₦airaland Forum

KnownUnknown:
What about the deistic Goddess question?

do you understand what a deistic god means?
It's a god claim by deist based on caused and effect, they argue that this universe cannot start on its own and since evidence suggest that gods don't interfere via miracles or revelation, it means something must have started everything and that something does not interfere.

How does this even compare to sango?

Two things:
1. The universe cannot start on its own
2. The thing that started the universe does not interfere henceforth.

We have evidence for number 2, we do not have evidence for or against number 1. We need evidence against number 1 to prove that such thing is nonsense. We cannot call it nonsense if we don't know how the universe started actually

LordReed:
Abeg rest.

lol

LordReed:
And you don't know the difference between non belief and disbelief. Go educate yourself.

I do, I know the difference.
It's the opposite side of same coin If evidence does not exist either ways.

Atheism and Theism are both flawed

KnownUnknown:
I don’t have to disprove anything. You make an extraordinary or nonsensical claim and I reject it outright. I don’t have to say anything but call it nonsense and it’s up to you to prove it. However, I KNOW FOR A FACT that you have no evidence and can’t prove anything because your claims are nonsense. I also know it’s utter nonsense because I can make the same wild claims and would consider you gullible or stupid for entertaining the possibility that it’s not total bullshit.

in science, it's necessary to disprove a claim with evidence before you reject it. I know you re an atheist, so we know atheism is not scientific.

Bla bla bla. Stop referring to science.




You don’t have an example of a leprechaun creating gods
You don’t have an example of a leprechaun not creating gods either

I have not seen a leprechaun creating gods, I don't see how that matters here.

LordReed:
Because I do not believe.

lol, you are confuse

paxonel:
have you ever seen a sick man healed miraculously before?

No I haven't, but I have seen people make numerous claims of it.
If I see a pastor heal an HIV patient that I tested by myself, I will believe in miralces, if not I will be a fool to believe it because I saw it on TV

KnownUnknown:
You can’t demystify it because nonsense is nonsense. You can’t make it clearer, you can’t simplify it, you can’t make it less vague because it’s nonsense.

it's not nonsense until you disprove it. Like with evidence of how the universe started and a creator was not involved else it remains a possibility.

This is not science. Making wild claims without evidence is not science. Wtf?

in science, we make claims without evidence a lot, it's called hypothesis. Don't you know how science works?
Albert Einstein general theory of relativity was a claim for Years until proven with evidence.
Albert Einstein static universe hypothesis was a claim that we disproved with evidence.
The difference with science, is that while so many claims exist, we only make the ones we have evidence for a fact and never become close minded to those we don't have evidence for or against yet. That's why atheism is flawed and not scientific until we truly demystify deism.



[quote"]I don’t recall any atheists saying atheism is scientific!



Your claims are not science!

Don’t avoid these:
Give an example of this god “creating” anything.

Give an an example of how this god “creates”.[/quote]give me an example of a god not creating everything?

I don't have example of a god creating everything, I don't have example for a god not creating everything either.

KnownUnknown:
What evidence “disproves” them but doesn’t “disprove” the deistic god?

Is this deistic god your god?

we have scientific fact that a human can not cause thunder, it's a fact. We don't have scientific fact as to whatever start or how the universe started. It's why a diestic God question remains very open

LordReed:
No, I do not.

if you don't disbelieve the existence of a god then how are you any kind of atheist?

KnownUnknown:
When you realize your delusions you will know that amadioha, sango, and yahweh are as real as your deistic god.
“Demystifying” lol

They are not the same as deistic god. We can easily disprove those with evidence.
We cannot disprove a deistic god

KnownUnknown:
What’s so special about the theistic or deistic claim that you can’t outrightly reject it?

What evidence do they have of this creator?

What kind of “evidence against it” do you require?

Do you treat all baseless claims like this?

nonody has been able to demystify a deistic god. Not even atheists.

Why should they present counter-evidence to something that is nonsensical or without evidence?

Don’t avoid these:
Give an example of this god “creating” anything.

Give an an example of how this god “creates”.

you should present a counter evidence because that's how science works.
It's why atheism is not scientific.
In science, once a scientist makes a hypothesis, it's really not necessarily the scientist that needs to validate it.
An example is the darwinian theory of evolution, Darwin made numerous observations and created a hypothesis, Darwin did not necessarily provide testable evidence for it. It was years after he died that other scientists validated it.
Lamarck didn't provide any evidence for his lamarckian hypothesis, scientists were testing his hypothesis for Years and then disproved it with evidence from darwin theory.

jaephoenix:
You see a chicken inside your bedroom. You didn't keep it there and your door was locked tight by you. I walk up to you and tell you that the chicken was sent by your village peeps. Would you believe me? Yes or no

How does this relate to the question of a god?

Dont you think that you are confused here?

Maynman:
Your own definition of “God”? 😂😂😂

We don’t have many concepts of “God”, god is an English word that means what is “libates upon”.

Your own definition of god 😂😂

There are many concept of gods, depending on one's delusions. It's why we have amadioha, sango, yahweh etc with different attributes. I don't care about these guys.

I'm interested in demystifying the deistic god. Should I tell you bout it so you can be a bit foucs?

jaephoenix:
I decided to look up the word god for perspective and clarity.

1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"

I noticed you took up the Abrahamic definition, which makes me think you still have some theist thoughts lingering around.

get me right. So you don't go around what I am not really arguing for.

I don't care about all concept of gods, I don't care about the Christian God or Thor or zeus. If it's about these gods, I will be an atheists.

The particular God that is making me an agnostic is the deistic god. If you can not address this particular type of God, then you may not get anything from this argument. Whatever you say may not be relevant to me

jaephoenix:
Aha! Here we go
1. What if 'god' is actually a tiny and weak entity that cannot create any being?
2. Cant you see your theist background is influencing your definition of this 'god'?

My definition of God is something that created everything. We have so many concepts of God that are not creators, but I'm not interested in them. I'm interested in that one that is capable of creating everything.

Stay on that topic

KnownUnknown:
What makes you think anything “created” us.

Give an example of this god “creating” anything.

Give an an example of how this god “creates”.

I don't think anything created us. I'm agnostic.
Theists think so, since I don't have evidence against it yet, I cannot outrightly reject it, especially the deistic concept.

I think that anyone who should reject it should clearly demonstrate to us with a counterevidence.

jaephoenix:
As an addendum…
Why don't you use the word kjrls or ajrrfve instead of 'god'?
If the said 'god' appeared to you to prove itself/herself/himself/Bleep-self etc, how would you recognize it and process the fact that its a 'god'. Or would it say "Hey, Workch here I am, I'm god" before you now become a theist?

irrespective of what you use to arrive at a god, it's something that is capable of creating what we see today.

LordReed:
You are reading something that clearly tells you what I think but you choose to misrepresent for whatever reason, tells me my conversation with you is over.

Lemme add for clarity: I told you I am am an agnostic atheist. I show you a clear description of what an agnostic atheist is but you still say "You just don't want to accept that we don't know if a god exist or not hence we should stop disbelieving it or believing it.". What clearer way would it be put to you that I do not claim to believe or know if a god exists.

Does an agnostic atheist disbelieve the existence of a god?
Make it clear enough

jaephoenix:
Lemme wade into this discourse. Since you don't know whether a 'god' exists, how do you know the definition and attributes of a 'god'?

I don't know the definition or attribute of God.
One only attribute I think a god should have is someone that is capable of creating us.

KnownUnknown:
I’m agnostic about Sango and Thor. Who really is the god of thunder and lightning??
Even though science says gods do not cause thunder and lightning, I’m still agnostic about Sango and Thor because there is no evidence they don’t exist.

you are not agnostic to it, you are just denying the fact that evidence suggest that a man can not cause thunder and we fully understand how thunder works hence the description of Thor and sango is utter nonsense.

LordReed:
Oga call yourself anything you want that's your business. You asked for my opinion and I have given it. Did I ask you to change the label you use for yourself?

Lol, LordReed. You just don't want to accept that we don't know if a god exist or not hence we should stop disbelieving it or believing it.

LordReed:
You asked for my opinion and I gave it. I am not calling you anything, you are free to use any label you choose as I am. I am only telling you the label I use for myself.

So no one can truly be an agnostic because your picture says so?

paxonel:
how do you test religious claims?

Using scientific methods.
We can test if Noah's flood really happened, we have done it and it never did.
We can test Virgin unfertilized conception mammals, all evidence suggests that Mary's vrigin birth is most likely a lie.

LordReed:
Someone already pointed this out before IRC.

your opinion is that I'm lying that I'm a pure agnostics?

LordReed:
And how is this different from what I have said?

What do you think is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?

paxonel:
in that case, agnotism should only exist in the rhelm of science and should not have any opinion in religion since religion is strictly theoretical and does not require scientific apparatus

No, religion claims should also be tested. Alot of fraudulent claims are in religion and one needs to test them.

LordReed:
How does lack of belief equal knowing that a god doesn't exist?

It's not, atheists don't know, they just don't believe he exist.
Atheism is not based on knowledge, they are the opposite of theists.

LordReed:
What is the middle?

never base your conclusions on believes or disbelieve. Always base it on evidence by knowledge, when evidence is not available, remain skeptical and neutral.

helinues:
Anything not in you guys favour must have been tampered with.

Make una try and take responsibility for your lapses without blaming others

the figure does. It make sense. Ebonyi cannot be more populated than Abia state.

Ebonyi cannot have 3.6million poor people. It's not possible.

correctguy101:
Lols..

When I tell you people to make peace with it all, you won't listen...
See now, my dear Lord Worldch is now running from his fellow human..

Let the believers breathe and you believers, let us infidels breathe too..😂

Too idle today, now devil don use me go drink tombo...

Abeg, I need go bath and sleep now... I just dey type on...

it's hard to win an argument against an intelligent person but it's impossible to win against a fool, so why should I even try doing it?

paxonel:
what if the logical evidence of the said certainty isn't science methodogically based but a conclusion derived from reading about consitencies like miracles and prophecies written in a holy book in relation to what is obtainable to today's reality?

anything that cannot be tested is prone to fraud.

LordReed:
Lemme ask you the reverse. On what ground should I believe in aliens or a god?

on what ground should you not believe it either?
You should be somewhere in the middle