₦airaland Forum

@ijele and karo93,

Let me leave you a direct statement of Jesus Christ: "That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him" (John 5:23). What does this tell you?

toba:
@thehomer 'can information come from non-information?

thehomer:
Yes it can. Statistics demonstrates this. You can also consider something as complex as the climate. We get climate forecasts from the data which can at the same time be used to generate random numbers.

Is the climate an example of "non-information"?

@Joagbaje,

(a)

Joagbaje:
What Christ is to the Church is different from what he is to Israel.The Christ for Israel is the Messiah that will deliver them from the enemy politically ,physically and spiritually. They have been waiting for the messiah for ages. They will embrace the antichrist who will fit the picture. But for us we are one with him and on that day when Israel will finally cry out for messiah on mount Zion we together with Christ will come down to earth to fight for Israel on that day.

(b)

So this will be the second coming of christ that israel is waiting for but before this time many will show themselves as that christ to israel. This was what Jesus was adressing in that prophecy in Matt 24. he wasnt talking about the church.If Israel follow any of those Christs ,they would be destroyed by the antichrist because no man on earth would be able to defeat him.

Matthew 24 speaks to the Church as well. It warns that many false prophets will rise and deceive many people - that warning has been sounded by the apostles who spoke and wrote directly to Christians:

[list]Matthew 24:5, 11 & 24-25
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many . . . And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many . . . For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before.[/list]

[list]2 Corinthians 11:3-4 & 13-15
But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough . . . For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.[/list]

[list]2 Peter 2:1-3
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.[/list]

So your exegesis of Revelation 19 and Matthew 24 is a clever way to excuse the fact that you make yourself one of those deceivers by calling yourself 'Christ' (doesn't matter whether it is lower or upper case 'c'/'C' - when a man says "I am Christ" as you did, he qualifies himself as a deceiver as in Matt. 24:5, and as a liar as in 1 John 2:22).

^^^ oooohhh, here he goes again!!

DeepSight, howdy?

I know it mystifies you that I stand against WOF doctrines because of the following reasons:

1.  The WOF movement is what obtains within Christendom and rather not in Deism. As such, a deist is far less qualified to call me up on these matters since Deism denies the essential points of Christianity - that there is only one Christ, who is the Divine Son of God, confessed as Lord, Master and Saviour for the salvation of man (John 13:13 and Romans 10:9-10). These are not confessions any deist makes, since Deism denies faith, revelation, miracles and the supernatural in its worldview.

2.  Others may so claim to be gods and lords, and the Bible does not deny that such claims are to be found outside Christianity - but what it enjoins upon Christians is the confession of One Godhead: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 8:5-6 and 2 Cor. 13:14). Thus, anyone claiming to be the same as 'God' and 'Christ' under the umbrella of Christianity is a deceiver, a liar and an antichrist (Matt. 24:4-5 and 1 John 2:22).

3.  On the basis of Biblical prophecy and promises, my faith stands in recognition of the Deity of Christ: (a) on prophecies, because the prophets declared His Deity in clear terms; (b) on promises, because the power of Christ the Son of God has been proven in my life precisely as I read in the Bible. Hence, when someone comes along claiming to be "Christ" and the same as 'God' in the Bible, I could ask such a person to show me where any Biblical prophecies were written concerning him/her - if they cannot show, they qualify as deceivers as we have been forewarned (2 John 1:7).

4.  If you DeepSight want to worship anyone else, you are free to do so - I have no problem with your deism urging you to do so. But we have been through many discussions and it is clear that you do not intend to do so - and that is fine with me. HOWEVER, where you are not satisfied with that and then want to bedevil Christians who recognize the Deity of Jesus Christ on the premises of Biblical prophecies and promises, I stand to resist your drama in no uncertain terms. It is either you keep your deistic fundamentalism to yourself and let Christians be who they are, or you constantly be at the receiving end of my baton.

5. As long as WOF folks come under the unbrella of Christianity and claiming themselves to be both 'Christ' and 'God' as in the Bible, I stand as a non-WOF believer who will expose such duplicity.

Deep Sight:
So why do you attempt to deny me my right to consider your own claim that a jewish rabbi is Almighty God as equally bizzarre?

Because you're neither a Christian nor someone who subscribes to the Person and redemptive work of Christ. As far as I'm concerned, you call out responses from us to put you where you belong when you go about in your fundamentalism deriding Christians for what they believe.

How is it that you and only you are entitled to condemn people for elevating humans to Godship? ? ?

I do not condemn people for elevating humans. Rather, (a) I expose deceivers and liars who qualify themselves as such by claiming that they themselves are 'Christ' (Matt. 24:4-5 and 1 John 2:22); and (b) I excoriate fundamentalists like yourself who think it is their birthright to be too troubled in their deism that they have to channel their hypocrisy against Christians.

Perhaps you can now see how irritating such claims are? ? ?

That is, if you understand what it entails.

You live in a glass house and as such you have no right to throw stones: your claims that a jewish rabbi is GOD are far more comical that the WOF's alleged claims.

I do not live in any glass houses _{(I'm working towards it)} but I certainly live in a well-garrisoned marbled house!   So if you must throw stones, aim elsewhere - or I shall have no choice than to come against you with tanks, mortars and flame throwers!

This this day-light hypocrisy.

Test me, and you will never be the same again! (lawd. . . how I just love the way Deeper Lifers say it!)

uplawal:
@viaro,and what u just said now is false,Allah never promised Believers hell but Al-jannah,so get that straight,so you've admitted the fact that christianity will take you no where but hellfire,so why are you still in there,i tell you desist from satan,and its ways,it will be better for you.

Are you kidding yourself? Where did I 'admit' anything about Christians going to hell?
We know the promise of hell that Allah made to muslims and muslimahs will come to pass -
your Allah qualified it with the adjective of "irrevocable", so it doesn't matter that you
want to pass it to us or anyone else. . . it's just going to come to pass for you. All this
that you're pampering yourself with good and fair speech will not change Allah's mind!

Or have you wondered about another joke from the bible that says in genesis,God was looking for adam in the garden,now tell me,how can the omnipresent,be looking for or searching for his creature?he couldnot have been blind now,or do you tell me God is subjected to hide and seek game,or best still hes not sure where hes own creature could be at that time?
the Quran have the answers to all your problems,its either you accept it or you dnt,but you will see the repercussion later for not accepting it

I'm grateful that your Quran has answers for your own joke. How about this one: in Islam,
there's this joke that Allah is time, and time is Allah - but when someone says something
like, "what heck of a time we had", Allah is seriously wounded!

Yes, I like Muslim jokes - please share some more.

uplawal:
@viaro,dnt go and practice laws that jesus said,and keep deluding yourself about the FAITH that was told by paul and co after he left,there is no word TRINITY in the ENTIRE BIBLE so get it and stop being proud unnessary,and mind you,whats your obsession about the copies a goat ate?

Eh, madam jihad, I'm quite capable of reading the Bible for myself, thank you.
And I know what it teaches about the Trinity, thank you again.
I have no problem with anypart of the Quran eaten by a goat or a camel,
whether under anybody's bed or under their mat - it makes no difference
and it's just your own loss.

can a goat eat the ones learnt by heart.

How are you sure that part was learnt by heart before the goat had it as a snack?

keep fooling yourself

Thanks - at least Allah's hell fire was not promised to fools other than muslims. Go figure.

^^ we've heard all that before.
Isn't it time that you concentrate on Allah's promise to send you to hell?

Joagbaje:
Besides ,there is agreat difference between "The Christ" for Israel and "Christ" which refers to Jesus and the Church.

So, are you advancing a teaching of two different 'Christs'? Is the one for Israel different from the same Jesus Christ the Son of God?

buster:
Christains dont really understand the bible very well.

Care to teach Christians their Bible, as well be willing to let Christians teach you your own Quran?

Christains believe in trinity. They claim Jesus existed before he created Adam,i wonder while the bible did not make mention of that.

What do you understand from Jesus statement in John 8:58 - "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am"?

Through out the old testament, the bible never enphasized on trinity.

The OT teaches the Trinity - but not in the way that Muhammad confused it and claimed he was being inspired by Allah.

So tell me, which is more holier, abook written by eye witnesses disciples which is subject to error, or a book directly conveyed to prophet muhammed throgh angel gabriel?

Was the Quran not written by the hands of men? We know that the third Caliph burnt copies of the Quran, did he not? Why? And do you care to let us know what part of the Quran a goat ate from under Aisha's bed?

thehomer:
[quote author=viaro link=topic=402069.msg5596773#msg5596773 date=1267288792]Have you stopped lying? Please, let me know. I'm now very, very scared of your duplicity.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.[/quote]Trust me, I am - as long as you just love lying.

Chrisbenogor:
Did I see somewhere that you said calling someone a slut was the worst thing ever? I would vote for complete idiot first anyways.

Did I call you, anyone, or thehomer a slut?

All this plenty talk when small talk can suffice, stop making me go through pains to deduce what you are saying, so is it that the question about the existence of God is a metaphysical one or what? abi is simple english difficult for you to compose?

Why is it that you guys have been spinning round right from when I first mentioned that it is a metaphysical question and would be discussed from that basis? No, you never said anything about your dude spinning and lying around repeatedly. .  but you suddenly woke up now to plead what? Please.

thehomer:
Great philosopher I have given you examples to show what I mean. Please present your evidence by any means you can.

Wise philosopher You wish to present your evidence via metaphysics please go ahead.

Have you stopped lying? Please, let me know. I'm now very, very scared of your duplicity.

@DeepSight,

Indeed we will shortly arrive at the time when you will on this very ground claim that a Muslim is not a theist: given that he has a different idea of God than you do; and a different idea of Ethics!

A Muslim is a theist who basis his/her ethics on GOD (whom they call 'Allah') rather than on nature as in the case of deism.

Answer me this:

What makes a Muslim a theist? –

1. The fact that he believes in God the Creator OR –

2. The fact that his ethics are based on God?

I just answered above. If you want to become the first Muslim-Deist, you can write your own koran in the blue sky and whistle on the backs of Thomas Paine and Voltaire, wait for OOI to throw an infinity of minarets from the blackhole - and viola! your faceless OOI will reward you with an infinity of virgins!

It is impossible for you to claim No 2- because the ethics of the Muslim are different to yours – just as the ethics of each person and group differ – based on their ideas of God.

It is possible to see that the difference is in what either of these wolrdviews are basis their ethics - one (Theism) has its ethics grounded on GOD; while the other (Deism) has its ethics grounded on nature. Instead of sobbing like a deistic town-crier, please show me how you can controvert that plain fact already pointed to. If I were the one who posted that chart by Krayola, you would have destroyed your entire street, no?

At all events all this explanation is sorely unnecessary: only YOU would so bizarre as to require it: for the very etymology of the word “Theism” is more than sufficient to prove that the core of Theism is belief in the existence of God or gods.

No, that is not the core of theism - one might then as well be saying that Spinozism is also deism, no?

I can scarcely believe that I am entertaining this at all. Especially this from a person who calls ME illiterate at the drop of a hat! I am sorely tempted to describe you; but I will keep to my commitment not to descend to the puerile insults that you fling my way everyday.

Yawwn!! Did you have any hats to drop??   Dude, a 'name' is not the same thing as an '-ism', nor does etymology defines a worldview.

P.S: I notice you have shied away from repeating that Deism is “not even a shadow” of Theism. Embarrassed? Or do you stick to that? Say it again? Did you see the chart? EIGHT SIMILARITIES OUT OF ELEVEN.

I didn't shy away from saying that, since I do not like to repeat myself. I noticed when I first stated it so and defended it, you almost called an ambulance - so my dear friend, I care that much for you and don't want to see your end at Nairaland so soon!

And in the differences we can only pick out things like perceptions about evil and the end-time!

I cautioned that you speak only in terms of your deism - that way, you can dribble conveniently between any pre-processed OOI, singularities, mathematical suicidal procedures, or whatever roguish adventures you have up your sleeves. The moment you try to pull the prabk of being such a :::::::, viaro will be here to smart you up.

Do you realize that even amongst Christian denominations such, and even greater differences of views exist? ? ? Would you therefore conclude that Jehovah’s Witnesses for instance are not Theists? ? ?

Please dream up better fallacies to appeal to. At least the Jehovah Witnesses are not worshipping nature. We also know that there are as many systems in deism that you guys are no longer sure where to steal from again - so you head off to "Satanic Deism". Lucifer must be proud of you guys!

You talk about the Diest’s ethics being based on nature. How many times did Jesus himself use parables and analogies from nature to expound ethics? Does this perhaps mean that Jesus was not a Theist? ? ?

Hahahaha!! Dude, if ever Jesus was a deist by any stretch, where did He ever base His teachings on any semblance of the desitic rejected of REVELATION? or of MIRACLES? Are you advertising your rogue religion to steal that one and add to your dead OOI?

Deep Sight:
It is quite amazing the extent to which you will go to defend a statement that at best can be considered incongruous and at worst something else entirely!

Now you are SO BOLD as to confidently assert in public that the claim that God exists is not the core claim of the theist.

I did not make any such assertions. Please quote me precisely for what I stated, rather than what you might have thought you saw in my quote which yet is not there! How you stand to keep lying in public is quite beyond me.

This was what you said:
"Viaro in another thread is happy to admit what the core claim of Theism is!"

This was what I had said which you also quoted:
"Theism is a worldview with a claim: God exists"

I'm sure you already know there is a difference between "a claim" and "the core claim" in something? In no place did I make 'God exists' the CORE of all claims in theism; and to maintain that I did so and yet not show one line where I have done so in that quote is tantamount to . . . oh well, you lie as easily as you breathe anyways.

Amazing.

Yes, let's celebrate how easily you maintain your amazing lying career. Toast.

Laughable in the extreme, son.

Yes padre, you're right - that duplicityof yours is the halmark of your dee[color=Black]p sh[/color]it in this thread!

Did you miss the meaning of the word “Theist?”

Greek: Theos – meaning “God”

That is thus unquestionably the core and basis of what it means to be “Theist.”

So just mention the word 'God' and viola! you have the "core" claim of THEISM, yes? Get off your pipes, man. . . you've been smoking what's not in the books!

School up: it is not just "theos" or "theist" we're talking about now, is it? FYI, my focus has been the worldview itself, thus the '-ism' of either worldviews. For me, THEISM has several claims; but central to the worldview known as THE[b]ISM[/b] is that its basis of ethics is "grounded in God". On the other hand, what makes the '-ism' in de[b]ism[/b] is just about the same thing: its basis of ethics is "grounded in nature" - big difference, dude.

It is not just the mention of the word 'God' that settles everything. This is why you make yourself such a laugh in this thread because any resemblance is sufficient for your rogue religion.

Viaro, is it so hard to admit that you have got it wrong? You are only human you know.

My humanity will not admit to your {:::::::} of asserting something on my behalf that I never did.

Oxford’s Advanced Learners Dictionary : “Theism - /Өi:izem/ nonun: belief in the existence of God or gods.

Perhaps if you were on the Oxford Team compiling that dictionary you would have insisted that what should be there as the definition of Theism is: “Theism - /Өi:izem/ nonun: the worldview that places God as the basis of Ethics”

Haha, amico. . . viaro is not that gullible. You pick up just one definition that suits you, and I have no problem with that. However, that simplistic definition is not all that other resources tell is in their definition. Let me give you a few:

[list]from Philosophical Dictionary online:

theism
Belief in the existence of god as a perfect being deserving of worship.

deism
Belief in god based entirely on reason, without any reference to faith, revelation, or institutional religion.[/list]

[list]_____________[/list]

[list]Online Merriam-Webster[/list]

[list]deism:
a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe[/list]

[list]_____________[/list]

[list]from the [url=http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,theism]American Dictionary of the English Language[/url]:

THE'ISM, n. [from Gr. God.]
The belief or acknowledgment of the existence of a God, as opposed to atheism. Theism differs from deism, for although deism implies a belief in the existence of a God, yet it signifies in modern usage a denial of revelation, which theism does not.[/list]

Does the last cited equate theism to deism? BTW, viaro was not on the committe of the American Dictionary of the English Language, you know?

YOU KNOW that that is definitely wrong in grammatical, theological and scholarly terms. You cannot insist any further that the existence of God is not the core claim of Theism – otherwise in the quote I dusted out from the other thread why did YOU not define Theism in terms of what YOU now claim its core claim is – why did you not define it as “the worldview that places God as the basis of Ethics” ? ? ? ? ?

I did not do so because it would be absurd for you to try t twist my precise quote. Informed sources will tell you Theism differs from Deism - and they give the reason why that is so. You're just floundering here and polluting your thread with noise.

Instead you dovetailed with Oxford in stating the obvious: namely that the claim of the Theist is that God exists.

Please kindly keep your hilarity to yourself. Did you read Oxford saying that the core claim of Theism is 'God exist'? Where did you read the word "core" in that Oxford citation you gave? Your drama of putting words into other people's mouth is why your defence for your deism never takes off from the ground. I warned you to just forget that viaro is here, so you can further enjoy fooling yourself in this deep sh[color=Black]it y[/color]ou're waving here - but since you're fed up stinking alone in your cesspool, I might as well clean you up a little.

The truth is that if we are to begin to use Ethics as the core basis of theism: then theism will not exist AT ALL: because every theist has his own different perception of Ethics in terms of God!

You wish!

Dude, just go out in the street and keep hooting 'God exist' and claim that the the "core" of your rogue religion. That is how hollow you can be - because one way or the other, such acclamations have no bearing in your life and it is all sounding brass and empty gong, no?

@thehomer,

Ooh I'm illiterate now. Yet I'm able to construct sentences in English and converse at college level.

Not only are you an illiterate, lying time-waster, you just enjoy being such a retard in the English constructs you employ to capture your duplicity so well.

What you've done is simply philosophical babble since you have not provided any evidence to back up what you're saying. I've given you the latitude to use any approach you wish.

Why should I be surprised that you regard my outline as 'philosophical babble'?

Look dude, I'm very well aware that most atheists OFTEN fear philosophy - that is the one thing they are most likely to evade and avoid, because anytime they display any bragado on that, they get roundly trounced and, as in your own particular case, shown to be shameless liars! To show this, I'd like to excerpt a few resources to show why you have been displaying the very same traits of your own atheistic idiocy as regards metaphysical discussions:

From an atheist, Austin Cline (guide on atheism at About.com) ~

[list]

What is Metaphysics?:

In Western philosophy, metaphysics has become the study of the fundamental nature of all reality — what is it, why is it, and how are we can understand it. Some treat metaphysics as the study of “higher” reality or the “invisible” nature behind everything, but that isn’t true. It is, instead, the study of all of reality, visible and invisible; and what constitutes reality, natural and supernatural.

Because most of the debates between atheists and theists involve disagreements over the nature of reality and the existence of anything supernatural, the debates are often disagreements over metaphysics.

[/list]
[list]

Metaphysics and the Supernatural:

In popular parlance, metaphysics has become the label for the study of things which transcend the natural world — that is, things which supposedly exist separately from nature and which have a more intrinsic reality than our natural existence. This assigns a sense to the Greek prefix meta which it did not originally have, but words do change over time. As a result, the popular sense of metaphysics has been the study of any question about reality which cannot be answered by scientific observation and experimentation.

****For atheists, this sense of metaphysics is usually regarded as literally empty.

[/list]
[list]

Why Should Atheists Care About Metaphysics?:

Because atheists typically dismiss the existence of the supernatural, they may dismiss metaphysics as the pointless study of nothing. Because metaphysics is technically the study of all reality, and thus whether there is any supernatural element to it at all, [size=14pt]in truth metaphysics is probably the most fundamental subject which irreligious atheists should focus on[/size]. Our ability to understand what reality is, what it is composed of, what "existence" means, etc., is fundamental to most of the disagreements between irreligious atheists and religious theists.


Is Metaphysics Pointless?:

Some irreligious atheists, like logical positivists, have argued that the agenda of metaphysics is largely pointless and can’t accomplish anything. According to them, metaphysical statements cannot be either true or false — as a result, they don’t really carry any meaning and shouldn’t be given any serious consideration. There is some justification to this position, but it is unlikely to convince or impress religious theists for whom metaphysical claims constitute some of the most important parts of their lives. Thus the ability to address and critique such claims can be important.


What is an Atheist Metaphysics?:

The only thing all atheists have in common is disbelief in gods, so the only thing all atheist metaphysics will have in common is that reality doesn't include any gods and isn't divinely created. Despite that, most atheists in the West tend to adopt a materialistic perspective on reality. This means that they regard the nature of our reality and the universe as consisting of matter and energy. Everything is natural; nothing is supernatural. There are no supernatural beings, realms, or planes of existence. All cause and effect proceeds via natural laws.

[/list]

To recap from the above:

  ~   metaphysics is the study of the fundamental nature of all reality

  ~   the popular sense of metaphysics has been the study of any question
       about reality which cannot be answered by scientific observation and
       experimentation

  ~   for atheists, this sense of metaphysics is usually regarded as literally empty

  ~   Because metaphysics is technically the study of all reality, and thus whether
       there is any supernatural element to it at all, in truth metaphysics is probably
       the most fundamental subject which irreligious atheists should focus on.

So, before you even typed your first dot in this thread about your strawman fallacy of Russell's teapot, I was very well aware that you'd be the typical atheist who's too scared to touch metaphysics - that is why you have scuttled round, evaded it with all excuses, and summarily tried to woosh it away as a babble. Nevermind, knuckleheads dismiss what they cannot understand - and that was just what you were doing.

Yet, as you can see from the excerpts above, informed atheists are aware of their own problem about their approach to metaphysical questions. Why? For the simple reason that metaphysical questions test our understanding about ALL REALITY. It was not a difficult thing for you to have simply stated in clear terms (as toneyb did) that you do not wish to discuss metaphysics, and we would not have come all this way with you now resorting to lying on top of everything that I only "now introduced" this issue about metaphysics.

Dude, you're a comp[color=Black]lete id[/color]iot - a lying one at that, and an ultimate dunce. Beyond this point, the thread is left to you to come back and show your idiocy and evasions (I won't bother acquiescing with a rejoinder), and then you can go celebrate your duplicity in a bar somewhere.

@thehomer,

I see you're back with your atheistic idiocy.

thehomer:
Aah so when you say "physicalist probables" you actually mean "the worldview that physicalism implies"? You should have just said this directly. Or correct me if I am wrong.

I said it - explained it - several times before now. What you have been doing is act like one atheist schmuck with a dubious crouch pretending you did not see it previously.

Mmmhmm keep dodging the issue. I've said use whatever means you want but remember the physical implications.

I did not dodge anything. You're the one who has been dodging my repeated request, because you hitherto have said nothing concrete. Again through you latest reply, you dribbled round to say nothing. If this dribbling is all you can show for your atheism, I can now understand why you've been so dishonest from the onset.

You have now introduced more suitable in metaphysical discussions. And I've repeatedly given you the latitude to go metaphysical just provide your evidence. You have refused to do so. I've also told you that the claims made by these metaphysical entities that you are supposed to prove are testable scientifically. I also gave you the example of sickle cell disease. If you cannot grasp this as a self acclaimed philosopher, then you've wasted your time studying in that field.

Oh pity! On top of your duplicity, do you have to resort to outright LYING??

Sorry, I did not "NOW introduce" the issue of 'more suitable in metaphysical discussions' here. Right from the onset when I laid out my premise, I mentioned and discussed it - unless you want to show what a hideous lying twerp you are!

~ did I not refer clearly to "metaphysical questions" in post #94 to YOU directly?

~ did I not also mention "metaphysical discourses" in the same post #94
directly to YOU?

~ did YOU not quote me on "metaphysical questions" in your own reply in post #95?

~ again in post #97 in my reply directly to you, I mentioned and discussed ::::
|| - "metaphysical discussions"
|| - "metaphysical claims"

~ then in post 154 I reposted part of my previous reply to you demonstrating
the same things.

After all these, you of all thinking people come back to shamelessly LIE on top of everything that I have "NOW introduced" these things about metaphysics like it is the first time you read me mention that the subject is one about metaphysical questions? You must be such a lying idi[color=Black]ot cha[/color]mpioning your atheistic redundancy!

Chrisbenogor:
@viaro
Me I will not be involved in long meaningless threads filled with words that have no real meaning to me you or others reading this. If you say the issue is not a physical one and that the issue is more that this physical plane then go ahead an define the frame of reference and go ahead to further show that it holds for every one and then finally go ahead and provide that evidence. Infact ignore us and just go ahead with how you want to show that there is a God, chikena!

@Chris,

I do not wish you to be involved in long winding talk about metaphysical questions. Your dude thehomer has been playing games all along even after I had outlined my approach and was ready to discuss as soon as he obliged me the same. The one reason why I waited this long for him to do so is because I understand that philosophy (particularly metaphysics) is a serious problem for many atheists (not all atheists - for I have discussed with some very intelligent and honest atheists who have it well-sorted on metaphysics).

Soon in my reply to thehomer, I shall excerpt a few from some atheist site to show how serious the metaphysics is to the atheist, and what some have recommended. Metaphysics deals with the study of all of reality, not just those which the materialist and physicalist try to reduce to their own worldview. When I indicated this to toneyb, he was genuine enough to let me know that he was not at that time interested in metaphysical premises about reality - and that is quite an honest response I could applaud, rather than thehomer scuttling round and lying on top of everything! Please just stay tuned and I shall show you how he's been lying through his dirty teeth and wasting our time.

thehomer:
I've already told you that I did not understand the phrase "physicalist probable" that is why I cannot compare it to physicalism which is well defined.

Those responses were to tell you that I do not understand what it meant.

I have simplified all that in my reply to Chrisbenogor.

For all we know, the subject to which you are attempting to give a nature to may be nonexistent. The burden of proof is more on you to back up the claims of the supernatural and spiritual with evidence which you are yet to do.

I shall do so as soon as you oblige my request.

I'm sorry I thought you could see my approach clearly.

You simply mentioned things, gave no demonstration, kept repeating it, and said nothing.

I didn't define "scientific means" since you already said you knew what it meant.

I know what it meant. Now please show me HOW and WHY it is more suited to METAPHYSICAL discussions.

Your claim of it being metaphysical is not disputed I only pointed out that the claims it makes can be tested scientifically.

That's fine - that is why I requested you to show me WHY that is so; and also HOW the metaphysical could be tested scientifically. Just saying so is not a demonstration of same - and I already outline what I meant, even going so far as to repeatedly refer to how I demonstrated it in my discourse with toneyb.

I didn't just state or mention things - I explained them in detail before coming to those 5 points as a summary and then requested you do the same. It so happens that you're seemingly evading this issue, unable to demonstrate anything concrete and we have to remain at your evasive come backs. So I shall do you the favour of once again posting a demonstration of what I meant from my replies to toneyb ~~
________________

(a) this is "why a philosophical approach" ~

[list]

viaro: Any genuine quest for "reality" requires a holistic approach rather than a reductionist one! Let me give you an example particularly in the area of the philosophy of mind with respect to another type of dualist philosophy:

[list]Predicate dualism is the theory that psychological or mentalistic predicates are (a) essential for a full description of the world and (b) are not reducible to physicalistic predicates.[/list]

If one is going to take seriously any philosophical approach to the study of "realities", such a researher should be willing to to avoid the reductionist approach where fundamental elements in such a research are reduced to "physicalist predicates" . To adopt the reductionist approach will not yield results for a "full description" of the realities of our world - and I'm afraid that is what has happened in the vid that you posted. Therefore, one cannot accept that as "conclusive evidence" for anything - that is a shame and will not score zilch in any journal of philosophy of mind.

I reckon that the real reason the author cleverly dodges critical philosophical underpinings is because those are issues that are the very core of the subject he sought to discuss. So for his own convenience, since he could not handle those grey areas that present serious problems to his narrow ideas, he quickly scuttles round them and proceeds to propound his own idealism. I'm sorry, toneyb, that kind of pretence is neither science nor philosophy - and such reductionist approach to studying reality is not what any informed thinker should present as "conclusive evidence" of anything, unless they simply want to be mischievous.

[/list]

(b) this is a further discourse on why and how ~~

[list]

viaro: Did you pay attention to the enquiry I posed? I had stated particularly: "I'm very interested in the philosophical underpinnings behind the conclusions you have reached to make such assertions", not so? And it was based on that same philosophical approcah that I posted my reply.

To be sure, that vid is an elaborate crap if we have to present it as "conclusive evidence" for reality. What you expected me to do was take every line he presented and then argue on endlessly, no?  I'm sorry to disappoint you; but if you were to present that in any solid academic institution of philosophy, you would fail the first class, I guarantee you that!

What did you actually try to counter in the fact that science is not about a reductionist approach but a holistic one? Why did he cleverly evade other dualist philosophies, toneyb? To reassure you, I had seen that vid long before now (it was one of those I viewed when researching for a paper on cosmology and came across Krauss' talk which I have also reviewed on this forum). I also here gave you an example of why philosophers of mind are not goons when it comes to philosophy of mind - and that link I gave about 'predicate dualism' is Philosophy resource at Stanford University.

If you have anything to say that is against the holistic approach for researches about realities of our world, please share the same. That is where that vid completely collapses, and he was clear from the onset that he was adopting the reductionist approach where "only one" fundamental reality is required. Toneyb, that is an attempt to cheat the gullible reader - and we know that any research for a "full description" of the world will involve fundamentals that are "not reducible to physicalistic predicates". Can you tell me why he was violating that very point that all sound philosophers ALREADY know??

[/list]
________________

Now please do the same and oblige me your own outline of why and how you deem that your idea of the "scientific method" is best suited to metaphysical questions. If and when you do so, could you indicate what type of dualism you intend to adopt on this subject?

I look forward to you disposition to oblige my request - which if you don't, it would suggest to me that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and need to please refrain from being so vacuous.

I have chosen this method because claims of supernatural events/concepts e.g miracles can be tested scientifically since the claims it makes are scientific claims.

Please show me any scientist that has conducted a scientific research into the supernatural by any scientific method  - any.

I intend to use it well, scientifically (with principles and methods used in science).

Please oblige me.

Your request for me to show why your method is unsuitable, is not for me to answer.

This is where you confirm you're a time-waster who wishes to be roundly ignored. If you had any clue how to approach your subject, you would not have been ducking it forever and shouting your strawman fallacy of Russell's teapot and recycling your vacuity. All you needed to have said was that simple - you cannot answer, because you are unable to do so. If you could, you definitely would have done so.

The burden of proof is more on you to show why your method is suitable. I simply do not know if it would be suitable since you have not given any evidence.

Are you drunk or deluded? How many times have I shown that same thing in this thread alone? You must be one illiterate schmuck! If the burden of proof is on me to show why my method or approach is suitable, I have done that same thing so many times already! A few reminders:

            post #94

            post #96

            post #97

            post #119

            post #134

            post #143

. . . and more recently again at:
            post #154

In almost every situation after I demonstrated why and how my approach is suitable (noting particularly that the type of questions asked are metaphysical), I then requested you to please demonstrate the same for yours. How and why do you adopt any "scientific method" for metaphysical questions? And you have forever evaded my simple request for your demosntration. . . only to come back now asking me to do what I have ALREADY done REPEATEDLY?!?

If you never saw where I demonstrated what you asked for, that is a different thing - but you definitely cannot pretend you did not once see where I did so repeatedly! Please just get lost and stop being such a hypocritical time-waster. You're one retard and a very dubious idiot at that.

Deep Sight:
Viaro - would you like to tell me what the core claim of Theism is?

Or even what the very word - "Theism" signifies?

Please!

1. I did not assert "God exists" as the 'core claim' of theism - it is one of the claims of theism; but it is not the core of theistic claims that defines its place among worldviews in the grand scheme of things. Hence, trying to put words in my mouth as you did initially was quite a silly drama on your part.

2. One reason why mere mention of 'God exists' does not serve as the core of the claims of any worldview is because that is simply arbitrary. 'Spinoza's God', for instance, assumes a position of 'God exists', but we all know that Spinozism is not Theism in just the same way as that Deism is not Theism.

3. For me, the core feature of any worldview is what it is predicated upon. An example appears in that chart proffered by Krayola, and it is rather the "basis of ethics" that is at the heart of a worldview. Hence, the basis of ethics in Theism is that it is "grounded in God", while that of Deism is "grounded in nature" - big difference.

So, please stop waving your mascara arguments for your deism - they are quite an entertaining farce and plastic dee[color=Black]p s[/color]hit.

@thehomer,

thehomer:
I already told you why I couldn't show the difference. Should I repeat myself? I asked if [/b]you were equating them there's a question mark at the end of that post.

If they are different, please show me [b]how. But if you cannot show any difference between them, it means you either don't find any such differences between them; or you otherwise do not understand either of them as to be asking such a question. Which is it?

Serious ailments such as sickle cell disease, or penetrating head injuries taking out the frontal cortex? Come on don't keep me hanging? You didn't mention any cases so how can I tell what investigation will be required? But it is anecdotal evidence and does not account for much. Saying it is not anecdotal does not make it so (i.e not anecdotal evidence). Yes one case does not fit all but at the very least, it should be possible to investigate some of the claims by scientific means.

I didn't start out trying to present anecdotal evidence - as you can see from my outline in how I intended to discuss the subject, I was not going the route of such anecdotal evidences (and that does not make such events false or flawed one way or the other).

I was clear about my approach and gave five points in my outline to demonstrate that. I've also repeatedly requested you to oblige me an outline in yours. If you cannot do so, please let me know - that way, you would not be repeatedly asked the same request in order for you to come back without doing so. Such evasions point to me that you either don't want to seriously discuss this subject, or you're rather not mature enough to do so.

I would therefore ask this once: please show me your outline in precisely the way I have previously demonstrated here, viz:

[list]

viaro: In (a) above, I have demonstrated that I'm willing to discuss my convictions for the existence of God from a philosophical approach where my subject is not one where fundamentals involved are reduced to "physicalist probables" (in other words, it is not 'physicalist' but rather 'supernatural'). That way, I'm not asking you the atheist to provide any proof for me, as I'm quite capable of doing that on my own by any number of philosophical approaches I adopt.

On the other hand, you're appealing to the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum where you expect to slip away easily from the burden of proof for whatever claim you make, even if it was negative. That is quite simply laughable! In metaphysical discussions about the nature of reality, the burden of proof rests on anyone making either a positive or negative claim - that is a different thing from claims made by any party in the physicalist approach.

For example, in physicalism, it does not matter whether the claimant is either a theist or atheist to be able to say it is possible to have 'a square peg in a round hole' - and either way, it is possible to describe that in literal terms by circumspections in geometry. Someone coming to make the negative counter claim that such a thing is not possible is also responsible to show with the burden of proof that it is NOT possible to have a square peg in a round hole. In this example of physicalism, it is irresponsible to say that the one who makes a negative claim is not responsible for any burden of proof.

However, in the philosophy of metaphysics, the theist who claims that 'God exists' and the atheist that claims that 'God does not exist' are both making a claim each - and either of them are saddled with the burden of proof in either case. For the atheist to then shirk responsiblity of the burden of proof here is both irresponsible and idiotic to do so, in just the same way that the theist would only assert it and show no 'evidence'  for what he claims. In this respect, the main question is this: what type of claims are they making - a physicalist claim or a metaphysical claim?

Unless you just want to ignore the particularities of each situation, you could as well speak of the farce of a single ended stick! When the atheist makes a claim - any claim - he is bound with the burden of proof in just the same way as it is contingent upon the theist to adduce proof. In your case, you're making a fallacy of the kind that is a reductio ad absurdum because you don't understand the nature of what you want to argue, and so deny any responsibility of a burden of proof! How convenient.

Yet, on my part as a theist, I am well prepared to adduce proof for the existence of a supernatural God where particularities are NOT reducible to physicalist probables. To this end, I remind you again of my perspectives -
         1.   I have defined my terms
         2.   I understand the nature of my subject
         3.   I have articulated the manner in which I hope to approach my subject
         4.   I have also earmarked its parameters (supernatural and not physcalist)
         5.   I also pointed particularly to what it entails in its philosophical underpinnings.
You may wish to follow the same and oblige me an outline of yours - or please go tend to something else. Whatever you decide on, please by all means, don't try to bother me with appeals to simplistic distractions of vague and meaningless fallacies

.

[/list]

The above summarises my approach and demonstrates how and why I would choose that approach. I did not simply tell you that it would be 'philosophical'; rather, I outlined how it would be discussed philosophically and why that is to be so.

Your mentioning "scientific method" says nothing at all about how or why you would be adopting that approach for a metaphysical subject. Even if for the sake of argument I was open to that simplistic idea, my pertinent remark to you about that was:
           _______________________________________

            You tell me what type of science you want to use to talk about spiritual things
            and then I will lead you in that study to discover the supernatural.
           _______________________________________

To all these you have forever evaded this request, never discussed anything or demonstrated how 'science' is used to adjudicate over the spiritual and the supernatural. Not even informed scientists try to make statements about the "scientific method" being used for such subjects - they know why; and the only person who hasn't got it yet is you. The problem probably is that you don't have a clue about the nature of the subject you want to discuss, and that is why you can't show anything concrete.

Just this once, I would ask you again:
[list]

You may wish to follow the same and oblige me an outline of yours

[/list]

. . . then show me why my approach is unsuitable in terms of the nature of the subject (spiritual and supernatural); and then demonstrate how you want to use any particular "science" for such a subject (spiritual and supernatural). I have shown my willingness to discuss this subject, and have demonstrated both how and why I would be discussing it on philosophical premises than anything else.

If you cannot oblige me a similar outline and cannot demonstrate any reason to show how and why in your case, I would take it that you wish to be soundly and roundly ignored henceforth.

bawomolo:
how did he convert to deism if he refused every contradictory views? your statement is a sweeping generalization.

You're absolutely correct that my initial statement was a sweeping generalization, and it ought not to have been stated that way. It appears to me rather that many atheists who are committed to their atheism as a worldview are not actually interested in discussions that might evidence what contradicts their physicalist and materialistic worldview, no matter how simple the discussion would be.

Deep Sight:
@ Viaro - Russell's Teapot is not a strawman. The Burden of proof rests with the Theist.

DeepSight, Russell's teapot is a strawman - that is why you will not find any atheist making any concrete discussions on that premise. Don't be easily gooned by simplistic arguments.

thehomer:
A simple yes, no or maybe would suffice. To the direct question. Or do you not understand the concept of direct questions?

I will not repeat myself on that.

I cannot show the difference between a defined word and a phrase you've come up with and refused to define. If they are similar, then use the one that has been clearly defined.

Why can't you show the difference - and then you complained earlier I was equating them? Please show me the difference between them that warranted your initial complaint, thanks.

Since you know what the scientific method is about, here is an illustration. Please don't miss the point like you keep doing.

That's fine, no worries.

An amuptee healed by this "supernatural" God of yours should have his limb grow back. This can easily be demonstrated by direct vision or x-rays. No need for running into spiritual philosophical babble.

That okay. Is the case of an amputee the only point of your metaphysical approach? I have witnessed incidents of people being healed instantly of serious ailments - would an x-ray also do in such cases? I'm not being mischievous here, and that is not an anedoctal claim. But the point I'm trying to make here is that one case does not fit all sizes; and that one instance does not cover the existence of the supernatural, does it?

I already told you it would rely on the scientific method.

Please demonstrate - how? I have not only told you about my approach, but I also outlined them. Please do the same, if you can, thanks.

Here comes the philosopher that does not understand the concept of negation.
Here's an example. To expand it since you seem so slow.

I'm not slow - I just wanted you to stop being a goon.

Proposition A: God exists.
Proposition B: God does not exist.

If proposition A is true, proposition B is false. Actually proposition B can be stated as not A.

That's not necessarily true, and you're further confirming you're a dunce. Take my advice and go read up on proof on proposition logic (or syntactic proof). In epistemic logic and metaphysics, the 'proof'  of (A) does not necessarily falsify (B). This is why one has to be careful to consider the probables that each proposition entails.

For example, if there were two propositions:

 (A) spirits exist
 (B) spirits do not exist

. . . whatever arguments are adduced for the 'proof' of (A) do not necessarily falsify (B) because of two things:

   ~  arguments are just that: arguments, and they cannot be 'absolute' for (A) or (B)
   ~  in questions about realities, (A) and (B) are subjective in their particulars

The fact that I may 'prove' (A) by an argument does not necessarily falsify (B) because the terms of the arguments are not absolutes in the real world, and they are particularly subjective.

If A were true, it does not mean that C is true or false.

Thank God you know that - so how is that any different from what I had stated earlier? You're just a funny fellow.

I hope it's clearer now O wise philosopher. /sarcasm (So you do not miss it).

Lol, please stop your boohoos. . your sarcasm was so ineffectual. You're just spun round and round and came back to the same point I said, and you wanted to teach me the nature of a negative? Are you so far lost in your own world or what?

Mmhmm after claiming it as an acknowledgement of your prowess.

Please stop feeling initimidated - next time grow up.

Like I said before "The scientific method". You claim you already know what it is so let's have your evidence.

Like I said in my reply to Chris, you're seeking a physicalist assumption; and even at that, you have made no outline of your approach. Are you too challenged to understand simple issues?

@karo94,

viaro:
Now, could you also look again into the request that others have left you? Look into those other verses you have ignored - they may show you affirmations of Christ's deity in the Bible. If you don't know, ask: I'm sure that a few posters here will supply you with some verses.

You remember when I addressed the above^^ to you in my reply? Now I think you have enough to sift through and enjoy dealing with them:

(a)[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=403867.msg5593125#msg5593125 date=1267226207]Rubbish, we are asked to defend our faith.

@ Poster.

[size=14pt]I. Old and New Testament Parallels of God the Father and God the Son[/size][/quote](b)[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=403867.msg5593143#msg5593143 date=1267226422][size=14pt]II. Jesus Christ's Witnesses Claim that Jesus is God[/size][/quote](c)
[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=403867.msg5593143#msg5593143 date=1267226422][size=14pt]II. Jesus Christ's Witnesses Claim that Jesus is God[/size][/quote]^^ and so on and so on. .!!

Chrisbenogor:
I read your outline again and I am still confused, are you saying you can give evidence on the supernatural and not the physical,

But Chris, did I say that at all? I said plainly that my subject is a supernatural one; and as such, I would be approaching that discussion in terms that are not reducible to physicalist probables.

What do I mean by that? Simple: you cannot expect me to reduce everything I have to say on this subject to fit into the worldview of the Physicalist. Please allow me to make a small excerpt on 'physicalist' ~

[list]"Physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things."[/list]

When thehomer was evading that point, I tried to explain what it entails for me by pointing out repeatedly the fact that I'm not a physicalist; and my approach be such where the fundementals or particularities are NOT "reducible to physicalist probables".

It is in the same manner that I reminded mazaje about the discussion I had with toneyb and what indeed philosophers of reality involve in their discources. There is a structured approach to these discussions - and viaro would not like to violate that structured approach. Just a quote from that discussion in my reply to toneyb ~

[list]Any genuine quest for "reality" requires a holistic approach rather than a reductionist one! Let me give you an example particularly in the area of the philosophy of mind with respect to another type of dualist philosophy:
[list]Predicate dualism is the theory that psychological or mentalistic predicates are (a) essential for a full description of the world and (b) are not reducible to physicalistic predicates.[/list][/list]

So Chris, I do hope that my point is clear now? Cheers.

mazaje:
Bam bam. . . How body?. . . .

I'm good, thanks.

I like some others here do not accept philosophical disscussions that lead no where because as toneyb pointed out, Philosopy is nothing other than opinions and counter opinions that says nothing much. Since you believe in the god of the bible then you should be able to provide some evidence that he exist beside some philosopical rigmarole that provides no evidence but arguments and conter arguments.

I appreciate toneyb's concerns about philosophy, but that is not what it is all about. I also appreciate your concerns in the same vein, and I don't agree with you. This is perhaps why it seems to me that anytime I have had to make reference to the approach to I seek in discussing this issue, you guys have altogether woosh it away. Following that tendency, I requested that even if philosophy may not be to the atheist's flavour, then let's leave it open - which is that, the atheist should please tell me what type of science he wishes to employ in discussing the supernatural. And the result? Again we have seen responses that do not address that request.

You see, mazaje, the only reason I would be making the effort to outline my approach is because I understand that is how issues about realities are presented. That is evident in the discussions between toneyb and myself, and I again demonstrated why in particular that is so. For matters about realities, one has to know precisely what type of philosophy of reality they are adopting and WHY they choose that particular one (I gave toneyb the example of predicate dualism and pointed out why that would be a more involved approach to the philosophy of reality than the reductionist one that was presented in the vid he posted).

It is because I don't find responses from atheists in this thread showing me anything concrete, that is why I don't take seriously anyone making vague statements for his atheism.

Do you believe that there is a god that is all good, all knowing, all merciful, all powerful who answers prayers for example? If you do then provide evidence to show that such a god exist. When can begin with prayers, Your evidence to show that Christians that pray to their god for protection are better protected than others that do not pray to the christian god for protection is WHAT?

We've been through this before.

What is the context?. . . . .You DO NOT know the context in which the writer wrote it because you are NOT the writer.

Indeed, I am not the author - but that does not mean that I could not understand what he stated. You also cannot argue either ways, because you are not the writer of that verse to claim any understand of what it says.

What ever vairo chooses to make of that passages is vairo's problem not that of the writer.

Same as you. I do not have any problem with that verse, so what is your problem with my understanding it for myself?

I wasn't even alluding to revelation 6: 13 I was talking about the stories about stars of the sky fighting wars with humans as recorded in the book of Judges: Judges 5:20 From the heavens the stars fought, from their courses they fought against Sisera. Another translation puts it like this. . . .(New Living Translation) The stars fought from heaven. The stars in their orbits fought against Sisera .. . . . .Why is it that stars ONLY fight against men in the pages of books?

You are giving it a literalist interpretation - but the whole chapter is simple enough to understand, that Deborah and Barak were using figurative speech in that verse 20 to describing a principle of spiritual warfare. We know from Judges 4:15-16 that the battle was literally fought in a physically geographical place on earth where Barak himself was in that battle; so it is clear that they were not speaking in literal terms in that verse of their song. But, of course, it is up to you to do as pleases you with that verse - does it therefore provide any 'evidence' for your atheism?

On what ridiculous basis did you come to the conclusion that I am frcing myself to write god in the lower case?. . .

Well, look again - you just did, no? Not that it matters; but from the previous quote I'm sure you made an effort to type 'ONLY' in upper case? Don't let it trouble you - ridiculous or not, it is an observation that is now common with many atheists on this forum.

I am really sorry that people are so fearful an irrational about myths that the way people type characters on a key board makes them loose sleep(See, I can presume things about you, too) So, god must be written in upper case before a person is rational and interested in a dailogue? .

Oh dry your tears. . . who is fearful of what you hold about your atheism? Lol, mazaje. . please grow up.

mazaje:
I just don't get it with religious philosophers, They are interested ONLY endless rigmaroles, I just want vairo to provide simeple evidence to show us that the god of the bible exist or at least that some of the claims that christian make are true, For example christians claim that the bible is the word of an all knowing, all god and all powerful god who created the universe and wants people to know about him. If that is true then any god with an interest in being worshiped, or obeyed, or followed, or really, anything other than being ignored, would be able to write or inspire a holy book that all who read it found convincing, clear, perfect in its meaning, and/or undeniably true. If the bible is that book why is it that many christians do not accept or agree on the text? Why do so many christians read and interprete the bible VERY VERY differently?The bible is blatantly erroneous on numerous counts and otherwise plagued with vacuous propositions and prophetic blunders, internal contradictions, historical and scientific errors, historical anachronisms and a god whose actions are ethically questionable. How can the bible be said to be a word of a god when men wrote everything that was written in it based ONLY on their world views, culture and position in human history ?

I expected that even if vairo can not provide evidence to show that that the god of the bible exists, He should at least provide evidence to show that some god "inspired" men to write what is written in the bible since we can all see the bible and the words that it contains but no, vairo will prefer to run around talkking about philosophical rigmaroles that mean NOTHING. . . . . .

I just don't get it with atheist philosophers. They often tend to honk endlessly on strawman arguments and will never produce anything concrete in any metaphysical discussion - nada, zilch, nix. If all I have set out is way out of your grasp, is that my problem? Not that I don't want you guys to understand anything - but waving all these issues about "any god" is not helping your own approach. Why is it that I have to repeatedly ask that you guys lay out your own philosophical approach as I have done earlier - and then you come back with nothing and wonder why you're still dancing on ice?

bawomolo:
does this include the likes of anthony flew? did he refuse to believe anything that contradicted his worldview?

I'm sure he did - for any such evidence he came round to see had been presented to him during his half a century years of atheism, no? Did he immediately believe anything he was shown to contradict his atheism when they were first presented to him?

Chrisbenogor:
Dont worry you will not repeat plenty you hear

No worries.

thehomer:
So do you consider miracles supernatural? I'm asking to be sure since you cannot bring yourself to say it directly.

I have answered that question in many ways than one. Did you miss how many times I said this:

 (a)  "My understanding is simple: I'm dealing with a supernatural subject,
         not a physicalist one - I have made myself as specific and very clear on that!"??

Please, if you are not going to discuss, you can simple say so, and I shall then roundly ignore you for the brainless time-waster you keep showing yourself. I don't see any reason for your filling pages with needless repetitions when the things you're reposting have been answered already!

I've told you that physicalism is clear are you equating it to the phrase "physicalist probables"?

Please show me the difference between them, since you don't want me to equate them.

You're requesting an outline. I already stated that scientific means will be quite adequate. From here, you can see how I intend to approach it. I was also been defining my terms as I went along. With regards to your parameters, define and present your evidence for this supernatural.
With regards to cartoons, I'll watch them as we continue the discussion.

You have discussed nothing. By just mentioning "scientific means", you're again vague. I know what 'scientific means' is; and I requested this of you: "You tell me what type of science you want to use to talk about spiritual things and then I will lead you in that study to discover the supernatural." It is not in my domain to supply you with an outline - that would be irresponsible of you and demonstrate you're a lazy thinker.

Says the fellow ranting about the Russel's teapot analogy that was given to him by me.

Please dry your tears - Russell's teapot is a strawman fallacy, live with it.

Come on read your post and see what you were saying there.

I see you are too challenged to understand anything, no? What is hard to understand in my post?

Then adduce the proof the suspense is killing me.  

Oh kill yourself already. . . it will be your own funeral, not mine.

I've read your post but you're yet to give the proof or evidence. You've defined evidence now present it.

I'm waiting for you to oblige my request about outlining how you intend to discuss the subject.

Oh oh he's about to go off in another tangent about other Gods. The point there is that proving your "supernatural" God should be good enough so that others can distinguish him from other Gods.

I don't think others are confused about what I have said - I did not argue to prove anybody's other Gods or deities, not even your strawman of Russell's teapot.

Aah you misunderstood what I said.

Then explain, please.

If you were able to prove that there is a God, that falsifies the first statement. You're not proving it for the atheist.
If you do demonstrate the God is the Christian one then that automatically falsifies the next.
For someone claiming to be smart it's a shame that you couldn't see this.
I thought it was clear that the burden of proof rested more on the one claiming the God existed.

You're a dunce! A confirmed one!    This is why you have been ducking a[color=Black]nd pus[/color]syfooting all along and not saying anything concrete about how you intend to discuss the subject!

In philosophy, proof of one subject does not falsify the next in a line of series. Whereever you got that from would be quite magical to see - or just crawl back to your hole. Let me recommend a cure for your ailment: go and read up a bit about proof on proposition logic (or syntactic proof). To claim that proof of one would falsify the next is roguish! The theist is not responsible to "prove" the atheistic claim, nor does the "proof" of the theist falsify the claim of the atheist! This is why you ought to school up on metaphysics and epistemic logic! Just don't bandy that idiocy beyond this thread or you make yourself the champion of ideological idi[color=Black]ots fo[/color]r the first half of this year!

"Not even wrong" is a phrase which characterizes what you're doing at least until you can present your evidence.

Which quite simply does not apply to me. I'm familar with such talk, another being: what thehomer is saying does not even rise to the level of no-sense (meaning: all you've been saying is absolute nonsense until you oblige the basic principles of concrete logic in your repetitive evasions).

From the man yet to provide his evidence. Did you mean the insult literally?  

Nope, but you're wasting my time with your brainless evasions and acting like someone who's deliberately being mischievous. What have you been wasting time about on a simple request that you oblige me an outline of your own philosophical premise? If you want to keep bandying the empty noise you've been making, I have said before that you please let me know so i could roundly ignore you.

Lots of intelligent and notable people have given explanations, evidence etc of complex mechanisms that I understood come on you claim to be smart go ahead and present your evidence without interruption. You can even start another thread presenting this evidence.

I don't intend to plagiarise anyone's ideas - not even about complex mechanisms. I have set out how I intend to approach my discussion, and I have waited for you to set yours out logically as well. Just mentioning "scientific method" is meaningless until you demonstrate that you have a fine head on your shoulders to discuss intelligently rather than waste time spinning on the same spot.

Chrisbenogor:
Viaro lol you wan kill me with laugh here, see me see wahala. Oya can we start afresh?

^^
Hahaha. . . where do you want to start from? You want me to go back again after all what I posted? I don't think I'm a gramophone!! Sorry oya!