjah:
Life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA

Of course it doesn't. And you cannot offer any solid proof to the contrary. We create "purpose" in our lives by our own personal values, beliefs, ideals and interests. So whatever YOU want in life, that's what life means to YOU. Life has not been shown to possess any inherent and/or objective purpose.

...life h.as no design, no purpose, evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference

Obviously this is true, as far as we know. Nevertheless, I know you're trying to be sarcastic here, given that you actually do believe in an objective source of morality and creation in its' entirety. I understand that due to your apparent intellectual immaturity, you will not be able to appreciate the fact that despite having no inherent purpose, life is not entirely absurd. I'm not saying you should go kill yourself or something LOL. What I need you to learn is the fact that the meaning of life is ultimately subjective. A Christian doesn't share the same perception of reality with a pagan. Both don't share the same perception of reality with an atheist. The three of them don't share the same perception of reality with an agnostic deist. The "meaning" of life is defined by your own values and beliefs.

I have no argument

Finally, he confesses to his monumental cluelessness. LOL.

Go and find meaning for your life

My life is rich and meaningful, thank you very much. I'm having fun doing my dream job and making good money while at it. I bet you cannot mention just one thing that makes your life as a Christian better than mine. Go ahead and let me have a laugh watching you try.

then return to me since you don't know how to refute sound argument

I know you're dumb, but at least try to be consistent. Just a little while ago, you said and I quote: I have no argument. So pray tell, what imaginary argument should I be refuting here? In all your glorious witlessness, you've already admitted that you have no idea what you're doing here.

With such statement, you people suppose to be living in the wild like animals

Well, we can't live in the jungle with other wild animals because our abstract intelligence has made us realize that it is not a conducive environment for our species. So I'm not certain there's any connection between the religious stance of humans and where they choose as their natural habitat .

yet to say we are braishwashed and not intelligent

Anybody who has followed our conversation so far will know that this charge is valid.

Nonsense...

...is what your brain is full of.

Dtruthspeaker:
This would be a departure from post for all I prove is God which is the topic.

This part of your objection is not only pointless, it is a dishonest tactic of handwaving aspects of the discussion that you're not comfortable with. The supposition that there is a first cause must carry along a proper definition of the nature of the first cause.

But to prove God of the bible above all known and unknown deities is an unreasonable demand becausee it is an impossiblility for you ask of me to know every deity out there to answer this question.

I find this paragraph particularly interesting. If you lack the knowledge of certain deities that have been claimed to exist in our human history, how can you ascertain that (1) they do not actually exist, and (2) they had no involvement in the creation of our world?

And that is an impossiblility.

See above.

But the highest proof on this is that no other deity predicted the future of this world which we have seen except the bible e.g. scarcity of husbands, growth in evil and hatred, hardness of buying and selling, the division of Israel into 2 states and it's return to its single state including it's return to the lands God gave them..

All of the examples you've mentioned read like vague predictions lacking any discernable context. Any "prediction" becomes bereft of any value the moment it is interpreted away from its' literal meaning. Most biblical prophecies contain basic ideas or facts that anyone can tailor to fit his/her experience through the usual process of saying, "now this means x; this means y; when it says z, that means a -- now you can see that it predicted what happened/supports the dogma I am asserting."

If I predict that 1 person will die of cancer in the next 5 years, and it happens, have I successfully predicted the future? Does divine inspiration suddenly become a factor, despite the fact that I'm already aware of the dangers of cancer, and the relevant statistics associated with the condition? I don't think so.

Now contrast this with somebody predicting in the year 1919 -- nearly half a century before Nigeria even gained her independence -- that there will be a serious nationwide protest against police brutality among the youths in the year 2020, and that it will culminate in a massive shootout that will see the death of a number of youths at the Lekki Tollgate on precisely the 20th of October, 2020. I believe it would be a story worth investigating, don't you think?

No other deity has given any prophecy which people have said this happened as prophecied by so so so deity.

Two things here.

1, anybody can cherrypick any feature peculiar to his or her religion as justification for the validity of his beliefs. In your case, you use prophecy. A Hindu worshipper may use the fact that his religion is not a single religion but a compilation of many traditions and philosophies, as basis for the strength of his worldview.

2, since you have opted for the amplification of prophecies fulfilled in holy books, do you also lend credence to the jihad prophesied in the Holy Koran?

But anyway, this is a departure from the post.

It's not.

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.

By defining the WORLD to mean the earth alone, are you suggesting that your god has no jurisdiction over other parts of the galaxy and other planets etc.? If yes, then who created the universe as a whole, if not your god?

According to your wrong opinion and flawed understanding of it which however does not negate the fact that the bible focused on this earth and it's inhabitants whether you undertand it or not, which was the point i made. But this is not the issue.

Opinion? LOL. It is a FACT that the Bible is riddled with so many errors and contradictions that scholars tend to rely excessively on hermeneutics and exegesis if they want to make any modicum of sense from the text.

Aemmyjah:
Go and sit down
You're not supposed to be engaging with humans
Hypocrite!
Do you know that disbelief in a creator renders your existence as meaningless, hopeless, useless and without reliable guidance?

=================================

Thorrn:
The fact that you truly believe that life would be meaningless if God didn't exist just makes me feel pity for you. Believe it or not, life has whatever meaning you want to give it. 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?

Thorrn:
You mean the results about atheists having meaningful lives? I don't have to. Pew Research already published it half a decade ago. But I understand - you were too busy learning about talking snakes in Sunday School.

Pew Research: Where do atheists find meaning in life? Like a majority of Americans, most atheists mentioned “family” as a source of meaning when Pew Research Center asked an open-ended question about this in a 2017 survey. But atheists were far more likely than Christians to describe hobbies as meaningful or satisfying (26% vs. 10%). Atheists also were more likely than Americans overall to describe finances and money, creative pursuits, travel, and leisure activities as meaningful. Not surprisingly, very few U.S. atheists (4%) said they found life’s meaning in spirituality.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/12/06/10-facts-about-atheists/

Open that link and give it a good read when you're chanced. But I'd advise you to bring along a box of tissues so that you can at least weep in a dignified manner.

You and I both know that this rhetoric has been dismantled over and over again on this thread. It doesn't matter how many angles through which you choose to present this claim, it will never be a reasonable submission.

Try again.

Aemmyjah:
Cause and effect
A bench on a beach... That bench is an effect of what cause? That someone dropped it there whether or not I see or know who dropped it. Only a fool will ask for who made that person that dropped the bench. The universe has a beginning and is eternal and that is something that science agrees. It either came from nothing or from something eternal or someone eternal

Law and lawgiver
A traffic light on a highway. You probably don't know who designed those laws and signs and symbols but only a fool will look for the one who produced those lawmakers. In the universe, there are natural laws that when broken, could lead to chaos. Who made them?

Order and organization
Order and organization cannot be produced by accident or mindless chance even in the world of mankind. In the natural world, we see the order and organization at the cellular, tissues, organs and cells as well as cycles of water and elements and how planetary bodies are organized, having their own tilt, satellites and orbits. Yet, fools who add to their folly call themselves wise and want others to belive that these things happened by mindless process... Is your foolishness not higher than the moon?

You haven't offered any new information here. This is just you repeating yourself. The flaws of your propositions have already been discussed in a previous post of mine right here on this thread. I have highlighted the relevant sentences in the post for you to chew your cud on again. Of course, you couldn't offer any substantial defense then and you still can't do so now. Read:

Thorrn:
Moving on to the claims of an orderly, designed universe, I've also pointed out it's flaws numerous times already. Since I have enough time to spare, I'll indulge you once more. Aemmyjah is suggesting that the supposed "order" in the universe is proof that his God exists. So basically, he's merely rehashing the Teleological Argument (argument by design). For the sake of viewers who studied Logic in school, I'll attempt to steelman this argument using logical syllogism:

P1> The Universe has order, purpose and regularity.
P2> The presence of the aforementioned values show evidence of design.
P3> Such design implies a designer.
C> Therefore, this designer must be God.

Right from the start, we can already see the problems with P1 and P2. The vacuum of space, as commonly described by astrophysicists is anything but orderly or regular, at least going by the general understanding of those terms. Quasars and black hole collisions don't seem to have any inherent purpose. Baryonic matter which constitutes life, makes up less than 5 percent of all there is, and most of that is stellar clouds of materials. We're left with stars, and then far down the line is the leftovers that allow for planets and things like organisms. A paltry insignificant percentage.

More importantly, the preceding examples presume that we can even recognize design in the first place! The reason we think we can recognize design is because we have witnessed the design of cars, wristwatches, phones and so on. But nobody witnessed the inception of the universe, so assertions about what caused it to be can NOT be made with certainty. There is a difference between the perception of design and intentional design. Aemmyjah's arguments rise to little more than "look at that; it looks designed!". He is either relying on the assumption that something couldn't possibly happen by chance, due to incredibly long odds (which is an argument from incredulity fallacy) or stating there is no known explanation for the order we see other than purposeful design (which is an argument from ignorance fallacy). In light of these facts, P3 is completely invalidated as well.

Furthermore, even if we assumed that P1 through to 3 are indeed all correct, how exactly have you established that your God caused it, and he exists? We still have a non-sequitur; the premises are disconnected from the conclusion. At best, this argument would only serve apologetics for a deist (impersonal) god. Why can't I conclude that your argument proves the existence of Brahma or any other creator deities out there besides YHWH?

Keen observers will notice so far in this discussion that Aemmyjah has nothing tangible to offer besides mindless repetition of soundbites from Christian apologetics. He couldn't utilize his brain to manufacture an original argument even if his life depended on it.

Aemmyjah, low intelligence runs deep in your bloodstream. You breath it in and out like oxygen and carbon dioxide. As if your obvious cognitive incompetence wasn't terrible enough, you still had to suffer religious indoctrination at a very young age. You need to humble yourself and submit to learning. Senseless rants and bickering will not do you any favors. At this rate, you'll probably die stupid .

Dtruthspeaker:
In all you say you still move and depart from the point of the argument.

This ad nauseum rhetoric will not work with me, my dear. I'm starting to think this has more to do with you being too afraid to deal squarely with the true consequences of your assertions than with my "departing from the point".

I said nothing about first cause and as i told you before

You never said it explicitly, but it was implied in your original claim.

when you say "how are you certain that it is the God you worship and not some other deity" you have inpliedly admitted that it is proven that God exist

Apparently, you are not aware of the different dimensions of logical and/or philosophical discussions, so it's understandable that you'll read that comment of mine and come to such a spurious conclusion. Sometimes, in these kinds of discussions, participants have the liberty to assume a position they don't necessarily agree with in order to properly scrutinize a claim or argument. It's commonly called a hypothetical argument. So to clarify, I haven't accepted your claim definitely. I accepted your claim for the sake of argument. Note the difference between the two aforementioned statements. My primary interest is the examination of your argument that nothing in this world created itself. That was your initial claim, remember?

but are now changing
the post to ask a presumptive question of "WHICH GOD, created this world, which is not the issue, hence you a departure from the argument.

Well, I've mostly explained your objections here in my previous paragraph. Also I'm really interested in hearing your answer to my query. If we should accept - for the sake of argument - that something created everything, what evidence can you present that proves beyond all reasonable doubt, that this "thing" is the Jewish deity known as "YHWH"?

And I have continually stated that I did not say so about "everything must have a creator"

Lol, ok. So what are you really trying to say then?

I clearly said
"no thing in this world created itself.

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?

For the issue of the existence of God is confined to this world that we know.

You have made this assertion numerous times now and I'm not sure I understand your point here. Before I pose my next query to you, I'll need you to provide an operative definition for the term "WORLD" as you are applying it in this discussion. Does this "WORLD" consist of the earth alone in which humans are one of the inhabitants, or is your "WORLD" synonymous with the known universe, including other planets and the sun etc.?

And it arises out of this world, and we are all using our knowledge and experiences in this world to make our arguments.

Same question applies here before I proceed with my question.

The bible, the first basis of our belief and the major cause of this debate also focuses on this world where we are.

But the bible is a very flawed text burdened with a dishonest history and riddled with too many errors and inconsistencies. I fail to see how it qualifies as evidence for anything at all.

Thus, "space" travel and diving into matters beyond the scope of the argument is a clear departure from the debate.

I think this partly answers my question from above, but I want you to directly address the question yourself before I can make an appropriate response as I do not wish to preempt your next comments.

And the debate is proof of God which I have given and you have still not rebutted, but have rather impliedly admitted.

So you just made a totally vague statement lacking any meaningful context whatsoever, but somehow you believe this proves that God exists? What drugs are you on?

Thus calling for the proof of God's Origin/Beginning or proof of first cause or proof of your presumption of God/gods who created this world are all are changes of Post and departures from the argument.

So far, you haven't made any discernable argument!

The argument is simply proof of God which you have twice impliedly admitted.

I never made any admissions. You're only imagining things.

Aemmyjah:
Your evidence to believe that someone made something is to know his parents shey?

Please can you show me where I ever implied this? Are you this much of a pathological liar or you're just really too stupid to follow basic logic?

Sense don wound u

Sense no fit wound you because you no get business with am.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but Dtruthspeaker seems to be far more intelligent than you.