ValeeLove:
WHAT WILL IT TAKE YOU TO BELIEVE THAT GOD TRULY EXISTS? I TRULY WANT TO KNOW.

First define what you mean by God... then provide empirical evidence of said God as per the description.

Pretty straightforward don't you think

Hello again

OLAADEGBU:


Yes.

That will be morality that is subjective and arbitrary. I am referring to absolute objective morality here when it concerns the Creator God.

Like I said earlier, morality is a very complex subject. And I'm not saying this to sound dodgy. It really is a complex thing.

Coming to subjective and objective morality. You're still yet to prove the existence of objective moral laws. To do this, you will need to first prove the existence of your specific deity, and then prove that said deity did in fact create the world, before making a case for any sort of objective moral laws from it.

Knock it off! Without a cause there can be no big bang explosion, evolution of stars or life. Unless you are saying that your evolution worldview doesn't have a beginning. In the Christian worldview we have a cause for the universe and conversely morality which you atheist have no basis to which you practice your so called morality.

I never said there wasn't a cause. I don't know where you got that idea from. I feel like I've said this before. Evolution describes how organisms change over time in response to their environment. It makes no claims about the origin of life.

Evolution describes a process, not an origin. I hope I've made it clear to you now.

It is only complex to you because you refuse to smell the coffee. I don't even need to presuppose the existence of the Creator God before I scientifically arrive at the cause of the universe which will only confirm what the Bible says.

Pray tell, how did you arrive at the cause of the universe, and how does it confirm what the "bible" says? And what does that phrase even mean?

Don't try to brush off the question with this assertion of yours. The existence of the universe itself can be scientifically proven by 3 possible responses.

I'm confused. Since when did we start doubting the existence of the universe. I think I know what's going on here.

You seem to have the idea that there's this conflict between the theory of evolution, and the idea of a creator. I don't necessarily see this conflict. Evolution doesn't necessarily negate a creator (although it doesn't affirm it either). What evolution does negate, is the idea that creation happened as described in the biblical narratives.

Unfortunately, the evidence seems to point in favor of the former, as opposed to the latter. The biblical creation narrative isn't the only way life could have formed. I know it's a tough pill for you to swallow, but it is the reality.

A creator/creators, if it/they exist, could have chosen for life to develop through a myriad of ways, of which evolution happens to be one of them, and the one which we have observed taking place.

The choices and pathways a creator/creators could take is not exclusive to christianity. I feel like this should be obvious by now.

OLAADEGBU:


Maybe you want to help jaephoenix out to answer the question he seems to be struggling to answer:

How do you account for the laws of morality in your evolution worldview?

I assume you're referring to this post

OLAADEGBU:


You that can use your brain, try being logical for once even if your worldview has no framework for it.

How do you account for the existence and nature of the laws of morality? Laws of morality only make sense in the Christian worldview where God created human beings in His own image and therefore has the right to set the rules for our behaviour.

Firstly, immediately wrong at the bolded. Other religions, even ones like buddhism that lack the concept of a "God", still contain the concept of morality.

Also, asking me to explain morality in my evolution worldview is simply a non sequitur. Evolution mainly talks about how organisms changed over time in response to their environment. It's job is not to explain morality.

Morality itself is a really complex subject, and one that doesn't seem to get easier even if you presuppose the existence of a god. It was one of the things I've mentioned here before.

The existence of a god does not solve the moral dilemma

Also, I feel like it's important to mention, that evolution is concerned with how already living organisms change through generations, and over time. It makes no claims about how life itself, came to be.

OLAADEGBU:


What part of the OP are you referring to?

Not just the OP... The multitude of your 'God pictures', and lots of your other assertions here and in other threads all echo multiple logical fallacies.

I would've loved to open a thread debunking every one of them, but i rarely have the time these days.

OLAADEGBU... Going through this threas, and a couple of your other threads, you seem to have some of the worst arguments, both for A god, and for YOUR god.. no offense.

Several issues here.

Jackanda1:
I might not understand your decision, but i understand an atheists mindset very clearly.

An atheist's mindset isn't some universal thing. The only thing common among atheists is the lack of belief in a god. This could be because of a number of reasons. So except you've read the mind of all atheists somehow, i doubt the validity of your statement.

I was an atheist, i know about the supposed contradictions or irrational stories in the bible, the problem of evil and unanswered prayers including all the pro atheistic arguments.

These things listed above are barely what i would consider good atheistic arguments. Sure they could make a case against a particular god or type of god, but not the existence of a god in it's entirety.

For example, the problem of evil makes a case against a good god.. but it doesn't exclude the possibility of a sadistic god, which is still a god nonetheless.

Biblical contradictions make a case against the christian bible alone.. not the entire concept of a god. If these are the "atheistic" arguments you're talking of, then you may need to find better ones.

I have followed and listened and read the ideas of several popular and well informed atheist for years. If i show you some of the posts i made as an atheist, you'd be shocked that i'm the same person. For me to be preaching today shows that something serious happened to me.

I previously asked you to share the things that made you move from atheism to Christianity. You're yet to do so. Now I'm even more curious.

Accepting God, Jesus and the bible has a lot to do with humility and becomng like a child.

How does one "accept" God and Jesus exactly?.. what does that even mean?

Hardening your heart, hating and turning against God or disbelievng the supernatural would not change anythng, rather it puts you at a disadvantaged position.

Like me, you can make a u-turn, but your heart won't change except you want it.

How does one harden their heart? How are we turning against a god whose existence is still yet to be proven?

Jackanda1:
If you've once recieved salvation by faith, walked with God and today you've declared yourself an athiest, you're in alot of danger.

As an exchristian and agnostic, this should be interesting

1. You're in danger of commiting the unpardonable sin aka the sin unto death aka blasphemy of the holyspirit aka final apostacy. Its not that God won't forgive. But you're resisting forgiveness by hardening ur heart.

An atheist doesn't believe in your God, or in the holy spirit. Threats like this would be like telling an adult "behave or you won't get gifts from santa"

2. You're making yourself an agent of the devil by spreading atheism and turning people away from God. God is trying to build, yet you're destroying.

We don't believe in your god or in your devil. None of which any theist has been able to prove so far.

3. Since you work for the devil, you would most likely end up with him in HELL.

We don't believe in your hell either.

4. Just like Esua, you're throwing away your birthright in christ which are salvation, the Holyspirit, faith, righteousness and the kingdom of Heaven etc.

Refer to points 1-3

5. Declaring yourself an athiest and resisting God opens you up to demonic possesion and influence. You might not even know you're possesd, but that doesn't change the fact.

Refer to points 1-3

I'm writting this as a repentant athiest who went about blaspheming God.

Repent before its late!

Interesting... You were an atheist before?.. how did you end up transitioning to Christianity. I'm curious

Redomi:
I heard one prophetess who owns a church here in Ondo, telling her congregation that birth control is a sin and it is against God plan for human being

If a religion considers the mere act of controlling the size of one's family as a "sin", then there's something fundamentally wrong with that religion

Starlight252:


There are many like us out there but various mechanisms keep their inquisitiveness suppressed... When you speak out, you get ostracized. I am being ostracized....


I'm sad.
I hope i find my true identity. My true home. My real self.

Unfortunately we live in a society where criticizing beliefs like the ones found in religion or even asking questions is frowned upon.

I sympathize with you on the problems you've experienced in regards to your faith.. or should i say the lack thereof.

If there are any questions in regards to religion you'd like to discuss, feel free to ask them on here.

There are quite a good number of freethinkers, as well as people from other faiths that can help you find possible answers to your questions.

Aemmyjah:


The universe and life with all the cycles and designs including your brain is a product of accident right?

It seems you're still pushing this false dichotomy about creation.

He asked you 2 very simple questions. Which god created the universe.. and your proof for such claims.

Why not address the questions, rather than trying to push a false dichotomy, or making reference to things existing by "accident" which is clearly not what he was talking about

StonesA:
science ia amazing but there are not obsolute truth in science. i was the type that was so obsesse with science to extend that i become a full time atheist.

Statements like this make me cringe. What do you mean by an obsession with "science"?.. science is not a religion that has a set of beliefs.. there are different branches of science.. vastly different topics.

I'm curious to know what exactly you engaged with that changed you from a theist to an atheist.

in my mind i was thinking i know it all.

Even the most popular icons in the scientific community never claimed to know it all... So again, I'm wondering what made you think this way

but last year i was struck with a mysterious disease that know doctor could understand it, i was depressed and full of sorrow. it even reach a point that i nearly commited suicide. But i thank God that my sanity was strong and i realise that this disease is not physical at all. i began spiritual cleansing, two months after this disease disappears like a majic and i felt a great joy inside me. Right now i am focusing on spiritual growth, my life is transforming. So please if your the type here that believes that everything is physical pls beware

I'm curious as to how a disease moved you from atheism as you claimed.. to theism... Is it just me or does something not add up here?

Dtruthspeaker:


I am smarter than you all,

Once again... Statements like this do nothing to strengthen your positions

as proven by the fact that I have been begging you all to give me a reasonable and valid counter for years and years but no one is able to do so. So this is just a loser's lamentation.

You've never given a reasonable statement to begin with. The statements, for which you request a "valid" counter are often riddled with fallacies, they cease to make sense.

Similar to me saying... "The invisible orange pen is a thing .. give me a counter to that"

Plus, all the times we've shown you your mistakes, you either devolve into insults.. or yell your famous phrase "change of post"

And do you yourselves not appeal to authority when you say science said this or science said that?

So you see you yourself know that appeal to authority is not always wrong. So you have no thing here

Do you have any idea what appeal to authority means? Because I'm beginning to doubt you do

budaatum:


Now, don't you think we'd be better off asking him to prove he's a lawyer than prove some imaginary unseen god he has cooked up in his head?

Wilgrea7, what you think?

I think him proving he's a lawyer wouldn't change much, mainly because he's trying to use it as an appeal to authority, and to try to sound smarter. None of which would affect his arguments, or our lives.

Dtruthspeaker:


And The Law approves the Bible as good evidence in this case. When a Muslim comes and "pleads" his Koran or Hindu book we would see if they are valiid under Law!

Care to expatiate?

jaephoenix:

Engaging DTruthSpeaker in a logical debate is an excellent exercise in futility. Worse is getting him to understand scientific phenomena, and to make matters worse, he's an extremist. An ignorant religious extremist is disaster. Dude is as smart as a brick wall
And he says he's a lawyer. Like wtf

Part of me feels like he may be claiming these titles to somehow appear smart. He also previously claimed he taught philosophy.

Basically an appeal to authority.. and a futile one at that.

TenQ:

Thanks for the indirect complement. When I debate Muslims, I use their Qur'an, Tafsirs and Hadiths.
When I debate Atheists, I am compelled to use LOGIC and SCIENCE!
It is only logical since the Bible and the Faith is Fairy tale to you.

Unfortunately, you are not in a position to judge my failure or not.

Peace!

I by no means consider myself an overall judge on failure or success. I simply reported things as I found them. You've dodged my questions a fair number of times when pressed on these issues, hence my statement.

But nonetheless, it's always a pleasure engaging with you. I hope you're doing great.

Dtruthspeaker:


This is you being making a fool of yourself in thinking you can put a trailer's alternator in a Keke marwa just because you think it.

You started off being reasonable, stay reasonable.

The Bible I know because I have tested it and therefore I represent it. I do not know the others nor do I represent them and in recognition of this is why you asked this question. Thus, each party is supposed to make their own case as they see fit, within the Laws of debate.

And you know this but because you already know that I would give answers you can not validly counter, therefore you are already violently agitated and already primed to insult because you already know that already I have shown that you have done a wrong already.

You seem to have missed my point. Every argument you try to use in favor of your book as some sort of credible evidence, can be used by others in favor of their contradictory book.

A muslim can claim to have known and tested his koran as well. same as a hindu or a sihk. Statements like this rarely do anything to move the discussion forward.

If you point to a verse in the bible that claims Yahweh created humans, a hindu can point to an opposing verse saying brahma did so, and a muslim can do the same in regards to Allah. if you want to point to scripture, which is an unsubstantiated claim, then you must provide some sort of evidence to back it up.

budaatum:


Now, for the flip side.

Why, pray tell should I, for instance, be proving my god to you? Are you of any particular importance that proving my god to you would benefit my god in some way? Or do you think it is I who would benefit by proving my god to you?

Just imagine I actually bother, and I do try to prove my god to you. Would you now be worshipping my god so that my god now has to share it's time and attention between you and I so I get half and you get half?

I mean, if it were my plate of food we are talking about here, wouldn't I be silly proving the food is on my plate if the end result is that you get to eat half of my food?

Wilgrea7, now that I think of it, you want to 419 swindle me out of my god's attention so you can have some of it, and unfortunately for you, I am not that dumb to fall for you 419!

Go and find your own god please instead of asking others to prove their god to you, is what I would very strongly suggest to you, unless you can find those who are generous enough to share their god with people like you who unfortunately do not yet have one. But know that you'd be getting little attention from a communal god instead of all the attention you'd get if your god belonged only to you.

The decapitalisation is intended to hide my god from you.

So in other words... You either cannot, or will not attempt to prove your God to me.

Then why bother engaging with this thread in the first place?

budaatum:


Wilgrea7, you been here since 2016 still asking for evidence for a god

2 things.

Firstly, my early posts in 2016 show that i was very much a theist, who later progressed towards deism, and finally agnosticism. Go look again.

Secondly, I've said it several times in this thread that I'm not asking for proof of A God. It bothers me a little that you still think this to be the case.

from people who don't know what evidence looks like, so I am deciding to take it upon myself to ensure you evolve and I intend to use all the ad whatever you call it to ensure you do so,

Thank you for that. I'd be happy to engage with your efforts to help me "evolve".

but if you can't reap what you sow you are very welcome to not sow so you do not have to reap.

Now read it again because I am absolutely certain you have not yet got what I am saying, and after you do read it again, then first show me you comprende before you bother with a response please. And thank you very much in advance.

It seems you're the one who's not reading through my posts clearly enough as I've explained above.

Oh. And a very good morning to you, Wilgrea7. Isn't so beautiful.

And to you too sir. And i hope you find some beauty in the rest of the day.

Dtruthspeaker:


This is you giving your opinion (judgment) (where it is wrong in the case of the Bible) and your judgement is not based on Law but on your personal preference (which of course we all know first hand) aka bias. And every biased judgement is invalid.

So you see, you are already wrong in pre-judging a matter even before you heard it.

I'm going to repeat everything you said just so you could see the absurdity in it. This time, I'll replace "Bible" with Koran

This is you giving your opinion (judgment) (where it is wrong in the case of the Koran) and your judgement is not based on Law but on your personal preference (which of course we all know first hand) aka bias. And every biased judgement is invalid.

So you see, you are already wrong in pre-judging a matter even before you heard it.

Now do you see how empty your statement sounds?

jaephoenix:

There's one nigga I'm currently engaged in this particular topic, TenQ . Dude, uses the bolded to project that god and specifically Yahweh exists. Even though his grasp of science is questionable at best, it still doesn't stop him

I've debated TenQ a few times here. He seems like a well learned person, especially when compared to other theists here like thetruthspeaker.

I've noticed he tries to merge scientific knowledge with Christian theology, especially on issues like morality and the existence of his specific God.. although so far he has repeatedly failed to do so.

budaatum, if you'd take a momentary pause from all the subtle ad hominems you've been trying to toss around, maybe you'll finally see the point I'm trying to make.

Dtruthspeaker, paxonel, since you've both raised similar questions about religious scripture as proof, I'll address why they don't count, and with examples too.

Please note. I didn't ask you to prove A God.. i asked you to prove YOUR God.

Every religious scripture makes unsubstantiated claims about their respective gods. In the bible, koran, vedas, guru grant sahib, and other religious text, it is claimed that the respective gods in these books solely created the universe.

We have multiple conflicting claims as to who is indeed the creator. It us up to the people making the claims to prove it.

In today's world, if a random man walks up to a kid and claims "this is my son".. would that automatically make it true? Now imagine if 10 different men came up claiming they were all the father.

Do you now realize how absurd it is to try to use religious text as evidence? In what version of the universe is an unsubstantiated claim used as any sort of credible evidence for something?

budaatum:
I wish I were a theist of the sort you request so I can tell you how impossible it is to prove a thing to blind person who can not see. Great pity.it is indeed.

In what way am i unable to see this "proof"?

Hello everyone,

It's been a while. Hope you all are doing well. I'll get straight to the point.

In just about every religious debate, theists, i.e Christians, Muslims etc, seem to claim not only that a God exists and created us, but that their specific God is the one who is responsible for said creation, and no one else.

I believe it's time to put that claim to the test. So this is very simple.

For the sake of this discussion, I will accept that a "higher power" exists. Now, all the theist needs to do, is to prove that the specific God they worship is indeed the higher power responsible for the universe.

In other words.. I'm not asking you to prove that A God exists.. I'm asking you to prove that YOUR specific God exists, and that it is indeed the creator of the universe, and not someone or something else.

For example, you are to prove that Yahweh or Vishnu is the creator of the universe, as opposed to Allah, or Ra, or Zeus.

Things that do not count as proof

1. Quoting religious scripture (anyone from any faith could do that.. it doesn't prove anything)
2. Saying "i feel it in my heart"
3. Obscure and unambiguous data masked under the term "scientific"

I'll stop here for now


Theists... The floor is yours

I've always found it a bit funny when religious people try to use this as evidence of their gods.

Apart from the fact that most of the stories are fabricated or grossly overexaggerated, it only proves that if such a deity even exists, it is an emotionally fragile, egotistic and selfish one.

Millions of religious people suffer here in Nigeria each day. They cry to said deity to save them from terrorists, evil leaders, poverty, diseases and so on. This god seems to turn a blind eye. But the moment someone does something against him, he rushes in to attack? And you claim to be children of this god, and that this god loves you?

What kind of father who claims to love his children will stand by and watch them as they get oppressed and slaughtered, but only jump in when someone says some hurty hurty words about him. And this is the deity you claim to worship?

RatCabbage:


It's quite simple actually. To form a "personal relationship" with someone or something one needs to have an understanding of their character, their like and dislikes and so so.
An entity which is not same plane as people can only be manifested through obscure means, literary and the like, so to feel the connection to said entity, you would need references because you can't physically interact with them

I believe you've switched the order of things here. You don't get a personal relationship with someone by "understanding their character". Understanding their character amounts to knowledge about their character at best, and not a relationship.

In reality, reverse is the case. It is as your relationship with someone progresses that you get an understanding of their character. Your knowledge of their character comes from the personal interactions you have with said person.

To make it clearer. Let's use an imaginary fictional character. If I want to delude myself enough that I interact with a fictional character on a daily basis I need to have a base knowledge of their personality. That I would find in whatever franchise they come from; songs; books; movies or whatever and try to analyse how they would act in my day to day life and the more I think of them, the more I feel connected to them and if I hyperfixate on them enough, I'll see their "influences" in my day to day life and genuinely feel a stronger connection from the stronger understanding.

This doesn't make them real though because at the end of the day, it's all in my head. The only thing real is the emotions I feel from tge connection I made to said character, not the character itself

It is possible to form connections to imaginary things, even inanimate objects, and even significantly less conscious beings. We see it with people who talk to their dolls, or their goldfish. Their could have a emotional connection to these things, just as someone would cry when their favorite character in a movie dies. But it doesn't translate to a personal relationship.

jaephoenix:

Thanks for obliging. Love this (no homo)
Now, I agree with you children are more or less tabula rasa. But from studies done(and my researches on the subject) many gays admit to feeling some kind of 'love'(may be the wrong word) or attraction towards the same sex as early as 6 years or earlier.

Exactly.. I'm aware that people could feel these emotions. Although i tend to be wary of classifying these as 'love' mainly because at such a young age, we barely understand what love is, or what the different emotions we begin to feel mean. But i do see your point.

Some guys admit they don't feel like males and tend to appear effeminate. Thus are known as sissies. I know a couple of them back in primary and secondary school. Same with women. Some prefer male clothes with male hairstyles and attitudes, and are thus tomboys.

While I'm not sure of this, i think it could be related to the males having lower levels of testosterone, or the females having lower levels of estrogen and higher testosterone.

And while these could make a case for the "born this way" example, I'm still aware of ladies and guys in said categories who grew up and still turned out straight and in some cases, should i say "balanced" the hormones due to their lifestyle choices (weight lifting, diets etc).

But then again, I'm not completely sure about things like this.

Some scientists say there are 'gay genes'(meaning it is genetic) but such genes are not exclusively for homosexuality. It codes for other characteristics. So such researches are incomplete and thus not accepted by us(the medical community). Some say environments(like you alluded) but remember some kids that turned out straight went through the same stimuli. Many were groped by people of the same sex but never turned gay when they matured.
Remember these people were subjected to the same environmental factors are

True. I tend to look at things like environment, and even genetics like in the example i gave, as factors, and not necessarily determinants.

Just as they say smoking could lead to lung cancer. My grandfather smoked all his life and lived into his 90s. Some people smoke and die before 40.

As i was typing this, there was something else which came to mind. That in the event where something like homosexuality were shown to have genetic influence, whether or not it would affect its acceptace.

As an example, we see people, by virtue of their genetics, being at greater risk to certain cancers or other conditions. However, we try to 'help' these people by suggesting lifestyle decisions that'll lower their risk of developing said conditions.

I wonder if homosexuality would be treated in the same way, where we would acknowledge the genetic influences, but still deem it as wrong and try to "help" the affected parties and prevent them from eventually turning out that way.

Now this is certainly not the view I hold, but it just popped into my head while writing this, and i thought it would be an interesting thing to think about.

jaephoenix:

There's no genes for musical genre preference. I think the environment comes into play, since if one was raised with Highlife in rural Nigeria, the tendency to like Opera would be far away

Completely true.. I think environmental factors play the biggest role in things like this

AbdulMagaji:


Are you aware that most world renowned physicists are astrologers?

I'd like to point out that astronoMY or cosmology, and astroloGY are two very different things. As far as renowned scientists being astrologists, I have no idea. If you have any proof to back up the claim, I'd be more than happy to engage with it.

Dtruthspeaker:


Then why don't you smile at bandits, and pedophiles and rapists? In fact call for the put away of Law and let everyone do as they please.

There's a stark difference between homosexual relationships, and abominations like r4pe and pedophilia. As a general rule of thumb, we judge sexual relationships as appropriate when it is between consenting adults.

Children know and understand far too little about sexual matters to give any sort of reasonable consent, so engaging in such acts would be pedophiliac. Similarly, r4pe victims do not consent, or else it wouldn't be called that. Both of these things are abhorrent crimes, as they take advantage of non-consenting parties.

Homosexual relationships, when happening between 2 consenting adults, does not fall into the same category of the first two. I hope I've been able to clarify this for you.

LordReed:


Do you think any of our likes and dislikes are influenced by genetic predisposition?

ooh, that's a difficult one. I'm not an expert in genetics, so I can't really say for sure.

I do know that there's not always a one to one correlation when it comes to our genetics and how certain behaviors or things are expressed.

For example, there's no gene that dictates someone would prefer jazz music to rap or other music categories. There could be a gene, or group of genes that more efficiently develops the part of the brain dealing with sensory reception, which could in turn make someone more pitch-sensitive, which could lead to them preferring slower or softer rhythms, like in jazz, to that faster and more chaotic ones like death metal.

I'm really not sure when it comes to genetics, but I doubt there's a "sexual orientation" gene. There's hardly a one to one correlation in things like this, because genetics is a really complex field. One that we've not yet been able to fully comprehend.

2elliot:
If you didn't get it before, now get it. My point was that the Freemasons are behind our current enlightenment and innovation. You can go and verify. From the very earliest inventors and scientists, were freemansons. Even though they try to hide the devil worshipping aspects of it but instead tell us that their cause is noble. They hid their devil worship in codes and gematria, and so only a few can decode. Again, my point is that we shouldn't envy them because they are more enlightened than we are. You may think all of these technologies are wonderful, but there is a purpose far beyond what the ordinary man could see or understand.

Once again, you're making statements with no proof to back them up. I could replace "Freemasons" in that sentence with illuminati, templars, or my 90 year old neighbor. Doesn't make it true. If you're going to make a claim, then substantiate it as well.

You've accused the west of devil worship, and you consider technology to be a product of human association with devils. Yet you continue to use it and benefit from it. You need to pick a side sir.