₦airaland Forum

TenQ:
I perfectly agree with you: It will take an astronomical amount of evidence in quantum physics to know that stuffs can exist from nothing.
Unfortunately, there is not one single evidence yet.
Or knowing that I am prone to not understanding advanced level physics, are their evidence of something coming out of nothing probably from the Large Hadron collider experiment?

Until you find your evidence, you have a god "the god of information" and your faith is in it.

Sorry, there’s evidence that stuffs exist out of nothing in quantum physics.

I’m not responsible for your ignorance about it

Crystyano:
Stop repeating crap!!!

That you have limits towards your inability to identify something doesn't mean there's nothing....

Its crap to also think it’s there because you don’t know.

It’s a fallacy of appealing to ignorance

Dtruthspeaker:
You are the one fighting with yourself! I am just here for your show!

I am telling you the claim of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Which says he created Yahweh.

It’s true because it cannot be disproven.

TenQ:
It takes an astronomical amount of FAITH to know that the universe can exist from nothing (except if the definition of nothing has changed).
Unfortunately, I don't have that kind of superhuman Faith.

Nature abhors a vacuum: whenever anyone reject God, he has to replace Him with Something/Someone else.


One day both our faiths will be tested!

It takes an astronomical amount of evidence in quantum physics to know that stuffs can exist from nothing including the first ever particle.

Evidence will always replace god. God doesn’t like evidence. Wherever you find evidence, god runs away

Dtruthspeaker:
Including you! so, normal!

Exactly, that’s why i cannot disprove that Flying Spaghetti Monster created Christian god

It seem true to me since it has not been disproven

Dtruthspeaker:
Everyone can say anything, including the insane, BUT TIME HAS ALWAYS BEEN A SURE KILLER OF LIES!

Everyone have myopic knowledge and understanding.
We will soon get to that stage when we can test that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Christian god as we improve our understanding of the universe.

It’s either you accept it or disprove it

Nothingserious:
Hahahaha!
Everything now looks like a child’s play.

It's not a child's play, this argument is consistent with your logic.

Since science doesn't have the tool to test Christian god because the Christian God who created science is beyond science, so the Christian God cannot have the tool to test its creator who's the flying spaghetti monster. The flying spaghetti monster is beyond the Christian God.


Very consistent logic

Nothingserious:
Again, this is a poor representation of the claims on knowledge of philosophy you make.

You don’t force logic on people. You drop valid logical arguments and allow your points win the arguments.

So if it’s a difficult thing for you to see that claims of Almighty God Yahweh are not dependent on arguments for spaghetti, then I wonder how else I will help you out.

I am trying to reconcile what point you are struggling to make.

The current tool in logic cannot explain the flying spaghetti monster.
We don't have that tool yet. It's true but as we improve, we will figure this out

Flying spaghetti monster created Christian God

Nothingserious:
Abeg don’t mind the guy with his circular arguments.
Lol

I agree, it doesn’t have to be logical.
Since we don’t understand it yet, we have to understand first to see the logic in it.

The Christian god was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can develop a tool to disprove that

Dtruthspeaker:
As I said, everyone can say anything BUT TIME HAS ALWAYS BEEN A SURE KILLER OF LIES!

Earlier this year/last year, Happypagan aka KnownUnkown did exactly this same madness as you do, and . Almighty Time shut him off, no storm gathered, Silence.

Same for Otematum, we all see him as mad as Guru and co was.

Right now, you are the noisemaker, yet as your threads and monikers have proven, you have no followership and no one follows your manufactured religion. Those who follow you are the same well known Satanist whom themselves have shown that no one can reasonably take Indomie Bird seriously.

It does not have any clout at all.

Time did not even allow it to exist!

So guru maraji and co are even greater than it.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Christian god and we cannot test it with the current tool at our disposal.

It’s either you accept that or you develop a tool to disprove it.

Dtruthspeaker:
So did Guru Maraji, Olumba-Olumba et al. Every Mouth can say whatever it likes but Time has always been the killer of Lies, when all else fails.



Gbam! If it is already known that a claim is untrue, then that Untrue Claim is not up for debate.

Exactly as no one reasonably considers to raise up a claim that a man can get pregnant.



Since it already known that Flying Imdomie does not exist then it is not worthy of contest or debate.

So he has lost already for not being in existence when God was Reigning!

The claim is true.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Christian god.

We don’t know because our understanding is limited

Nothingserious:
Circular arguments. Keep deflecting.
I have been consistent in this discourse on my request for empirical data testing for the supernatural. You are the one who fired the appeal to authority cannon. So let’s drop the authorities we know ( even though most of what we know came through one authority or another), tell us what empirical method YOU specifically used in testing religion and the supernatural since you don’t like and agree with the authorities who said such doesn’t exist yet.

I agree to whatever fallacy you call it as long as you agree that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created Yahweh.

The logic will force you to accept it.

Nothingserious:
Again ask believers in flying spaghetti to help you out.

Our God discussions doesn’t need the help of arguments from spaghetti to stand.
What is your obsession with the spaghetti? You bring it up in every of our engagements even though it’s unrelated to our discussions.
May I know why?

if your God claim is real then that of the flying spaghetti monster has to be real.

It's either you agree that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real else you may have to drop your own God claim as well.

The flying spaghetti monster created Yahweh and we don't have the tool to test it, disprove it or accept it.

It's you against your logic now

According to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he claims to be the supreme god and the creator of all other gods including the Christian god.

If we shift the goalpost even farther by claiming that this is true but the current level of understanding we have as humans has limitations hence it’s impossible for us to figure that the Christian god was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster with the current tool at our disposal.

How would you disprove this without special pleading for the existence of your god?

Nothingserious:
You can abuse me.

I hate that you started this thread with bragging and cockiness when in fact you just direct-lifted someone’s intellectual property without so much as acknowledging them. That’s plagiarism and intellectual theft.

You made it look like you were one philosophically sound juggernaut.

So go ahead and abuse me.
After that, provide the empirical tools science used in investigations of the supernatural, religion, aesthetics, scientific laws( yes science doesn’t have empirical proof for scientific laws), consciousness, maths and logic.

You can keep your circular arguments to yourself if you can’t provide any of those.

ok, that means the Flying Spaghetti Monster created god as he claim.

We cannot know this because the current methods of theology and science are too limited to test it.

Nothingserious:
Deflections!
Coming from someone who started by warning us to avoid fallacies.

Do I need to prove flying spaghetti for the claims of God to stand?

Have you heard of contingent and necessary existence before?

God exists contingently. I do not need to talk to you about spaghetti to show you God.

Look for spaghetti believers and argue spaghetti with them.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of the Christian god.

It’s true because it cannot be tested with current method.

Nothingserious:
Maybe you go back and see how we got here. You forget too soon . Or you intentionally drift . Which is it?

Do want to provide any evidence or you want to keep distracting me?

Crystyano:
If nothing cannot really exist,
It means the universe once existed as something else before... that's because no combination/arrangement of objects with a specific size remains forever... it's only the objects that combine that always exist... the universe can only exist as a combination of several objects...


You cannot have identifiable objects except by chance because you can't identify anything except by chance because you can't be exposed to something you can identify except by chance...

So,there are always objects/combinations of objects but you can't identify anything except by chance.... this doesn't mean that there's nothing...


The universe cannot be void ... no specific thing can actually be a container of no specific thing...In other words , anything that exists is either a specific object with a specific size or a combination of several specific objects or a property of a specific object or a property of a combination of several objects...


If you can't identify anything at a particular point ,it doesn't mean nothing is there,it means there's something you're YET TO IDENTIFY...

If you can't identify anything at any point as well, you can't conclude that something is there.
It's a classical example of appealing to ignorance.

Nothingserious:
So you have jettisoned your almighty empirical tools for investigation? Lol

I am still waiting for how you test for those items I listed earlier.

I would like you to stick to the claims Christians and the Bible had made about God. You are setting your expectations here and you can’t box the sovereign God into your own expectations. Rather you fit into God’s.

So look at the claims theists have made and then pick them up on that.

Did you believe God based on previous miracles others testified about?

“He said to him, If they do not hear and listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded and convinced and believe [even] if someone should rise from the dead.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭16:31‬ ‭AMPC‬‬
https://www.bible.com/8/luk.16.31.ampc

It means that you cannot disprove the claim by flying spaghetti monster that he created the Christian God.

If you God is correct then this claim has to be correct as well. They are very compatible

Crystyano:
The God(s) iS/ ARE SAID to have attributes...

The above statement is different from THERE ARE GODS OR THERE IS A GOD WITH SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES...


Let them state the definition of the supernatural/God that shows how the supernatural/God can exist before anything else...

Well, they will keep shifting the goalpost

Nothingserious:
So you have jettisoned your almighty empirical tools for investigation? Lol

I am still waiting for how you test for those items I listed earlier.

I would like you to stick to the claims Christians and the Bible had made about God. You are setting your expectations here and you can’t box the sovereign God into your own expectations. Rather you fit into God’s.

So look at the claims theists have made and then pick them up on that.

Did you believe God based on previous miracles others testified about?

“He said to him, If they do not hear and listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded and convinced and believe [even] if someone should rise from the dead.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭16:31‬ ‭AMPC‬‬
https://www.bible.com/8/luk.16.31.ampc

You see why I prefer abusing you instead of having a sane argument with you?
Do you want to be reasonable or should I treat like an animal?

I have told you that I need just testable evidence. It must not be scientific, if this testable evidence comes from science then fine

Nothingserious:
Lol!

So you have finally dropped your scientific/empirical proof chant. That’s too early actually.

You are the person misunderstanding me.
I asked testable evidence.
Seems you are very weary of science

Nothingserious:
Ah! There you go!

So let me remind you that those texts you copied yesterday even without acknowledging the intellectual rights of the writers was also an appeal to authority.
You neither formed nor developed those arguments. You give back to us what you read. You weren’t born with those knowledge. So you should know a fine line between us reeling out what we have learnt and appealing to authorities we study from.

That said, those comments were made in the course of discussions on God. If you think Richard Dawkins, Richard Lewontin, Stephen Hawkings etc should not be listened to when they speak, that’s fine. But a lot of atheists and skeptics draw arguments from their texts.
I am sure you would also like to quote them when it’s convenient for your arguments. Now that they concede no one can disprove the existence of God, you think I appeal to authority. Lol

So tell me what scientific tool we can use to investigate and prove the supernatural, religion, aesthetics, maths, logic, consciousness.

Are you also aware that science cannot proof it’s scientific laws? Science doesn’t have a tool to prove its scientific laws.

But if you say you have the tools, show me here. I mean empirically!

Another unscientific way to test for the omnipotent attribute of your God is to go to say accident and emergency ward of LUTH and heal those who recently had accident. Like replenish their flesh immediately.
This is just simple and a nonscientific way of providing evidence. Atleast we have verifiable data that can be tracked to confirm this miracle unlike those they perfrom in churches.

You must not make the whole situation so difficult just because you don't want people to expose you.

Nothingserious:
Ah! There you go!

So let me remind you that those texts you copied yesterday even without acknowledging the intellectual rights of the writers was also an appeal to authority.
You neither formed nor developed those arguments. You give back to us what you read. You weren’t born with those knowledge. So you should know a fine line between us reeling out what we have learnt and appealing to authorities we study from.

That said, those comments were made in the course of discussions on God. If you think Richard Dawkins, Richard Lewontin, Stephen Hawkings etc should not be listened to when they speak, that’s fine. But a lot of atheists and skeptics draw arguments from their texts.
I am sure you would also like to quote them when it’s convenient for your arguments. Now that they concede no one can disprove the existence of God, you think I appeal to authority. Lol

So tell me what scientific tool we can use to investigate and prove the supernatural, religion, aesthetics, maths, logic, consciousness.

Are you also aware that science cannot proof it’s scientific laws? Science doesn’t have a tool to prove its scientific laws.

But if you say you have the tools, show me here. I mean empirically!

It's not compulsory that it has to be a scientific tool that will test for your God.
It can be anything even outside of science.

For example, you can show us that miracle is real by growing the limb of an amputee, there's nothing scientific in this method. It's a simple method and this will go a long way to change the mind of many atheists.

Making it look like we can't test your God is dubious and a subtle way of telling us to accept it without questioning it.

Crystyano:
First, you don't have to prove that God doesn't exist


There's no definition of God that shows how God can exist



Same thing with the supernatural


There's no definition of the supernatural that shows how it can exist



So,stop talking about testing the supernatural....let there be a definition that shows how it can exist before anyone talks about testing it.....

You are right since theism makes it very ambiguous, however we can test for the attributes of specific gods. Every good have well defined attributes, these attributes gives us what to test for.

For example, the Christian God has the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence, these attributes can and has been tested to be false. So when I ask for how we can test for a god, I am actually asking the proponent of that God to state a well defined attribute of his specific God and then we test those attributes.

If he/she keeps shifting goalpost then you know there's something wormg.

Crystyano:
Existing without a cause doesn't mean coming from nothing since nothing cannot really exist


It means having no beginning

If nothing cannot really exist, it means that the universe wasn’t created hence it has always existed.

However what I mean by nothing, in physics, there’s a definition for nothing, which means absence of particles or antiparticles, matter or radiation, identifiable quanta of any type in your Universe, all you'd have left is the void of empty space itself.

We have seen something pop out of that definition of nothing.

Nothingserious:
Sir see that Lewontin Richard quote.
Follow it line by line.

I also intentionally dropped quotes from renowned and respected scientists who aren’t Christians or theists.

Lewontin said we cannot give a foothold to the supernatural. He said it is their a priori disposition.
He also said they are tilted towards materialism.
Those guys are very sound scientists yet they concede science has nothing to say or disprove the supernatural and religion. If they had any tool to dismiss the supernatural and religion, they would have done that and published it in different texts.

So you see? They simply made a decision to stick to their a priori worldview and that’s it.
Nothing more.

Cheers

Dropping quotes from a scientist without evidence is fallacy of appealing to authority.
It doesn’t matter if it’s Albert Einstein that made the quote, as long as it doesn’t have evidence it can’t be taken seriously.


You should avoid that fallacy .

Now what do you mean by there’s no tool to test supernatural yet?

TenQ:
You remind me of a schoolmate who always looks for "big grammar" from the dictionary to speak but because of his lack of comprehension be breaks every rule of english grammar in the name of sounding sophisticated and thus is always VERBOSE, VAGUE and OUT OF CONTEXT.

It is amazing when someone who claims to know does not recognise when Causality is being discussed.
Please always try to comprehend what you have read before coming online to spew trash!

You can’t comprehend that the universe can exist from nothing because you don’t know physics.
In physics that is possible. We have seen particles existing from nothing in the quantum world.
So that law of casualty you want to explain doesn’t apply in every instances. Things can exist without a cause. Quantum physics has that idea.

You need a total overhauling in your ideas, start with basic science

Nothingserious:
Interesting!

The personal experiences are subjective.
There is no empirical evidence for God as science has no tool yet ( I doubt it will ever have) to test for God. Science only says “ we don’t know yet”. But some unscrupulous scientists (humans) would want to speak for science as though science had said anything.

God is argued in philosophy and logic. There are no tools to empirically test logic, maths or consciousness. Yet we believe by our experiences that these things are real and have direct effects on us.

You could go back and continue reading up your points and counter points or you could take your decision based on your worldview and end it up there. It’s after all a personal decision to say evidences indicated are SUFFICIENT OR NOT SUFFICIENT, rather than saying no evidences were presented at all.

I say those points you listed first aren’t sufficient enough to conclude there is no God. They aren’t. Maybe until a day you empirically show there is no God, I will agree with you on your strict empiricism and materialism stance.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

~Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers


“One can't prove that God doesn't exist. But science makes God unnecessary. … The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator.”
- Stephen Hawkings


“I finally gave up on God when I was 15,” Richard Dawkins writes ... But failure to disprove something is not a good reason to believe it.”- Richard Dawkins.

He couldn’t empirically show there is no God. He keeps talking about low probabilities of the existence of God, but was never certain.

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
[Billions and Billions of Demons - JANUARY 9, 1997 ISSUE]

~Richard C. Lewontin

What do you mean by it has no tool yet?

IMAliyu:
I think that's were my problem lays, there are no rules or methods.

It's easy to argue things in an isolated theological framework, like for example how to pray or the existence of Allah in Islam with confidence, because the theology would be restricted by the amount of material available which will be the Qur'an and Hadiths(maybe), and there can be rules governing the place and interpretation of these materials.

But introduction an alternate framework, with just as much depth and material behind it, with its own theologians and everything goes out the window.

TThe human mind is something proven to not be 100% reliable. As we are filled with bias and often hold strongly beliefs we were raised on. So I don't trust that my own independent reasoning, no matter how self critical I could be that I'm not under the influence of some bias.
So a form of determining a truth that is independent of my personal perceptions is something I'm looking for.

You just put it right but he will probably not get it because he wants a never ending argument.

I'm trying to make him see the numerous baises in religious by pointing to the flying spaghetti monster teapot analogy but he still doesn't get it, he thinks I'm making a joke out of it.

He's bais towards his own God that he doesn't like it when I compare his god to a flying spaghetti monster. Now since there are no rules, there's no basis to accept his god and discard the flying spaghetti monster.
It all depends on one's bias.

hupernikao:
I will await a mature member of your group to comment so as to have discussion. You can hold the feeder till then.

Yes, because you can't handle a Russell's teapot analogy of flying spaghetti monster.

It's too hard not just for you but for all religion. I know that feeling. Maybe you should read a little bit more about philosophy and logic then you will know why no religion can handle Russell's teapot

hupernikao:
Attacking?

I guess you like using sweet words for yourself. Your it's good for you.

But for me, let the one who have the ability to read well and ready for conversation post. You don't have any of the two, hence if left to you, all post will become a joke.

So let people who can handle proper discussing comment.

Then why can't you disprove the flying spaghetti monster claim?

If you try to, I'm just gonna shift the goalpost to where you can't reach. It's what you have been doing with your God.

It will strain you logically.