₦airaland Forum

johnydon22:
A shabby analogy that aims to quantify objective reality with subjective counterparts, If God is an objective being such examples is invalid, if God is subjective then i am pretty sure that sums up the very bone of contention.




This is the problem with assumptions, inter-lapping qualities, creating a contradiction of assertion - If you neither saw the thief nor heard him, you can never reveal any characteristic of the thief, you cannot say how old the thief is, you cannot say how tall he is, so now apply that same analogy to the postulation of God as you have proposed, unknown identify that somehow you know it's quality therefore killing the very same clutch of unknown.

You know God is eternal, God is uncreated, a perfect designer - removes the analogy from the actual point it aims to prove

You said "God is not something" and that is a clear use of the English word. Not something is the long version of Nothing.

So pulling out semantics like i never said God is nothing or something still brings down your argument to absolute meaninglessness, it is just as paradoxical as saying something is everything at the same time nothing, if its everything, it is not nothing, if it's nothing, it is not everything.

God cannot be nothing at the same time something, it is paradoxical and self annihilating.
So i advice chose your words carefully bob, semantics doesn't go down so well here because you will always end up with a paradox



You don't even have a definition of God to work with here in the first place and if there is no definition the very concept becomes meaningless.



www.google.com

keyword: God/god

well it seems you do not have a case. you don't have a comprehension of whom is God. after so many enlightenment and case study.
here . may be i should make it simple for you again. olodumare has no human qualities, physical or matter identity. even you failed to grasp the robbery analogy again. the presence of the criminal is all i need. at least there was an action of robbery. the action is what am presting to the police not the identity. God action are in the human and spider design scenario I gave earlier.

rational thought

for me there is no need for me to deny that which does not exist. Take the earth for instance .early philosopher say it is round. Others say it is flat. now science says it is spherical. mind you there there is evidence but it was unknown until science proof it.

before the refutation and your evidence there must be a pre-existing truth. it is unknown now because science has not confirm it.

An attempt to deny the existence of God pre-supposes the truth that God exists. Otherwise, why would you make the attempt to advance such denials?

An attempt to deny a thing and argue about it is impossible to put forth apart from the existence of the thing.

if there were no basis for asserting the existence of a thing, why are you arguing about it? why do you nurse the faith.

Doubt in the existence of God (olodumare)only confirms His existence.

so i say to you. that attempt to validate doubt in God' inexistence serve only to confirm that is in existence.


noted.
i ask you a direct question. you redirect me to Google. this is very absurd . is like a child who failed to use his understanding but largely depends on his parent even at age 40. when will the child matured?

I think for my self and I don't need anyone else. other information I got elsewhere are just a contributor. I will not be repeating my self again with the same evidence i had earlier provided

i have given the definition of olodumare in many part our discussion. so why should I state here again. i realised one thing from you. you do not subject yourself to out of the box reasoning.


have you ever consider probability? if not do. my kind advice.

otemanuduno:
Well... it's just funny anyway. But it's not bad as long as Yahweh and Allah the devils are not the gods of the pastafarians

The universal message is 'USE YOUR BRAIN''WORSHIP NO god or gods' and 'DO GOOD TO YOUR FELLOW HUMANS'.

who propound that theory. do good to your fellow human?

Babalawos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j6D1-cNZPc

Here is a video of a beautiful girl that was possess by Goddess Oshun at Osogbo Festival August 2017

aboru aboye . thanks for the video.

johnydon22:
Dream is a subjective experience just like imagination, objective realities require proof not subjective realities, more like asking a schizophrenic patience to prove the monster from the wall.

Saying God is not something is another way of saying God is nothing, so yes you did, would you like me to show you where?

The same human logic you used to deduce God is uncreated, eternal - still shooting your own argument in the foot.

If God is outside the periscope of human logic, humans can only assume God it can never be an objectively verifiable being must be within the horizon of assumption and confident speculations.



You did that yourself. Circular argument, paradoxical definition. God is nothing, god cannot be anything - try and pay attention to your own arguments

am glad you are following. I ask for tangible evidence of your dream. you quickly remind me is a subjective experience which I agree with you. fine.

let's apply the same logic here by reading my little story.

i went to file a report at the police station about the last night robbery in my house when I was in the kitchen. the police ask me for the identity of the robber. i said it is unknown because I was in the kitchen when it happen.


the significance of the story.

the criminal identity is unknown but actually there was robbery. likewise the presence of God is true but the identity is unknown.

I never say God is nothing nor do I say God is something. this is fabrication on your own side.

I never use logic to deduce the definition of god. the touchstone(IFA) says so not me. unless you have enough evidence to actually refute the premises .


let me make your work easier. there is no God you mean. then tell me what it is God. supposing I say you are not a white man. I should know what or who should be a white man.

johnydon22:
None physical presence does not equate nothing, and bringing on the dream analogy we could still argue that dream is a projection from neurons just like holograms can be beamed from a solid projector.

arguing that God doesn't have a physical presence still doesn't mean same thing as God being nothing, if you repeat again that God is nothing then you have once again defeated your own argument because nothing literally means it's not there.

my reply to this once again
"
But if this owner is a skilled designer as you are implying, then this skilled designer is something and if it something (spiritual/natural) something is something, it follows that it must equally be as complex or more therefore we shout at the design argument to hold for it."

j know the chemistry behind dream.. my question to you is tangible. how can you physically proof it to me . you actually dream?

I never say god is nothing. this is another misinterpretation from you. God is simply beyond human logic. therefore human logic cannot explain it. the moment you qualify God with anything. then it flaw the definition of God . so By mere saying God is nothing. has also flaw the definition of God.

Davidgrey:
[color=#000050] Human logic at base is ignorance, Everything you know today you learnt it. | The ingredients that makes rational thinking progressive is acquired knowledge

Objectively verified Truths owes human logic no explanation, Your feelings wouldn't change a factual truth

Speaking of Human logic....... Statements like that is what bred accepted ignorance, Your opinion is not the "Truth" only objectively verified truths are considered as "Universal truths" because they are proven

African myths are as dumb as the clowns that push them, let me educate you a bit on why mythical traditional crap should be discarded

Our illiterate fore-fathers told us that the "Sun rises in the East and Sets in the West"..... Not only is that statement literally wrong given that the earth orbits the sun, it also isn't "always" factually correct. [/color]

Mr educator. relax. it depends on the purpose of logic.

human logic is perfect? If the purpose is to figure out science and technology human logic will be perfect because science and technology was developed by same humans. hence the big bang theory and evolution. But if task is to decode natural reality then human logic is not perfect.-logic-...

. Logic and reason can explain every technology or scientific theory. Logic and reason also can attempt to explain abstract things like logic, love, beauty etc. which technology, science and mathematics cannot explain but not perfect.

johnydon22:
putting it in simple words: Having no knowledge about a particular thing doesn't make it to cease to be something..the knowledge of God is known.


You know God but not his identity. Keeps getting funnier.

according to you an entity must have a physical presence before it is real. supposing you dream last nigh . can physically identity of your last it? how can I believed you actually dream?

johnydon22:
And the repetition continues

you are entitled to your opinion. let the nairalander on this page judge.

obisco4u:
Look at all the madness, chaos and imperfection in the world. Were they createe by a "Perfect" and "Just" God?

ori apeere. the destiny. ori ni meja lawo. ori mi gbe mi.(my destiny make a path for me)
this is what IFA says.

At the moment of conception, in the domain of Ajala Mopin (Ori), certain irreversible decisions are made.


They area made in two areas: the physical and the spiritual. The physical area with which we are obviously familiar includes gender, sexual orientation, race, color, and the Host of physical senses such as sight, smell, hearing and touch.

All of these will be, in some sense; dependent upon the choices we made in our physical self.


The spiritual side of Ori is also chosen, but it is divided into two areas. The first, Apari-inu represents character; Ori-Apere represents destiny.


Destiny itself is divided into three areas: Akunleyan, Akunlegba, and Ayanmo. Akunleyan is the request youmake at Ajale's domain- what you would like in specifics during this lifetime:

the number of years you wish to live, the kinds of success you hope to achieve, the relationships you desire, the wisdom you seek to accumulate. Akunlegba are those things given to you to help you achieve these things. Both Akunleyan and Akunlegba can be modified or enhanced by sacrifice and ritual throughout our lives.

Ayanmo is that part of our destiny which cannot be changed: our gender, race, sexuality etc. The famous Yoruba wisdom: "It is easier to change a man's destiny than his character" please try to understand these before you raised another question

johnydon22:
Unknown identity is not same thing as not be being something..




Your argument births this questions not me, you argue that complexity must connote design and i simply showed you that anything able to design this must be even more complex than this, so if complexity means design then this creator must equally be designed.

If this creator even though complex is not designed then you have shown something can be complex yet undesigned thus defeating your own argument.

And again you contradict yourself; Says God is unknown at the same time knows God is eternal and uncreated, if God is unknown you cannot know anything about God, you cannot know whether he is uncreated or not, whether he is eternal. but if you know these details about God then it cannot be said that God is unknown by definition.

chose your words careful fella

with you first paragraph. can you enlighten it better. am lost.

first of all. I never say God is unknown. that is misinterpretation on your part. I only tell you the identity remain unknown. God is known and one of his attribute is he can not be created. and likewise Mr nairaland scenario I gave above . he is man and one of the quality of man is . he can not gave birth.

johnydon22:
Mind the bolded

Do you just love repeating what i said in a different way?

Brother i think you need to improve a bit, doing this with you is dragging me way behind the lines i am at, not wanting to sound condescending but this is the truth.

please stop playing hide and seek. the newton gravity of law has been used by scientists before Albert develop the process behind it. this same process is not absolute because it can be subjected to revision tomorrow. we

johnydon22:
You lack simple basic comprehensions and that will make me ignore you really.

facts are readily observed, correct. but the observations of this raging causes and effects provides need for explanations, the models of these explanations are what we term theories for God sake.

this is becoming tiring, going over the same nonsense over and over again.

expanding universe - fact
theory - rewind the expansion back in time, it must have started at a point, big bang.

even a 2 year old should understand the simple terms i use here

you don't need to sound insulting before you make your point. it is a way of hiding from reality.


I am not denying it. explanation of how phenomenon occur is what is called theory. a just observation of phenomena is called law. while fact is a proven tested observation. a fact observation is the truth that can last or exist for centuries while theories are always subjected to revision.

johnydon22:
God is not something then God is nothing. That statement already killed your whole faith, if God is not something that makes God nothing.



goes ahead and makes a claim without showing how, it disagrees with Ifa to ascribe complexity to God, how, why?

doesn't say.

This is exactly the loop a christian enters when they use the bible.




And this owner of the containers of creations and great blessing is not something? then it is nothing.

But if this owner is a skilled designer as you are implying, then this skilled designer is something and if it something (spiritual/natural) something is something, it follows that it must equally be as complex or more therefore we shout at the design argument to hold for it.

i wish you see how your own words climb on each other contradicting the very bits they hope to support. God is not something but it is a skilled designer, haaaaaa jesus christ of nazareth, that is absurd my good sir

it seems you failed to reason out of what you have known.


I told you earlier the definition of God must match the touchstone of IFA. which state god identity is unknown.


OK let see may be you will get it now.

let use this scenario

brother nairaland was admitted to the hospital and he conceived and gave birth to a child. Can you tell me was the child a girl or a boy? I know that a male can not conceive and give birth to a child. The quality of a male is it cannot conceive and give birth to a child. it is an absurd question. Same way, the definition of God is uncreated. He does not have a beginning. So if you are still asking me the question who is the designer of the creator

johnydon22:
Jesus christ! gravitation is explained by Einsteins theory of relativity or newton's theory of gravitation before then. please i am not here to do this, you need to improve the quality of your arguments.

wait before you insult me. I will rather tell you that. before Albert developed law of relativity. newton gravity of law exist.

johnydon22:
Sighs





welcome back to reality now, and after the dance around you come back to the very point i was hammering over. Theories are substantiated by observed facts and experimentations.

A good theory is one that passes the tests of it's predictions, if it fails or an observation goes contrary to it's explanations, it is either modified or discarded and that is how scientific models improve in quality and truth approximation.

So evolution and big bang are theories, still supported by observations and experiments, yet to be disproved by any

stop trying to steer the wheel of the ship in your favor. it is devilish.

in science. fact are what one can readily observe.

It can pertain to any object and real phenomenon. either it be the falling of an orange after being thrown upwards or other simple observable occurrences. In this regard, the fact is that the orange will fall. and likewise, if this test is being done repeatedly under a controlled environment that cancels all unnecessary variables the phenomenon would have become a very obvious and undeniable fact. It is considered a fact because it will remain as true even after several centuries unless there is a more rigid and precise way of measuring a certain phenomenon. On the contrary, theories in science are likened to the explanations to what has been observed. hope give details.

johnydon22:
I won't banter over the meaning of logic with you here



nobody have ever argued a theory and fact remains the same i thought i have coherently explained this...

no sir you failed to acknowledged the distinct difference between the two

johnydon22:
more like intellectual honesty aimed at avoiding to pretend to know what you or anyone really knows




This basically kills your argument of design, if God an even more complex entity does not require design, you have totally defeated your own premise because you have shown something can exist in a highly intricate form without needing to be design.

So remind me the problem here again?

first of all. God is not something. it is not an object or any tangible property. therefore he can not be quantify ,compared or describe. the moment you find an equation to God. then the object stop being God. the traditional faith(olodumare) God for clarification is beyond human understanding base on the IFA teaching

therefore for you saying god is more complex in design will be flawed or less complex because it disagree with IFA touchstone. the touchstone of ifa is the main center of faith(unknown identity )but his reality is overwhelming. I can enlighten you more on it. the design topic is a good example


Yoruba words olo odu ma ire means Owner of the containers of creation and great blessings. anything or definition outside of this is not God.

how can a functional system exist without passing through the hands of an expert?

johnydon22:
hahahahahaha ok let me see if i can break it down, it's obvious you don't understand it.

a hypothesis: Is a scientific thesis/speculation wanting in observations and predictions
a theory: is a scientific thesis that explains an already observed facts but can be falsified by more observations and predictions of it's own makings



gravity is a theory;

the facts that are summarized in this theory includes. orbit, attraction of bodies, mass of objects etc.

observed facts like microwave background radiation, expanding universe, abundance of primary elements (hydrogen and helium) these are the facts and the big bang theory connects the dots, formulates a model that is consistent with these observations.

I am honestly hoping my explanation was coherent enough, i pray it is

For a quick correction . gravity is a law not theory

johnydon22:
hahahahahaha ok let me see if i can break it down, it's obvious you don't understand it.

a hypothesis: Is a scientific thesis/speculation wanting in observations and predictions
a theory: is a scientific thesis that explains an already observed facts but can be falsified by more observations and predictions of it's own makings



gravity is a theory;

the facts that are summarized in this theory includes. orbit, attraction of bodies, mass of objects etc.

observed facts like microwave background radiation, expanding universe, abundance of primary elements (hydrogen and helium) these are the facts and the big bang theory connects the dots, formulates a model that is consistent with these observations.

I am honestly hoping my explanation was coherent enough, i pray it is

I think you need to understand it well. you are overlapping.



In science, an idea starts out as a hypothesis, or guess as to why or how something is happening. Those hypotheses undergo a lot of experimental trials in various ways and data is collected. Over time, as more and more data is collected, a hypothesis can be a scientifics theory. The more a hypothesis is supported by many different experiments and many different experimenters, the stronger the scientific theory. However, scientific theories can change as more data is collected to become scientific fact if the evidence is overwhelming.

johnydon22:
i do not get where you definition of logic comes from, it seems drastically wanting.



What is this whole thing about a theory becoming a fact?

theories explain observed facts, thats it.

a theory is no more a fact than a fact is a theory..

I think you need to understand it. you are actually overlapping.




In science, an idea starts out as a hypothesis as to why or how something is hpening. Those hypotheses undergo a lot of experimental trials in various ways and data is collected. Over time, as more and more data is collected, a hypothesis can be a scientific theory. The more a hypothesis is supported by many different experiments

johnydon22:
i do not get where you definition of logic comes from, it seems drastically wanting.



What is this whole thing about a theory becoming a fact?

theories explain observed facts, thats it.

a theory is no more a fact than a fact is a theory..

No sir. it is actually in line with the topic of discussion.

.
you can learn more about logic here.

Logic Sleuth. H. Armstrong Roberts/ClassicStock/Archive Photos/Getty

there is overlaps between the two I agree. but they are clearly different in meaning. theory is just an intelligence guess while fact is an established phenomenon

Edenoscar:
Hope this helps

base on the same Wikipedia report. this is what is called fact and this is why is difference from theory.


Afactis something that is postulated to have occurred or to be correct. The usual test for a statement of fact isverifiability—that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond toexperience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.Scientificfacts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (byexperimentsor other means).another source from difference.net


theory and fact


1. Facts are observations whereas theories are the explanations to those observations.

2. Theories are vague truths or unclear facts whereas facts are really facts.

malvisguy212:
1. Job 38:16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?
We didn’t “walk in search of the depth [of the sea] “the deepest part of the ocean, until 1875 when we discovered the deepest point on Earth, the Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench (although we weren’t sure it was the deepest point until much later). We didn’t fully survey it until 1951. We didn’t actually “walk” in it until 1960! But how does this prove the existence of God? Simply the fact that in most ancient cultures, the ocean HAD no bottom! The Greek word abyss , used for the deep ocean, literally means “bottomless”! And 3500 years ago, only God could have known with such certainty that the ocean did in fact have a “depth”! In the same verse; Why would there be water pouring INTO the sea from underground – the sea is where water came from! And mankind for all his technological achievements didn’t discover underwater springs until 1949 – A.D.! Almost four millennium after Job was written! And even then, it wasn’t confirmed until 1960, and it wasn’t until 1979 that human beings first saw deep-sea springs with their own eyes!
2.Job 38:18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.
Man didn’t measure the circumference (“breadth”) of the Earth with even remote accuracy until Eratosthenes did it in about 240 BC. But God knew exactly how large it was. For He sits “above the circle of it”.
4.Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
According to everyone before 570 BC, the Earth was flat. Even then, and for millennia afterwards, the Earth was held up by something. For the Greeks it was on the shoulders of the god Atlas. For the American-Indians it was supported on the back of a giant turtle. Other cultures believed it was on the back of a hog, water buffalo, snake, or elephant. These ideas had the delightful side-benefit of explaining earthquakes, since it logically follows the theory that if Earth was on an elephant’s back and the elephant itched, the Earth would move.
The idea of the Earth literally hanging on NOTHING – as in, an Earth in free-fall through space – was one that no ancient mind could have grasped. Newton’s famous “apple incident” gave us the first real clue as to how gravity operated to control bodies at great distances. But 3500 years ago? Only God could have known!
5.Job 38:25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder; As primitive man sought answers about the natural world, lightning became a part of his superstitions, his myths and his early religions.

I don't believe in those quotation. tell me the Bible is true arguing outside the scripture . what is the bible? pls stop wasting your time to argue with me using the Bible. it is irrelevant and unintelligent. infact illogical.

malvisguy212:
you need a serious bible teaching .God in the Bible deliberately chose to reveal His Word through individuals who were inspired prophets and apostles, so that His Word would not only be conveyed to humanity correctly, and comprehensively but
would be communicated to their understanding and powers of comprehension as well.

prophet, kings , sharperd were commanded to write what they see. john was not commanded to understand the book of revelation, for example, when john use word like " I saw someone like " did it sound like he understand the vision ? he saw lion, the lion look like a man, a horse, a woman. john was only commanded to write what he see.

The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. However, it was not written by good men, because good men would not tell lies by saying ‘Thus saith the Lord;’ it was not written by bad men because they would not write about doing good duty, while condemning sin,and themselves to hell; thus, it must be written by divine inspiration”

good . it will be good you teach me. let start like this . what is the bible? can you proof the truthfulness of the bible outside bible quotation

johnydon22:
There is a precious lesson that can be learnt from every religion, cultural or philosophical class in this world, this is not peculiar to the African traditional religion

I will like to stress more on this, care to elaborate?



Theory is an explanation of FACT. So i don't get how this statement sells.

no sir. a theory is different from fact. theory is all about hypothesis . fact is an evidence. supposing i say the sky took its colour from water. simply because i make a research can be debunked by another researcher. supposing i say sperm produces baby . it is a fact with evidence.

johnydon22:
There is a precious lesson that can be learnt from every religion, cultural or philosophical class in this world, this is not peculiar to the African traditional religion

I will like to stress more on this, care to elaborate?



Theory is an explanation of FACT. So i don't get how this statement sells.

no sir. a theory is different front fact. theory is all about hypothesis . fact is an evidence. supposing i say the sky took its colour from water. simply because i make a research can be debunked by another researcher. supposing i say sperm produces baby . it is an evidence.

johnydon22:
Understand the point in his statement, Objectively verified facts owes human logic no explanation. E=MC² owes your logic no explanation to be true.

anything can be logically disputed, objective empirical substantiation on the other cannot.

as he said "Objectively verified facts owes human logic no explanation"

my dear empirical is all about experience or relevant observation which are just mere phenomenon. logic on the other hands test the observation and evaluate it to get if it is actually practical .


if I still remember big bang theory is yet to become a fact.

johnydon22:
I don't really grab the very meaning this portrays, care to elucidate?

first lets start with the empirical

let analysis this design. spider and human being.
A tiny animal as a spider. Does anybody really believe that such an extraordinarily creature evolved from primordial soup? Just one of these little animal can produce up to seven different kinds of silk entrapment The spider can on demand not only manufacture its personal choice of the seven silks, but reabsorb, breakdown and remanufacture–self-recycling from the component elements. and also look at the complexity of Human being. don't you think this design must come from a creative expert or can it just be a sudden development?

A natural impression is not necessarily correct, there is never such a thing as a sudden development, if we employ the evolutionary mechanism every intricate feature is from an accumulation of simpler values over long periods of time - that is not a sudden development.

Now to further take the design argument further, it will still lead us to an infinite regress: because humans are intricate i agree, something powerful and able to design this must be equally as intricate and likely even more intricate, so how do we explain the complexity of the designer?

do we say the designer had no designer ?

then we would fail in our own argument since the complexity of humans to us connotes design why then would the complexity of this designer not connote design?

If complexity must be a pointer to design then the design equally or more complex must also have a designer who in turn must require another design and thus it goes into an infinite regress of designers.

So how do we solve that problem?

An eternal complex being? Still it's complexity kill our argument because we will still show that complex functional system can exist without being designed which kills the very idea of complexity must require design

the first paragraph try to summarized your believed. which is basically on evidence rather than assumption. now back to the designing question.



God(olodumare)by definition according to the Yoruba believe is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question Who created the designer here will be illogical, just like asking for the bachelor marriage certificate? it will be a absurd question. then why is he a bachelor? as you rightly agree that the design need something powerful to get it done. then why doesn't the powerful designer has a designer?, Everything which has a beginning has a creator The universe has beginning therefore the universe has a creator. The universe requires a creator because it had a beginning .God(olodumare)unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a creator.


how can a functional system exist without passing through the hands of an expert?

Davidgrey:
[color=#000050] Human logic is ignorance, "objectively verified truths" are conclusive and owe human logic no explanation

No one has ever argued that the current ideologue behind "big bang" is factually accurate but.... The process is factual and can't be disputed

The universe expands..... What they did was to rewind the expansion and hence "big bang theory"

Spare me that crap notion about traditional myths. [/color]

human logic is ignorant you say. then what is the importance of critical thinking that begat rational taught. the only evidence of atheism.

big bang failed human logic and that is why some one like me failed to acknowledge it. logically it is disputed.


I ask you once again have you gotten the knowledge of African tradition beyond the myth?

Davidgrey:
[color=#000050] That is because "African Traditional myths" are baseless and full of unsubstantiated crap. [/color]

have you try to understand african tradition beyond the myth. get the teaching first before you question the faith itself. I also think science evidence of big bang theory those not correlate with human logic. hope you know Charles's Darwin theory of evolution is not yet a fact. despite its large popularity.

johnydon22:
The idea of God at the very first conception is more assumptive than empirical, that means that the postulation that there is a God is rather thought formulated rather than empirically backed.

So my disbelief in God is just an act of honesty in my part from my own perspective, i do not pretend to know there is no God i only try not to pretend that i know there is any.

since you believe god is an assumption rather than reality or evidence. your logic here will base on the reality of god existence if at all he exist or any proof to back it.

first lets start with the empirical


let analysis this design. spider and human being.
A tiny animal as a spider. Does anybody really believe that such an extraordinarily creature evolved from primordial soup? Just one of these little animal can produce up to seven different kinds of silk entrapment The spider can on demand not only manufacture its personal choice of the seven silks, but reabsorb, breakdown and remanufacture–self-recycling from the component elements. and also look at the complexity of Human being. don't you think this design must come from a creative expert or can it just be a sudden development?

johnydon22:
reason is that most traditional beliefs are not as encroaching as their Abrahamic counterparts, Abrahamic religions are aggressive to every other religions and themselves too, so it is no surprise that such publicity makes them the obvious target to raw criticism



All right let us do it then

good bro. there is no God . how do you arrive in that conclusion