Martinez19:
If it's not the Abrahamic god then yes. Even for the Abrahamic God, certain logical arguments may surface but they are soon shown to contradict the bible. Anyway, how does my post show the close mindedness of atheists?

johnydon22:


I said "God" didn't specify any particular God.

Martinez19:
Let's assume you refer to Nairaland as "beans" and I refer to Facebook as "beans," then your beans is not my beans. If we then decide to the English language as a standard then my beans is your beans regardless of the names we give to beans.

That's all I am trying to say. The concept is the same but the terminology defers.

budaatum:

We began this beans thing with definitions remember and in English Language.

Answer this, do you go around with Oxford Dictionary inside your head or do you not just make up your own beans as you go along?

Martinez19:
I don't need to carry Oxford Dictionary. I am fluent and vast in English vocabulary. However, not all have a rich vocabulary to describe certain things they come across so they contrive a name for it. These names can freely be used by them or any group but the English language remains the English language and it is a defined standard of communication on it's own. Judging by English language, beans is beans.

budaatum:

You "don't need to carry Oxford Dictionary" because you are "fluent and vast in English vocabulary" and have "a rich vocabulary to describe certain thing" and the "English language remains the English language", "a defined standard of communication on it's own", regardless of the speaker, right, and the ability of the listener to comprehend and understand?

Martinez19:
English language remains the English language regardless of the speaker and the ability of the listener to comprehend and understand. However, it still doesn't mean we cannot develop our colloquial/personal system of communication and use them freely but the standard of English remains.

johnydon22:


Your responses to this thread are easily refuted



A car is also man's design doesn't refute the notion that a humanoid robot is modelled after the image of man.

So, that a designer created something in its image doesn't mean it has to create everything else likewise.

Dangerous to who? The designer?

Viruses isn't dangerous to the designer, so there isn't any reason for it not

We have such a thing as computer viruses which is not directly harmful to man but is also man's creation but is rather harmful to computer programs which is another of man's design.

2. There is another possible reason: It wants to create viruses and bacterias.

Nope.

Because it quarks like a duck
Looks like a duck
Smells like a duck

Then it's possibly a duck.

I need us to fully understand the ground for each arguments, conisder them then we can easily argue them open mindedly

All human knowledge were never in isolation, most of things humans know today are built on the foundation these ancient bronze age peasants laid.

hakeem4:

Yes the intelligent designer created nothing in his image. So in what image of god were we created?


If you noticed the answer I gave was a reply to a question he asked concerning why god created human. I asked him what then is the purpose of bacteria and virus and why did god create them ( mind you we’ve good evolutionary reason why those organisms are useful)

yes we stood on their shoulders and noticed almost all the things they thought about was wrong

HellVictorinho:


Hello

You promised to help me with some money the other time


I will appreciate whatever amount possible

hakeem4:
done

HenryDion:
I still hold that you believe in ridiculousness despite lack of evidence, and the contrary evidence. To prove me wrong, simply buttress me by disclosing the evidence that upholds your "believe".

Sadly, you can't do that either but rather, keep exhibiting your ignorance all over the thread and making yourself look dumb.