₦airaland Forum

DeSepiero:
Judging Intervention of God into different levels of intensity from Bible isn't correct because the bible seems to focus on some middle eastern countries.
Did God intervene in other parts of the world while the New Testament apostles were busy in Israel and its environs?

There were apostles in Africa too but that's not even the case

If we wanna stick to the Judeo christian God in this scenario, then we will only discuss the interventionist policies recorded in the Bible.

DeSepiero:
Intervention by God in this sense would mean 'the action of God in affecting or altering the normal or expected course of an event or events.
John first mentioned 'interventionist God' so perhaps he may add to that.

Fair enough. I'm all ears.

DeSepiero:
What should I define? What levels of intervention are there? Isn't Intervention either present or absent. Isn't the levels you speak of based on human perspective which is fallible?

I guess you are also referring to the Judeo-christian God like john.


If so, I already explained that earlier and I'll repost it. This is why I need you to clearly define what you mean by intervention.

winner01:
In the Old testament yes. The Level of intervention reduces in the New testament. Are the levels of intervention decided or will we agree that it's varied different periods of human history?

AnonyNymous:
Stop trying to play smart Mr. Man. Why am I even replyng to this?

I really don't know why you're getting so defensive.

AnonyNymous:
You're asking me what would serve as evidence. . .

True

AnonyNymous:
suggesting that there currently isn't any evidence that could convince me, and that I should present a hypothetical situation where something would be able to make me believe in the existence of some form of god.

Maybe there is, but wouldn't that depend on us subjecting such evidence to a fair test?

AnonyNymous:
Or maybe I'm the one that doesn't understand English. And if I don't understand English it'd be pointless to have any discussion/argument with a fluent English speaker like you, wouldn't it be?

I really don't know what this is supposed to mean.

Wouldnt it be much easier if you just answer the question?

DeSepiero:
Hi winner01,

I saw your response earlier but didn't have the time to address it due to work. I don't need evidence for or against God's existence. The bigger problem is what we call God and how we describe it.

That will depend on what johnydon meant by "God" when he asked the question.

DeSepiero:
That brings me back to the phrase 'interventionist God' like johnydon22 mentioned. How so?

I already replied that. There are levels to intervention so I'll need you to define it clearly.

AnonyNymous:

I've mentioned it hundreds of times on this forum that I'm not an atheist. Unfortunately, Christians like you are too closed minded to listen to anything but your own religion and are convinced anyone who doesn't believe in your horseshit is an atheist. After today I'll probably have to repeat it to you again.

Nairaland discussions are more of arguments anyway and there's always a lot of intellectual dishonesty going on. Its like both sides just scream whatever they want at each other and whoever gets tired of the saliva droplets on their face first, quits. Declaring the other screamer as the winner.

Its not productive and achieves nothing. And I honestly don't have the energy to keep going back and forth when I know nothing will cone out of it.

So there you have it. I'm not an atheist, so I'm excluded from this. Bye.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, this was my quote.

winner01:
tintingz, johnydon22, superhumanist, cutemadridsta, hahn, gabe, DeSepiero, AnonyNymous and Budaatum can you attempt to answer the question johnydon asked.

Here's the question: What would serve as evidence for Gods existence to you?


Let's subject your evidences to test if indeed there are any

Doesn't say anything about you being an atheist or not and certainly the question isn't exclusive to atheists.
It's a valid question even when asked to theists, agnostics and other views.

So

What would serve as evidence for Gods existence to you?

tintingz, johnydon22, superhumanist, cutemadridsta, hahn, gabe, DeSepiero, AnonyNymous and Budaatum can you attempt to answer the question johnydon asked.

Here's the question: What would serve as evidence for Gods existence to you?


Let's subject your evidences to test if indeed there are any

johnydon22:
Well from biblical stories. The judeo-Christian God is quite the drama queen (It intervenes a lot)

I think DeSepiero is unto something with his point then.

In the Old testament yes. The Level of intervention reduces in the New testament. Are the levels of intervention decided or will we agree that it's varied different periods of human history?

johnydon22:
This means every possible evidence that may be presented to prove God will be logically contingent?

Absolutely! And that's the point of the Op.

dalaman:
I've noticed that the Christians here don't want to provide any evidence to show that their God exist, they know very well that their God has no evidence to show that it exist so they keep pushing their God to the relm of the unknown by saying that God is supernatural and as such only supernatural evidence will prove that he doesn't exist. Firstly this is totally false because they have never provided any supernatural evidence that supports their God in anyway at all.

Non of them can give you a SINGLE example of a supernatural event or occurrence, all they can do is keep throwing the word around but when asked to substantiate they'll start blabbing.

What is always wrong with you dalaman?

Must you always shift the goalpost?

Oya read the topic of this thread and tell me if it is related to the nonsense you just typed.

DeSepiero:
Perhaps man can't sufficiently convince fellow man (atheist) with evidence that God exists.
How about God convincing man?
Cc: johnydon22

In most cases, man can't sufficiently convince man, man can only try to point man in the direction of more compelling evidence. The journey to such knowledge's are personal, very personal.

For you to ask if God can convince man:
1. You'd have to adequately define your idea of conviction. I noted this earlier in the Op and asked "what if our genes are tweaked to increase a predisposition to believe in Supreme beings?"
2. You'd have to assume that such a God wants to compel man to consider his convictions if there are already any. Freewill then comes into the question

johnydon22:
This could work for an interventionist God ..lol

I think Christians already consider the Biblical God an interventionist God but the extent isn't clearly defined.

DeSepiero:
Yes. What do you say winner01?

Talking about interventionist God, can it be correctly argued that God isn't interventionist?

Aren't there levels to intervention?

chemystery:
Is that all? Or you still want to practice using the new word you learnt further?
Albert Einstein of nairaland, no one is dragging intelligence with you. You have it all. I won't be surprised if Albert Einstein is even unintelligent to you. Chest beater

Rest!

johnydon22:
We are all subject to inadequacies and i believe evidences for a subject can also be inadequate. It falls down to whether it is the seeker of evidence or the evidence itself is inadequate which is why it is necessary to establish kind of evidence expected.

There is no universally agreed kind of evidence that can be expected in this case. The replies of atheists to your thread prove this. Each person pointed out which experience will convince him of Gods existence. Like I explained earlier, experiences are very fluid and relative. No matter what evidence is experienced, it will remain inadequate as long as it's subjective. As for all seekers, I consider them inadequate. This should be the attitude of true learners.

johnydon22:
I think we should understand that presenting expected predictions or evidences consistent with a theory is different from presenting an evidence itself.

correct?

Absolutely! Whatever evidence that must be presented must be consistent with the theory in question.

johnydon22:
Such arguments are logically contingent, i don't look forward to them

johnydon22:
Evidence or expected evidences that someone think is logically necessary to either falsify or substantiate the subject? I'm confused

Evidence that will substantiate the subject. The subject being what an atheist would consider evidence for Gods existence.

chemystery:
No, I won't term it ad hominem again. Now I understand what it really is - the hunger to use a new word you just learnt

You're demented if you still can't see that this thread is a counter thread to johnydon22s thread. You're demented if you think I'm trying to provide evidence to you or any atheist here. You're demented if you still this thread is an attempt to prove Gods existence.

chemystery:
The guy is confused by his own topic

Lol, really you guys are so unintelligent. You and that other guy. As terrible as dalaman is in simple comprehension, he's miles better than both of you. Read up johnydons reply. He's explained it to you already.

Butterflyleo:
Na wa.

All they are preprogrammed to monotonously repeat like people with zombie syndrome is EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE!

I need to show you something that sciencewatch drew my attention to sometime ago. You would find it interesting.

We fondly call it the atheist manual

Here is the full list.

And all the points there are very true and totally mirror the atheists on nairaland.

.

Very accurate. Revealing that zombie syndrome in them.

dalaman:
Did you read where he said he does NOT agree with your position? What are you saying?

Haha? That's the only thing you understood in his whole explanation?

Oya read it again

Slowly this time.

johnydon22:
I think everyone is misunderstanding the fundamental premise of this argument.

It is built from the original premise of my thread which assumes that evidence to prove the existence of God is necessary but the understanding the nature of evidence you must understand the sort of evidence that is necessary to satisfy the need for proof.

My thread asks: What sort of evidence would serve as sufficient proof in this regard?

And i think a short summary of Winner01's argument is "No evidence is necessary or will be sufficient enough to convince an atheist'

i quite do not agree with that. If an atheist sets his expected nature of evidence and such evidence is confirmed then such an atheist by his own standard has confirmed the illegitimacy of his doubt.

if he fails in the face of this evidence (which he think is necessary) to at least entertain the possibility of being wrong then that could be an intellectual dishonesty at play.

I hope this clears the argument though

dalaman:
It's NOT that you are not interested in providing any evidence. The fact is that you can NOT and do NOT have any evidence to provide.

Since you haven't provided any evidence based on what atheist claim will convince them then why are you saying that no evidence will convince any atheist. You are only making this assertion because you know you can't provide any and failure to do that proves their point as such you make up this boogeyman and beat it so that you can sleep well at night.

Oya read Johnys explanation:

johnydon22:
I think everyone is misunderstanding the fundamental premise of this argument.

It is built from the original premise of my thread which assumes that evidence to prove the existence of God is necessary but the understanding the nature of evidence you must understand the sort of evidence that is necessary to satisfy the need for proof.

My thread asks: What sort of evidence would serve as sufficient proof in this regard?

And i think a short summary of Winner01's argument is "No evidence is necessary or will be sufficient enough to convince an atheist'

i quite do not agree with that. If an atheist sets his expected nature of evidence and such evidence is confirmed then such an atheist by his own standard has confirmed the illegitimacy of his doubt.

if he fails in the face of this evidence (which he think is necessary) to at least entertain the possibility of being wrong then that could be an intellectual dishonesty at play.

I hope this clears the argument though

Do you understand now?

darkchild64:
Fine at this point all I can say is suit yourself

Sai ByeBye!

darkchild64:
Well if that is the case what you are saying is that you can not present an irrefutable argument that your god exists,it is good you know that .

I can, I'm just not interested in wasting my time with you or anyone here
A thick veil of dishonesty has been woven by Seun and cast upon this section.

darkchild64:
Well if that is the case you should stop creating thread addressing atheism,if you are not ready to provide an evidence proving they are wrong then stop talking about them,why are you concerned about what other people believe since you know you can't convince them why not focus your energy on your Christian life or are you convinced that you would make your heaven

Ehyaa, I offended your atheism

Sorry o

Butterflyleo:
At the bolded, they most definitely are scavenging for droplets of water everywhere.

Seriously though none of them have been able to grasp what your thread is saying even when the message is very clear

Makes me wonder how come.

I'm tired

Is it that hard to understand?

I think they didn't read it. None of them did except johnydon22.

And to think they ridicule theists for nor reading

Its ironic.

chemystery:
His topic says nothing will serve as evidence for god's existence to any atheist and I simply don't agree with that. Therefore winner01 who is a god claimant should provide a substantial evidence that will prove the existence of god beyond any iota of doubt and see if he won't be winning a convert here and now.

This is so low!

What is this nonsense you've written now?

If I say you're demented now, you'll start screaming Ad hominem

johnydon22:
I think everyone is misunderstanding the fundamental premise of this argument.

Beats me man.

johnydon22:
And i think a short summary of Winner01's argument is "No evidence is necessary or will be sufficient enough to convince an atheist'

More accurately, No evidence will be sufficient to convince an atheist, "except such atheist is willing to first embrace his inadequacies and limitations before looking again".

johnydon22:
i quite do not agree with that. If an atheist sets his expected nature of evidence and such evidence is confirmed then such an atheist by his own standard has confirmed the illegitimacy of his doubt.

if he fails in the face of this evidence (which he think is necessary) to at least entertain the possibility of being wrong then that could be an intellectual dishonesty at play.

But no atheist can set their expected nature of evidence without me being able to find a loophole in such evidence. And if a theist like me can find loopholes in such evidences, then so can atheists. That's why I created this thread.

Any evidence which an atheist can present, in response to your question. I promise to refute it . I've refuted the answers they provided on your thread, I'm willing to refute any ones they will provide in the future.

Except you feel they have the rights to provide evidences according to their own standards as you've written. That would mean I have no grounds to refute such evidence. Atheists do the exact opposite of this every time.

darkchild64:
Well I don't have time to waste if you can not provide any evidence I guess I wIwoukd remain the atheist I am,it is not as if I am not comfortable the way I am I just wonder how hypocritical you people can be,you claim that the evidences you have is so vivid and undeniable but when we ask you to present them you start playing peek a boo,okay choose the evidence you want to bring since the one I presented is not food enough, if you don't have an evidence then you don't have any argument, I wonder why you folks are the ones defending your god,are you his spokesman can't he speak for himself ?

I doubt if you can read at all

1. I'm not here to give you or anyone for that matter evidence for anything.

2. I'm less interested if you blatantly wish to remain an atheist or not.

3. How does this thread defend God or pass me off as Gods spokesman?

4. Why can't you get your brain out of that cage and realize that not everyone is interested in going back and forth meaninglessly with you on the issue of Gods existence?

darkchild64:
I laugh at the arguments you folks bring,it is very easy for me an atheist to become a christian and I have presented a request which shouldn't be a problem considering that in the bible your god was waking dead people and dividing seas and promised that you shall do greater works but unfortunately it seems that the greater works you fellows are doing is arguing and arguing and arguing when a some video can shut every atheist up once and for all

Okay, a video is what this one would consider evidence.

Well, any video presented can be manipulated and for this reason, smarter atheists than you like cutemadridsta, superhumanist, budaatum, Hahn, dalaman, johnydon22 are likely to reject any video and request to witness such events first hand.

But seriously, why do you guys think every theist thread is out to prove anything to you? Are you thirsty?

dalaman:
Which evidence have you provided? You did not provide any of the stated evidence but somehow you know that no evidence will convince any atheist. Provide the evidence first and see if it fails to convince anybody before engaging in your meaningless la la la dance.

Neither am I interested in providing evidence.

chemystery:
Lol. Why the ad hominem? Don't get emotional yet. You can always put you point across without all that. Try it next time and thank me later.

And where do you want to find the interest in providing proof when you have none. You should have a proof first before talking about interest.

Yeah. So far, nothing seem to serve as proof for the existence of god because nothing has yet been served as proof.

Really you're just being unreasonable.

Which part of I'm not interested in proving anything to anyone don't you understand?

The question was by johnydon, I'm simply interested in proving that the answers to johnydons question can be refuted.

darkchild64:
Why not start by showing us a video of a regrown limb after prayer was made ?

Who told you that limbs can regrow and why do you think I'd want to show you anything of that sort

Clearly, this one didn't read the part of the thread where I addressed amputation miracles.

darkchild64:
Op stop wasting ur time,it is not by writing long articles that are self contradictory
This is very simple,u believe your own version of god which us Yahweh exists,fine present an irrefutable evidence,and by that we mean something more convincing than the evidence that the sun and moon exists,because in the aforementioned cases we only need to see them and it is obvious that they exist,but in your case since you say that one can not see your god then you have to present something that completely defeats every opposing logic that your god exists,let me not stress you,show us a video of a miracle where an amputee grows a new limb and I promised to follow you to church on sunday
For the argument that atheists are 5% of the world population, let us not deceive ourselves we know the role that childhood indoctrination plays,even though a lot of people were introduced into religion when they were most gullible,they were still able to overcome that grip,now imagine if children were not taught religion but allowed to group up and choose for themselves,religion will surely become extinct in a matter of centuries

okay

Butterflyleo:
Winner01 these guys are not half as smart as they tend to give themselves credit for. In fact, the bible was right by aptly describing them as fools.

Let me explain.

1) We speak about divinity

They say divinity does not exist

Then they turn around and ask us for proof of this divinity despite saying it does not exist.

If divinity does not exist, what proof would then suffice for a non existent divinity? Would such proof not also be non existent along with the non existent divinity?

2) We speak supernatural

They believe in the Natural

Then they turn around and ask for scientifically verifiable proof of the supernatural despite science being scrictly bound to the natural.

3) When something supernatural is even presented, they attempt to use NATURAL science to scrutinize it using the standards of Natural science and pretending as if they forgot that the presentation is a supernatural one.

4) We see scientists and technological advancement and medicine borrowing from Nature every single time in the course of their designs and advancements and when they apply what they got from that which they borrowed from, it works and is perfectly suited for what they designed it for but somehow nature is a fluke.

If nature is a fluke wouldn't their designs also be flukes and erratic? Wouldn't their medical breakthroughs be erratic?

1) Consider skin grafting (borrowed from nature)
2) Medicinal potential for treatment ( borrowed from plants in nature)
3) Engineers have incorporated structural design lessons from trees and bones into software design programs for optimizing the weight and performance of materials.
4) Engineers building an upgrade to Japan’s bullet trains, succeeded in making them travel 200 miles per hour by borrowing from the shape of the kingfishers beak.
5) The makers of urinary catheters which inhibit bacterial growth, borrowed their design from the sharks skin which has the ability not to pick up algae or barnacles due to "dermal denticles."
6) Right now the military are working on a kind of glove which mimics the feet of a wall gecko (as their inspiration) in order to enable soldiers climb up the walls of buildings with ease.

The list is endless.

In fact Biomimetics is all about mimicking nature in science yet nature wasn't designed but when science mimics it, their own becomes designed.

Aptly put.

Nice one Bro.

Butterflyleo:


You hit it spot on.

There was a time I wanted to create a thread about the science of God in man where I wanted to illustrate that man (as an earthly body) is just a very much advanced science by God where he used the best material to make a housing for our soul.

I did quite a bit of research on it and one of the things that hit me during my research is how scientists all agree that human bone is stronger than steel when compared based on equal mass.

However, the human bone is lighter than steel yet stronger.

In addition, the human bone is alive and gets even stronger over time. The more it gets injured, the stronger it becomes as it heals itself. Something steel cannot do.

And somehow scientists have been unable to replicate the human bone into everyday usage. If they could, then steel would have long been discarded as trash.

Yet someone would sit somewhere and claim we were not designed by the highest scientifically divine mind there is.

Gods own science definitely is far far above our own science which is why it does not subscribe to our limited scientific scrutiny but it can still lend us some of its simplest principles which we have chosen to translate as scientific laws.

I wonder why those laws somehow have also proven to be constant despite "as they claim" were not intelligently set in place.

They wants to confine God to their own scientific standards. Really ridiculous.

I look forward to your thread Bro.

dalaman:

I've stated it already and you even brought it up yourself with a very lame attempt of trying to show that it's not adequate. Here it is again.

:
Anything that consistently agrees with observable reality based on the claims of the said God. Provide evidence that consistently agrees with observable reality based on the claims of your own God. Provide that evidence and see if I don't change my mind. So go ahead and provide the evidence of your God that agrees with observable reality based on the claims of your own God.


Ogbeni were you ever a Muslim?

Why do you just love repetitions?

No be me and you today.

dalaman:
You have NOT provided any evidence according to what you've said but somehow you know that no evidence provided will convince aNY atheist? The many many lies you tell yourselves so that you can sleep well at night.

You'll have to sort this out with johnydon22, he's the one who asked what evidence would convince you. I simply refuted all the evidences you brought forward Ij the thread.

chemystery:
Simply because you have none. End of story!

You're making no point and I'm not ready for this.

chemystery:
No, the thread proves you have no single evidence for gods existence. Yeah, you sure did hit the strawman harder than you ever did on any other thread. Bravo!

Either you're demented or just being unreasonable. I reiterate, I have nothing to prove to any atheist here, neither am I interested in providing any evidence for any atheist. This thread proves, based on johnydon22's question, that nothing will serve as proof for Gods existence to an atheist.

chemystery:
Imagine! You want me to provide the type of evidence I need for your own claims. Ogbeni, if you have any substantial evidence for the existence of your god, bring it forward for scrutiny.

You'll need to get back to johnydon22 on this, he's the one who asked "what will serve as evidence for the existence of a God". I simply reiterated it.

Once again, my point remains, there is no evidence that any atheist can give to johnydon22 on this matter, that cannot be refuted.

Cést finí.

This thread pepper dalaman

dalaman:

You are so emotionally at attached to this belief of yours that any body that questions your position on it seems angry. So pointing out and calling your shenanigans means am angry abi? What ever makes you sleep well at Night.

The evidence for a God that exist will be universally objective. If your God exist as advertised then that means he loves humans and will want to be in a loving relationship with them and will know more than humans what evidence they'll need to believe in him, since according to the talehe is all knowing. If God exist as advertised it will be self evident. The sun exist and is self evident. Nobody doubt it's existence, why is it that it is something that allegedly created the universe, is alive, and wants people to know about its existence that has no evidence and is not self evident. The reason is because God is a fiction of human imaginations.

The thread is. You are trying to claim that atheist will never accept any evidence for God because you know very well that all evidence for God are all made up and are NOT self evident.

Which of the evidence to show that Jesus came to die for humans as a sacrifice is self evident? If you were born 400 years ago in the ancient Benin empire you wouldn't know this and would have lived your life to 100 without ever having an idea of this religious hypothesis. You would have believed in another version of God that also isnt self evident.

Keep wallowing.

Long talk, same bullsh*t.

How about you tell me what evidence will convince you of Gods existence and I'll quickly provide how an atheist can dance around it.

dalaman:
You want to start telling lies abi? Where you ever a Muslim at any time in your life? Lie and let me expose you. I have already screen grabbed what you wrote before on this issue. You were never a Muslim unless what you wrote before was a lie.

I stem from an Islamic background. This is the umpteenth time I'm typing this on this forum, I typed it here several years ago and it hasn't changed. So please expose me
I have my archives, thanks to Seun.

chemystery:
We are saying the same thing. You haven't provide an evidence sufficient enough to convince any atheist. If some have mentioned the type of evidence they want to believe there is a god, it means they are very open-minded and willing to accept your claims if only you can provide them with those evidence. But throughout your original post, you never pointed where those evidence were provide by you or someone else yet was rejected by these atheists instead you kept on making assumptions and throwing excuses here and there.

We are not saying the same thing. I'm definately not trying to provide sufficient evidence for anyone neither am I trying to prove or disprove anyone's evidence.

This thread simply proves that nothing will serve as evidence for Gods existence to an atheist, and I sure hit some nerves

Why not tell me what evidence will cause your "open-minded" self to believe in God, and let me simulate how your atheist brothers will dance around it.

Butterflyleo:
They can see it but rather chose to deny it. Its just like your OP says, they deny the very truth right before their eyes.

How can one borrow from creation and call what they borrowed a design, yet that which they borrowed from was not designed.

Yet the design of that which they borrowed from when applied to their design turns out to be perfect for what they need but somehow to them, that which is perfect in their borrowed design somehow wasn't also designed.

The lies they tell themselves is just laughable

Really laughable Bro.

KingEbukasBlog posted this sometime ago

Man emulates nature but fails to admit that nature was indeed designed.

Roboscorpion vs scorpion
www.nairaland.com/attachments/3478285_jkn4_jpeg590e06ec66546a26bdad7d553f52c4ae

Robodog vs dog
www.nairaland.com/attachments/3478286_dog3_jpeg45f9ded25907cbd52aa3cac664d8ad03

Artificial neuron vs human neuron
www.nairaland.com/attachments/3478287_jkn1_pngfc7f76f16e335adbf7cc27a1835eace1

Man vs robot
www.nairaland.com/attachments/3478288_jkn5_jpeg3b3e2823911f6127cb63c85e999033cf


Neither will the existence of fakes allow me to disprove originals.