₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
Sorry vaxx, that I seem to be pointing out errors in your reasoning, especially knowing they are likely to rub you up the wrong way. I am just incapable of ignoring.
First, "probable evidence" is not evidence. And there is no consensus that the physical universe is evidence for gods. If there were consensus that it was, we would not be arguing about it.

probable evidence is hypothetical evidence, it gives allowance for scrutiny and falsification. It can be probe.

There is consensus agreement we have a physical universe right? What we do not have is the consensus agreement that the physical universe can have mind on its own? Unless you both can prove ortherwise, then there will be no need of God and hence pin the universe to that truth. At least i have given reasons in my created thread as to why the universe can't spring from nothing ( it violate science and logic)

budaatum:
Wrong! The girl in the video does not seem to have anything resembling "same properties to any observer", yet you claim her assertion is false, and that she is deluded, and on drugs - and specifically because her properties do not correspond to those observed by you!
.

Delustional people thinks it is totally normal and they are free. Here, the properties she is observing is totally diffrence from me and you( based on consensus agreement) She is having thought disorder symptoms because her particular pattern of thought failed to agree with majority.


My claim are valid based on the consensus agreements related to the symptoms of delusion..

LordReed:
Please stop being deliberately obtuse. I don't believe a god exists so why should I propose a method to examine that which I don't believe exists? You who claims a god exists should be the one proposing a method by which we can both look at and agree that it would be a good starting point.

Please don't give me stupid shit about subjectivity, please.

LOL.......The evidence strike you at the face now, (you can only hide under this statement.) But remmeber you were the one promoting the assertion of ""No evidence"" for God existence in which i quote you for. I said you are lying as there are probable evidence(i.e)physical universe is enough evidence because that is what we have as consensus reality, we both can see it and can scientifically scrutinise it. Yet you still demanded for emperical claim of this God (probably you think he should be the one sitting on the throne with golden crown on his head and white beard all over his face while some 24 elders are shouting halleluya by his sides Or perharps you have your unique identification of God. If it is the later, can you pls tell us, if it is fhe former, i must tell you, your idea of God is myopic, even christain will laugh at you.

Bump

budaatum:
I disagree! Every truth is not subjective! One can't cook up nonsense in their head and claim it is the truth!

Here, for instance, is one person's cooked up in the head truth.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFZT_o8oYZQ

Would you agree that her 'truth' is the truth?

i am still trying to wrapped my head about her personal assertion, Anyway she is wrong because she is invalidating objective fact that we unanimously agree to be the consensus factor . Infact that is what is term in medical language as delusion .

Another point of veiw, she may be lacking self awareness, You know she is used to culture that is dominated by white supremacy from food, cloth, books etc , i am sure if she is handle politely with much care of love and attention, she will open up with the real fact . At least she might have a positive reason for living in her own different world,( most impressive minded individual had once be consider crazy by the society due to their strange idea) i also watch a similar youtube video of a particular white girl, who also thinks she is black.

One thing i notice about the two videos is their use of vulgar word against the black race and celibrating white supremacy ?

Could it be low self esteem or excessive drug abuse?

LordReed:
You are illogical in asking me this question when I repeated the answer twice now.



Provide an answer to that, that is clear and concise.

You are still reaping this illogical statement when i have ask you to provide what and what should be measured ( at lesst consensus agreement) and i had even try to expose you to 100 yard football length as an example of consensus measurement

Give us what should be measure base on consensus agreement.?

LordReed:
Yet when asked to provide evidence you cannot show what and how you tested it and how your results point to god. That is the mean of baseless.

i wrote earlier proving god empirically is very difficult but not immpossible.it is difficult because we don't have the data for every single atom or particle in the universe (the set containing all physical phenomena). And even if we did it might change the next year or there might be dimensions we were not even checking. Unless you yourself can provide a guaranty or impressive data to test it. And not the usual measurement you bring forth, it sound illogical. So even if you go further, by changing your question to be more scientifically relevant (i.e falsification instead of simply testing ) then your “God” is poorly defined. Your God is different to the next guys even if you are using christainity/muslim standard.
Science can only falsify things that objectively have the same properties to any observer (with all other things constant).as i made mention earlier

Blah blah blah subjective yet you cannot provide anything. I asked you

what you are asking for is illogical as i had earlier explained, you can't ask me to provide evidence that we don't have constraint for or we are yet to unanimously agree to the kind of specific data to check. It is like you asking me to start looking for where turkey is situated in europe map.( when consensus agreement had not proven the exact location, The only evidence we can give is logical proof (i.e)by the location of the map, we know turkey is staggering between Europe and Asia) and hence calling it asia is not false idea and likewise seeing it as europe also is not entirely wrong..

Instead you come up with vague nonsense on subjectivity. Provide clear solid answers instead of the vague shit you are always bringing up.

i am sure you are not making any meaningful point apart from the usual adjective here .


I am asking you once again, what is this clear solid answer you will want, hope you will find a meaningful and consensus data to pin on this time around.

internationalman:
if these people can care for a mare animal like this, just imagine what extent they will go to save human lives.

just too much but it does not stop us ""we the blacks""..

Moderator, i think this deserve a front page...

There is much wisdom to behold here.....alll bad element can end up good...

The begining of transformation and victory at last

And continue.......

And it continue.....

Every thing living is worthy to be loved, just look at the beginning and the ending of this creature.

What do you think.

LordReed:
You are just making a baseless assertion. How does everything point to god when we can't even have a baseline measurement with which to compare? Meanwhile you keep calling everything subjective just so your imaginary god can have a semblance of existence. That my friend doesn't work because when you are done with your fantasies, you still have reality to deal with.

This is the issue with you guys, why is my assertion baseless? Is it because it does not comprehend with your current knowledge. And why dont you criticised it instead of the adjective word(baseless and imaginary ) It make more sense and logical if what i said is probe rather than simply flip.

Yes every true is subjective except what we want to make objective and that will be term as reality which is based on consensus agreement. The truth is always perceived by a subject, experienced by a subject. The subject, that is a human, is like a tint on the glass - the tint colors everything one looks at. This tint is comprised of one’s previous experiences, thoughts, ideas, beliefs, personality traits, emotional states, all the characteristics that comprise a person.

As long as a person is a person, objective perception is not an option unless what will unanimously agree to.

American's are crazy people look at what they try to make of donald trump.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysics

It define metaphhysics as branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

LordReed:
You are the one with the weak argument, you provide no testable evidence and only seed doubt about everything. When you have solid testable evidence holla at me.

You don't dig it, don't you? Your testable arguments which is measurable had been explained and debunked as to why it is subjective in this kind of evidence.. What will you still called solid testable evidence,? i am waiting. Make sure it is impressive anyway.

My own solid testable evidence is everything we have ever seen, heard, touched, smelled, or otherwise experienced all point to God.

LordReed:
LoL there is no reference frame you'll choose that negates the existence of the football field.

This is because human ALREADY agree to go with such measurement. It is a consensus agreement.

If your reference frame allows for te existence of imaginary beings then you are delusional.

This is weak you know, you have not provide a consensus agreement that the being we are talking about is imaginary .

LordReed:
If a god created the material universe and continues to interact with it, then it stands to reason that his activities would have measurable material impact. Please direct us to how we can measure God's material impact.

.

You are diving into measurement which absolutly is base on human subjectivity, I can choose one frame, and you can choose another. For example, using the empirical model, a 100-yard length of a football field is an example of evidence you are clearly looking for.. But, in fact, according to relativity, intervals of length are only well defined relative to our choice of reference frame. Such choice is free, your choice of measurement in the football field is nothing but personal subjectivity which both of us adopt. You will have one length in your frame and another length in mine. We can only come up with length of the field as objective only if we agree to tailor our subjective choice of reference frame in the same way, e.g., we both adopt the frame of the football field.

The example i made here point out to the fact that we can treat something as objective only to the extent that we define and explicitly specify the subjective conditions under which it is defined or measured. Objectivity arises as the result of imposing common agreement on subjective choices in our definitions and procedures.

If you and i agree on common terms we will measure God material impact.

When I look at everything, the more I am convinced no god exists.

because you have not open your mind clear enough...

Ok, is there is a way that one can be absolutely sure of God’s existence. In this age of science where materialistic people want empirical proof of everything?

Well, it isn’t bad, to be very critical, it’s a sign of intelligence not to take things blindly. But, materialistic people make the mistake of wanting to prove the existence of God through empiricism. The issue is, science is equipped to study the physical world. Science has a whole array of tools and instruments which are specifically designed for studying matter. However, God is not physical, but meta-physical, or spiritual. In order to study, Him, you need the proper tools and instruments, just like in science, you also need the proper tools and instruments to begin to study something.


So what is meta-physical? Is it justify as knowledge?

To be continue

What respected scientist / philosopher had to say about meta -physical

LordReed:
The point is that there is no evidence to present for the existence of a god, just like there is no evidence for the existence of elves and goblins. The certainty is about the same, which means although we can't be 100% certain, the lack of evidence is loud and telling.

This is not true, There is a whole host of evidence that supports the existence of God. While it’s difficult to prove or disprove the existence of God through material means( which ia not only the means of seeking truth), one can at least show that the possibility of God’s existence is highly probable. And that is what my created thread is trying to do.. The facts are laid out in front of you. And your decision to reject them due to its insuffienct materials proof had not make all other supporting evidence untrue.

However, maybe I’m biased, but when you look at everything, the possibility of God existing makes far, far, more sense then the possibility that He doesn’t exist.

joseph1013:
You understand it's not enough to just blurt out these assertions, right?

You've done extensive research that have not been peer reviewed, hence the rest of us mortals don't know about, isn't it? It's a given that such a research if validated would win you a Nobel.

lol. You got me.

Never heard of such claim before. ""Extensive research"" which make me wonder what is that is he even saying? probably the one he did in beer parlour while taking cat fish pepper soup and big stout. I am sure if it is the one base on consensus agreement, he will have been nominated as the best rational thinker of all time.

Ok, from a religious minded and philosophical point of veiw. ""The god delusion "" book is indeed Richard darwkin delusion:""

point raised to support this are given below.

A. He misconstrued all religion as a fundamentalism which is a misrepresentation of his subject.

B. He argued a worldview termed “Ontological Naturalism” and then failed to cite a single scientific evidence to substantiate it.

C. He failed to cite a scientific definition for “delusion” from psychiatric science.

(Definition of critical terms is the first step in scientific method)

D. He mislead his readers into the errant understanding that proofs in logic are derived from statistics, and using the oxymora “almost certainly”

(rather than true or false) as an answer in his conclusion

that God—-”almost certainly” does not exist..

E. He argued that the question of the existence of God was a “scientific question” which reverses science back to its former status as “natural philosophy”. This would serve to set science back 182 years, because science does not regard supernatural or metaphysical phenomena as identities that stand in a causal relation to natural phenomena. That Dr. Dawkins did publish such a claim, served to illustrate how unscientific his thinking is.

F. The fact that Richard Dawkins insisted that even before the moment of singularity associated with The Big Bang, a “vastly superior civilization” existed which created the entire universe was so far-fetched and phantasmagoric that the hypothesis is more to be pitied than seriously examined.

Note (The points given are not originally mine, they were outsource from diffrent webpage but largely from the criticim part of the book.

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

And for the fact that Richard Dawkins was sharply criticized by atheists for refusing to meet Dr. William Lane Craig in debate, served to diminish Dr. Dawkins’ credibility, substantially.

Dawkins in his book laid out the common arguments for the existence of God, and then proceeded to lay out the refutations for all of those arguments.

But in all honesty, Dawkins was not writing for the hard-core intellectual/philosophical individual who likes to pry apart and deconstruct all of these things....Just a relatively straightforward statement that a layman would have no trouble with.( most especially atheist like him ).


Most of his so called evidence against God will only be celibrated by unevolve mind( i am not sorry with my choice of word). Though he focus so much on Christianity.

Do Theist read atheist book?

I am suggesting some books for the theist....

Try the portable atheist by hitchens , waking up by sam harris and the good atheist by dan barker. If you like where most of the proofs against god is gotten from try atheism the case against god by George h smith.( i hope your faith will not be shaken after consuming these books)..


But first, let's try to review the most famous one "" The god delusion"" written by Richard darwkin

joseph1013:
color=#550000]Then I ask you, is this scenario what happens to you in real life? Which of the two scenarios do you think is much more likely in Nigeria?

Depending on the settings, any of the two can happen be it Nigeria or Somalia. But in all honesty, i have not met a Nigeria atheist or atheist living in Nigeria except in Europe and that was recent. (Just this year by the way). But i have met alot of online atheist both on nairaland and somewhere else.

And any atheist who conclusively tells you god does not exist is deluded. I have not heard an atheist say that. Where do you find your own atheists?[/color]

There is a self acclaimed Gnostic atheist on nairaland called budaatum.

joseph1013:
Here is the conversation usually...

Believer: You need God for your fulfillment...

Unbeliever: I don't think so. I don't believe in God.

B: How can you say so? Only a fool says there is no God. God exists...

U: What is your evidence for the existence of God?

B: You sef, prove to me that God does not exist...

You see, it is the believer who makes the assertion of the existence of God, therefore the burden of proof is on him to back up his claims.

Do you understand now?

This is flawed excuse, the discussion can be initiated by either of them.

Using your logic.

Atheist .....ehy emeka why do you pray before you start attending to customers?

Believer.....mr nanmdi , i need to talk to god first befors any other human. God first you know.

Atheist.....how do you talk to god that does not exist?

Believer.....how do you know the God i am talking to does not exist?

You can see from this scenario, it is atheist that initiated the discussion and come up with the statement that god does not exist. And logically, it is reasonable for the believer to ask for the evidence of that statement.


Hope you understand now.

iammo:
In a country were the government controls the media, and only few information filters out am afraid chances are suppression of human right and freedom as reported in many western media might have a bit of truth and a bit of propaganda

And with every bit of good information out there ( there is possibility of bias in them ) Every Muslim nation censor broadcasting ( including your so called smart muslim nation ) When it comes to fair broadcasting, Nigeria stil perform better than them all. Even the western world , the news are broadcast in a way that celibrate them. Do you know killing and shooting is everyday norms in the usa? But how many do you hear been reported.

iammo:
Relying my information on western media

Then that is false, the same way the media is paiting China black.

iammo:
Useless Muslim countries Pakistan Afghanistan Northern Nigeria, Yemen, Iran. Smart sensible Muslim countries UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman

Take away iran from that your assumption ( in my opinion ) is the most developed, real muslim country, more sophisticated than the rest. Unlike most of the countries in the region, Iran is a real country with a real nation. It’s not the end result of Brits and French drawing lines in the sand or founded by one single person.

Iran has more graduate in STEM fields than the rest of them all.

joseph1013:
YOU CAN'T PROVE GOD DOESN'T EXIST

It is common for theists to avoid the burden of proof by asserting that the atheist cannot prove God doesn't exist. Atheists normally respond with something like , "No, but you have the burden of proof..."

That's fair enough, but there is another way to deal with this. The assertion "You cannot prove God doesn't exist" is itself a belief and needs to substantiated. So next time a theists challenges you in this way, don't start wittering on about the burden of proof, just ask them how they know that.

They will be no better at explaining why you can't prove God doesn't exist than they are at explaining why they believe he does.

It isn’t. A burden of proof is only required when there is a dispute which cannot be easily resolved and where there is a need for an answer one way or the other. So burden of proof lies on the persuader, either be it believer or not.

If someone I don’t know, let’s say seun , were to come to my house and try to persuade me that I am deluded for believing in God, I would be quite justified in adhering to the position that the burden of proof would be on him as the person seeking to persuade me of his superior argument. If he failed to discharge the burden of proof I would carry on with my lifestyle.

At least "" the God delusion "" written by Richard darwkin was an attempt to prove god does not exist. Even your own thread is base on the same premises.