₦airaland Forum

Butterflyleo:
Some of them even go as far as running back to whatever science says when the heat becomes too hot on their position but when the heat isn't so fierce they dump science.

Reminds me of what the builders and designers of the latest airplane called the airbus beluga had to say about its design of the plane and I quote

.

They DESIGNED it and borrowed the design from another creature called the beluga whale. If they could call theirs A DESIGN then what then is the original which they copied from?

Airbus beluga

https://beta.ems.ladbiblegroup.com/s3/content/808x455/68e46cf45b514dea89ae69acb7cfa957.png

Beluga whale

[img]https://hiperdimensao.files./2012/11/baleiabeluga.jpg[/img]

This is fantastic.

Truth is, we strive to imitate the creative genius of God in almost everything we do. Too bad some people can't see it.

chemystery:
What prove have you tendered so far as the evidence for god if not "hey look at the universe", "hey look at the sun the stars the ocean, living things", and all other hey look ats. Ogbeni, if your god wants to exist he should have his own evidence instead of relying on other proven existing things to exist. And please, I don't want to hear your normal falacious mantra that "something cannot come from nothing therefore there is something called god that came from nothing and created everything out of nothing". I take god beg you

You still don't get it, do you?

This thread is not an attempt to tender evidence or to prove that God exists.

Its simply a thread on why no evidence presented can be sufficient for an atheist.

What would be sufficient evidence for Gods existence according to you?

Butterflyleo:
Winner01, somehow I never received the mention for this thread despite my moniker being on the list. I wonder why.

Anyway, on that Johnny's thread I saw right through it from the get go and saw its absolute illogicality and told him but he chose to continue on his wild goose chase in folly.

Long story short, Atheism and evidence for God when brought side by side can be as deceptive and slippery as a well oiled snake for there is no universally held ground for their evidence being sought. They only hold a universal ground for the non existence of God.

Based on this, I came to realise that arguing with atheists is absolutely fruitless and a waste of time I would have put into more profitable ventures and that I would be actually dancing to their tune when I do so and further encourage their slippery evidence individual positions.

This was why I created a thread about avoiding atheists and their numerous arguments which even the bible encourages that we avoid arguments that profit nothing.

I am really proud of you for this write up. It is clear, profound and truthful to a T.

God bless you

True, the arguments are usually futile and most of them are usually not willing to accept any evidence. This is why I stopped arguing with them and will rather create threads that will discuss their positions since they won't discuss it.

Thank you Sir.

tartar9:
I think atheists mean different things when they say God does not exist to saying a God cannot exists.

Are you trying to revise your own definition of atheism?

dalaman:

That's exactly what you are doing ogbeni. You are saying that no evidence will be enough for atheist to believe in God. How do you know this? Atheist have presented what will convince them. Instead of accepting the reasons given, you are trying to lie that it's not enough with lame excuses that don't make any sense at all.

How do YOU know that atheist will not accept any evidence when they've already told you what they'll accept as evidence?

Stop telling lies to yourself and making silly excuses for yourself. Keep wallowing.

What will you accept as evidence for Gods existence?

And why are you so angry

dalaman:

Winner01 will never respond to this instead he'll be singing his endless la la la tunes.

If he were born in Tehran to one of the clerics he would have been a shite Muslim. If he were born in Kano to a Hausa Muslim family he would have been a sunni Muslim, if it's India he would have been a Hindu.

If he were born 400 years ago in Nigeria he would have been worshipping the Gods his ancestors worshipped. This empty talk of Jesus will not be on his lips.

Calm down. How you expect me to respond to your arguments when you ignored mine is really baffling.

Read the thread again, the thread was not an evangelical thread. Its simply a point I tried to make. Why are you so agitated?

CAPSLOCKED:


ALMOST EVERYWHERE YOU GO ON EARTH, THERE ARE DIFFERENT PEOPLE TRYING TO TELL YOU TO BELIEVE IN THEIR OWN VERSION OF A SUPREME BEING. WITHOUT PEOPLE TELLING YOU ABOUT "IT", YOU WILL NEVER KNOW. YOU WILL LIVE A HAPPY, HEALTHY, SUCCESSFUL AND FREE LIFE IF EVERYTHING IS IN ORDER FOR YOU. YOU'LL ALMOST LAUGH TO DEATH AT THE IDEA OF A JEWISH CARPENTER WHO DIED FOR YOUR SINS IF IT WAS TOLD TO YOU WHEN YOU'RE ALREADY A SUCCESSFUL 70 YEAR-OLD MAN, WORSE IS THE IDEA THAT DRINKING COW PISS AND EATING DUNG WILL CURE YOUR DISEASES WHEN ALL YOU'VE KNOWN YOUR WHOLE LIFE IS ADVANCED MEDICINE WHICH TRUTHFULLY WORKS.

RELIGION IS MAN MADE. I WAS CHRISTIAN CUS I WAS BORN IN A CATHOLIC FAMILY. IF I WAS BORN BY SHEKAU I MIGHT HAVE LOST MY LIFE FOR BEING A REBELLIOUS MUSLIM. IF I WAS BORN TO JAFFAR IN NEPAL I WOULD HAVE BEEN A URINE DRINKER, OR A WALL SLAMMER IF I WAS BORN IN THE MIDDLE EAST. I WOULD HAVE BEEN MEAT FOR ODIN IF I WAS BORN IN ANCIENT NORSE.

OH, HOW THOUGHTFUL OF GOD TO ARRANGE THINGS IN SUCH A WAY THAT, WHICHEVER RELIGION ONE IS BORN INTO IS KNOWN AS THE "RIGHT ONE" ??


RELIGION IS NOT DIVINELY INSPIRED. IT IS SIMPLY GEOGRAPHY.

I was not born a Christian. I stem from an Islamic background before I went to philosophical agnosticism. The fact that I'm from an Islamic background does not validate or invalidate the claims of Islam. The claims of Islam must be argued on other grounds. Plus, I'm not trying to shove my belief down your throat, you're the one who's doing that already.

Wait a second! Is it that I overestimated the ability of atheists to comprehend this simple thread and not get angry and rant defensively
You guys need to learn from johnydon22, for blessed are the meek

dalaman:
Trying to make a case for your God na. Isn't that what you are doing? It's a lost battle aND you know it. If your God is real there won't be Muslims, Hindus, Taoist, Scintologist etc.

You are here trying to lie to yourself as to why the reasons atheist present are not enough when you know they are, you are just bringing empty and ridiculous excuses that don't even make any sense to you.

If atheist don't like evidence then why are they not arguing about the existence of the sun?

Why do they disbelieve evidence that are purely mythical and fictional?

If your God exist as advertised you think you'll be the one to tell others about it or make a case for it abi? Continue wallowing.

But I'm not here to make a case for God. Can't you read?

johnydon22:
Lol this is one very long write-up.

Abi na.

dalaman:
GOD'S FAILED STRATEGY

Some say that God not only exists but longs to have a meaningful relationship with each one of us. However, in his infinite wisdom, God decided to hide from us--forcing us to rely on faith to believe he exists.

One problem with this strategy is that once we resort to faith, we can believe ANY god exists or many gods exist and, with only faith to go on, it's hard for anyone to prove us wrong. This is rather like giving us a special dice with not six faces, but a few thousand faces--with a different god inscribed on each face.

So God allows chance to decide who will engage in a meaningful relationship with him and who won't. It's pretty obvious this doesn't work very well. After 3,000 or more years, people still worship many different gods. And even those who believe in God have widely varying beliefs about what he is like, what he wants of us and his plans for us.

Furthermore, in some parts of the world, people are increasingly moving from faith to rationality and deciding there are no good reasons to believe God exists.

Hiding from the people you dearly love is a ridiculous strategy and you don't need to be omniscient to figure that out."

- Bill FL

If I tear you slap

You ignored my thread and chose a new line of argument so we can keep arguing and keep arguing?

Continu.

By the way, where did you steal this one from this time?

dalaman:
Obgbeni stop fighting a lost battle.

Why aren't atheist denying the existence of the Sun and Moon? Why aren't atheist denying the existence of microbes and gravity?

You know very well that all the evidence provided for God are ALL MADE UP, that is why you are throwing this empty gimmicks and lame excuses.

If there is evidence for God you will NOT be telling people about it. It will be self evident . Nobody argues about the existence of the sun.

Less than 5% of all humans have won this battle or which battle are you talking about again?

Seun:
Then that is God’s subjective opinion of morality, I guess. Being the creator doesn’t make his positions objectively right.

Let me jus drop this here and run away

According to atheist philosopher Richard Taylor: “to say that something is wrong because… it is forbidden by God, is…. perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong… even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable… The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone”.


I see too many words in this thread.

Cc: kingebukasblog, 4evergod, ScienceWatch, anas09, felixomor, Butterflyleo, sonofthunder, Olaadegbu, muttleylaff, doctoralien, anas09, goodmuyis, bennyann, MsNGO40, malvisguy, scholar8600, temi4fash, ishilove, rekinomtla

So what would Martinez consider evidence of the Christian God?

Martinez19:
If they can consistently show that prayer in the name of Jesus alone and not without makes amputees whole, blind to see, dumb to speak, deaf to hear, heals terminal diseases, perform miracles and raise the dead.

This won't prove anything, at least not to staunch atheists who understand know the Bible. One of the earliest stories of the Christian Bible proves that miracles are not exclusive to the Biblical God.

"When Pharaoh tells you, ‘Perform a miracle,’ you are to say to Aaron, ‘Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,’ and it will become a serpent.” So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD had commanded. Aaron threw his staff down before Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a serpent. But Pharaoh called the wise men and sorcerers and magicians of Egypt, and they also did the same things by their magic arts." - Exodus 7:9-11

If Prophets can heal the blind and such miracles, so can anyone who has other powers, so can medical doctors. It is unlikely prove anything.
On the issue of amputees, it's unclear whether life can come to non existent body parts. This will be synonymous to a prophet trying to breath life to dust or air. The nearest to an amputee miracle can be found in Luke 22:51, but a body part was present.

The dead can come back to life and I've created threads on a few, but its always met with the same resistance and its not exclusive to Christianity so this is unlikely to pass as proof.

Martinez19:
If they can, through their god, predict with 100% accuracy events difficult for a normal human being to predict.

If they can, it still won't prove anything. Breathtaking predictions are not exclusive to Christianity. Some historians claim that a certain Nostradamus accurately predicted future events.

Martinez19:
If they can, with hundred percent accuracy, read my mind through their holy spirit.

Even if they do, experienced hypnotists can do so too. It would prove nothing.

All these would prove nothing.


Dalaman had this to say on what would serve as evidence of Gods existence:

dalaman:
Anything that consistently agrees with observable reality based on the claims of the said God

This is faulty because:
- You'll have to assume that the existence of such a Being is subject to observable reality as against the claims made by theists
- You'll have to assume that observable reality is all there is.
Even in observable reality:
- Your mind falls victim to your limited senses
- Your senses are only tuned to a limited range of gross vibrations
- Your intuitions is untrained, it cannot directly perceive anything
- This will still not prove the existence of a God

What we can infer from our observable reality are perceived evidences that may point away or in the direction of a Creator. Evidences which could include order and design. See what Einstein had to say:

“I’m not an atheist, the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a MYSTERIOUS ORDER in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”



What would heathen777 consider evidence for Gods existence?

Heathen777:
If God exists, then this question wouldn't even have to be asked, because God would be as common knowledge as the fact that there is a sky above.

There's yet to be any scientific evidence of the supernatural, let alone a God, so the odds for a god existing is looking pretty slim, practically non- existent.

This is good but still unlikely to prove anything.
A Supreme Being is common knowledge amongst the vast majority of humans except a few who have decided consciously against such knowledge laced with the problem of different Gods although some explain this as perception. For instance, people were once torn between the idea of the sun moving round the earth and the earth moving round the sun, we know better now but at least, these people agreed on the existence of the sun. The analogy of the sun is consistent with the theists explanation of God, the christian especially, since he claims God is an invisible being.

Ex atheist C. S. Lewis tried to explain this: "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

He goes ahead to explain that evidence for Gods existence is everywhere, you only need to look again.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell."

Atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle, who coined the term “Big Bang" looked again, and this made him admit that his disbelief was “greatly shaken” by the undisputed science, writing about the universe that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.”

Well, that's common sense.

Another thing you might have gotten wrong is this:

Heathen777:
There's yet to be any scientific evidence of the supernatural

The supernatural is beyond the scope of natural sciences, and even if other means were used to prove supernatural occurrences, it still won't count as evidence for Gods existence.

Tartar9 understood this when he wrote:

tartar9:
Supernatural events do not definitely prove the existence of God,and I certainly do not see how hearing a voice banging from the skies addressing all humans would change that perception;to me it only proves the existence of the supernatural and ends here.This remains same whether these occurrences are limitations of our current scientific understanding or what science would never profer an explanation to.

It won't be inordinate imagining a scenario where we have a supernatural realm and supernatural beings with this question of the existence of God being much of a conundrum to them as it has been to us.

"So what exactly would serve as evidence for Gods existence to an atheist?"

The answer seems to be "NOTHING!". Except if such an atheist is willing to soberly come to terms with his limitations and inadequacies and then look again.
That's pretty much all there is to it.

You almost certainly can't argue an atheist into believing that a God exists, you can't prove God to someone who does not want a God to exist.


“If God proved he existed, I still wouldn’t believe in him… I don’t believe in God, not because I can’t but because I don’t want to”. - Atheist Martin Rowson


You also can't prove God to someone who wants atheism to be true. (You must be careful though not to buy into the narrative that atheism is only true when religion is false. Atheism is a truth claim which surely bears a burden of proof). As a matter of fact, all human views make truth claims.

"I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that”. - Atheist PhilosopherThomas Nagel

Atheist Evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin explains his disbelief in God due to a commitment to materialism, no matter what he has “a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods… of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the… world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our… adherence to material causes to create… a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying”. Lewontin goes on to say that his “materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”


Some people would rather go mad than to agree that occurrences can be supernatural.

The late Australian Atheist philosopher John Smart reveals the lengths that he would go to in order to explain away a miracle if he witnessed one: “someone who has naturalistic preconceptions will always in fact find some naturalistic explanation more plausible than a supernatural one… Suppose that I woke up in the night and saw the stars arranged in shapes that spelt out the Apostle’s Creed. I would know that astronomically it is impossible that stars should have changed their positions. I don’t know what I would think. Perhaps I would think that I was dreaming or that I had gone mad. What if everyone else seemed to me to be telling me that the same thing had happened? Then I might not only think that I had gone mad – I would probably go mad”.

Richard Dawkins also leaves no option to anything other than physical laws in his dogmatic belief that every cause in the universe must be natural in origin and explanation: “The kind of explanation we come up with must… make use of the laws of physics, and nothing more than the laws of physics”.


It takes serious levels of honesty for an atheist to admit that nothing would convince him that a God exists because it would pass such a person off as arrogant and close-minded. If my experience has proven anything, it will be that Nigerians are one of the least honest people in the world. Nigerian atheists are no better.

So this is my point. Nothing would actually convince an atheist that a God exists, except he humbly accepts his limitations and inadequacies and then "look again".

www.nairaland.com/attachments/7452649_img20180723082556_jpeg5b74437cbbd925b12158a88abe3a2144

When you look again, everything becomes different. The little things are then likely to argue powerfully in favour of a Gods existence. Can you imagine the great Isaac Newton's proof of Gods existence? A freaking thumb! I've heard an ex atheist say his proof for Gods existence is simply Love. He explains that no matter how hard we try, logic can't explain love.

I have come to understand something about people who need logic to explain every aspect of reality, and can't understand something. Its induces the most profound of fears and so they reject it as false.

"If I can't understand it with logic, measure it or quantify it, it's false".

It has always been a ridiculous apriori position void of any epistemic humility, laced with the arrogant assumption that you are capable of understanding everything that exists, has existed and will exist.


I'll like to end this thread by posting the discussion between johnydon22 and Evangkatsoulis on the parent thread. It motivated me to create this thread.

johnydon22:
Atheists, what would you consider evidence of Gods existence?

Evangkatsoulis:
None whatsoever.

johnydon22:
I don't understand.

Do you subscribe to the atheistic or theistic world view?

Evangkatsoulis:
I have nothing that would be sufficient proof/evidence to me that God exists.

johnydon22:
When you demand for evidence in an argument you actually have nothing in mind?

Evangkatsoulis:
Nope, nothing in mind. And I don't ask for evidence,

The discussion ended there. Such a honest endangered specie atheist, not afraid to cross the red line.


We will keep arguing for years on the subject of Gods existence and we will never reach a conclusion. Surely, Christians are less likely to argue atheists out of atheism because for an atheist to believe in a God, it has to be on their own terms. I hope you can understand.

God bless you!.

"What would you consider evidence for a Creator" as Johnydon22 asks in his thread?


So I wanted to quickly scroll through the thread looking for a major line, but I didn't have to scroll at all. I found the line I was looking for right in the second sentence of the thread. "The burden of proof is on the positor"
This line affects the whole argument.

johnydon22:
We are all used to the normal narrative of demanding for evidence on the subject of God.

True the onus lies on the positor not the negator to present proof.

This is infact true for people who make truth statements. I can't tell you "I have a flying rabbit", without evidence and expect you to believe me. Theists have to show evidence for the positive claim: " A God exists" because it is a bold claim.

I feel it's unbalanced though to assume that "atheism is merely a negation to the claim (A God exists)". I would not like to unravel the revisions of the definition of the word "atheism" because of the length of this thread, but I'll like to point out that the word has undergone series of revisions, mostly to suit obvious narratives and to evade the burden of proof. It's the same reason for the attempts to lump agnostics and other similar worldviews under the same atheistic umbrella.

The line makes many new atheists feel it is unnecessary to defend their positions. Afterall, theists are the one making claims about invisible beings.

To quickly explain my point here, I'll borrow the words of Luke Muehlhauser who writes at Common Sense Atheism: “I think the burden of proof falls on whoever makes a positive claim. If you claim that Yahweh exists, it’s not my duty to disprove Yahweh. But most intellectually-inclined atheists I know do not merely “lack” a belief in God – as, say, my dog lacks a belief in God. Atheists like to avoid the burden of proof during debates, so they say they merely “lack” a belief in God. But this is not what their writings usually suggest. No, most intellectual atheists positively believe that God does not exist. In fact, most of them will say – at least to other atheists – that it’s “obvious” there is no God, or that they “know” – as well as we can “know” anything – that God does not exist.
Thus, if the atheist wants to defend what he really believes, then he, too, has a burden of proof. He should give reasons for why he thinks that God almost certainly doesn’t exist.”


This is the critical distinction. To go from “I’m not convinced from the evidence that Christianity/theism is true” to “therefore, Christianity/theism is false” is a logical leap not supported by the evidence.

Alvin Plantinga has a helpful illustration:
“Lack of evidence, if indeed evidence is lacking, is no grounds for atheism. No one thinks there is good evidence for the proposition that there are an even number of stars; but also, no one thinks the right conclusion to draw is that there are an uneven number of stars. The right conclusion would instead be agnosticism.”

I don’t believe that there are an even number of stars. But I also don’t doubt that there are an even number of stars. Lack of evidence for X isn’t evidence of its opposite, and in this case, the weight of the evidence is perfectly 50-50.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t ways in which lack of evidence can be probative: if I claim that it’s been raining all afternoon, the lack of water on the ground would be evidence against my claim. So there’s no reason atheists couldn’t argue that, if God existed, we’d see X and Y, but don’t see those things, and therefore He doesn’t exist. That would be a logical proof, but would take actual intellectual legwork. The alternative of pretending to be agnostic (a phenomenon Muehlhauser rightly treats as widespread with several atheists) is much easier. It just happens to be intellectually dishonest.


In the end, the burdens of proof of each views on reality is grounded in answers to that might just be divided into two simple categories:
1. Answers from the perspective of philosophical naturalism, or
2. answers that accept the existence of supernatural forces.

In other words, there are only two kinds of forces that could cause the universe and everything in it: impersonal forces (as available in a philosophically natural worldview), or personal forces (as available in a worldview that is open to the existence of a super/extra/supra-natural Being).

So basically the answers of atheists and theists to reality carries the burden of proof, for no evidence for God is not the same as no God.

As Atheist Kai Nielsen captures, God still may exist even if there is no, or weak, evidence: “All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists. In short, to show that the proofs do not work is not enough by itself. It may still be the case that God exists”.

Atheist Scot Shalkowski also implies that to be an atheist one must have good reasons:
"if there were no evidence at all for belief in God, this would [at best] legitimize merely agnosticism unless there is evidence against the existence of God”.

johnydon22:
But to arrive somewhere one thing must be substantiated.

I want to arrive somewhere in this thread, a place where both sides can try to reach a consensus.

johnydon22:
E.G: In science, a good theory is one that makes predictions that can either be confirmed or falsified.

If this predictions are confirmed, the theory garners a degree of proof to its merits.

If falsified based on this prediction, it is discarded.

In this example, the primary factor is is prediction.

This is a great analogy but I feel it does not accurately represent how religion or beliefs work.

Religion or belief systems are very fluid and subject to a number of immeasurable factors.

E.g. Experiences are one of the factors that affects belief systems, but it is difficult to make accurate inferences from peoples experiences.

There are several persons who claim to have witnessed supernatural occurrences which changed their lives forever. I once created a thread on an atheist professor who claimed to have witnessed resurrection, and another thread on a girl with incurable illness who claimed to have died and sent back to life by Jesus who also healed her illness.

Expectedly, the threads were met with negative energy from atheists on this forum who tried all means to discredit the claims of the girl and the professor, for obvious reasons.

Well, that experience changed the life of the girl and the atheist professor.
Their claims were ridiculed, but you must understand that such experiences cannot be taken from them, neither can we make general conclusions from such experiences.



Now to the main reason for my epistle

johnydon22:
So atheists, what do you consider to be the thesis that must be confirmed for the theory of God to make sense?

Theists, what do you consider the greatest pointer that suggests the existence of God?

I find the question to the atheist, suggestive and inconsistent with the topic and I'd like to quickly address it before I move on.

Question 1: "So atheists, what do you consider to be the thesis that must be confirmed for the theory of God to make sense?"
The phrase "thesis that must be confirmed", suggests only formal acceptance and seems to rule out major informal factors that are potent enough to shapen positions held on reality.
The phrase "theory of God" gives off an apriori position and suggests a theoretical position that can be validated or invalidated by "thesis that must be confirmed".


Question 2: "Theists, what do you consider the greatest pointer that suggests the existence of God?"
There are numerous reasons why God's existence is believable, reasons ranging from to most mundane things to the most sophisticated. I posted here sometime ago 32 reasons, amongst others, why I believe in God.


But the title of the thread and the real question is this: Atheists, what would you consider evidence of Gods existence?.

This question is a clear red line which only few atheists will dare cross simply because of their intellectual dishonesty.

So if God were to show up at your doorstep on a Sunday morning to "prove Himself" to you; you surely wouldn't know what to expect.
You wouldn't expect a white handsome bearded man with long hair as depicted in Christian pictorial representations neither would you expect a black man with afro hair who tells you his image has been distorted throughout the world.
You wouldn't expect a man with pierced hands and feet or a man who walks on water, magicians could easily find their way around that.
You won't expect a man who can "cast out demons" from other people because it can be staged and demons don't exists anyway.
You won't expect someone who can remove his limb and put it back or someone who can make a rabbit appear with just a snap of his fingers, it might just be be some weird magic show.
You won't expect someone who could wave his wands and words would appear in the air or the sky, it might be hypnotism.
You won't expect someone who can accurately predict who the winner of the World cup will be or the outcome of the Nigerian presidential elections, it can easily be coincidental.
You won't expect someone who claims to be able to cure a cancer patient, it could be a religious genetic engineer who wants to promote his belief instead of science.
You won't expect someone who claims to be able to cure AIDS, could be one of those physicians paid by heavy pharmaceuticals to conceal the truth according to conspiracy theories.
You won't expect someone who claims to be able to cure what humans consider terminal illnesses, because he'll be a murderous psychopath who has let millions of people die even if those "dead" are now safe with him in his imaginary paradise.
You won't expect someone who claimed to be the one who created the earth, he'd be a poor designer considering the numerous natural disaster there are, or the continuous deterioration of the earth.
You won't expect someone who claimed to be the one who created the universe, you'd expect him to be bigger than the cosmos plus he'd be too petty to even try to prove anything for you - a fragment of a mere speckle of dust in the universe.
You won't expect someone who claimed to be the one who created life, he'd be a poor designer (never mind that we can't even have a comparative analysis).
You won't expect someone who claims to be able to heal an amputee, he'd be a wicked monster to have allowed several humans live a life of struggle.
You won't expect someone who claims to be able to make you die and come back to life, he'd be an evil psycho not be be able to raise all the dead.
In fact, you won't expect such a person to come to you because if he ever ends up convincing you, it'll still be your personal experience subject to mockery from other atheists.


Capslocked probably saw this one on the radar when he wrote:

CAPSLOCKED:

THE ONLY THING I NEED IS FOR THE GOD TO SPEAK TO ALL OF US AT ONCE AND TELL US WHAT IT WANTS (THIS INCLUDES GENERATIONS OF UNBORN HUMANS) INSTEAD OF SPEAKING TO SPECIFIC PEOPLE IN A TRANCE WHICH HAS LED TO MANY MISINTERPRETATIONS OF IT'S WORD AND INSTRUCTIONS.

IF IT'S REAL, THERE SHOULDN'T BE SELECTIVITY IN COMMUNICATING WITH THE CREATURES IT WANTS TO ATTRACT.

This rightly is likely to erase the issue of subjective experience but it is faulty.
How do you speak to everyone, everywhere in the world, AT ONCE, including all the unborn humans that will ever exist? Definately not through a loud speaker that can reach the ends of the earth.
Then there's the unfair advantage of time zones which means while I'm sipping coconut juice by day preparing to listen to a supreme beings speak, another person in south America depriving himself of sleep in order to listen to this same being. Its also impossible to achieve this with the unborn generation as you can't speak to something that does not exist yet.

But...you can tweak their genes right? You can genetically re-code the human race and the unborn generation won't have to miss the message. If so, how do we explain the fact that humans are naturally predisposed to believe in the supernatural?

Maybe that's some tweaked genes clue right there. I don't think you need to teach a child the existence of demons before he becomes afraid of the dark. See how ex atheist G. K. Chesterton puts it: "Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. What they give the child is his first clear idea of the defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon".

If I want to teach my son some arithmetics, I'll give him some clues and tests. How bizzare such tests or clues are subject to another debate. Except of course, Its assumed that I'm meant to give my son answers straightaway if I'm serious about imparting knowledge. This would be the narrative of christians with respect to Jesus and His purpose for humans.

.

God be praised!!! Amen.

Great testimony. Glory be to God in the Highest. Amen.

Martinez19:
So it's okay for yahweh to let them die as long as their deaths wasn't as gruesome as that of the disciple?

Then sue Yahweh or quit being stupid.

[quote author]

dalaman:
It does, unless if your God is not what you guys claim it is. You claim it is all loving, kind, God of Justice that answer prayers bla bla bla.

Why should Nigerians pray to God for protection if he can not protect those that were killed inside the church on Sunday in Plateau state while they were calling onto him for help and according to the bible he was there with them.

If your God can not protect his loyal disciples and allowed them to be killed as you said the disciples of Jesus were killed then why are people wasting time calling onto him for help when in danger and distress? Again it shows that prayers are totally useless.

If you disagree the show me how prayers are useful to Nigerians that are in danger or in distress.

Story!!!

Check my previous chats, I don't have time to keep repeating the same thing.

CAPSLOCKED:

I AGREE.

IT'S JUST A STUPĮD IDEA.

You still said it in 2016, and nobody still cares.

dalaman:
It does, unless if your God is not what you guys claim it is. You claim it is all loving, kind, God of Justice that answer prayers bla bla bla.

Why should Nigerians pray to God for protection if he can not protect those that were killed inside the church on Sunday in Plateau state while they were calling onto him for help and according to the bible he was there with them.

If your God can not protect his loyal disciples and allowed them to be killed as you said the disciples of Jesus were killed then why are people wasting time calling onto him for help when in danger and distress? Again it shows that prayers are totally useless.

If you disagree the show me how prayers are useful to Nigerians that are in danger or in distress.

Story for the gods! How many times do you want me to explain this point to you before you get it

dalaman:
My point exactly. If your God can not save his most loyal disciples then why waste time praying to it to save you?

Why are Nigerians wasting time praying to God to give them victory over their enemies and in their daily endeavors if he can not help his most loyal disciples assuming the stories about the disciples of Jesus is true.

It's shows that prayers when in distress or danger are totally useless and a waste of time.

It does not show what you think it shows. It only shows that prayers are not inconsistent with the existence of God.

superhumanist:
.

Your memes don't mean Sh*t. But go on, I'm enjoying it.

superhumanist:
Ogbeni, look up the meaning of secularism before you talk rubbish. Germany is a secular country as there separation of government from religion.






Also, stop telling lies. I never opened any thread on sports and religion.

Germany is about 70% Christian. Of course its a secular country. As far as I'm aware, I only know of atheist countries (north Korea) and Islamic countries, I don't think there's any term like Christian country even if the Christian population is 95%. We are not as obsessed.

I never meant you particularly, I meant the obsession of atheists, the nuisance atheists constitute. This thread is a good example.

superhumanist:
Christianity is not a religion?

I've answered that severally here. Christianity is not a religion. Whatever you or any other retar*d thinks of this is yours and yours alone.

superhumanist:
Germany is a secular country.

Atheism has nothing to do with sports. Your thread is silly

A christian Majority country is secular , Nigeria is also a secular country. At least its neither a Christian country nor a Muslim country.

If atheism has nothing to do with sports, why do you open stupid threads on God and sports? Is it the delusion?

dalaman:
A God that didn't answer the prayers of those christians that were killed inside churches by the terrorist Fulanis as they were worshipping him last Sunday in Jos can not and will never hear the prayers of the Nigerian national football team.

I don't think any of those Christians were killed in ways more gruesome than any of Christ's disciples. So?

paxonel:
but the question I'm asking is, why will Nigerians pray that eagles should win when they already know that God will never answer their prayer?

Why can't they just accept that if Nigeria had won, it would have been fate and not a miracle?

Because no reasonable person believes that this world is all there is, and that we came here on our own. Best we can do, is to prepare, work hard and believe that God will shine his face on us.

superhumanist:
It would pay you to do research before coming to argue. Try to understand how these polls on religion are done.

That 35-36% of religious people are those that outrightly state that they are irreligious. That figure does not include irreligious people who still identify as christians due to baptism or tradition. There is also the fact that irreligious people tick "I don't know" or "other religion", as well.


That aside, Germany is a very secular country. That is an undeniable fact.

Isreal is not as religious as Nigeria. Isreal has never won the world cup. Isreal is also a racist country that has failed to understand peace since the 70s.

I am irreligious. If I was asked to tick a questionairre, I would attest to being irreligious. Religion is good, but do not believe in religion, I believe in God as shown through Christ Jesus.

How about the majority of religious countries that have won the world cup? What nuisance do you have to contribute to that fact?

superhumanist:
Winner01,

Germany won the last world cup.

Germany is one of the most secular countries in the world

35-36% of Germans are irreligious

51% of German youth are irreligious



Receive sense!

This world cup hasnt ended

1. Just like several developed countries, Germany is a Christian majority country and they are doing very well.

2. Brazil, Argentina and other religious countries have won the world cup severally. If Germany wins the world cup, it means a Christian majority country entry would have won the world cup, where are the atheists countries?

3. You have missed the total point. This is not about religion influencing football. This is about the world not giving a sh*t about atheist opinions.
Any atheist opinion on football or sports simply constitutes a nuisance.

CAPSLOCKED:

MYSTERIOUS WAYS LIKE DISTRIBUTING EBOLA AND MALARIA AMONG KIDS IN EAST AFRICA, GIVING CANCER AND HIV TO NEW BORN BABIES, AND CAUSING ACCIDENTS AND DISASTERS WORLDWIDE.

You said it in 2016. Still no one cares.