Stats: 3,192,020 members, 7,946,435 topics. Date: Wednesday, 11 September 2024 at 05:59 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" (7019 Views)
Death At The Mercy Of Life - The Reality Of The Resurrection Of Jesus / A Question To The Atheists: Hardmirror,hahn,hopefullandlord Et Al / Hopefullandlord And Co, I Need You Guys Take On This Issue. (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by ambassagod: 2:06pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
OtemAtum: I agree with you, except your view of "Africans". But, anyway this thread is not for that. Thanks for visiting. But, i plead with you not to come back till the debate is over. Please, i beg. |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by OtemAtum: 2:08pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
ambassagod: L ![]() |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by ambassagod: 2:09pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
HopefulLandlord I am waiting! ![]() ![]() |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by hopefulLandlord: 2:14pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
Ambassagod, I'm not here to argue against first cause, I've not met any atheist that claims "There is no first cause", please if you do, kindly mention them I'm very agnostic to the "First Cause" argument and so do all atheists I've met if your definition of "God" is "first cause", then I'm open to its existence cuz what you've given so far is an untestable, unverifiable and undisputable claim is that why we are here though? 1 Like |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by Ever8054: 2:15pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
OtemAtum:this question just justify what I said that atheist don't even understand there point. now that u don't understand your point,even if I make a point to answer your question you would still not understand. so don't don't waste my time... |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by hopefulLandlord: 2:25pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
Ambassagod, I would like to know what you mean by "Self-Eternal" and I'm also very curious, what made your definition of "God" change to drastically from the one you gave in the previous thread to this watered down version? below was the definition you gave in the previous thread promise10: just putting this out there for the readers |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by ambassagod: 2:33pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
hopefulLandlord: Actually, according to the first bolded, there are many atheist who claim that! Quite many of them believe that everything came from "NOTHING" and in reality "NOTHING" is not a thing in any form or manner. So, you making that claim, is kind of "FALSE" and more of "ESCAPE ROUTE" to me. Yeah, that's my personal opinion. Because, actually many atheists, we can start from NL, believe everything to just pop out from NOTHING. Which is extremely ridiculous. Your attention is needed in the second bolded, because it is simply "Tricky" to me. So what do you mean by being agnostic to "FIRST CAUSE" because in the first bolded statement, since you agreed that you aren't against the "EXISTENCE OF THE FIRST CAUSE"? Okay, seeing GOD as a "SELF ETERNAL FIRST CAUSE" according to your point simply means you believe in God. Am I right? Then if so, why are you an atheist, since Atheism is a disbelief in God/gods(whether as a first cause or a religious God)?? 2 Likes |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by ambassagod: 2:38pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
hopefulLandlord: SELF-ETERNAL there, simply means "UNCAUSED". As for the last statement, the previous argument is over. This is a new one, so you are to follow my points and not presumption. Besides, I am still a christian with a greater approach of understanding "God" than before. Follow my points. 3 Likes |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by ambassagod: 2:43pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
hopefulLandlord:There is no definition of GOD, take note. What we have are "ATTRIBUTES" that sum up the concept "God". That's why I made a note about this in his first page. I wonder what you are trying to achieve. That is a different thread. I am simply debating on a different approach. So you are to follow my points here. 2 Likes |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by ambassagod: 2:46pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
ambassagod:cc HopefulLandlord |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by ambassagod: 2:47pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
ambassagod: Your response is needed here! |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by hopefulLandlord: 2:50pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
ambassagod:please, read my posts properly cuz it appears you didn't I said "mention them", even Lawrence Krauss that used the word "Nothing" did not mean "Literally nothing" so my question still stands, mention those atheists that claim nothing and let's see what they mean by nothing
your defining something and me not arguing against it doesn't mean I'm agreeing with you please stop this attempt at defining who I am, I've been through this many times, like I said I'm agnostic to the first cause, sorry if that's not what you think I am, I can't sit here and tell you there's no first cause; its senseless to do that; so what is this "first cause"? isn't this going circular? first cause=God, God=first cause I just see no reason to argue against "first cause" are you here to argue for first cause? is that what we are doing here? I hope I'm clear 4 Likes |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by OtemAtum: 3:08pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
Ever8054:I am not an atheist, I am just saying that perhaps you guys don't understand one another yet. For example, atheists to me, believe that something is responsible for their existence, but they don't believe that the thing responsible for their existence is a god. But you believe that what is responsible for your existence is yahweh, allah or some other dudes like that. So my point is that atheists are somehow right by realising that there is no separate being as God than the one manifesting in everything as consciousnesses. For example, I am just a fragment of that one whole God Almighty. And if you think that I am not, then it makes your own god smaller than the true one. Because your god minus me, you, atheists and everything is less in size and energy than the God that is the sum total of me, you, atheists and everything. Ambassagod, sorry for talking once again. Just ignore me. Anyway, I'm fighting for both existence of a Creator, whose definition is complex though. 1 Like |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by ambassagod: 3:40pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
hopefulLandlord:I read it carefully and I reread it again and still got the same meaning. Would you mind using a simpler approach, maybe it is difficult for me?
As for your question, you answered it yourself, Lawrence Krauss. WHY? Because the word "NOTHING" simply means "NOT SINGLE THING". Actually, this makes no sense in the real world. I wouldn't give you link, because any link I would ever give is already at your disposal if you make a good use of Google. However, I am inclined to believe, from what I have seen in my arguments with atheists over the years, that most atheists wouldn't mind changing "A COMMON AND GLOBAL MEANING" of a word to back themselves up. And that affirms the reason why most atheists give "PHONY" different meanings to, for example, the word "ATHEISM". I can't imagine you denying the true meaning of "NOTHING" in a subtle way, by saying that atheists like Lawrence Krauss who use the word "NOTHING" does not "literally mean "Nothing". THEN A GOOD QUESTION YOU MUST ATTEND TO IS(If you avoid it, I would call you back to it): If the likes of Lawrence Krauss, who use the word "NOTHING" does not literally meaning "nothing", then what else does the word "NOTHING" mean? And the last time I checked "NOTHING" in a dictionary, this was what i saw, and anything that doesn't agree with it, must be a thing! noth·ing ˈnəTHiNG/ pronoun pronoun: nothing; plural noun: nothings 1. not anything; no single thing. "I said nothing" synonyms: not a thing, not anything, nil, zero, your defining something and me not arguing against it doesn't mean I'm agreeing with youI didn't say "YOU AGREED", that's why I asked a question. If I said that, you can point it out. Take note, I didn't define God. I simply laid out an attribute of God on which we can argue about his reality I asking that question based on what you said initially, and I quote below: Ambassagod, I'm not here to argue against first cause, I've not met any atheist that claims "There is no first cause", please if you do, kindly mention themWhich simply means you agree that with the reality of a first cause. If no, then what? please stop this attempt at defining who I am, I've been through this many times, like I said I'm agnostic to the first cause, sorry if that's not what you think I am, I can't sit here and tell you there's no first cause; its senseless to do that; so what is this "first cause"? isn't this going circular? first cause=God, God=first causeOkay, I am not defining who you are. Okay, why then do you disagree in the existence of God, since God as the first cause is beyond religion? A There is a reason because believing in the reality of the "UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE", simply means you believe in God. Then, at this junction, agnosticism and atheism doesn't stand here. Yeah, simply because that's what God as a creator simply means. And not those imaginary sky daddies, atheists paint up in arguments. So, at this junction I debunk that God is not an imaginary sky daddy, but an uncaused first cause. 2 Likes |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by ambassagod: 3:55pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
So, after answering my questions, in the previous reply, then i expect you boldly answer this too. Seeing that, you aren't arguing against the existence of GOD, Why do you disbelieve the existence of GOD? |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by hopefulLandlord: 4:18pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
Ambassagod, I hope we are not wasting our time here? are you here to define god as first cause? please I'm not here for meaningless wordgames ask those atheists what they mean by "nothing" because its definition varies from person to person and I'm not redefining "COMMON AND GLOBAL" terms to suite me, what Krauss means by nothing in his book isn't what you would agree as nothing, which is what I'm talking about, I think you've not even read the book which explains the confusion "First Cause" is simply a foggy term that neither I see no sense in arguing against nor agree with you do not in an argument define things into existence then claim some points on the fact that your opponent didn't argue against it what is "First Cause"? aren't we moving in circles here? I Still say, again, I'm agnostic to "first cause" BTW I wonder what's so difficult in mentioning those " Many Atheists" that claim nothing, we need to check out what those atheists mean 2 Likes |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by ambassagod: 4:27pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
He simply AVOIDED all my questions. I am quite sure it is because, he couldn't refute or answer any of the questions. SO GUYS TAKE NOTE!! 1 Like |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by ambassagod: 5:22pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
hopefulLandlord: NOT AT ALL! NO! NO!! NO!!! I have been debunking this question from the beginning of this debate. But, you ignored all of them to ask me this quest. I am here to debate you on the reality of God, by presenting you attributes around which the concept "God", logically stands real to exist. Of which if you agree with me, it would simply imply that you have accepted that "God is real" based on the argument. And also flushes out all logical reasoning you would ever show for to claim being an atheist or an agnostic PERIOD! So, go back to my previous questions. Otherwise, you are willingly taking a vicious circle, BY AVOIDING QUESTIONS THROWN AT YOU. I assume quite well that you have a different meaning of the word "GOD". So, bring it up, if I am right. This is quite an open display of meaningless wordgame. So stop it by attempting the questions you are running away from. Otherwise, you are the one guilty here.
The bolded is a thorough affirmation of my opinion when I said that most atheists wouldn't mind changing a meaning of a word to support themselves. And that's quite sad. To any sensible person following this debate; HOW CAN THE WORD "NOTHING" REALLY MEAN ANYTHING OUTSIDE IT'S COMMON MEANING??(Just pause a bit and think about this. Don't comment your answer ![]() ![]() HopefulLandlord let me ask you again , if what Krauss implied to "NOTHING", doesn't mean "NOT A SINGLE THING", What then was he implying, to mean "NOTHING". (Don't mention vicious circle, because i asked this question and you avoided it. So over to you.) AHA!!! Okay, for people who would find the word "foggy" to comprehend. Let me tell you the meaning so that you will continue to follow up carefully. fog·gy ˈfôɡē,ˈfäɡē/ adjective adjective: foggy; comparative adjective: foggier; superlative adjective: foggiest opposite: clear simply means "confused". So my audience here, what exactly is confused about the word "FIRST CAUSE". Should I also give you the meaning of those words differently too. NOTE: you are still avoiding my questions up there. The last time I checked, if it is a debate where the topic is "Is education important", there must be a uniform understanding of the word "EDUCATION". And the meaning must be based on what "Education" really means. Otherwise the debate would never be logical and can never met. So it is in this argument. You came in, only to throw a question to me like a newbie in debates. That's not how debates are done. We have to like expose our approach to the root of the matter "GOD". Which, I did! NOTE(in case you are confused): So, to take off, you have to tell me if you AGREE OR NOT. If you agree that there is a (Self-eternal) UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE(GOD, until you disagree with my proposition of GOD) through which everything came into existence, THEN WE CAN STOP THE DEBATE. If you disagree, then you ask for my proofs, which I will have to provide I wonder why I should be teaching you how to debate. That's actually terrible. what is "First Cause"? aren't we moving in circles here?This is someone who agreed to the meaning, now asking a quite phony question as if he doesn't an "UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE" means. It is pretty clear here who is running a vicious circle. How can you be agnostic to a concept you don't know about. If you are agnostic to the "UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE", why then did you ask a what it is.
And he continues running around the circle. I am not finding it difficult. You helped me mention one of them. So, Krauss is one of them. He is a good person to start from. So, approach the below,(I know you will avoid it again) THEN A GOOD QUESTION YOU MUST ATTEND TO IS(If you avoid it, I would call you back to it): According to what you said, that Krauss use the word "NOTHING", If the likes of Lawrence Krauss, who use the word "NOTHING" does not literally meaning "nothing", then what else does the word "NOTHING" mean? And the last time I checked "NOTHING" in a dictionary, this was what i saw, and anything that doesn't agree with it, must be a thing! noth·ing ˈnəTHiNG/ pronoun pronoun: nothing; plural noun: nothings 1. not anything; no single thing. "I said nothing" synonyms: not a thing, not anything, nil, zero, 1 Like |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by ambassagod: 5:29pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
HopefulLandlord, I am pretty sure you are confused. But I can help you out with the below. START HERE! NOTE(in case you are confused): So, to take off, you have to tell me if you AGREE OR NOT. If you agree that there is a (Self-eternal) UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE(GOD, until you disagree with my proposition of GOD) through which everything came into existence, THEN WE CAN STOP THE DEBATE. If you disagree, then you ask for my proofs, which I will have to provide |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by Martinez19(m): 5:33pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
Chuukwudi:the words of a mental slave to Yahweh. 2 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by hopefulLandlord: 5:33pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
ambassagod: this is pure gish gallop have you read Lawrence Krauss's book? if yes, can you tell us what he means by "Nothing"? if that's the definition of "Nothing" you want to hang dearly on, then that's not what Krauss means by Nothing, Please Richrich717, you've read the book, can you please educate Ambassagod on what Krauss means by Nothing? 5 Likes |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by ambassagod: 5:45pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
hopefulLandlord: AND HE CONTINUES TO AVOID! He calls empty space and/or the quantum vacuum, nothing. Which simply tells us that Krauss does not know what the word "NOthing" means. Which means that what he actually believes to be nothing is actually "SOMETHING". Dictionary.com defines ‘nothing’ as: 1) no thing; not anything; naught: to say nothing. 2) no part, share, or trace (usually followed by of ): The house showed nothing of its former magnificence. 3) something that is nonexistent. 4) nonexistence; nothingness: The sound faded to nothing. This affirms my opinion the more that most atheists wouldn't mind lying against the real meaning of a word to support themselves. Sorry, don't call anybody into this! If you want to escape, just say it. And as soon as any third party comes in here AT YOUR REQUEST, then the debate will have to stop. Because, you have nothing else to contribute or even argue against. 2 Likes |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by ambassagod: 5:57pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
So, now since you have helped me to debunk those "Everything came from Nothing" lies, I gotta point you to the below. So you review your opinion and know which way to follow. So, to take off, you have to tell me if you AGREE OR NOT. If you agree that there is a (Self-eternal) UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE(GOD, until you disagree with my proposition of GOD) through which everything came into existence, THEN WE CAN STOP THE DEBATE. If you disagree, then you ask for my proofs, which I will have to provide |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by hopefulLandlord: 5:58pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
ambassagod: okay, like I've repeated many times over, what Krauss means by nothing is NOT what you mean by nothing you're now free to mention another atheist out of the " many atheists" that agree with your definition of nothing and said we came from nothing remember, "there are many, even many on Nairaland", that claim still needs to be proven and stop gisg galloping 7 Likes |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by spacetacular(f): 6:00pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
Hey Jackbizzle this right here is what a debate ought to be and not your sorry excuse for one. Loving it! I see someone being dodgy on "nothing". Good stuff here. |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by ambassagod: 6:07pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
hopefulLandlord: Hahahahaha!!!! Is this a good way to take the escape route ![]() The bolded is simply shameful, because Krauss simply lied against the true word, "NOTHING". If he didn't lie, then I DARE YOU to defend him!! NO. Mentioning another person into this would derail the argument, which I can figure out quite well as your agenda. So, start from where I pointed to you. This is not an argument of "Nairaland atheist who believe that Everything came from nothing". If that's what you want, after the debate, you can simply create a thread on that, just the way I created this and then invite me to it. So, stick to the argument. If you don't want to continue, then say it out. After all, you can save our day with that. 2 Likes |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by ambassagod: 6:09pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
spacetacular: Thanks for pointing that out!! But don't comment again please, to avoid derailing the debate. This notion of "THERE IS NO GOD" has to be dealt with thoroughly and mercilessly!! Bye |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by ambassagod: 6:11pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
ambassagod: START FROM HERE MATE AND STOP DERAILING!! Your plan of derailing won't actually work. |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by hopefulLandlord: 6:12pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
ambassagod: I'm not in any way derailing, my point is that I've NOT seen any atheist deny first cause, you said there are "many" as a counter to that, the onus is now on you to mention those, inability to do that then infers there's NO atheist that denies first cause! I mentioned Krauss and you've not read the book but concluded that what he's referring to nothing is the same as yours, having proven that is not the case your point has no leg to stand on until you mention them this is very simple and I wonder why its proving difficult for you let me reiterate that I'm agnostic to first cause and so are all atheists I know please we've wasted too many a time on this, names of those atheists please.. or we move on 5 Likes |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by obinna58(m): 6:37pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
Chuukwudi:This one will also claim to have brain I weep 6 Likes 2 Shares
|
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by ambassagod: 7:09pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
You keep recycling everything! But, I will approach them in a different manner this time. hopefulLandlord:First of all, I may not be talking about a "First Cause" in the context you may be putting it this time, rather "A SELF ETERNAL, UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE, Through which everything existed through". Which is simply what "God" is. However, this is false because you mention Krauss. He is obviously one of them you know quite well. According to Krauss, he believes that "EVERYTHING CAME FROM NOTHING", by brainwashing himself by claiming that "empty space and/or the quantum vacuum" is NOTHING. So, he is one the atheists you know quite well that believes everything to have come from NOTHING. IT IS OBVIOUS NOW
Saying that are "many" and calling all of them, adds no extra evidence to my point. Okay, you know what? The statement "...know many of them..." up there, is NOT VERIFIABLE simply because I can't stupidly start searching the whole of NL for them, I AUTHORITATIVELY, can only recall one of them THAT IS VERIFIABLE, and that's Krauss. So he is the only one I have seen to claim that "Everything comes from NOTHING" which I can verify. Which is a false claim I just debunked. If I didn't debunk it, I DARE YOU TO DEFEND HIM!! I mentioned Krauss and you've not read the book but concluded that what he's referring to nothing is the same as yours, having proven that is not the case your point has no leg to stand on until you mention themThis is a false claim and accusation. WHERE DID I SAID THAT I HAVE NEVER READ THE BOOK?? Point it out, I can still debate you without you lying against me! So stop lying against me and put into consideration that, I have actually read his book "A Universe from Nothing" where he made that claimed. I actually read it 2 years ago. So, he is the only person I am very sure that has made that claim, which has ended up debunked, because he claims "Nothing" to be "empty space and/or the quantum vacuum', which is outrightly false according to the official meaning of "NOTHING" as "NOT A SINGLE THING. No, not at all! Anyway,it depends on your meaning of the "agnostic" since it might be different from the official meaning "Agnostic"! But, this is quite laughable. God simply means a "SELF ETERNAL UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE". So, if you are agnostic to the belief in "God", it simply means you don't agree with a "SELF ETERNAL UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE" and you don't disagree. You are agnostic. You aren't sure. However, this most laughable thing about this immediate quote, is that you took a space of an agnostic and also used that same space for all the atheist you know. Now, if an atheist happens to be agnostic about the existence of a "SELF ETERNAL UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE", God. How then is he still an atheist or not an agnostic ![]() Then, my question is; Why then do you fight against the existence of God? Seeing that you don't agree or disagree. Why are you then disagreeing with people who believe in "God" since you don't disagree it as an agnostic? And to show a good side of you taking the escape route, I have seen you claiming "FSM" to be God, why are you claiming that since you don't agree or disagree the existence of God I can only recall Krauss as my only verifiable evidence, and mind you that Krauss is an atheist. And I have mentioned him. Now you can move on to the next thing to stop recycling this question as I have answered you. 2 Likes |
Re: Second Debate: Strictly Between Hopefullandlord And I On The "Reality Of God" by hopefulLandlord: 7:24pm On Jul 18, 2017 |
you've not been talking like someone who's read the book, I think you just googled now and got some info otherwise we shouldn't have had a back and forth on this from the first time I mentioned Krauss because I've said what he means by nothing is NOT what you would agree with him on, you can scroll up and see what I'm talking about "Self-Eternal", so what's the proof that this first cause is eternal? what does "eternal" mean? could you elucidate? |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply)
The Earth Is Flat ....not Spherical. / 3 Reasons Why I Don't Preach On Repentance ( "Turn From Sin" ) - Paul Ellis / What Did You Learn In Today's Service?
Viewing this topic: 3 guest(s)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 136 |