₦airaland Forum

afiq:
Satan(false preachers) at work via '1st fruit and tithe' projects.

Please let's try and read with a bit of understanding. Pastor Tunde Bakare (from the OP) was not against firstfruit offering or tithes. No - not at all. He was against those who have made either of them compulsory - and I am also against the compulsory form of anything. Tunde Bakare himself gives tithes, and it does not make sense that he would be condemning what he himself practices.

Whatever it is, do not make it compulsory (even "freewill" offerings these days seem to be forced in some subtle ways upon people).

mazaje:
What is the supernatural and hw can it be objectively observed?

I defined it here. I'm sorry I don't wish to repeat myself unnecessarily.

Atheism is NOT science. Atheism is the lack of belief of the gods that theist claim exist.

Please keep focus - I don't remember saying or even trying to say anywhere that Atheism is science. I could as well note that theism is NOT science - thanks for shoutng it. But there again, I do not take your simplistic idea of what atheism is or is not. We have been through this before, and I noted that your own atheism is yours, it is not the atheism of anyone else. So, while I can appreciate your own atheism as best suited to you and you alone, it does not have any reference to the atheism of most many other atheists, sorry.

Atheism is not science.

Did I say it is science? What are you on about?

thehomer:
So you see mazaje he simply refuses to give his evidence to the world because we would not understand.

Did I say that you or anybody would not understand? Where did I say so? Please quote me.

Why does he believe what it says in Revelation 6:13?

He then wants someone to debate with him the existence of another mythical concept. From someone accusing me of trying to make him prove what he does not believe.

I'm not forcing you to prove what I believe in, nor did I try to make you prove what you do not believe in. If you don't mind keeping your atheistic lies to yourself, thanks.

karo93:
@viaro
please read through my post and you will see my defense of john 10:30 how many times do you want me to say this

I have no problem with any defence you want to make for any verse - whatever defence you may make for John 10:30, it does not 'disprove' the Deity nor does that verse say that Jesus is not God. So, that verse is not a big issue here for me.

What i mean by great is not the significance of the point in life but in the argument

Actually, I would lik to say again as elsewhere: viaro is not driven by arguments about the Trinity, as not many people understand what the Bible teaches about that subject. On my part, I have noted that even the best metaphysical language and scholarship cannot adequately capture the Trinity in words; but that does not mean it is not a Biblical teaching.

In matters like this, even the Bible teaches us to be careful and not push our arrogance to the fore. Nobody is able to decode the mystery of God Himself in every particular detail, then is it the Deity of Christ or the Trinity that they can adequately handle? " Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?" (Job 11:7). Please bro, we should be willing to acknowledge that our understanding is limited and there are mysteries that we cannot adequately grasp.

Trinity is the union of God the father,the son and the holy spirit as ONE and that is what my whole point is against so i dont know why you are bringing tritheism into this.I didn't say they were gods,ONLY God is.

Please look again at my definition of Tritheism. I did not argue against the definition you highlighted for Trinity - so long as it is a union in the ONE Godhead, that is sufficient for me. I just don't want us to get confused on this issue, so your claiming that the word 'Tritheism' did not exist was not correct.

Now, could you also look again into the request that others have left you? Look into those others 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.

Cheers.

norri:
Science does not have the answer to all questions.

Thank you. I am waiting for the atheist to tell me what type of science they want to use to answer questions about the supernatural. Any atheist could just shout "science" when they have no clue what they're talking about.

Just one last question, can science answer the question "what is the purpose of life?"

That's another one that "science" does not answer as it is one about value system. I am waiting for the atheist to show me a "scientific" answer for the purpose of anything.

@thehomer,

More like attempting to shift the parameters.

That's simply saying you're too challenged and find this subject too much for you.

And I'm pointing out to you that it touches on some basic scientific facts before you run into your philosophical underpinnings.

Again I have to say: "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." If you don't know the nature of what you're asking, stop[ crying - go and ask your atheists profs why they are too scared of philosophy, and dry your tears.

Like I asked before what are the vague premises I am cycling round on? I'm asking for your evidence if you feel you have to run into metaphysics to provide it, please go ahead. But be sure to keep at the back of your mind the scientific claims it makes.

I have said this before:[list]

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]
Now where is your own outline? WHY are you running round in circles and never able to oblige anything? Dude, this is not going to be something that you're familiar with, because if you think viaro is one of 'em people you can just wave strawman arguments for and dribble, you don't have a clue what's in store for you. If you have anything concrete to present, please do so - we take it in steps. But if you don't have anything and still shirking responsibility, please go and find a TV cartoon to watch or do something else.

thehomer:
Oh my he knows how to use analogies.

Haha. . you don't, and I can sympathise.

Coming from someone trying to argue an analogy. Which is what you have asserted without showing evidence making you what? Here's a clue both words start with an "i".
Now you are a bit clearer. I guess I should have said the burden of proof rests more with the theist. There you go you now have the floor.

Dude, please go back to school - you're acting like a stray lost school kid. What two words start with an 'i'? Are you drunk or something?

So what is the nature of this God of yours?

Oh goodness! Did you ever read my reply or you were chased out of a bar?? Did you not read my reply where I mentioned these -

(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!"??

(b) "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."

Look, thehomer, there's something that I don't entertain from my discussants: and that is the tendency to be either duplicitous or ignorant - I'd bear with anyone on the latter, as long as there ignorance is sincere. . . but duplicity is not something I entertain. You seem to be acting strange in pretending not to have seen my answers to these same issues you're recycling ad infinitum, and that is beginning to show you as dubious, I'm sorry. My discussions are not about winning points or a debate. I believe in sharing knowledge and leaving it off for the other person to consider. But when you go about with nothing concrete on your part and just repeating hollow lines which have been dealt with, I don't take you seriously. If you're not going to discuss, please let me know so I can roundly ignore you once and for all.

thehomer:
I'm pleased you are amused. Does it not follow logically? I mean there are so many Gods that I would like to know how you know that the one you prove is the same as the one in the Bible and not the Koran, not Zeus, not Thor.

That's another amusing atheistic no-brainer. Is this thread or our discussion about proving the existence of all deities in all worldviews - or rather my convictions for my own case? I see all these shallow statement of yours as excuses that are yet not concrete where you just want to amuse yourself: you're not seeking a responsible, rational dialogue. Please oblige me my request (if you may) and demonstrate that you understand the nature of what you want to discuss, in just the same way as I have done. Failing to do so is one reason why I should not take you any seriously.

Where did I ask you to prove a negative claim? This comes from someone trying to argue an analogy. You are quite a confused person who is not even wrong.

hahahah. . . I could not be wrong, thank you for that acknowledgement. But your confusion remains your own and i have no share in that! If you want to again flash your duplicity, there are other ways to do so instead of this miserly pretence of yours. Are you not the same person who said this -

If an atheist is making any claim, it would be a negative claim e.g.
1. There is no God.
If you do show evidence that there is a God, you then need to prove the second statement which the atheist would indicate as this.
2. The Christian holy book is not the word of this claimed God.
Then the third statement etc.

Please tell me: where in philosophy is a theist required to prove any negative statement of an ATHEIST? Please show me - it's either you're a dunce, or a fellow struggling with his deceit. Either way, choose any that would light up your CV.

He says all this without providing any evidence even on his own terms. Oh my you make me laugh.

I'm waiting for you, as I already outlined the basis of my willingness to discuss with you -as long as you fulfill just one request I left you, highlighted in red below ~
[list]

viaro: 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.
[size=14pt]You may wish to follow the same and oblige me an outline of yours[/size] - 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]

If you cannot oblige me, please run along and do something else. You're just a brainless time-waster.

manmustwac:
@all the theists
The topic title says ''Could You Give Me One Piece Of Significant Evidence Of A God?" so all the thiests who partake in this topic should've come with thier evidence to prove gods existance.

Are you blind as to not see the atheists who cannot follow a simple discussion? Please pack yourself one corner instead of screaming in red.

@thehomer,

Aah but you did not define supernatural in any meaningful way. You're still saying "physicalist probables". You have not indicated what that phrase means.

Do you understand the difference between "Physicalism" and "Supernatural"? If you are not satisfied with how I explained them, then give me your own explanation. Whatever you do, please by all means be as logical as I offered you here.

You have not defined physicalist probables and supernatural in any meaningful way to begin with. I mean how can one tell that something is a "physicalist probable"?

As an atheist, it is a shame that you are making out that you have not heard the term "Physicalism" before, no? Or are you deliberately being mischievous? If you did not know before now, is it too much for you to first go and find out before coming with an empty yap complaining you don't know what I mean? You atheists just amaze me with how hollow you can sound sometimes.

Do you really?

I perfectly do. Have you demonstrated any inkling of this subject? Please don't lie - if you have, you would not be coming back making silly remarks. Let me know when you have schooled yourself up a bit to grasp what you want to discuss.

This is all you have done. Showing that you wish to run into metaphysics where you can give more words like "physicalist probables" without defining terms and clarifying issues.

I do not wish to "run" into metaphysics. Even informed atheists know that discussions on worldviews like this are predicated on the philosophy of metaphysics, because the fundamentals involved are pointing to an understanding of types of realities. If you're complaining here about metaphysics, I can sympathise with you and understand why you have been scuttling round in circles with strawman fallacies. . . which is not surprising, because I already noted that an atheist never settles down to make any concrete point and has to wave reductio ad absurdum in our face as his first-aid.

Okay, thehomer, now that you seem to be done, let me answer you quickly.

thehomer:
Since you feel it necessitates discussion about a specific worldview, please go ahead and discuss it. I'm trying to limit it because it would simply be cumbersome in this discussion of one of the concepts in the worldview.

I said before: "I have had to repeat myself on this point about what exactly is the type of evidence you're seeking, so that I understand if you appreciate the subject you're dealing with."

You are now attempting to make sense without telling me what you would consider evidence.

I already explained it - in detail.

I already told you that if your concept of God tallies with that of the Christian faith, he should still be leaving some evidence of his existence which can be detected scientifically. Does it not follow that I'm speaking of scientific evidence?

I already said: "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."

Before you start babbling about "physicalist probables" or other such events, here is an example. Occurrence of events like resurrections, medical miracles, animals speaking etc are physical occurrences which can be tested where do you think such claims fall?

What type of "science" do you use to test a miracle? You just come here blab like a no-brainer, and when you can't handle what you force yourself to state, then you assume that I was blabbing because the term "physicalist probables" is too much for you to handle? Please.

Chrisbenogor:
Dont mind viaro jo this is just basically jumping up and down and running in crazy circles. The theist is the one who makes the claim, the atheist does not believe it case closed!

I was not running in circles. I was waiting for him to fool himself to the zenith. You cannot pretend I have not laid out my simple approach and the requested that he do the same - did he? You guys make me laugh at your hollow back-patting.

^^ hehehe. . . he's more concerned with the "core" of deism - so any 'resemblance' is quite sufficient for him.

@mazaje, howdy?

mazaje:
Vairo, Your evidence that there is a god that exists on its own independent of human stories and mythologies that were written about him by men, societal and cultural acceptance of men, man made doctrines about their various gods, is WHAT.

Please mazaje, could you kindly stop trying to impress yourself with that old tune? You're sounding like a broken record and you need to move past that anthem you've been singing on Nairaland. If an atheist does not understand how to follow a discussion logically, he should not force himself to just talk by default. My 'evidence' will be demonstrated as soon as your atheist friends school up and show a bit more maturity in philosophical discussions - and to that end I have laid out the foundation of how I wish to proceed with my discussion, and I do not wish you to distract me with that repeated song.

Do you believe that there is a god that performs magic as described in the bible(Making stars fight against humans or sending manna from the sky).

This is an example of how brainless you can be. I believe what Revelation 6:13 states as long as you don't snatch it from its context.

If you do then your evidence for this beside the myths that men chose to write is WHAT?

Again, another broken record. When you find a fresh song, please let me know.

Do you believe that God inspired men to write the bible?

I do. Forcing yourself to write 'God' in lower case is not showing you as a rational person interested in dialogue, or I wonder what it takes to do the simple sane things. Not that I care any which way - it rather makes me feel sorry for folks who are quite too disturbed about these matters that they just have to keep forcing themselves to such things.

Your evidence that some God inspired men to write the bible beside their claims is what?

Another broken record. . . like above.

If I say that Allah created the universe your evidence to show that Allah did not create the universe is what?

If as an atheist you are making a concrete claim for Allah, please let's have a discussion - I am very, very interested and will stand you any day on that one!! But if you are only making that claim and skipping the responsibility of the burden of proof for that claim as yours, there are only two things to conclude: (a) an atheist only makes a claim that he does not wish to stand for; or (b) the atheist who makes such a claim that he does not want to sustain is a liar.

If you do not wish to argue for Allah, leave it to the one who believes in such a deity to stand for his own worldview - I don't have any problem with such people, since it is not my worldview. I have said that I do not intend to waste my time with atheistic arguments that are not concrete for themselves - most often, the atheist who does not understand what he wants to discuss would resort to the fallacy of a strawman argument and any number of reductio ad absurdum. That is not something that would be of any interest to either of us, mazaje. Please look again at what I posted in my reply to thehomer and understand what I've been saying. Cheers.

Joagbaje:
You used to act honest before but you seem to have joined these manipulating group. I didnt say I am christ to the church. Or who do you refer to as us ?.

It is on record that you claimed to be WHATEVER CHRIST IS. When a WOF proponent is caught red handed making such claims and then challenged, he/she typically tries to deny making such claims, and then twist the whole thing round - just like this one you affirmed again:

Joagbaje:
If I carry bomb, I am a bomb, If I carry christ I am christ.

You're NOT Christ (it doesn't matter whether you spell it with big 'C' or small 'c') - your claim to be christ is rapidly being fulfilled, just as the Lord Jesus Christ warned believers of people like you:

"And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. " (Matthew 24:4-5).

@Joagbaje, this again was what you said:

Joagbaje:
If I carry bomb, I am a bomb, If I carry christ I am christ.

. . . and our Lord Jesus Christ warned us against people like you who go about to deceive many:

For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. " (Matthew 24:4-5).

If anything at all, viaro will not be deceived by you, Joagbaje.

toba:
Viaro&many other theist have been able to prove d existence of God to atheists,yet they never agreed.

Well, I don't think I have yet "proven" the existence of God - not as yet. What I have done so far is lay the foundation of how I intended to adduce any 'proof' for God's existence. I was repeating that point over and over again, but it seemed thehoner didn't quite get it.

A lot of unnecessary arguments emerge where people do not understand the nature of what is being discussed. If someone assumes that everything in all realities must be reduced to physicalism, they should be willing to also tell us why that must be so, and whether they have conducted any and all studies to show that only physicalistic probables exist in all realities of the cosmos. That was where I was planning to bring thehomer to; but he has been scuttling round on trivial matters. He doesn't seem to appreciate the fact that any tendency to reduce all indices in reality to just materialistic and physicalist probables is immature and will not yield any fruit in these kinds of discussions.

Maybe there's a chance he might come round to these points - and I would be glad to discuss further and show him the evidence for the supernatural that his naturalism cannot refute or explain or excuse away.

@DeepSight,

You should heed my advice - this Board needs to rest from our noise pollution. You're not making any sense, and you should not push your luck. I just want to clear something up for you (if there's anything I detest, it is someone misrepresenting people by misquoting them - and that's what I see here).

Deep Sight:
I fetched this quote from another thread - Viaro in another thread is happy to admit what the core claim of Theism is!

[quote author=viaro link=topic=402069.msg5591090#msg5591090 date=1267202032]@thehomer,

I already told you that it is not the peripherals that we're looking at, but the worldview itself. Atheism is a worldview with a core claim: there is NO God. Theism is a worldview with a claim: God exists.

Now this hammers home my point in absolute terms.

You have been exposed, Viaro for you explicitly stated:Theism is a worldview with a claim: God exists.

So why have you been trying to draw lines between Deism and Theism? What is the core claim of Deism if not that God exists?[/quote]Please look again and don't put words in my mouth: I was careful in my reply to thehomer in the other thread, as you quoted above showing two things:

     _  Atheism is a worldview with a core claim: there is NO God

     _  Theism is a worldview with a claim: God exists.

Notice that in that particular reply which you quoted, I did not claim that theism is a worldview with a CORE claim that God exists. That is to say, in that reply I did not place "God exists" as the core claim of theism. Central to the theistic worldview is not the issue of whether or not 'God exists' - for any number of belief systems makes that claim as well without necessarily implying theism.

Please next time, smash your head against a wall for all I care - but whatever you do, don't try to misrepresent me in my quotes. I would be grateful if you played the gentleman and not suffer yourself any further to be at the receiving end of my whip.

After this can you continue to claim that Deism "is not even a shadow" of Theism? ? ?

Yes - if you are thirsty again for my expatiation, let me know: and then be willing to discussing the epistemic logic of your deism and let's see what remains of it by the time we've gone just a quarter of the way.

Now this quote has made it clear who has been arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Isn't it obvious it's you? Must you push yourself to misrepresent your discussants' quotes?

I wonder how you get away with this and nuclearboy will crucify me for lesser crimes?

Please leave my e-jailor out of this! I might apply again to tear you up and leave you more miserable than previously. He sees what he sees, and I'm content with that. Cheers.

Deep Sight:
Viaro/ Inesqor/ Krayola –

I am not impressed by the view you set up regarding a “resemblance” between Diesm and Theism – and you both mischievously proceed to claim that “any resemblance” seems enough for me to hang on to.

DeepSight pal, I'm still giggling without any undertones of mischief. I'd rather leave you for now to carry on and enjoy yourself in your thread. Even though I could smart you up for your inconsistencies, I'd rather that friends should not be known only for screeches here and there - there are times when the neighbourhood should enjoy a reprieve from our noise pollution, dig?

So pal, nothing for now - just enjoy (my e-jailor is in town!).

^^ There's a section for Muslims (Islam for Muslims).

^^ @Odunnu, you can't imagine how many times several people have warned me with precisely those words. _{proverbs 26:4} I just don't know why my stubbornness will not let me heed that admonition. Thanks again, and I just pray to endure and let it rest there.

Joagbaje:
@ Viaro

Stop being petty ,look at the big picture.
The fact remains that he has made me a god in my world.That doesnt reduce him. If you go on like this , there will be room for you to question the deity of Jesus. If there is one God , How come Jesus claim to be another God?.

Please stop fooling yourself and trying to impress yourself on your own delusions. There's no big picture to look at in your WOF duplicity - face those simple Scriptures and stop falling under your own fake anointing.

There's not a time I have questioned the Deity of Jesus; and not a single verse in the Bible teaches that He ever claimed to be "another God". People who speak like you, is the reason why the apostle Paul warned Christians to be careful of your type: because you're going around preaching "another Jesus" (2 Corinthians 11:3-4, 14 & 15).

@thehomer,

I am not making any claim. The topic asks for theists to provide evidence for their claims like the ones I listed above. If an atheist is making any claim, it would be a negative claim e.g.
1. There is no [/b]God.
If you do show evidence that there is a God, [b]you then need to prove the second statement which the atheist would indicate as this.
2. The Christian holy book is not [/b]the word of this claimed God.
[b]Then the third statement etc.

This is a joke. If I proceed to provide evidence for the claim that there is a God, you're saying that, that will not do - but I then have to sit up all day for your circus of "proving" another atheistic claim, and then argue that the Bible is not the Word of the same God that I have proven to exist! Not content with that, you the atheist would require that I have to sit like a duck to yet "prove" a third atheistic negative claim. . . and then another atheistic claim. . . and yet another atheistic negative claim - to an infinite number of atheistic absurdities of negative claims, not so?

Please wake up! Are you out of your mind?? Where in philosophy is any theist required to "prove" the negative claims that any atheist makes? Your argument above is the most idiotic postulation I ever came across on the internet! So, you an atheist makes a negative claim and require me the theist to be saddled with the responsibility of "proving" your own atheistic negative claims? Is everything alright with you at all?

What you have just done is reveal to me that you're not interested in discussing anything or finding any pointers to the existence of God or the supernatural. This is a waste of your time - and mine. I have earlier somewhere noted to toneyb that most atheists are committed to atheism and there's no "evidence" of any kind that will convince them to change their minds - they are NOT seeking to be convinced by any means, and YOU have just confirmed that assertion! Dude, please call on me again when you can sort yourself out to discuss maturely.

@thehomer,

thehomer:
I am not making any claim. The topic asks for theists to provide evidence for their claims like the ones I listed above. If an atheist is making any claim, it would be a negative claim e.g

WHY would the claim of the atheist be negative and still be called a "claim"? Why does the atheist who makes any negative claim assume that he is free from any responsibility of the burden of proof? You really are making me believe you have no clue at all what you're talking about! That was why I referred you to those links about burden of proof. The only possible case where someone is not required to be responsible for any proof is an agnostic position, which was well illustrated under considerations of the examples of a burden of proof:

            (a)  Elvis is alive:                          [  *********************** ]

            (b)  I don't know if Elvis is alive:  [            ]

            (c)   Elvis is not alive:                   [ ******** ]

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.

@thehomer,

thehomer:
The topic is about presenting evidence for a God. You try to expand it to an issue about worldviews. The God concept is a subset of the Christian worldview. The topic is quite specific about that.

This topic necessitates a discussion about a specific worldview - theism. If you can't get that, you can't get anything. I already told you that it is not the peripherals that we're looking at, but the worldview itself. Atheism is a worldview with a core claim: there is NO God. Theism is a worldview with a claim: God exists. How each person determines to approach that subject at the core of this discussion is where I wait for you to demonstrate. Until you let me know how you determine to pursue this discussion, you'd be marking time ion the same spot.

The short list I gave are some of the claims made by people with Christian worldviews. Do you agree with any or all of them?

Do I repeat myself or you here to play games?

Evidence from wiktionary
# Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion.

Facts from wiktionary
Information about a particular subject.

Then please give your definition of evidence so that we can be clear on what you mean.

Please don't amuse me. If I wanted just a definition of evidence, I would not be asking you - there are loads of dictionaries where I could fetch any one of the lot, and your attempt to define evidence is giving me the idea you're not carefully reading my replies. Let me help you:

1. There are a number of definitions that are available:

    ~  'Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to
         determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion' (Wikipedia)

    ~  evidence could also be 'your basis for belief or disbelief;
         knowledge on which to base belief' (Concise English Dictionary).

2.  It is not the definitions that is most essential, but rather the approach you seek when asking for any type of 'evidence' (whether it is philosophical evidence, legal evidence, or scientific evidence) and what is involved in the idea of the 'evidence' you'e seeking.

3.  Where you fail to articulate your approach, your talk about 'evidence' is particularly vague and meaningless; because it would not help your discourse in understanding the type of subject you're dealing with.

From these, what you have done is resort to a simplistic attempt of (1) above in only giving me a definition of 'evidence' that says nothing at all, and as such, it is as vague as in your previous rejoinders. I have had to repeat myself on this point about what exactly is the type of evidence you're seeking, so that I understand if you appreciate the subject you're dealing with.

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! You asked me for a definition of 'supernatural', and I also obliged. Therein I also made clear that this subject is not one that is predicated on 'physicalism' where fundamentals involved are reduced to "physicalist probables".

All these things are clearly demonstrating to you that _

         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.

In all these, you're not moving forward but merely cycling round on vague premises. If you cannot understand what you're asking for, what is the guarantee that you would understand a dot of the answers i would give you?

InesQor:
By the way, what do you think about post #32, Derrida's deconstruction process in terms of good and evil?

For me, that was profound. I've looked at it several times and found some great points that I'd like to expound on sometime later _{(as long as my commander does not mind me stealing again!)}

Deep Sight:
Nuclear my Oga! ! !

You don finish me oooo! ! !

This cracked me up sooo hard, i had tears rolling down my cheeks as i laughed -

Am i really that horrible? ? ?

Hehehe. . DeepSight pal, na - you're not horrible! Let's laugh some of these things off and still maintain our humanity.

nuclearboy:
@InesQor:

Don't worry. That was actually a compliment if you know the mental spread of those being compared to you. Viaro particularly routinely sounds like he grabbed the thoughts out of the best minds on NL (how do you always steal only the best thoughts and never the wrong ones) and only people I wouldn't say could be him atimes are myself and DeepSight. Me cos I'm not a good mind but seem to sense most of these things whist he has all the technical precise knowledge and relevant links.

!! somebody save me from this commander before he e-jails me again. not only did I get a ticket for 'carbonated drinks', now that he's found me out precisely stealing ideas from others, my punishment will be greater than I can bear (Gen. 4:13). oooh help, somebody. . anybody (except that lawyer DeepSight) will do - just help me everybody

@commander nuclearboy, Hehehe. . .
Allow me explain, your honour. I have a certain undefined phobia - it does not let me come to grips with mundane reading, and perhaps that explains why it seems I happen to chance upon some of the best brains on Nairaland. I tried yours too, believe me (but those bodyguards were horrible to me - please help me warn them). At the end of the day, I'm all flavoured with the ideas I stole from others. If I try to be myself, your court will complain that dictionaries are not available for what I'm trying to say! In the meantime, I'm behaving, your honour. . . trust me, I am really behaving (em. . excepting that DeepSight and myself have been thinking a bit more deeply of late).

InesQor:
Viaro and Deep Sight are at it again. By my observation, the usual bone of contention is that viaro's viewpoints are absolute and distinctive, while for Deep Sight any un-ignorable nagging aspect throws enough validity on its own claims of relevance. Viaro will not accept the claims of orphan ideas, i.e. not absolutely defined in the parent-idea's terms, but it's like an adequate resemblance of features is enough for Deep Sight. And so, IMHO, the "wars" continue.

Krayola, thanks for that chart above! I guess it portrays more details on what I was trying to say. I was really at a loss on how to reply Deep Sight.

You captured it beautifully. When I said in my reply to Traugott that I absolutely reject the idea that "an adequate resemblance of features is enough", I don't mean that I was rejecting what you had stated; rather, I reject DeepSight's ideology that such 'resemblance' was sufficient for his argument.

On the whole, you gave it a good cap - and Krayola's diagram was also invaluable. Thanks to you both.

@Traugott,

Traugott:
@VIARO: My guy, wetin dey happen?

In defence of Deep Sight, he has truly claimed to be a theist in the past, when communicating with mazaje.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-370932.0.html#msg5183906

But he also claimed to be a Deist when discussing with Pastor AIO et al
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-335826.160.html#msg5043194

So at least I can say he is probably not guilty of deliberate mis-representation. He is only saying things exactly as he sees them.

>viaro grumbles< Oooohhhhh nooo!! You should have left DeepSight to answer that question himself! Now you've put me in a tight corner!

Hehehe . . . I was planning to skin this lawyer bro once and for all, and then wrap him up in his pyjamas! Actually, it was a trick-question. . a trap I wanted him to bury himself with! It appears InesQor was prophetic and saw my intention a mile off, and so summarised where I was going.

Indeed, I registered sometime in October of last year; and the links you offered of DeepSight's posts were in December - I saw them; but all through that time I'd been indicating that the time would come when I would examine DeepSight's deism (meaning, those threads were part of what I was saving up for him). Well, the dashed me into the open, so I would give a little as well.

DeepSight may be a seeker, and I have no problem with that. His fundamentalism many times beclouds his judgement, and that causes him a whole lot of problems especially where Christian beliefs are discussed. Reason why I was pushing him to show me where he might've claimed to be a theist was that it would help me bring him round to see why he was just being mischievous with such a claim. As InesQor noted, "an adequate resemblance of features is enough for Deep Sight", and indeed I absolutely reject that - because if we're not clear here, then we would have to include Shamanism in the same coterie and be satisfied to say that DeepSight's deism also "resembles" shamanism (and I could then call him a shaman).

This dude DeepSight does not know the implication of what he's been arguing - 'resemblance' may well suit him, but his deism is a rogue religion (claiming to be a "theist" at such convenient times when he could scry). I was hoping to skin him on his epistemic logic and show him that his deism is nothing more than a rogue of hylotheism.

Ohhh well. . you just unveiled part of what I planned for him - I guess he has more friends and sympathisers than I'd realised. hehehe

BUT, I must say that it appears like Deep Sight is still unsure about many of the things he wants us to think he really believes in. He is still a "seeker", if I may use the term, and I don't see what's wrong with accepting that. It would come across better than portraying mixed worldviews.

What has he been 'seeking'? Seeking more elements to steal from other religions? I don't have a problem with his intentions to seek out as many things as his philosophical religion allows him to steal (not even borrow) points from other religions. What he should be mindful of is that a 'roguing religionist' ought not to expose his fundamentalism. You don't bite the fingers from which you feed - he's been licking fingers all over the place, and his licking is is beginning to turn to something else! Oooohhh . . . I can't laugh enough!

karo93:
@viaro
The TRINITY according to the oxford dictionary is the union of God the father,the son and the holy spirit as ONE and tritheism does not exist so what are you trying to pull??

If Oxford Dictonary is inadequate to show you a definition of tritheism, consult other dictionaries instead of saying such a word does not exist. Check another one like Merriam Webster: 'Tritheism: the doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Gods'.

My great point is against the TRINITY as you see it defined there,

It is not a "great" point. You still have not attended to the request that others have left you, that you should check out those verses that affirm that Jesus is God. Until you do so, your "great point" is of little significance - not even if you come back complaining that such and such words do not exist.

FMK:
we do not exist we are cosmic debris

Do cosmic debris exist? If they do, are you lying against your initial remark that we do not exist?

nuclearboy:
^^^ Laughter ke, my Oga? This time I sadly find myself more scared than amused. To imagine someone saying he is a god, a "begotten" son of God and that He is not divine YET only because he's not yet crossed the rubicon? These people used to only say God was up/out there only to answer their own personal desires whether they fit in with the plan of creation or not - that from people who have no idea what tomorrow is about or what the larger implication of their immediate desires might be to them, society or God's plans.

But now, they go further and are equal to Christ Himself tacitly negating His divinity. Ol'boy !!!

Look at the comment about the woman with the blood issue. I thought the Bible said her belief in Christ made her touch and healed her. When did it become that her faith healed her. Faith in what? Healed by what? No be Christ? So are we now to believe we should just believe in our spiritual power and order God around? Now that'd be something to see - the Almighty being a Butler or "Man Friday".

I'm pretty scared. And yes, I'm cool even though one daftie follows me around NL nowadays. Him, I take the gloves off for - the slowpoke doesn't know where I'm coming from. Atimes, I wish one could use a hammer on some of the heads the drivel spouts out from so the crap inside would leak out. Sadly, more and more of them are turning out to be "claimed xtians" and when you do bring the figurative hammer, its the inkling of sense to be found in them that is lost and they're reduced to robot-like quotation of the scripture used to clean out their brains (and pockets).

Enjoy your days, Bro.

Commander nuclearboy, now I understand what you mean. Seriously, this is not a laughing matter - and I should have known better than to be careless with my previous comment to which you responded. My day will be far enjoyable after reading the above from you. A million thanks.

Joagbaje:
Some of you guys Deliberately misquote someone as a manipulation. I didnt say Jesus was not God, I said Jesus was God but relating his deity to the miracles ,I said he did the miracles as man by the power of the holyghost .He was 100% God and man. If a Police man goes to school to study, Is he a Police or a student?. Even though he is a Police , he was not sent there to be police. He is there to study as a student. He cant threathen his lecturer with arrest.He strips off his uniform. He functions as full student.

Your analogy or illustration is flawed, and depends on where you're applying it. I don't know what obtains in Nigeria; but elsewhere like in Europe, a student/trainee police officer could still arrest his lecturer if the said lecturer violates the law - in just the same way a trainee police student/officer who's off duty could still serve to rescue an accident victim (see one that happened involving a case of a trainee/student police officer of the University of Chester).

Your problem is that you are confusing title for essential nature. A police officer is still a human being even if he/she becomes a student or a truck driver, or usher in your church - whatever the title, it does not change that person from their existence as a human being.

However, in Jesus case, no title affected His Deity. And for you to claim that "Whatever you think Christ is , I am", is a farce.

~ you're not the Bread of Life (John 6:35);

~ you're not the Door through which anyone enters
to be saved (John 10:7 & 9);

~ you're not the the Resurrection (John 11:25);

~ you're not the 'Master and Lord' of believers (John 13:13);

~ and you're certainly NOT the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6).

When you claim to be "WHATEVER" Christ is to us, then you're a deceiver, a liar, and one of those who Christ said we should watch out for: "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." (Matthew 24:4 & 5).

There's still time to retrace your steps from the WOF movement and its celebrated hypocritic liars. They are 'gods' from the kingdom of their 'master' the devil who was a liar from the beginning. You need to repent from the claim that you're "whatever" Christ is, so you don't fulfil Matt. 24:5 in yourself in the subtle ways that you have been demonstrating on Nairaland.

@thehomer,

thehomer:
I think this worldview issue just deviates too broadly from the topic at hand.

You guys should try to be a bit more mature in the way you approach discussions on worldviews, especially those that you do not subscribe to. It is because many atheists assume a rather presumptive position about belief systems, that is why you guys often bring up 'analogies' and 'examples' that tend rather to strawman fallacies - and that is where discussions deviate into broad spectra. As long as you adopt that approach, you will constantly meet with repeated calls to bring you back to the same point - not to the detriment of the informed theist, but rather to the loss of the atheist who wields such a fallacy for his discourses. This is again what you have presented, and that leaves me no alternative than to point out the same thing once more.

I thought that it was obvious that being a Christian theist, some of your claims would be that:
1. There is a God.
2. The Christian holy book is the word of this God.
3. This said God also performs and still performs miracles.

If you disagree with the claims, please feel free to make them here but please show some evidence.

I agree. And your point is? You see, when you talk about "evidence", what are you exactly asking for? The word 'evidence' is vague and meaningless until you articulate what you are seeking. What follows from me may not be what you might be looking for; and there's no reason to then conclude that what I proffer fails to be 'evidence' until you have a handle on exactly what that term should mean in the broad spectrum of interests.

The above statements are claims. The subject of the topic requests evidence of these claims and similar claims made by any other person believing in a God. At the very least, such a person making the claims of a God's existence should also provide some evidence for it.

I'm sorry, but please go and learn the meaning of the term 'evidence' - I think it has become a much abused word that often shows many atheists do not know what they are talking about. Until you do, please refrain from boring me with such terms. It is not as if I can't provide you with an evidence; but what exactly do you understand by that term, such that whatever you read would not be any 'evidence'?

For example, when toneyb provided me with a vid from QualiaSoup for his idea that it was "conclusive evidence" for what he claimed (that 'nothing survives bodily death'), I noted why that vid failed to be any such "conclusive evidence" - because I'd been clear specifically on what I was actually seeking as the core of such an 'evidence', by noting that I was "very interested in the philosophical underpinnings behind the conclusions" he made for such an assertion.

Now, when atheists go about asking for "evidence" for this and that in discourses like this one, it seems remarkable that they often do not know what they're talking about, nor do they care to appraise the subject for which they seek any such "evidence". They do not take into consideration the fact that their approach to the subject often tend to a reductio ad absurdum where issues are confused and particularities in the discourses are not well contextualized. When that happens, it does not make for any meaningful dialogue - and that is why I tend to not give any such issues a seriousness at any stretch.

(This is where the teapot analogy comes in. It is not an example it is meant to illustrate that since you make the claim, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it. It is an analogy not an example.)

It makes no difference. If you are making a claim, make a concrete one that does not tend to a strawman fallacy, and which would be at par with what you are discussing. It doesn't matter whether you make that claim 'positively' or 'negatively' - either way, it is still a claim/assertion; and depending on its particularities, the responsibility of burden of proof falls on both sides of claimants. Only then would I take you seriously. Even if you take it merely in terms of an analogy (and not an example), how does the teapot affect your own worldview in concrete terms? How does it bear any semblance to the claims you listed earlier for the Christian theist?

The one who makes the claim of a teapot is positing as much a positive claim as the theist would make for his convictions in matters relating to 'God'. If you have not got that point yet, then you need to carefully acquaint yourself with the types of 'burden of proof', then go on to understand what this entails in metaphysical questions. It would be very helpful to understand the nature of the subject, before pointing to burden of proof, analogies, evidences, empirical this-and-that, etc. A critical lack of such an understanding will not yield anything fruitful for the atheist (as well the theist) who ignores important factors in these subjects.

The analogy is not to be proved or disproved it is to show that since you make the claims, present the evidence with it.

Please refer above for my comments about 'evidence'.

Your assumption of my knowledge of what you mean is wrong. I asked you to present examples so that the discussion will be on phenomena that you believe do occur.
e.g the user Toba feels that developmental embryology is a supernatural occurrence, but I do not think so.

Again, please refer above. However, I think the developmental embryo is an example of what is 'reducible to physicalist probables'. I distinguish such from what I defined by the 'supernatural', and I think that point is clear. I also articulated the approach I intend to take in my discussions of such matters (philosophical underpinnings); so please demonstrate (not just indicate) that you're quite capable of discussing issues on such an approach. If otherwise, I'm sorry to say again that it would not be in our best interests to waste words in this thread.

The phrase in bold has no meaning to me which is why I asked for examples to help illustrate what you mean.

Have you ever come across the term "Physicalism"? I'm quite amused at your claim that "physicalist probables" has no meaning to you - are you kidding me? I think you're far too simplistic here, and I can't see you being able to progress this discussion if you throw such careless jokes around. Let me ask: is philosophy quite out of your range?

The fragment is to show burden of proof not importance to worldview.

That again is a strawman. I know what burden of proof is; please show me anything fresh before I take you seriously. From the very first when you made reference to Russel's teapot, I noted that is the most hilarious fallacy any atheist could present, because it shows the person appealing to such things does not understand what exactly he is talking and such things (analogy, examples, whatever) have no concrete indices:
[list]___________________________________[/list]

[list]"As the above poster noted, you cannot disprove what does not exist. The Russel's teapot analogy fits quite well here. You can add to that any absurd object you can think of. e.g a pink unicorn, magic elves etc. Sure we cannot prove they exist but following the theists reasoning, they do exist."[/list]
[list]___________________________________[/list]

You don't just come on board and put theism in such a presumptive box. The Russell teapot analogy is strawman, it has no concrete correlation in metaphysical discourses, and the atheist who presents things in such overly simplistic manner also knows ALREADY that such a teapot does not exist anywhere. That is not an analogy that squares with what the theist presents, and to harp on about such things is rather a mischievous misrepresentation of the theist's postulation. The theist does not present something he knows already does not exist - the atheist does so. That being so, the atheist is NOT "following the theist's reasoning", and I'm not going to entertain you getting away with that. Nada.

The point is that the analogy does not misrepresent your position since you claim a God and all the attached requirements without evidence and ask that I give evidence that this God is absent.

Please show me how your own analogy affects your own life. You're being more and more vague - and if you want to keep amusing yourself there, I can help you, trust me.

The theists claim there is a God without evidence, then goes on to act on it. The atheist simply asks for the evidence. Who knows? If the evidence is solid, it may push the boundaries of knowledge or the theist's God may gain a follower.

You may surprise yourself, I guarantee that. Just you carefully go through what I discussed above about 'evidence' and the articulate what approach you tend to adopt for that 'evidence' - then you will come round to see why your vague calls have not been helpful.