I've argued with many a theist on God's existence, and I'm pretty sure a lot of you have done same both offline and online, and the most frequently said words after silencing their arguments are: even if there's a proof for god you still won't believe. And a few other times, they insert the shitty 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' argument/statement. Truth is, if god does exists, I wouldn't need to believe it; I'd have knowledge of it. Existence, with proof, doesn't require believe; it requires knowledge.

So, how did you guys combat these defeating statements by the theist?

Christians say their god is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and omnibelevolent

if these qualities are true then we'd all know of this god's existence, here's why:

an omnipresent god is with me right now

an omniscient god knows what would convince me of his existence

an omnipotent god can do that thing that'll convince me

an omnibelevolent god would want to convince me of his existence


the fact that such an entity exists but requires humans to indoctrinate other humans about it points to the fact that such an entity does not exist!

Christians make the mistake of challenging the second premise by stating I'm "asking Yahweh to bend down to my wish" this is an absolute strawman as the second premise doesn't state anything specific about what I want Yahweh to do in order for me to believe he exists but Yahweh should know what would convince me better than even me

Francis Collins, a staunch atheist, became a Christian after witnessing a beheaded man come back to life after the corpse was prayed for by a MoG, his conversion to Christianity was finally sealed when he witnessed an amputee healing; he's always said those would convince him and Yahweh did it, "Yahweh bent to Francis Collins wish"

The above paragraph from the ninth (9th) word is a fabrication the below was actually Francis Collins conversion story

He was walking in the bush when he came across a frozen waterfall and he became convinced of Yahweh's existence and Christianity being true, he said he saw the frozen waterfall have three prongs and that convinced him that "Christian Trinity" is true

If Yahweh exists and Christianity is true, then Yahweh with his omniscience knew a frozen waterfall with three prongs is what would convince Francis Collins and he used his omnipotence to make it happen

if a Christian asked Francis Collins while he was a staunch atheist "What can happen that would convince you of Yahweh's existence and Christianity being true?"
I'll wager Collins would say "An amputee healing, a mountain moving" or something in that line; I'm 100% certain he won't say "a frozen waterfall split in 3 places"

in summary, the fact that a god like that exists and all those who believe in it do so out of "faith" shows it doesn't exist

If God is real we will have God not arguments.

But then theist are not able to convince other theist of the existence of their own version God.

dalaman:
If God is real we will have God not arguments.

But then theist are not able to convince other theist of the existence of their own version God.

succinct!

whenever I talk about the possible validity of Islam over Christianity with Analice107 she'll go "we'll find out when we die" LOL

hopefulLandlord:


succinct!

whenever I talk about the possible validity of Islam over Christianity with Analice107 she'll go "we'll find out when we die" LOL

The fear of death is one of the major reasons people adhere to religions.

As the saying goes all religions were created out of the fear of the many and the cleverness of a few.

jimmyjenseng:
I've argued with many a theist on God's existence, and I'm pretty sure a lot of you have done same both offline and online, and the most frequently said words after silencing their arguments are: even if there's a proof for god you still won't believe. And a few other times, they insert the shitty 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' argument/statement. Truth is, if god does exists, I wouldn't need to believe it; I'd have knowledge of it. Existence, with proof, doesn't require believe; it requires knowledge.

So, how did you guys combat these defeating statements by the theist?

Belief and knowledge are not mutually exclusive. In fact in order to have knowledge of anything, you must have belief and truth. For instance, you can't say you know 2+2=4 but don't believe it.

jimmyjenseng:
I've argued with many a theist on God's existence, and I'm pretty sure a lot of you have done same both offline and online, and the most frequently said words after silencing their arguments are: even if there's a proof for god you still won't believe. And a few other times, they insert the shitty 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' argument/statement. Truth is, if god does exists, I wouldn't need to believe it; I'd have knowledge of it. Existence, with proof, doesn't require believe; it requires knowledge.

So, how did you guys combat these defeating statements by the theist?

Mister , you are seriously pontificating here . Have you silenced me before ? A big opportunity is here for you to engage me in a debate . State your time and day .

And please knowledge is justified true belief . Don't talk philosophy when you are clearly inept at it .

We have arguments whose conclusions logically follow their premises. Let me produce one of them and see how you'd destroy it :

1. If God does not exist, intentional states of consciousness do not exist

2. Intentional states of consciousness exist

3. Therefore, God exists .

Please logically destroy this argument , I'm waiting.

KingEbukasBlog:




We have arguments whose conclusions logically follow their premises. Let me produce one of them and see how you'd destroy it :

1. If God does not exist, intentional states of consciousness do not exist

What kind of very empty assertion is this? . What is the relationship btw intentional states of consciousness and God? How have you demonstrated that intentional states of consciousness can NOT exist without God?

2. Intentional states of consciousness exist

Yes it does. We are yet to demonstrate how it has anything to do with any God and why it can not existwithout any God.

3. Therefore, God exists .

What a very ridiculous conclusion.

Please logically destroy this argument , I'm waiting.

I fail to see the argument you've presented. Don't tell me this hogwash is what you call a logical argument. Na wah oo .

dalaman:




What kind of very empty assertion is this? . What is the relationship btw intentional states of consciousness and God? How have you demonstrated that intentional states of consciousness can NOT exist without God?



Yes it does. We are yet to demonstrate how it has anything to do with any God and why it can not existwithout any God.



What a very ridiculous conclusion.




I fail to see the argument you've presented. Don't tell me this hogwash is what you call a logical argument. Na wah oo .

What are intentional states of consciousness?

KingEbukasBlog:

What are intentional states of consciousness?

Why not tell us?
You brought it up did you not?

KingEbukasBlog:

What are intentional states of consciousness?

Why not tell us?
You brought it up did you not?

Ranchhoddas:
Why not tell us?

You brought it up did you not?

I just have a feeling he does not know and he is just trying to pooh pooh the argument without having an understanding of the subject of the argument . It's the typical atheist way anyway .

KingEbukasBlog:


Mister , you are seriously pontificating here . Have you silenced me before ? A big opportunity is here for you to engage me in a debate . State your time and day .

And please knowledge is justified true belief . Don't talk philosophy when you are clearly inept at it .

We have arguments whose conclusions logically follow their premises. Let me produce one of them and see how you'd destroy it :

1. If God does not exist, intentional states of consciousness do not exist

2. Intentional states of consciousness exist

3. Therefore, God exists .

Please logically destroy this argument , I'm waiting.

Too much talk sir and this commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

More so, this is invalid:
1. Wrong
2. Correct
3. Therefore wrong.

Next!

jimmyjenseng:


Too much talk sir and this commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

More so, this is invalid:
1. Wrong
2. Correct
3. Therefore wrong.

Next!

Yeah , that's how to refute logical arguments - wrong , correct, therefore wrong . What a joke . Please don't embarrass yourself bro. Good night

KingEbukasBlog:


I just have a feeling he does not know and he is just trying to pooh pooh the argument without having an understanding of the subject of the argument . It's the typical atheist way anyway .

I know what the statement means. You just made the statement without foundation? What made you to make the statement? What is the relationship btw intentional states of consciousness and the existence of God? How have you been able to establish that intentional states of consciousness can NOT exist without God?

You made an empty assertion without any foundation and you want any body to take you seriously.

KingEbukasBlog:


Yeah , that's how to refute logical arguments - wrong , correct, therefore wrong . What a joke . Please don't embarrass yourself bro. Good night

Lol! I can't stress myself over the invalidity of the argument. Why call this a logical argument in the first place! Here's you saying:

1. if god doesn't exist, pig doesn't exist
2. Pigs exists
3. Therefore god exists.

Your first premise is built on baseless assumption OK?

dalaman:


I know what the statement means. You just made the statement without foundation? What made you to make the statement? What is the relationship btw intentional states of consciousness and the existence of God? How have you been able to establish that intentional states of consciousness can NOT exist without God?

You made an empty assertion without any foundation and you want any body to take you seriously.

What are intentional states of consciousness?

jimmyjenseng:


Lol! I can't stress myself over the invalidity of the argument. Why call this a logical argument in the first place! Here's you saying:

1. if god doesn't exist, pig doesn't exist
2. Pigs exists
3. Therefore god exists.

Your first premise is built on baseless assumption OK?

Lol . See this squeaky thing? Go play with it while I discuss with dalaman

KingEbukasBlog:


What are intentional states of consciousness?

The ability to think about other things at will.

jimmyjenseng:


Lol! I can't stress myself over the invalidity of the argument. Why call this a logical argument in the first place! Here's you saying:

1. if god doesn't exist, pig doesn't exist
2. Pigs exists
3. Therefore god exists.

Your first premise is built on baseless assumption OK?

His first premise is based on a very useless assumptions and lacks total foundation and evidence . He'll then open his mouth and be talking rubbish. Even the proponent of this nonsense fallacy William Craig has dropped that nonsene after his argument was totally destroyed by Aman.

dalaman:


The ability to think about other things at will.

Something only mental states can achieve . So have you seen correlation or should I show it ?

KingEbukasBlog:


Something only mental states can achieve . So have you seen correlation or should I show it ?

You have demonstrated the mental ability of any God how? Show me the mental ability of any God. Am waiting.

dalaman:


His first premise is based on a very useless assumptions and lacks total foundation and evidence . He'll then open his mouth and be talking rubbish. Even the proponent if this nonsense fallacy William Craig has dropped that nonsene after his argument was totally destroyed by Aman.

Where is the video to prove this ?

intentionality and consciousness have been used as evidence for God a long time before Craig picked up the argument.

KingEbukasBlog:


Lol . See this squeaky thing? Go play with it while I discuss with dalaman

Nice evasion tactics. Adiós.

KingEbukasBlog:




Where is the video to prove this ?

intentionality and consciousness have been used as evidence for God a long time before Craig picked up the argument.

I'll look it up and drop it here if I see it.

Craig coined the argument the way you presented it. The argument is totally empty because it lacks foundation and evidence.

dalaman:


His first premise is based on a very useless assumptions and lacks total foundation and evidence . He'll then open his mouth and be talking rubbish. Even the proponent if this nonsense fallacy William Craig has dropped that nonsene after his argument was totally destroyed by Aman.

Don't mind the Mister.

dalaman:


You have demonstrated the mental ability of any God how? Show me the mental ability of any God. Am waiting.

You always dont have a good understanding of the argument before you start making baseless arguments and accusations.

The argument was drawn from our understanding of how our minds work ; Intentionality of our mental states which has to do with object directedness or aboutness of something. And this behaviour of mental states of finite minds like us only point to the existence of an ultimate mind . Material objects don't have such ability only mental states do .

dalaman:


I'll look it up and drop it here if I see it.

I dey wait sir

Craig coined the argument the way you presented it. The argument is totally empty because it lacks foundation and evidence.

I already explained the foundation of the argument and why it points to an ultimate mind , God . Mental states are immaterial so it's redundant to reiterate to that God Itself as an ultimate mind is immaterial

KingEbukasBlog:


You always dont have a good understanding of the argument before you start making baseless arguments and accusations.

The argument was drawn from our understanding of how our minds work ; Intentionality of our mental states which has to do with object directedness or aboutness of something. And this behaviour of mental states of finite minds like us only point to the existence of an ultimate mind . Material objects don't have such ability only mental states do .

You guys keep making bogus and empty assertions always. I don't have time for your endless sophism. All I do is just cut the chase and show you how empty your assertions are. How did we jump from mental states pointing to the existence of an ultimate mind? Where is the foundation for this empty assertion.

Our mental state is evidence for our mental state. God's mental state can be demonstrated through which mechanism?

KingEbukasBlog:


I dey wait sir

I'll check it when am free. I saw the debate on freeratio like 4 years ago so will look it up. Just searched and it gave me so many pages that's because I forgot Aman' s first name. Would have been much easier or if I know the title of the debate.

I already explained the foundation of the argument and why it points to an ultimate mind , God . Mental states are immaterial so it's redundant to reiterate to that God Itself as an ultimate mind is immaterial

This is nonsense. You have NOT established that mental states come from an ultimate mind. You have also NOT established that mental states can not come from other sources at all.

dalaman:


I'll check it when am free. I saw the debate on freeratio like 4 years ago so will look it up. Just searched and it gave me so many pages that's because I forgot Aman' s first name. Would have been much easier or if I know the title of the debate.

I still don't know why anyone would take the guy seriously. Anyway, you are an atheist so his shallowness will appeal to you .

This is nonsense. You have NOT established that mental states come from an ultimate mind. You have also NOT established that mental states can not come from other sources at all.

This is one reason why I don't discuss topics like this with a Nigerian atheist. He is only good at dismissing arguments and making irrational rants and that's all . If I should go through the stress of explaining this thing and you don't give me a reasonable response, God will punish you for making me waste my time . And I'm not playing.

KingEbukasBlog:


I still don't know why anyone would take the guy seriously. Anyway, you are an atheist so his shallowness will appeal to you .

All this statements without even watching the debate and listening to how he deconstructed Craigs arguments abi?

This is one reason why I don't discuss topics like this with a Nigerian atheist. He is only good at dismissing arguments and making irrational rants and that's all . If I should go through the stress of explaining this thing and you don't give me a reasonable response, God will punish you for making me waste my time . And I'm not playing.

You prefer foreign atheist that will dance to your sophist whims abi?

Ogbeni na wah oò. Why the serious vexation na ? My argument is very simple, just because mental states exists, there’s no reason to attribute that to being derived from a diety without any supporting evidence at all. It's very simple.