@thehomer,

I see you're back with your atheistic idiocy.

thehomer:

Aah so when you say "physicalist probables" you actually mean "the worldview that physicalism implies"? You should have just said this directly. Or correct me if I am wrong.

I said it - explained it - several times before now. What you have been doing is act like one atheist schmuck with a dubious crouch pretending you did not see it previously.

Mmmhmm keep dodging the issue. I've said use whatever means you want but remember the physical implications.

I did not dodge anything. You're the one who has been dodging my repeated request, because you hitherto have said nothing concrete. Again through you latest reply, you dribbled round to say nothing. If this dribbling is all you can show for your atheism, I can now understand why you've been so dishonest from the onset.

You have now introduced more suitable in metaphysical discussions. And I've repeatedly given you the latitude to go metaphysical just provide your evidence. You have refused to do so. I've also told you that the claims made by these metaphysical entities that you are supposed to prove are testable scientifically. I also gave you the example of sickle cell disease. If you cannot grasp this as a self acclaimed philosopher, then you've wasted your time studying in that field.

Oh pity! On top of your duplicity, do you have to resort to outright LYING??

Sorry, I did not "NOW introduce" the issue of 'more suitable in metaphysical discussions' here. Right from the onset when I laid out my premise, I mentioned and discussed it - unless you want to show what a hideous lying twerp you are!

~ did I not refer clearly to "metaphysical questions" in post #94 to YOU directly?

~ did I not also mention "metaphysical discourses" in the same post #94
directly to YOU?

~ did YOU not quote me on "metaphysical questions" in your own reply in post #95?

~ again in post #97 in my reply directly to you, I mentioned and discussed ::::
|| - "metaphysical discussions"
|| - "metaphysical claims"

~ then in post 154 I reposted part of my previous reply to you demonstrating
the same things.

After all these, you of all thinking people come back to shamelessly LIE on top of everything that I have "NOW introduced" these things about metaphysics like it is the first time you read me mention that the subject is one about metaphysical questions? You must be such a lying idiot championing your atheistic redundancy!

@thehomer,

Ooh I'm illiterate now. Yet I'm able to construct sentences in English and converse at college level.

Not only are you an illiterate, lying time-waster, you just enjoy being such a retard in the English constructs you employ to capture your duplicity so well.

What you've done is simply philosophical babble since you have not provided any evidence to back up what you're saying. I've given you the latitude to use any approach you wish.

Why should I be surprised that you regard my outline as 'philosophical babble'?

Look dude, I'm very well aware that most atheists OFTEN fear philosophy - that is the one thing they are most likely to evade and avoid, because anytime they display any bragado on that, they get roundly trounced and, as in your own particular case, shown to be shameless liars! To show this, I'd like to excerpt a few resources to show why you have been displaying the very same traits of your own atheistic idiocy as regards metaphysical discussions:

From an atheist, Austin Cline (guide on atheism at About.com) ~

[list]

What is Metaphysics?:

In Western philosophy, metaphysics has become the study of the fundamental nature of all reality — what is it, why is it, and how are we can understand it. Some treat metaphysics as the study of “higher” reality or the “invisible” nature behind everything, but that isn’t true. It is, instead, the study of all of reality, visible and invisible; and what constitutes reality, natural and supernatural.

Because most of the debates between atheists and theists involve disagreements over the nature of reality and the existence of anything supernatural, the debates are often disagreements over metaphysics.

[/list]
[list]

Metaphysics and the Supernatural:

In popular parlance, metaphysics has become the label for the study of things which transcend the natural world — that is, things which supposedly exist separately from nature and which have a more intrinsic reality than our natural existence. This assigns a sense to the Greek prefix meta which it did not originally have, but words do change over time. As a result, the popular sense of metaphysics has been the study of any question about reality which cannot be answered by scientific observation and experimentation.

****For atheists, this sense of metaphysics is usually regarded as literally empty.

[/list]
[list]

Why Should Atheists Care About Metaphysics?:

Because atheists typically dismiss the existence of the supernatural, they may dismiss metaphysics as the pointless study of nothing. Because metaphysics is technically the study of all reality, and thus whether there is any supernatural element to it at all, [size=14pt]in truth metaphysics is probably the most fundamental subject which irreligious atheists should focus on[/size]. Our ability to understand what reality is, what it is composed of, what "existence" means, etc., is fundamental to most of the disagreements between irreligious atheists and religious theists.


Is Metaphysics Pointless?:

Some irreligious atheists, like logical positivists, have argued that the agenda of metaphysics is largely pointless and can’t accomplish anything. According to them, metaphysical statements cannot be either true or false — as a result, they don’t really carry any meaning and shouldn’t be given any serious consideration. There is some justification to this position, but it is unlikely to convince or impress religious theists for whom metaphysical claims constitute some of the most important parts of their lives. Thus the ability to address and critique such claims can be important.


What is an Atheist Metaphysics?:

The only thing all atheists have in common is disbelief in gods, so the only thing all atheist metaphysics will have in common is that reality doesn't include any gods and isn't divinely created. Despite that, most atheists in the West tend to adopt a materialistic perspective on reality. This means that they regard the nature of our reality and the universe as consisting of matter and energy. Everything is natural; nothing is supernatural. There are no supernatural beings, realms, or planes of existence. All cause and effect proceeds via natural laws.

[/list]

To recap from the above:

  ~   metaphysics is the study of the fundamental nature of all reality

  ~   the popular sense of metaphysics has been the study of any question
       about reality which cannot be answered by scientific observation and
       experimentation

  ~   for atheists, this sense of metaphysics is usually regarded as literally empty

  ~   Because metaphysics is technically the study of all reality, and thus whether
       there is any supernatural element to it at all, in truth metaphysics is probably
       the most fundamental subject which irreligious atheists should focus on.

So, before you even typed your first dot in this thread about your strawman fallacy of Russell's teapot, I was very well aware that you'd be the typical atheist who's too scared to touch metaphysics - that is why you have scuttled round, evaded it with all excuses, and summarily tried to woosh it away as a babble. Nevermind, knuckleheads dismiss what they cannot understand - and that was just what you were doing.

Yet, as you can see from the excerpts above, informed atheists are aware of their own problem about their approach to metaphysical questions. Why? For the simple reason that metaphysical questions test our understanding about ALL REALITY. It was not a difficult thing for you to have simply stated in clear terms (as toneyb did) that you do not wish to discuss metaphysics, and we would not have come all this way with you now resorting to lying on top of everything that I only "now introduced" this issue about metaphysics.

Dude, you're a complete idiot - a lying one at that, and an ultimate dunce. Beyond this point, the thread is left to you to come back and show your idiocy and evasions (I won't bother acquiescing with a rejoinder), and then you can go celebrate your duplicity in a bar somewhere.

Did I see somewhere that you said calling someone a slut was the worst thing ever? I would vote for complete idiot first anyways.

All this plenty talk when small talk can suffice, stop making me go through pains to deduce what you are saying, so is it that the question about the existence of God is a metaphysical one or what? abi is simple english difficult for you to compose?

Chrisbenogor:

@thehomer
Dó my brother, you get time to do all this long long posts that mean nothing at the end of the day.

Thanks for your concern Chrisbenogor. It's just that now that I have some time for sophists like this viaro character, I think I might as well address him. You see he's typed so many characters but is yet to provide his evidence. This is one thing that makes me laugh.

viaro:

@thehomer,
I did not dodge anything. You're the one who has been dodging my repeated request, because you hitherto have said nothing concrete. Again through you latest reply, you dribbled round to say nothing. If this dribbling is all you can show for your atheism, I can now understand why you've been so dishonest from the onset.

Great philosopher I have given you examples to show what I mean. Please present your evidence by any means you can.

viaro:

After all these, you of all thinking people come back to shamelessly LIE on top of everything that I have "NOW introduced" these things about metaphysics like it is the first time you read me mention that the subject is one about metaphysical questions? You must be such a lying idiot championing your atheistic redundancy!

Wise philosopher You wish to present your evidence via metaphysics please go ahead.

viaro:

@thehomer,
Not only are you an illiterate, lying time-waster, you just enjoy being such a retard in the English constructs you employ to capture your duplicity so well.
Why should I be surprised that you regard my outline as 'philosophical babble'?

The viaro surprised? That's what it is until your evidence is presented.

viaro:

Look dude, I'm very well aware that most atheists OFTEN fear philosophy - that is the one thing they are most likely to evade and avoid, because anytime they display any bragado on that, they get roundly trounced and, as in your own particular case, shown to be shameless liars! To show this, I'd like to excerpt a few resources to show why you have been displaying the very same traits of your own atheistic idiocy as regards metaphysical discussions:

To recap from the above:

  ~   metaphysics is the study of the fundamental nature of all reality

  ~   the popular sense of metaphysics has been the study of any question
       about reality which cannot be answered by scientific observation and
       experimentation

  ~   for atheists, this sense of metaphysics is usually regarded as literally empty

  ~   Because metaphysics is technically the study of all reality, and thus whether
       there is any supernatural element to it at all, in truth metaphysics is probably
       the most fundamental subject which irreligious atheists should focus on.

The viaro is ready to start dancing away into his alternate reality. I'm telling you again use your metaphysics. I will use my science. The claims from your metaphysical entities present themselves in this reality and I will investigate those claims scientifically.
   

viaro:

   So, before you even typed your first dot in this thread about your strawman fallacy of Russell's teapot, I was very well aware that you'd be the typical atheist who's too scared to touch metaphysics - that is why you have scuttled round, evaded it with all excuses, and summarily tried to woosh it away as a babble. Nevermind, knuckleheads dismiss what they cannot understand - and that was just what you were doing.

   The wise viaro like his metaphysical entities already knows what will happen before I typed my first dot on the thread. Tell me have you already seen all this in your alternate reality?
   You have been babbling now present your evidence metaphysical or otherwise.
   Let me correct our great and wise philosopher. Russell's teapot is an analogy.

viaro:

Yet, as you can see from the excerpts above, informed atheists are aware of their own problem about their approach to metaphysical questions. Why? For the simple reason that metaphysical questions test our understanding about ALL REALITY. It was not a difficult thing for you to have simply stated in clear terms (as toneyb did) that you do not wish to discuss metaphysics, and we would not have come all this way with you now resorting to lying on top of everything that I only "now introduced" this issue about metaphysics.

My point is not about me discussing metaphysics. It's about the claims made from your metaphysical entities presenting themselves here and being evaluated by the best means available. Science.

viaro:

Dude, you're a complete idiot - a lying one at that, and an ultimate dunce. Beyond this point, the thread is left to you to come back and show your idiocy and evasions (I won't bother acquiescing with a rejoinder), and then you can go celebrate your duplicity in a bar somewhere.

Boohoo. Get your point across without the attempts at insults. Please don't damage your keyboard.
Well I'm back requesting once more that you present your evidence any way you can by typing, video or any other means your 2 brain cells are capable of accompling. (Don't let that whoosh over your head).
So viaro, like the usual sophist, you have come in here praising yourself and claiming some mysterious evidence which you have failed to present. Despite repeated requests that you present them. You're quite a character dancing and dribbling yourself into metaphysics but still could not present your evidence after arriving at your metaphysics.
Goodluck at your philosophy career. Just be careful with your sophistry. It won't get you anywhere with people like me.
This is really something; a philosopher who just learnt about analogies, cannot present evidence or examples to back up his claim. You make me laugh.[quote][/quote]

thehomer:

Great philosopher I have given you examples to show what I mean. Please present your evidence by any means you can.

Wise philosopher You wish to present your evidence via metaphysics please go ahead.

Have you stopped lying? Please, let me know. I'm now very, very scared of your duplicity.

viaro:

Have you stopped lying? Please, let me know. I'm now very, very scared of your duplicity.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Chrisbenogor:

Did I see somewhere that you said calling someone a slut was the worst thing ever? I would vote for complete idiot first anyways.

Did I call you, anyone, or thehomer a slut?

All this plenty talk when small talk can suffice, stop making me go through pains to deduce what you are saying, so is it that the question about the existence of God is a metaphysical one or what? abi is simple english difficult for you to compose?

Why is it that you guys have been spinning round right from when I first mentioned that it is a metaphysical question and would be discussed from that basis? No, you never said anything about your dude spinning and lying around repeatedly. .  but you suddenly woke up now to plead what? Please.

thehomer:

viaro link=topic=402069.msg5596773#msg5596773 date=1267288792:

Have you stopped lying? Please, let me know. I'm now very, very scared of your duplicity.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Trust me, I am - as long as you just love lying.

thehomer:

If you wish to continue with that analogy in mathematics, loads of other abstract figures can give you zero or even greater than zero.

e.g (-1) x (-1) = 1. What does this mean? Two abstract items squared give you a real item?

Why did you choose addition and not division?

You then go on to invoke a first cause which is not helpful since your analogy is not quite helpful. What I request is actual evidence.
Like you've said to viaro the burden of proof rests more with the theist. So give the evidence of this first cause you've invoked.

-1 is not a quantity. In real terms is it not a detraction from zero - which signifies nothingness? Can you show me -1 apples on a table? But i can show you a table with zero apples. Thus in real terms it is misleading to set up an  analogy with -1 as a quantity: it is not a quantity. The only reason I set up a zero equation was so that we see what nothingness (zero) will always result in nothingness (zero).

It is not relevant whether i used addittion, subtraction or division. Any operation performed on Zeros only will end with a zero; because zero is nothingness and you cannot derive something out of nothing.

This is one of the principles of the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

In summary, the cosmological argument proves the existence of God based on these premises -

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2.The Universe began to exist.

3.Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

It may also be stated thus -

1.Every finite and contingent being has a cause.

2.Nothing finite and contingent can cause itself.

3.A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.

4.Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

I do not assert the foregoing to be complete: the cosmological argument has raged for centuries and there are all sorts of perspectives including the philosophical and the scientific - but I believe that the premises are food for thought in addressing the question of God's existence.

I also urge you to consider the Five Arguments put forward for the existence of God by Thomas Aquinas -

The Argument of the Unmoved Mover
"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."

The Argument of the First Cause
"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."

The Argument from Contingency
"The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."

The Argument from Degree
"The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But 'more' and 'less' are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God."


The Teleological Argument
"The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

@Deepsight,i posted d first cause argument on page 3&toney tried to flaw it but was unable.He asked who created d causer(God). God is infinite&has no creator,hes d 1st,d last&a creator,dats y he created finite things.A computer manufaturer couldnt av produce a system dat he cant manipulate/control.dats y everythng in life is subject to control.human life,animals&dat of plants will stop at certain stages in life.Even d universe dat houses all objects will end.D universe is already loosing energy cause d universe is caused&its finite.

@thehomer 'can information come from non-information?

[thehomer on Yesterday at 11:46:33pm][And this demonstrates what?]

It demonstrates that no matter how many question science answers there are still more questions that science doesn't have answers for.

[thehomer on Yesterday at 11:46:33pm][Now that is what is called the argument from infinite regress that's number 51 on this web-page.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

No we cannot conclude that there must be a creator. Neither does this give us a reason to worship this creator. For all you know, this creator may not care about you.
]

In your opinion what does this conclude?

You may not choose to believe in a creator whilst others do. Who is right? We all have a right to believe in whatever we choose without being condemned by others.

[thehomer on Yesterday at 11:46:33pm][Can any body of knowledge give a good answer to that question without prompting other questions till you end up in an absurdity? Sure you can form grammatically correct sentences but that does not make it a legitimate question.
]

Many people have asked the same question. You may not believe it is a legitimate question but many others do.

Deep Sight:

-1 is not a quantity. In real terms is it not a detraction from zero - which signifies nothingness? Can you show me -1 apples on a table? But i can show you a table with zero apples. Thus in real terms it is misleading to set up an  analogy with -1 as a quantity: it is not a quantity. The only reason I set up a zero equation was so that we see what nothingness (zero) will always result in nothingness (zero).

Negative quantities can influence your life. e.g I cannot show you -$1000 but it can make you lose your house. Your analogy was going with real numbers I just helped it along to show you what you could end up with.

Deep Sight:

It is not relevant whether i used addittion, subtraction or division. Any operation performed on Zeros only will end with a zero; because zero is nothingness and you cannot derive something out of nothing.

Not true. A division by zero will give you infinity.

Deep Sight:

This is one of the principles of the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

In summary, the cosmological argument proves the existence of God based on these premises -

     1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

     2.The Universe began to exist.

     3.Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

    ,

     4.Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

I do not assert the foregoing to be complete: the cosmological argument has raged for centuries and there are all sorts of perspectives including the philosophical and the scientific - but I believe that the premises are food for thought in addressing the question of God's existence.

I will attend to it with the other four.
This God of yours what properties does He/She/It have?
Why should the God of your religion be this first cause?
Are you sure it's not actually a group of Gods?
Does this God of yours do anything on earth?

Deep Sight:

I also urge you to consider the Five Arguments put forward for the existence of God by Thomas Aquinas -

The Argument of the Unmoved Mover

The Argument of the First Cause

The Argument from Contingency

The Argument from Degree

The Teleological Argument

The problem of going down this path is that for the first three, your attempt to prevent an infinite regress is by your invocation of your God. Following this argument, in an attempt to create this God, another infinite regress must be prevented thereby necessitating another God. This is not good evidence.

For the fourth, the claim that God is some kind of imaginary perfection of any being that must exist since we can conceive of is a bit baffling. So e.g I'm thinking of a perfect world does it exist? It makes a flawed assumption that whatever a person can conceive must exist.

For the fifth, the claim that simpler things moving towards an end that is complex must be designed. This is the illusion of design from natural entities. Evolution is quite complex and it proceeds from simpler organisms to complex organisms and if you claim a designer is responsible for each of these organism, it is quite poor design. But evolution shows that given enough time, nature can come up with quite spectacular organisms.

But does this God of yours do anything here on earth?

toba:

@thehomer 'can information come from non-information?

Yes it can. Statistics demonstrates this. You can also consider something as complex as the climate. We get climate forecasts from the data which can at the same time be used to generate random numbers.

norri:

It demonstrates that no matter how many question science answers there are still more questions that science doesn't have answers for.

I agree with that.

norri:

In your opinion what does this conclude?

My conclusion is that science should keep pushing the boundaries of our current knowledge.

norri:

You may not choose to believe in a creator whilst others do. Who is right? We all have a right to believe in whatever we choose without being condemned by others.

I'm not condemning you for your belief or lack of it. You do have a right to believe in whatever you choose to but do not try to push the beliefs into other people's business.

norri:

Many people have asked the same question. You may not believe it is a legitimate question but many others do.

Ok so what is your answer?

toba:

@thehomer 'can information come from non-information?

thehomer:

Yes it can. Statistics demonstrates this. You can also consider something as complex as the climate. We get climate forecasts from the data which can at the same time be used to generate random numbers.

Is the climate an example of "non-information"?

thehomer:

Yes it can. Statistics demonstrates this. You can also consider something as complex as the climate. We get climate forecasts from the data which can at the same time be used to generate random numbers.

I disagree with u.Dr werner Gitt said we know absolutely for sure from science dat information cannot arise from disorder by chance.It always takes(greater) information and ultimately information is d result of intelligence

thehomer

In response to Post 174, no doubt science will keep pushing the boundaries. If everybody remains dogmatic to their religious books then the world would never progress. But as science doesn't have the answers to everything at present, religion and science can work together.

I aplogise if my views appear to be forced onto people, that is not my intention. I was just trying to offer an opposing view.

I cannot answer the question "what is the purpose of life?". To my knowledge nobody can, which is why many people are lead to believe in a God.

viaro:

Did I call you, anyone, or thehomer a slut?

Why is it that you guys have been spinning round right from when I first mentioned that it is a metaphysical question and would be discussed from that basis? No, you never said anything about your dude spinning and lying around repeatedly. .  but you suddenly woke up now to plead what? Please.

I am asking what the difference between slippery slut and complete idiot?

As for the discussion you are not just ready abeg, you just prefer to play these silly games that I am too big for, if you want to know how just look back at your replies ever since I asked you that we start afresh, you are more interested in your innuendos.

Chrisbenogor:

I am asking what the difference between slippery slut and complete idiot?

Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary for the difference.

As for the discussion you are not just ready abeg, you just prefer to play these silly games that I am too big for, if you want to know how just look back at your replies ever since I asked you that we start afresh, you are more interested in your innuendos.

I wasn't playing any games - I was willing to dicuss, but you guys are too big and full of yourselves that is why you keep running around with strawman fallacies and never able to settle with anything concrete.

viaro:

Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary for the difference.

I wasn't playing any games - I was willing to dicuss, but you guys are too big and full of yourselves that is why you keep running around with strawman fallacies and never able to settle with anything concrete.

Ok this is not I am putting up with your shi.t anymore, w.t.f is wrong with you, your attitude is offensive and abrasive I do not care what others have said to you but I have specifically stooped low to ask that we start afresh and take it little by little, who the fcku is yourselves? huh

Look young man if this is what you want us to do talk abeg, we can trade many many of these till this thing fills up to as many pages as you want but it will lead us nowhere. . . . . . .sheesh nairaland finally got to you now your replies are acidulous and filled with frustration, oh might I add that the pungent smell of pride is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Chrisbenogor:

Ok this is not I am putting up with your shi.t anymore, w.t.f is wrong with you, your attitude is offensive and abrasive I do not care what others have said to you but I have specifically stooped low to ask that we start afresh and take it little by little, who the fcku is yourselves? huh

And who the piffling idiot do you think you are? Did I refuse to oblige you initially when you called for a fresh discourse?

Look young man if this is what you want us to do talk abeg, we can trade many many of these till this thing fills up to as many pages as you want but it will lead us nowhere. . . . . . .sheesh nairaland finally got to you now your replies are acidulous and filled with frustration, oh might I add that the pungent smell of pride is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

[s]For one, you're beginning to get to yourself, no?[/s] [s]Fill the pages with whatever for all I care[/s]. I made clear that I would discuss, so long as we move along specifics. If that was not to your flavour, I would not try to impose. [s]You think your atheism makes you . . . what[/s]?

viaro:

And who the piffling idiot do you think you are? Did I refuse to oblige you initially when you called for a fresh discourse?

For one, you're beginning to get to yourself, no? Fill the pages with whatever for all I care. I made clear that I would discuss, so long as we move along specifics. If that was not to your flavour, I would not try to impose. You think your atheism makes you . . . what?

That one na your own cup of tea.

And who the piffling idiot do you think you are?

Read all my replies and see if I ever insulted you. . . . .Jesus Christ my black ass mschewwwwww

Chrisbenogor:

Read all my replies and see if I ever insulted you. . . . .Jesus Christ my black backside mschewwwwww

I read your replies and obliged you a discussion when you called me out, did I not? To both of us, somewhere along the line we seemed to have lost the twang on this subject - you have your reasons, I have mine. That you assume I was playing "silly games" and appealing to innuendos is not true, and that was where I was sharp with you. Other atheists may not be interested in the specifics - they said so, and I didn't try to impose upon them or suggest insulting them.

I beg u viaro not to descend so low/be yoked with unbelievers.I enjoy ur philosophical posts on NL.So lets stick to issue.
Atheists denies d existence of God,yet they av not proved it beyond reasonable doubt that what science cant answer d greatest being would.
Where im posting now d wind is blowing&i dnt know it comes from.May an atheist can tell me where its coming from.

toba:

I beg u viaro not to descend so low/be yoked with unbelievers.I enjoy your philosophical posts on NL.So lets stick to issue.
Atheists denies d existence of God,yet they av not proved it beyond reasonable doubt that what science cant answer d greatest being would.
Where im posting now d wind is blowing&i dnt know it comes from.May an atheist can tell me where its coming from.

Thank you toba.

And Chris, I know you may not be moved one way or another by this, but I still apologise and own my wrong in being abrasive. Indeed, I admit losing my cool there, because I actually was very, very interested in this discourse - but that does not make me any better or more intelligent than anyone else on Nairaland. So allow me to withdraw my ineptitude there and say 'sorry', please.

Viaro,
Yet again I will ask you to re read my replies and see that I was really really interested too, I liked the idea of the question is a metaphysical one and should be discussed as thus and I remember in one of my replies asking you to elaborate what you meant. You referred me to many links and all I wanted was a simple explanation of your stand, because I too was confused.
Anyway I think I lost my interest now so long so well.

Chrisbenogor:

Viaro,
Yet again I will ask you to re read my replies and see that I was really really interested too, I liked the idea of the question is a metaphysical one and should be discussed as thus and I remember in one of my replies asking you to elaborate what you meant. You referred me to many links and all I wanted was a simple explanation of your stand, because I too was confused.
Anyway I think I lost my interest now so long so well.

I spent the last few minutes going back to re-read your replies. Perhaps I missed your intent somewhere, and admit it would have been an oversight on my part.

If it may not be so much trouble, let me say the following for all who may be interested at any rate to see where I stood on these matters.

1.   First, I tried to understand the nature of the question being asked; and as dealing with 'transcendent' things and 'reality', it was clear that it was a "metaphysical question".

2.   As such, I was requested to define my terms (such as supernatural, spiritual, etc), which I did ("That which is not reducible to physicalist probables"; and then went on to state and demonstrate why it was a metaphysical question, as well how we could make it a fruitful discussion if we all agreed that it was purely a metaphysical question.

3.  Now, some others (e.g., mazaje and tonyeb) nicely opinned that they were not at that time interested in philosophical talk in these matters, and I appreciated that they had politely declined - that did not make me superior to them though.

4.  After I outlined how I intended to pursue this discourse, thehomer objected by indicating that it was one that should be detectable by "scientific means". No worries, my request was that he should tell me "what type of science" he thought could be used for such a metaphysical question, and then I would be glad to lead him in that same means to discover the supernatural  - but from that point (post #74), he never once ever obliged my request and seemed to only have kept cycling round it.

5.  Where I lost it was when he (thehomer) boldly claimed falsely that I had "now introduced" the metaphysics into the whole thing  - like that was supposed to be my escape hatch. I thought at that point, we had had enough of the games, and that was why I was curt with him.

6.  As far as I know, questions about "all reality" and the nature of being and existence are philosophical questions of metaphysics. The reason why I kept repeating myself on that same point was to help thehomer (and any other interested atheist) show me otherwise. This is a fact that informed atheists cannot deny, and so many established sources still bear out this fact - that metaphysical questions are best treated on metaphysical premises. For this reason, I excerpted an atheist source (Austin Cline) attesting to this and showing clearly a recommendation, that: "in truth, metaphysics is probably the most fundamental subject which irreligious atheists should focus on". That was coming from an atheist - and I don't know why thehomer was not facing up to that fact. Of course, I was hoping he would show me otherwise - but that was where it seemed the discussion had stalled.

7.  It isn't that I was not willing to discuss at all - on the contrary, I was clear to repeatedly indicate that the question is purely a metaphysical one, and as such should be discussed on metaphysical premises. If my atheist discussant(s) agreed and were more inclined to "science", they should grant me just one request: please give me a specific outline of why "science" is more suitable for them, as well as how science answers metaphysical questions.

8.  If any atheist is able to provide me with such an outline, then viaro would use their own specifics and discuss this question in detail. I was "willing on my part to discuss" . .  I said so in several occasions; but I was hungry for concrete gist, and not strawman fallacies (or reductio ad absurdum).  But if my atheists discussant(s) were not willing to discuss metaphysical questions on metaphysical premises, nor were willing to grant my request, I would not impose anything upon them or anyone; nor would I ignore the metaphysical premise and then appeal to what the atheist had in mind: physicalism.

It was discourteous of me to have lost it on thehomer and then allowed that incident to transfer on to you, Chris. Please let it pass, and take care.