₦airaland Forum

reigncalif1:
Go on and explain to me if you have different view from lordleed

You don't know science, that is why you obviously find very hard to differentiate evolution from Abiogenesis/panspermia.
Theory of evolution doesn't answer the question relating to origin of life, it only answers the questions relating to origin and diversity of species.
The keywords are "life", "species" and "diversity".

The topic that answers the questions regarding the origin of life is Abiogenesis not evolution.

It's like you see a footwear in the market, you are certinsly sure that this footwear was produced and how it was produced (that's evolution) but you don't knowwhere it was produced (that's Abiogenesis).

If you write a biology exam and you state that evolution explains origin of life, you will fail the exam. It shows that you do not understand the topic.

Even Darwin's paper did not say "on the origin of life", it says "on the origin of species"

reigncalif1:
Did he explain evolution from the stand point of origination and if he can't do that then is still a mere speculation.

But I offered to explain it to you, you said LordReed already did and you still make comment like someone who's abjectly ignorant of it.

There's nothing wrong with premarital sex between adults

reigncalif1:
So why do you think evolution is right since you don't know the origin of the universe?


I don't know too but all those theories didn't add up .

even after LordReed explained to you, you still don't understand that evolution has nothing to do with origin of life.

Is your skull thick?

Nosayer:
It would have made more sense if you had a good depth and a sound philosophical mind that's stable enough to consistently address specifics in religion rather than just blabbering around like a disgruntled beast whose prey was seized from its jaws.

The only category of people credible enough to discuss religion are either highly intelligent philosophers (who already did) or highly regarded scientists (especially physicists). Guess what? Among these two category of people, there are highly religious individual.

So have your field day. Not everything in science is rational anyway. At least, quantum physics is telling us something similar.

philosophical mind like "we don't know hence God did it".
Sounds like a fallacy to me.

I would rather humbly admit that I don't know instead of shamelessly look for philosophical grounds to insert a personal God

vaxx:
neither am I a garulous individual, once you are grounded with knowledge. I will count you a serious atheist, back in those years , we used to have smart athiest on nairaland, people like budatum, agent of allah etc. Not this type of wannabe .

I just told you that even in the body of science that uses empherical model as a standard of evidence which is axioms is simply assumed not testable , it is in this foundation, science was birth . It is called axioms .

There's nothing smart about believing without evidence.
It's always wrong.

You see science demands evidence. Faith requires belief. Science says we do not have EVIDENCE as to what happened before the big bang so we do not address it. Belief says, plug in the deity of our choice. I might add what makes you believe your favorite deity is the appropriate choice?? Science does not just plug in “magic” when they haven’t the evidence, faith does, and often ignores evidence.

And there's a popular saying that "if it can't be tested, it cannot be trusted". Religion is scared of being tested, it doesn't like it. It's meant for the weak.

It's always unintelligent or irrational to accept claims without evidence, it doesn't matter if it's in religion on other spheres of life.

vaxx:
How do you text axioms ? What kind of insane answers is this ? Or you are just an atheist wannabe ? All evidence has structure base from mathematical model, how do you text this model? Axioms are taken to be true without fact and it is science .

I am not here to argue strawman.
Just provide evidence for your beliefs that we can test

elated177:
Be serious.

Are you not looking for evidence of the Creator of heaven and earth?

I already have one, for flying spaghetti monster.
Why can't you just accept that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator?

reigncalif1:
Leed has already done so but am not in about whatever evolution try to prove ..

I want to understand the origin of everything which he attributes to big bang though he claims not knowing how it started

We don't know the origin of the universe yet. Do you know it?

reigncalif1:
Evidence of evolution never stated the origin of it . Big bang does according to leed so my question should be how did big bang started

What causes the expansion and explosion?

Is there an uncaused caused? If yes then what Of creation , cause creation Also claim an uncaused cause

All if them are bird of same feather whether creation or evolution or big bang they are all confusion upon confusion

we don't know, the topic is to present evidence for your God and not to ask us plenty of questions

vaxx:
though you state itt without providing the reason. Or you just want to reply for replying sake .

what empherical evidence do you need that is more model than mathematical proof, seems , you will need evidence that will not be subjected into another evidence .. and pls that is not science .


S

ontology is a philosophical argument, it's not evidence.
It cannot be tested

elated177:
But I gave you evidence above.

You gave me evidence for flying spaghetti monster

vaxx:
I only followed you last line of thought, you were of the opinion you dislike religion fanatics, and I address your topic as it does .

If you are looking for evidence of God , I have written many notes on the subject , but to not put you into a block chain, let me hack it for you. go read ""godel proof for existence of God", give it a Wikipedia read and furthermore , read more pdf

.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

However, all evidence depend on their axioms. No evidence is immune to challenge, even if you are going to go against it , your evidence will be subjected to another evidence.

Scientific evidence are subjected to challenge , that is why research never end ? How compelling do you want to disagree?

ontological proof is not evidence.
How do I help you understand the difference?

vaxx:
well, being an atheist is a choice and being an extremist is also not bad but it depends on what subject.


If I am extremely kind and loving and I decide to spread it instead of hide it and you condemn me for hating those who are not kind and loving like me , haven't you commit a crime? maybe you don't get it, If I am extremely good in mathematics but decide to teach my fellow mates I perceived are not cashing up, and I am being attacked by other fellow mates, do you really think that will be fear ?

I am aware America has been proven their own version of democracy all around the world. That is fundamentalism in politics. How do you iron that out ?

The topic is about evidence for your beliefs.
I'm strongly to understand how your comments address that

AudioMonkey:
Which evidence again? You mean the one we're almost done with, which you're running from, since you know the outcome.
You were claiming genius initially, now you're the one running and derailing the conversation.

I'll take this to mean, you finally accepted defeat.
As expected while we're right in the middle of the evidence you ask, you'll keep taking us back to start since you know what awaits you at the end.
Even though you won't let us get to the end of this, yet I've made you look like the clown you're, stuck in an infinite loop of intentionally babbling the conversation backwards.

Then congrats my boi, you've successfully committed more fallacies than any living. Red herring, strawmanning, loaded question and the rest.

The only place you proved me wrong was my initial thoughts. Initially I was looking at a tough challenge but as the conversation went on, you showed you're just like your fellow atheist clowns here.

Another one bites the dust.
While you recover, go find a soft, east target in religious section to massage your balls and rebuild your tiny ego.
In the meanwhile, bye coward .
Till we meet again.

Flying spaghetti monster loves you.
Ramen

AudioMonkey:
Good. Your first time of making a clear statement instead of irrelevant babblings.

Now, in addition to your confusion, do you have short memory?
I know all you need as atheist is critical thinking, but that doesn't remove the importance of memory, at least to keep up with a conversation like this.
What got us to this point really?
Was it not same evidence you asked for in the beginning, while I told you, you're the evidence you ask, which you called fallacy.
What makes this a fallacy or not is if you or the universe show evidence of intelligent design which indicates intelligent designer but since you claimed there's no evidence of design anywhere. So I ask you to explain what a design is and why the universe doesn't fit as one. If eventually the world is invalidated as a design or it doesn't show any indication of any designer, it simply means your claim of fallacy is true and I'll accept there isn't any evidence, until maybe a day if I have.

So far, what we're doing here exactly is what you ask for. Now that we're here, stop deviating. If you can show the universe isn't a design, then this will be over and we all go home.

Once again, i've put this whole conversation on track from the beginning, stop deviating or dragging it back.

OK, since you are here to make claims without evidence.

I propose that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the intelligent designer. It makes alot of sense because the intelligent designer cannot exist without being created.

I do not have to provide evidence for this since you didn't provide for yours

reigncalif1:
What are you even saying
Whatever the theory of evolution try to prove came down to nothing

What causes the random reaction ?

Is there another uncaused cause?

I think you don't understand the theory of evolution and evolution.
I can educate you if you wish to listen

reigncalif1:
According to my little research about life including science and co , I came to conclusion of two theory
1 Life is too good to have been evoluted from nothing

2 life is not too perfect to have been created.
I don Know if there is a theory out there that support this but I can call it created evolution mean in a way it seems we are created to evolve something like that

because life itself looks so reduculos to be created in the first place for instant
Fate and survival of the fittest which exist among us is not a part of supposed creation because they lack purpose which is creation

Creation= purpose
Evolution=lack of purpose

Why is there fate ... Why did our creator choose survival of the fittest method does it means out creator is more ruthless and partial

How can we evolve from nothing
If ACTUALLY nothing can come outa nothing then evolution is useless

Are you presuming that everything must have a creator and life is too organized not to have been created?

If yes, this is not evidence. You are presenting a philosophical without substance.

BTW, we have myriads of evidence that evolution happened and still happening

ayoncox:
I don't have any evidences to present to you just as there are no evidences that proves that other planets exist.
When we pass away from this earth we will all know whether God exists or not, but as for me I have chosen to believe he does and that Jesus is the only way to him, it is my choice of believe no need for explanation.

Really, no evidence to prove that other planets exists?

You live under a rock?
This is the height. Of ignorance

hupernikao:
Make what you seek clearer.

What evidence do you seek.

Scientific
Theological
Supernatural

You make a proof or evidence in its domain not in any domain.

You cant use equations to prove anger exist. You have to experience it.

You can't use physics to explain that shark exist, you have to find it in its domain.

Just same way you can't use scientific rule to prove existence of love and passion.

What domain do you seek this God of all things, maybe you will find him, when your compass move to the right direction.


Longtime Bro.
I trust you are good.

There's nothing like what kind of evidence.

Evidence is always testable

elated177:
You have nothing tangible to offer.

Just because I asked that you provide evidence for your God?

kimco:
A lesson learnt too late my brother. Extremely dishonest fellow

can't you see how I avoided him like a plague?

AudioMonkey:
You're such a coward atheist. What crop of parody atheists do we have here?

parody that has helped you realize how ridiculous you sound

The other day, it was one who ran away from the debate, today it's another too afraid to explain a statement he made, only to keep digressing.

Your arguemnt for a god is as ridiculous as the argument that flying spaghetti monster created your God.

Over a decade ago on Atheist Republic, white atheists are not like this. These boys are loaded, they have clear answers to give, there isn't space to run around circles.

do you have any personal prejudice against atheists?

I never ran from all your questions. In my replies, I've made clean points while all you do is babble theoretical terms in fallacy.

I am not responsible for your inability to make a point without fallacies.

So, which claims I've I made here without providing evidence? Say it.
We can start all over again. No where for you to hide

"God exist" is a claim
Provide evidence for it

AudioMonkey:
Alright, I also love to read stuffs like that.

Except that if you follow our discussion, i asked him a simple question, instead of a straight forward answer, he's been dodging and creating texts which could be regarded as the 'the unending babbles of Workch '
If you're his friend or fellow atheist, you can help him out. I won't take it as cheating.

You cannot ask without providing evidence for your claims.
It's called loaded questions and it's irrational

AudioMonkey:
Lol. I laugh in Gucci.
The same way you kept babbling instead of simply rubbishing these myriad of fallacies by basic arguments.
I noticed the initial arrogance in your responses has now dwindled into repetition of babbles. Where did your ego and overeducation suddenly go?

Don't use this mention as distraction. Answer my question in the other reply.
Start making points, stop making excuses.

There's no crime is saying "I don't know".

Be humble else I'm gonna make you realize how ridiculous you sound

AudioMonkey:
Alright, you're right. Shits are made up without evidence.
Either atheism, deism, theism or whatever again, things are being made up here and there.
The more difficult part is making whatever you made-up work.
You've made-up yours too, now make it work.
Let's see how your universe created itself without the intervention of a superior being, intelligence or any other form of supernatural interference.

Another fallacy "whataboutsim"

"was the universe created?

I don't know would have been a genuine answer but because you are full of shit from religion, you see a need to insert a creator.

Now how many more creators should we come up with with your fallacious logical of infinite regress.

You cannot win this debate even if you want to, it's dead on arrival. A belief in a creator is a myriad of fallacies and can easily be rubbished by basic arguments.

elated177:
I guess your handlers advised you not to push this line of discourse further.

Because you are becoming boring

AudioMonkey:
The only special pleading here is all-noing jean-ius like you who doesn't expect mystery to defy logical rules, so he could get a quick narrow-escape from this whole argument.
Anytime I contradict the fundamentals of theism which includes both logic and mystery, natural and supernatural, point it out but if you can't, then I remain valid.

Seems this your so called Flying Spaghetti monster is very special to you. You're highly fascinated by it all the time.
Last time I saw your Flying spaghetti, it was being devoured with fried egg by some hungry lads across the street. I heard it is no longer a monster and can no longer fly, as it has been forced to be the equivalence of shit in a lavatory.

Now answer my question. You claim the universe isn't a design. So what is a design and how is the universe not a design?
It's time to begin hitting yourself below the belt.

Tell me why the flying spaghetti monster cannot be the creator of the Creator and the invisible pink unicorn cannot be the creator of the flying spaghetti monster.

Seems silly to you right?
I can make it turtle all the way down more, the God of next Tuesdayism created invisible pink unicorn. You can add yours

This is what happens when you keep making shit up without evidence.

AudioMonkey:
Your question has a simple answer.
God does not necessarily need a designer/creator. A supernatural God can exist supernaturally.
Keep your special pleading to yourself, I don't need it as I've broken no rule yet.

Is it not atheists who claim and plead for a universe with limited, physical possibilities? In the universe of theists, there are limitless possibilities.
Your own world you represent is logical and physical, the world I represent is both natural and supernatural, so if I employ logical rules or claim mystery, I never broke any rule, I'm still within the scope of what I represent.
In a movie where everyone takes normal process to cook, if a magician said he conjured his own food. He didn't break any rule. Whichever method he used, he's not wrong. He can choose to follow valid logic or defy it, that is why he's a magician.
You claim your own universe is monochrome black/white, I said mine is multicoloured, don't cry foul if I present various colors because what limits you does not limit me. Either I use black/white just like you or more colors, I've not broken any rule, I'm still valid within the scope of what I represent.

Every design has an intelligent designer/creator. This is a valid logical fact.
Also, a supernatural God can defy logic and exist all by itself or some other mysterious ways beyond logic. This is also valid.

When it's said that, something is supernatural, do you expect it to follow or operate only on logical rules?
It doesn't follow logic or natural rules every time, or it can chose to follow logical/natural rules or not, that is why it's called supernatural. Get that.

You're the one on the hot seat here, not me, when you're done and I start asking my own questions, we'll see how you will logically explain this kind of universe we live in created itself or existed by accident or coincidences like your mentors claim.

So you are going to special plead for your God as expected.

I'm proposing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the creator of the universe and the flying spaghetti monster cannot be created.

Disprove that

The flying spaghetti is the uncaused cause

AudioMonkey:
Welcome back my boi.
Lol, sounding boastful as expected.
I really want to learn from the self-assuming, most intelligent atheist to grace this forum, that is why I'm in haste.
Calm down, I can't expect to win an overly self-important genius like you. Where would you put your ego and face if you allow yourself defeated in the midst of fellow atheist who look up to you.
I'm only here to deflate your ego and false education a little before I vanish.

At bolded, if posts cannot be deleted on Nairaland, so what happened to your reply?

I'm very interested in knowing how you want to answer that question.

If everything has is to orderly not to have a creator, it means this creator must in itself be orderly, so who created the creator?

AudioMonkey:
Welcome back my boi.
Lol, sounding boastful as expected.
I really want to learn from the self-assuming, most intelligent atheist to grace this forum, that is why I'm in haste.
Calm down, I can't expect to win an overly self-important genius like you. Where would you put your ego and face if you allow yourself defeated in the midst of fellow atheist who look up to you.
I'm only here to deflate your ego and false education a little before I vanish.

At bolded, if posts cannot be deleted on Nairaland, so what happened to your reply?

Then answer the question.

Who created the organized creator of everything , if everything organized has to be created?

I am not ready for unnecessary distractions. Answer that question