₦airaland Forum

Maynman:
You made a wild claim and You provided no evidence.
Even if you don’t prove your claim, like in science explain how you arrive at mars without spacesuit, then I’ll use your explanation to carry out experiments to approve or disprove it.

You just made a blank statement.

Are there evidence against a human ability to live on Mars?

jaephoenix:
To start with, the book seemingly inspired by yahweh has been found to be a big fraud, and never happened

I am not talking about yahweh, I know there are evidence against yahweh.

There's no evidence against deistic god

Strawman fallacy

LordReed:
So? Are you saying definitely that they don't exist because we have no evidence right now?

nope, I am saying that they might exisy
But there's no evidence that they do for now

There's a probability for it

Maynman:
Is i do not believe your claim different from I disbelieve?

Why do you disbelieve it?

LordReed:
LMAO! Did you become some how more close minded?

I didn't say wormholes cannot exist, I saying that there no evidence that they do.

There's only mathematical proof, blackholes aslo had mathematical proofs before their existence had evidence.

Do you know the difference between no evidence and cannot exist?

Maynman:
I don’t believe your claim.

So you disbelieve it? Yes or no?

Maynman:
I don’t believe you.

So you disbelieve it right?

Maynman:
I can only believe what I don’t know.
You can make me believe, but I’ll never know because I’m not there.

do you disbelieve it?

Maynman:
What’s the evidence for or against yahweh?
What’s the evidence for or against a deistic god?

I don't know, tell me the evidence against them before you rejected it.

Maynman:
So if your kid came and meet you this is what you’ll say?

do you believe that I am typing from Mars now, without a spacesuit?

Maynman:
So if your kid came and meet you this is what you’ll say?

I will find evidence for or against it from everywhere before I believe or disbelieve it.

jaephoenix:
Good.
Do you believe I flew to work in my wings this morning?

is there evidence for or against it?

yrhuhfy113:
ITS NOT FICTION BRO....

The saddest truth in the universe is.... WHATEVER YOU BELIEVE OR CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOU.


As long as you can believe that INTELLIGENT LIFE FORMS CAN BE CREATED WITHOUT AN INTELLIGENT BEING.... shows how intelligent you are.

I can't take someone who thinks evidence for warm holes exist seriously

yrhuhfy113:
GOD IS NOT RELIGIOUS, HIS PROOF IS EVERYWHERE.... WE ARE HIS PROOF. INTELLIGENT LIFE CAN NOT BE CREATED WITHOUT AN INTELLIGENCE. TILL NOW APES HAVE NOT EVOLVED INTO HUMAN. SO QURAN OR BIBLE WILL NEVER BE SUFFICIENT.

lol OK 😂😂

jaephoenix:
Just oblige me. You would understand my point
Yes or no

is there evidence for or against unicorns?

jaephoenix:
Lol. Does science believe blue unicorns exist?

We are talking about God and not unicorn.

Strawman fallacy

LordReed:
Where did I say that or imply that? You mentioned 3 specific things and instead of staying on topic you move to something else, later you'll say I moved the goalposts. LoLz.

Those 3 things are limitations we don't know now how to overcome, innovative techniques might be developed in the future to overcome them, simple.

I am telling you that these things are impossible, they are as impossible as putting two matter in exact same space.

LordReed:
Nope, I am saying we don't know how to do them doesn't mean there isn't a way to overcome the limitations. For example one possible way to overcome the FTL problem would be to be to fold space or create wormholes. There maybe a myriad of possibilities we don't know at the moment.

from your logic, you mean that everything is possible including a human entering and living inside a a thick wall?

Seriously, there are always going to be some things that will never be possible. There's no way you are going to ever share a space with another matter, you either leave the matter in its space or replace the space the matter left.

jaephoenix:
Okay, I understand your view point. Clearer now. Agnostism seems a 'softer' view than atheism

No, not really. Agnostism doesn't take a position until evidence for or against is available.

Theism and atheism take positions from ignorance

jaephoenix:
I don't have knowledge of their existence so it stays rejected til knowledge about its properties can be ascertained

Ok, it means that you are unscientific about your approach.

Because science doesn't reject until an evidence against is available.

Science is agnostic

jaephoenix:
Then you shouldn't put the word god, cos you have already qualified that being. That is what I said initially. The agnostics here have qualified and crystallized the being into a 'god'. The truth is, it may be rjhft or kahtev, but instead you chose the word 'god'
I see sometimes why y'all have run-ins with Maynmann

I didn't make the word god, I don't know if it's god.

I am using the deistic term for it for you to understand what I am talking about.

It's not my word, it's the word of deists, atheists and theists. How else can I communicate with you if I don't use it.


How else do I communicate with you about aliens that we aren't sure of their existence if I don't use the word "alien".

How am I suppose to discuss dragons with you if I won't use the word dragons, even when there no evidence that they existed

LordReed:
I agree that we don't know how to do any of these 3 things but I don't agree that they are impossible. Our current limited knowledge of those subjects does not preclude the possibility of knowing them in the future. Same with the god question, that we have never seen a god or gods doesn't mean one couldn't exist or existed.

Are you saying that it's possible for us to do an infinite amount of work or use infinite amount of energy?

Or for us to see beyond space-time?

FATHAT:
I can't argue with someone who doesn't understand the Quran. But may Allah guide you to the right path

Quran is bullshit

jaephoenix:
Do you have sufficient knowledge to either accept or reject rlifht?

do you have sufficient knowledge to reject it?

jaephoenix:
Do you have sufficient knowledge to either accept or reject rlifht?

no I don't, it's why I neither accept nor reject it.

jaephoenix:
I know. The issue is the ones I see here tend to qualify the 'I don't know if there's a god'

yes, I don't know if there's god or not.
I think those who reject or accept the claim are wrong because we do not have sufficient knowledge to either accept or reject God.

jaephoenix:
Which of them is a deistic claim? First or second

Let me break it down.

Deists basically claim that, the a god must have formed the singularity that expanded into the universe. It's not my claim, I don't have evidence for or against it.

My position is that, I don't believe or disbelieve deists.

FATHAT:
Science cannot proof the existence of God,but the only valid proof human being can understand is from the Quran

The Quran is a storybook.

It's a claim and not evidence, it's a ridiculous story book at that

yrhuhfy113:
Next time, do your quality research before opening threads.

there are too many SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN EVIDENCES.... from WORMHOLES, TO TIME VARIATIONS, TO OUR DNA STRUCTURE, TO EVOLUTION.... etc



HERE IS ONE EVIDENCE.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuUR7v7hkOQ

he said wormholes, there's no evidence that wormholes exist.

Stop watching science fictions from YouTube

yrhuhfy113:
Next time, do your quality research before opening threads.

there are too many SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN EVIDENCES.... from WORMHOLES, TO TIME VARIATIONS, TO OUR DNA STRUCTURE, TO EVOLUTION.... etc



HERE IS ONE EVIDENCE.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuUR7v7hkOQ

lol 😂, is this evidence?
You learn science from YouTube?

It's the sad reality, no one will ever be able to know if God exist or not because it's scientifically impossible

Some few things are impossible in life and science, examples are

1. Attaining absolute zero temperate.
2. An object with mass traveling at the speed of light
3. Look back in time to see what happened before big bang.

No 3 is why we can never know if God exist or not, in science, there's nothing like "before big bang" because time doesn't exist before big ban hence we cannot decipher anything in that realm. There's no mathematical prove to do that, it's simple impossible. Light also didn't exist before big bang, so we cannot see anything within the singularity.

No 2 requires that we create an infinite amount of energy to move such object. It's not possible, the universe doesn't have that amount of energy. The energy in the universe is quantifiable and conserved.


No1 The reason has to do with the amount of work necessary to remove heat from a substance, which increases substantially the colder you try to go. To reach zero kelvins, you would require an infinite amount of work.


Humans will never know if God exist or not. It's as simple as that. This is specifically why I don't know if a god exist or not. I don't believe or disbelieve it

This is why science does even attempt to disprove or prove God. It's impossible, it's not what science or any person can do. Any scientist trying to do it will do it with his personal funds and not research funds.


jaephoenix KnownUnknown LordReed

jaephoenix:
Some minutes ago you said

A specific kind of God that caused the singularity to form before big bang. That one

Then precisely 5 minutes later, you deposited this

That's why I am agnostic in the first place, I don't know if it's a god that caused it or not

How do you reconcile the two statements?

Seem like you still do not understand what Agnosticism is?

Kindly read about it