₦airaland Forum

Aemmyjah:
Atheists are fools

Haven't you learned yet that simply repeating yourself amounts to nothing in a debate? If your brain won't afford you the luxury of conjuring a decent riposte to my comments, why can't you just admit that you're too stupid to keep up with the discussion and leave it to the adults?

Like you too

"Atheists are fools"
"...like you too"

I don't understand. Am I an atheist or am I not an atheist?

But you believe the universe came from nothing?

No, I don't believe so, and I've never claimed that as my belief.

Or that the universe is the cause of its own effect

I never claimed that either.

What is made cannot measure it's own standards to his maker

Did the "maker" make himself, or someone made him?

If this is your logic to disprove a creator, sorry dear, you're just too foolish

Well, I can't disprove what hasn't been proven. But I know the stupidity of your position will elude you as always.

What's more hilarious is the fact that you took the liberty to establish your foolishness in the previous post. Abi, you're not aware that it's actually Christians who believe that something comes from nothing?

Dtruthspeaker:
Which I clearly stated and you moved the debate from the proof of God to the proof of God's Origin which is not the debate.

The reason you keep thinking I'm moving any goalposts is because you haven't thought through the implications of your own argument.

If you're trying to hinge your God's existence on your sweeping belief that nothing in this world created itself, then you haven't accomplished anything significant. Demonstrating the objective existence of your God can't be achieved using mere common sense. If there is a first cause, how are you certain that it is the God you worship and not some other deity.

More importantly, 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.

You really need to consider the implications of your arguments before you push them forward.

Aemmyjah:
Only fools will believe something comes from nothing

Atheists don't believe something comes from nothing.

Religionists, however, believe their God is the "first cause" IE he came from nothing.

Therefore, following your assertion, you have technically admitted that you are a fool .

Dtruthspeaker:
It does shows the area and range of the valid and reasonable arguments anyone can make. [b][i]For the issue of the existence of God is confined to this world that we know.

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

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

And the debate is proof of God which I have given and you did not rebut and not the proof of God's Origin and Beginning where you shifted and tried changing the argument into.



Both!

We are always where our properties are even when we are in other places.

Hope you know that this is a departure from the argument.

You're the one derailing the argument with tasteless word salads.

Your argument is essentially this: nothing in this world created itself, therefore God created everything.

Yes or No?

Veecruz:
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!

I'm guessing this is Dtruthspeaker's alternate.

I don't see how qualifying your assertion with the phrase "...in this world" changes the general idea of the argument I think you're trying to make here. Furthermore, I don't see any meaningful connection your argument has with the position that God exists.

Is your God in this world or outside of it?

jaephoenix:
No need, Thorn. You'll be hosed with another Special Appeal fallacy, then when you argue, yet another Non Sequitor, and so on. The circular reasoning goes on and on

Lol. I know this already. I just want to see how far down the rabbit hole he's willing to go. In my experience, these guys don't usually have much depth. I like to think that I'm patient enough to handle their type.

Dtruthspeaker:
Still out of Point! The topic is about how we connect to God, our Creator. And not a focus on our Creator which is a Change of Post.

So, we understand if you are not able to proceed without your changing the argument which is proof of God and not Proof of whether God has a God where you are shifting the argument to in which you also forget that the implication means that you admit that God indeed exists and that your fresh interest is in finding out whether He was also created just like us or not WHICH IS NOT THE ARGUMENT, HENCE OFF POINT/CHANGE OF POST.

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:
It's not because it is seen and proven beyond every reasonable doubt that no thing in this world created itself.

If nothing gets created by itself, then what created the creator?

This is goal post shifting for the topic is on proof of God and not on proof that God was created.

No goalposts were shifted. I'm perfectly in line with the conversation. You're the one who doesn't understand the implications of your argument.

I already know where you're heading with this argument, but before your next reply, I'd suggest that you acquaint yourself with a common logical fallacy called special pleading.

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Aemmyjah:
Imagine someone with a brain

I know right? Accept my sympathy. Living without a brain must be hell for you .

challenging someone that says that everything came from a source.

Nobody with respect for facts and reality will make bald faced assertions without backing them up. Except if he's a drunkard. And you do sound like a drunkard.

Bad brain wants us to accept that something can come from nothing

And you continue to tell unfounded lies. Keep it up. You're the one damaging your reputation on this site if you don't know .

Aemmyjah:
Fools
If you belive that there was no Creator
Fine for you
But it leaves your life without meaning and purpose

>>>

Thorrn:
Ah well, if mindlessly repeating lies to yourself will make you feel better about your lack of intellectual substance, then knock yourself out .

Aemmyjah:
Your epistle is too long to read

Your inability to read long, comprehensive posts isn't my problem

You said that even animals know the law of gravity

Yes. If a dog walks to the edge of a rooftop, it's smart enough to restrain itself from jumping off because it knows it will fall to its' death.

There was a time when humans did not even know about the laws of gravity

Actually, humans had the idea. They just didn't understand it fully. It wasn't until Newton's Principia Mathematica that gravity was established as a law. Humans became aware of gravity ever since the first apple fell from its tree.

When your brain is not working

You don't have a brain.

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.

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?

jaephoenix:
He kept on making wild claim lies about me so much I answered him 3 times and subsequently kept quiet anytime he says the bullshyt

These guys don't realize how stupid they look or sound when they resort to desperate tactics like lying or handwaving obvious facts. They're not interested in truth, they just want to win arguments.

jaephoenix:
If you are truly a female, then this is the smartest female character on Nairaland. And I'm not a sexist.
I couldn't have handled the argument better than you

Ha. Please don't. I'm no more intelligent than you. I just love taking my time to rebut their inane statements when I get the chance. It's the dimwittedness of people like Aemmyjah that makes us look like geniuses .

jaephoenix:
Jesus. You really are a work of art.
I now understand what Thorrn is talking about. When you're defeated, you start throwing around all sorts of lies, hoping one would stick. Just like a dying cow spraying feces when its throat is slit

Sounds like a rap verse when read out loud .

Aemmyjah:
I dropped points that are easily understood by everyone

Dropping points isn't a big deal. I readily understood your points. What matters is the establishment of the the validity or objective correctness of those points. In this case, it seems as though you're more concerned with rhetorical assertions than actually engaging in a bidirectional conversation. You have continuously failed to offer any sort of credible defense to your acclaimed points. You can't expect to publish a post like this on a public forum and expect people to gobble up your shite without the tiniest bit of skepticism.

The Bible unlike the books you mentioned is not a myth

The Bible itself isn't a myth. It's a tangible collection of old texts. I would prefer to call it a historical fiction document in the same vein as Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter which isn't that much different from a myth since they both share one thing in common - the events written in them are entirely fictional. That being said, using the Bible as proof that God exists is problematic because the Bible itself makes the same claim in rhetorical fashion.

as places people, events mentioned in it as historical.

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, vampires have been proven to exist?

What is says regarding science like the, the law of gravity, DNA, shape of the Earth and the earth not been supported by anything is accurate even when science and the common people were saying something different.

This paragraph in particular is the most nonsensical arrangement of words you've stringed together since you started this unfortunate thread, and that's not a mean feat. How did you measure the accuracy of the Bible's claims to determine that they were correct even in instances where SCIENCE is "saying something different" according to you?

The fact that you claim to agree with basic scientific concepts - not because of science itself but because of your holy book of fairy tales is biggest indicator that you have brainwashed effectively by your religious leaders, to the point of intellectual handicap.

You mentioned the law of gravity
>>> I don't see what's impressive about the writers of the Bible knowing about gravity. Even animals knew about gravity. Sadly, knowing about something is not synonymous with having an understanding for it. The Greeks of Thales school in Miletus had a theory of atoms due to Democritus which proposed that things were made of atoms, most of whose natural motion was toward the enter of world (the knew the Earth was a sphere). Aristotle also used this "natural motion" theory applied to different substances. It wasn’t until Galileo and Newton that there was any real theory of gravity. Newton's great contribution was not only that he gave a mathematical formula for gravity, he realized that the same thing that makes an apple fall on Earth is what makes the planets move around the Sun. Before Newton, it was commonly assumed that the Earth was imperfect and corrupt and that above the dome of the stars was a different world of perfection. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for teaching that the stars were other worlds like ours when Galileo was 36yrs old and 42yrs before Newton was born. SCIENCE established the universal law of gravity.

You mentioned DNA
>>> The claim that the Bible talks about the DNA is inaccurate and misleading. The Bible mostly focused on inheritance, lines of inheritance and genealogies. DNA is chemical nomenclature. The idea of "genes" as something that could be inherited preceded the knowledge that a particular chemical compound called DNA was the substrate that made genes possible. The writers of the Bible didn't understand it to that extent. It was SCIENCE that established the concept of the DNA.

You mentioned the shape and position of the earth
>>> I find it interesting that you highlight this because not only is the Bible rife with contradictory assertions pertaining to the Earth's shape, it also notes in several passages that sun moves about a stationary earth - a claim that has been established to be an outright falsehood.

You're walking on very thin ice if you seriously think you can just undermine the reliability and/or achievements of the scientific method because you only care about the stories told in your religious text.

What it predicted about the future was accurate and happened.

Okay. Then go ahead and give examples of such predictions. I triple dare you. And by examples I don't mean the typical post hoc rationalization you religious fanatics are accustomed to. Give me examples of detailed and specific predictions in the Bible that have come to pass. They should not be vague or ambiguous.

Before you mention other books, investigate them to see if they have such characteristics

Brushing aside the fact that they are actually inaccurate, the acclaimed "characteristics" you are hoisting up here as definitive proof of the Bible's validity are ultimately nothing more than your subjective preferences. There are a plethora of religions out there that lay claim to more depth and/or capacity for enlightenment than Christianity. Other prominent religions including Islam, Hinduism etc have their own peculiar selling points which they believe makes their religion superior to yours.

Hell, even within Christianity, the story of creation as described by the Gnostics is more scientifically accurate than the Orthodox version (story of Genesis)!

The universe is a wonder of design, order, organization.

I will ask again for the umpteenth time: how do you recognize design?

Olodo like you, poor debater like you says there are instances where universe does not show orderliness. If yu go to a house and see that some parts of it are not in order,you'll conclude the house had no builder.

Your analogy is irrelevant and baseless given that a typical house does not share the same properties with our known universe. Yet another demonstration of your complete cluelessness as pertaining to the debate.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to show me (1) how you measure or recognize design, and (2) how order in the universe proves only the existence of the Christian deity YHWH, as opposed to the existence of Zeus, Brahma, Ahura Mazda etc

Poor, low IQ individual. With this kind of thinking, you're passing judgment on me?

Publish the results na

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.
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.

If your own reverse brain tells you that everything ij the Natural world came to be by a mindless process, it is your own problem.

If you can't provide the quote where I made the assertion @bold even after multiple requests, then I wonder what your true motives are in this discussion. Did Jesus die so that you can tell treacherous lies on his behalf?

If you reject the that everything including life has no designer, you should accept that your existence is really meaningless, useless and purposeless and without direction or hope.

That's not how logic works, unfortunately. And based on the Pew Research article cited earlier, it is safe to say that you are, in fact, out of touch with the reality itself. Not that I'm surprised. After all you've implicitly admitted in this very post that you are all too willing to throw facts and reason into the garbage as long as they are not in congruence with your infantile beliefs. Your shamelessness is beyond human understanding.

What I mentioned is not directed towards Christians.

I see. So I'm guessing you were targeting non-believers in your OP? Well then, as an atheist, permit me to give you a little hint in the future when next you come across a non-believer: if you want to prove to a non-believer that God/s exist, you'd have much better luck if you didn't present the Bible as your primary evidence. What you'll need is objective, independent and empirical evidence to establish the existence of any gods to a non-believer.

Religious people do not reject the existence of the Creator.

Yes, and water is wet.

I presented extra biblical points.

Make up your mind, genius. Are you using the Bible as the basis for your arguments or not? You can't claim the Bible has THE answer to the question of God's existence and then allude to "extra biblical" evidence in the same breath. Are the answers in the Bible or not? Are your arguments true because they are accurate, or because they're in the Bible?

If you attack me for saying that God exists when we perceive what is made, what then is your own argument?

Why must I have a counter argument? Your own argument does not need my counter argument to stand on its own two feet. If it does, then it never merited any consideration in the first place.

Abi na your Papa I suppose credit?

Maybe! My dad might have indeed created the universe .

Stop reasoning from your bottom

Better to reason with my bottom than to not reason at all.

Aemmyjah:
If you like, listen to the orchestra of dead animals
You are yet to counter my posts
And that makes you a big fool

Aemmyjah:
Intellectual Giant
You are yet to counter my posts
Keep ranting

You can continue repeating yourself until you are blue in the face. Meanwhile, here's a bullet point summary of our correspondence so far:

1. You claimed that the Bible answers the question: "Does God exist?"
>>> I pointed out that the Bible does not qualify as sufficient proof because it commits the circular reasoning fallacy called "begging the question". I gave examples using the Iliad and Odyssey as poor proofs of the existence of Greek deities. You gave no response.

2. You highlighted order in the universe as proof that the universe was designed
>>> I used logical syllogism to deconstruct your argument and showed that (a) there are instances where the universe doesn't show orderliness as is generally understood, (b) that your use of the word "design" is problematic when we have never witnessed the design of something similar in nature and scope with the known universe, and (c) that even we could establish with certainty that the universe was created, it could have been something else rather than your God. You gave no response.

3. Failing to offer any counters to number 2 above, you started groaning about how atheists live meaningless lives
>>> I debunked your claims citing an article detailing the results of a 2019 Pew Research study. You gave no response.

4. Lost and defeated, you then made up lies about me claiming that everything came from nothing
>>> I asked you to show me anywhere I said such a thing. And guess what? You gave no response.

In light of the foregoing, it is obvious that YOU are the one who has continuously failed to counter anything presented so far in our conversation. So whenever you're ready to put on your big boy pants and face the debate, you know where to begin. I've assisted you in summarizing our conversation so far in this single post.

Let's hear your next excuse?

Aemmyjah:
See someone that claims to refute someone's claims
Keep shooting yourself in the foot
Keep blowing hot

You've got nothing but sad lies to tell . Show me anywhere I claimed that everything came from nothing. You can't because you're a bare faced liar without a pretence of candour. A shameless intellectual dwarf who can't reason his way out of a paper bag .

Maynman:
shameless liar.
Do you even respect yourself?

He's just desperate. Most fundie Christians are like that once you back them to a corner. They start to bark senselessly - all reasoning and integrity out the window .

Aemmyjah:
Writing better English is not the problem
A better English writer that is very poor with debates
Attacking the person and judging him
Is that not evidence of madness?

Given your constant reliance on logical fallacies to advance your argument, in tandem with your obstinacy and inability to stick to a single line of discussion, I think it's safe to say that your opinion on what constitutes good debate isn't worth a pile of shit. I'd rather listen to Cardi B give a lecture on Quantum Physics .

Aemmyjah:
Ok sir
Since it's logical to you that everything came from nothing
Lemme leave you
Intelligent fool

Show me where I made such a claim.

You literally have nothing else so now you have to tell bare faced lies, don't you? Lol!

You're flinging all sorts of bullshit in the hope that it sticks. I suppose I should be expecting the kitchen sink to come flying next .

Aemmyjah:
To keep reminding you that with all your wailings
Drop atleast one evidence

It's clear from this post that you're not even following up on the discussion in this thread, despite the fact that YOU started it. This is real comedy here .

You ask that I show "evidence". "Evidence" for what? Let's start from there.

Aemmyjah:
Too much Grammer without presenting anything to counter the OP claim

Highlighting the fact that I write better English than you is not an insult my dear . Try harder .

Aemmyjah:
Spirituality is universal in every nation, language groups,...
Not all are atheists either
Keep fooling

You missed the point....

... But then again, you've demonstrated time and time again that you lack the capacity for understanding anything at all .

Aemmyjah:
You have not presented any concise points
If you like, drop a millions words and keep blowing hot like a mad Bison

Ah well, if mindlessly repeating lies to yourself will make you feel better about your lack of intellectual substance, then knock yourself out .

Dtruthspeaker:
I concede that he appears to have intended basing his argument on the bible but his accompanying extra biblical evidence proves that he did not intend to limit his evidence to the bible alone.

The "extra-biblical evidence" you're alluding to here is the Teleological Argument (argument by design), and I've already addressed it so many times that I can't be arsed to go through it again until someone finally puts on his big boy pants and offers an actual counter to my rebuttals.

I concede!

I missed your demonstration saying
". It's like using the Iliad or Odyssey to establish the existence of the pantheon of deities in the Greek mythology.

No worries there. The fact that you've readily admitted your error here has given me hope that you're willing to be more open and honest in this discussion instead of just shutting down everything I say.

Your argument

"...because you are thicker than two short wet planks. Your pastors have done a good job locking up your brain cells and throwing away the keys. You cannot fathom simple facts or even common knowledge outside the confines of your religion.

Plus, you've completely lost your mind if you think any of the sad litters of trash you've posted so far constitute "fact". You wouldn't know FACT if it ran you down ten times with a packed molue along your street. I already suspected you were a blundering dimwit

ad hominem
/ˌad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Nevertheless your definition still captures it.

Wikipedia: Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person

Do these words not attack the character and person of your opponent Aemmyjah?

The key element here is intention. Whenever I engage in this discussions, I'm doing so to arrive at or establish a consensus on facts. In my first or second post on this thread, I made it known that although I had my suspicion on the kind of person he was in debates, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and defend his position. It was only after my suspicion was confirmed that I called him out on his poor reasoning skills. I don't suffer fools gladly so I'm always going to seem harsh when I'm conversing with people who clearly don't respect the simple rules of discourse. If you maintain honesty and integrity in any discussion, I won't have your hide. It's as simple as that. And despite the tone or attitude of my co-discussant, I would still take my time to address the core issue of his/her argument without hinging its inherent validity on his/her cognitive strength.

I have not seen your own counter to my position on this thread.

Just in case I missed it, spell it out and I'll do my best to address it.

Aemmyjah:
Some acknowledge it

Well, if it's "some" and not "all", then you should be careful trying to insist that your beliefs are universal fact.

I did not drop it for anyone's Acknowledgement

Says the guy who started a public thread to prove the existence of his favorite sky fairy. Here's a little secret for you, child. Do you want to know the real reason you created this topic? It's because you are actually seeking to validate and/or reinforce your beliefs. Nobody compelled you to start this topic. You started it because you want people to consider your position as justified by your Bible, else you'd keep it to yourself.

Atleast, it is part of my convictions.

Congratulations. Hats off to you.

I can drop 10 points

And they could all be wrong, which would be as good as you just saving everyone the trouble, including yourself, and dropping nothing at all.

What of you?

Moi?

You dropped nothing but nonsense that makes sense to your feeble thinking

I didn't drop anything at all because my position doesn't require me to do so. I'm not the one with the burden of proof here. YOU are. You made the claims, so you must prove them. My only job here is to call out bullshit when I see it. If your logic is solid, then I support it. Simples.

Who are you to judge me?

Someone who values facts and objectivity. Someone with a desire for establishing truth and dismantling baseless fiction.

Besides, people like you that don't accept the existence of the Creator, it leaves you without reliable guidance and shows your life is meaningless and hopeless and purposeless . If your life is by accident, your existence has no purpose

It's the second time in a row that you're spouting this rhetoric, and it is as boring as it is asinine. The only person whose existence lacks any inherent value is the poor sod who can't envision a life without an imaginary friend. If this is the new angle you're going to take as pertaining to this discussion, then it only indicates that you've run out of any ammo needed to sustain your initial position. You're out of your depth in your own thread. How sad.

Aemmyjah:
I did not call anything facts

Sure, because you've not been insisting since the thread began that the universe was designed by some form of cosmic intelligence. Spare me the cheap lies .

I asked a question and presented points to give answer to any conclusions

Let's not even pretend your goal was to reach "any conclusions" (whatever that means). Your approach to this discussion so far shows that your mind is already made up on God's existence, else you'd have critically examined my objections to your "answers" instead of cowardly handwaving them aside and pretending they weren't tendered.

Why not do same

I already told you my position on this topic: I don't know, and I don't claim to know. I also don't believe that you truly know either. We can't know for a 100% certainty how life or the universe came into existence. Science however has tried to proffer possible answers to those questions through the Big Bang and Evolution concepts. Unfortunately for you, the fact that you don't accept them as truth because of what your religion taught you doesn't automatically translate to your Jewish deity being the only answer to the source of life. I've demonstrated the reason why already. This is not rocket science.

Someone should remind Thorn that his philosophy leaves him with a meaningless and purposeless life

Of all the rickety tools in the apologists' arsenal, you had to pull out the weakest and most ineffective rhetoric of atheists leading meaningless lives. I have to say it's never a good look on you when people like D-truthspeaker can sound more coherent and intelligible than you in a discussion. I mean this is your own thread, at least put in some effort. You're going out sad here.

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?

I am not upset

Whatever you say.

You attacked me

No, I attacked your fallacious arguments.

You judged me

Yes, I have judged you to be a dimwit and an idiot based on your statements and general attitude towards this debate.

Someone said you did not present points

That "someone" is well known on this forum for being biased and prejudiced against atheists. I wouldn't rate any assessment from such individuals.

I highlighted my points and explained them

And I pointed out that the premis on which you based those points was inherently problematic.

Lemme ask you, your beliefs as an atheist leaves your life without meaning and purpose? Yes or No

Sadly, no.

Here, read it and weep:

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.

Finally, atheism is not a belief. And it's "she", not "he".

Dtruthspeaker:
You missed his first evidence which is a fact that outside the bible

"1) The existence of an orderly universe containing life points to a Creator."

Unfortunately for you, this quoted portion is a complete mischaracterization of the logical sequence of OP's original argument. Here, consider this preceding paragraph in the Aemmyjah's opening post:

Does God Exist?
The Bible’s answer
Yes, the Bible provides compelling evidence that God exists. It encourages us to build faith in God, not by blindly believing religious assertions, but by using our “power of reason” and “mental perception.” (Romans 12:1; 1 John 5:​20, footnote) Consider the following lines of reasoning based on the Bible:

It is very obvious from the foregoing passage that when Aemmyjah set out on his quest to establish the existence of his God, he was basing his arguments on the holy texts of his religion - the Bible. He confidently affirms that the Bible has the answer to the question of God's existence, so your claim that he was alluding to "facts outside the Bible" is entirely misleading because it would suggest that the Bible had no bearing on his initial arguments. However, in the context of this discussion, he was clearly using the Bible as a framework for his position.

So narrowing your argument down to biblical evidence distracted you from the argument which is "Existence of God" as you said.

There's no distractions, sorry. I went straight for the jugular of his post. The term "biblical evidence" can only be valid within the subtext of Christianity, not without. If you wish to prove that the Christian God undeniably exists, beyond the echoes within the walls of your church pews, you'll need to present evidence that can be verified (1) independently (2) empirically and (3) objectively. Your Bible doesn't meet any of the aforementioned criteria.

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?

Your words sink you.
"Budaatum has amply demonstrated this fact to you".

Meaning, you did not do the demonstration but you relied on budaatum as your authority, hence appeal to budaatum as your authority.

Wrong again. You're only demonstrating one of two things: (1) your incapability to understand simple grammatical syntax in English, or (2) your blatant and shameless dishonesty. Again, you should have included the paragraph preceding the one you quotemined out of context:

Thorrn:
Your argument was already debunked by the very premise you based it on. The Bible is the most flawed basis you can use to justify the actual existence of any god(s). It's like using the Iliad or Odyssey to establish the existence of the pantheon of deities in the Greek mythology. Budaatum has amply demonstrated this fact to you.

As you can see from the quote above, I already made the rebuttal before referencing budaatum's comments to back it up. It is not the same as relying on budaatum as the focal point of my argument. If you still can't tell the difference, then it's probably because you lack the intelligence to do so, and that's no fault of mine.

I am sure you don't know it else you wouldn't have raised it up for clearly you abandoned the argument and started angrily attacking his person saying

"because you are thicker than two short wet planks. Your pastors have done a good job locking up your brain cells and throwing away the keys. You cannot fathom simple facts or even common knowledge outside the confines of your religion.

Plus, you've completely lost your mind if you think any of the sad litters of trash you've posted so far constitute "fact". You wouldn't know FACT if it ran you down ten times with a packed molue along your street. I already suspected you were a blundering dimwit

SMH. It always feels like supervising a kindergarten whenever one has a debate with you religious lot. Here, young child, let's take you back to school again:

Wikipedia: Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a term that refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

An ad hominem would be using your character as justification for the invalidation of your entire position. I haven't done that here. I have provided direct counters to every single point you've both made in this thread. If you feel otherwise, I'm inviting you now to point out a legitimate argument you have made in this topic that I haven't made a valid counter to.

My rather harsh assessments of both you and Aemmyjah do not stem from outright prejudice. Rather, they stem from the nature of your argumentations. I have encountered you in particular in the past under a different sobriquet, so my statements about your character are valid conclusions I've reached following our past encounters. You've quotemined people, taking their statements out of context, made up bare faced lies and wilfully denied basic knowledge just to advance your cause. As for Aemmyjah, my assessment of his character is only reasonable given what I've parsed from his comments so far. He has shown that he lacks the wits or intelligence to get into a proper debate, and he refuses to acknowledge obvious flaws in his position, even after they've been pointed out time and time again.

I'm not saying You are stupid, therefore X is wrong.

I'm saying X is a stupid thing to do/say because of Y, therefore you're most likely stupid.

I'm not prejudging you, I'm judging you.

And here you are ad homineming me.

For the records, there's no such term as "ad homineming". And just so you know, it's statements just like this that make me question your level of education.

Thanks anyway for showing you atheists can't argue that the only thing you guys do is commit fallacies and insult/attack the person rather than the argument.

Like I said, if it helps you swallow your food with peace of mind, you're welcome to hold any opinion. But, I'm sure the more educated readers will be able to figure out who exactly can't hold his/her own in an intellectual discussion or make a single point without resorting to basic logical fallacies.

Aemmyjah:
I dropped 4 points
You did not drop anything
Keep blowing hot

Your 4 points were dead on arrival. Sorry I ruined your day.

Aemmyjah:
Assumptions and stories as usual

You say nobody knows but your assumption is what you teach as fact abd those that give credit to a Designer are not intelligent. Olodo pro max

Lol. You're the one here "teaching assumptions as facts". All I've done is question your assumptions - which you are clearly upset with.

Someone get this poor clown a mirror.

Aemmyjah:
You did not drop any evidence

Neither did you. The only difference is, you have the burden of proof, so you're the one mandated to provide evidence given the nature of your argument. Not me. I have only rendered your "evidence" impotent, and now you have no choice but to sit pathetically in the corner and gnash your teeth. Lol

Just stories

Nothing tells more stories than the Holy Babble. Or did you skip the pages including the talking donkeys and snakes? Or the disembodied hand writing on the wall?

Foolishness makes sense to your kind
So rest

Of course, the collective foolishness of Christianity makes so much sense when you investigate its' origins. Did you think that was an insult there? LMAO. Stay pained, child.