Nothingserious:


Lol!

So you have finally dropped your scientific/empirical proof chant. That’s too early actually.

Workch:
You are right since theism makes it very ambiguous, however we can test for the attributes of specific gods. Every good have well defined attributes, these attributes gives us what to test for.

For example, the Christian God has the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence, these attributes can and has been tested to be false. So when I ask for how we can test for a god, I am actually asking the proponent of that God to state a well defined attribute of his specific God and then we test those attributes.

If he/she keeps shifting goalpost then you know there's something wormg.

Nothingserious:


So you have jettisoned your almighty empirical tools for investigation? Lol

I am still waiting for how you test for those items I listed earlier.

I would like you to stick to the claims Christians and the Bible had made about God. You are setting your expectations here and you can’t box the sovereign God into your own expectations. Rather you fit into God’s.

So look at the claims theists have made and then pick them up on that.

Did you believe God based on previous miracles others testified about?

“He said to him, If they do not hear and listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded and convinced and believe [even] if someone should rise from the dead.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭16:31‬ ‭AMPC‬‬
https://www.bible.com/8/luk.16.31.ampc

Crystyano:




The God(s) iS/ ARE SAID to have attributes...

The above statement is different from THERE ARE GODS OR THERE IS A GOD WITH SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES...


Let them state the definition of the supernatural/God that shows how the supernatural/God can exist before anything else...

Nothingserious:


So you have jettisoned your almighty empirical tools for investigation? Lol

I am still waiting for how you test for those items I listed earlier.

I would like you to stick to the claims Christians and the Bible had made about God. You are setting your expectations here and you can’t box the sovereign God into your own expectations. Rather you fit into God’s.

So look at the claims theists have made and then pick them up on that.

Did you believe God based on previous miracles others testified about?

“He said to him, If they do not hear and listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded and convinced and believe [even] if someone should rise from the dead.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭16:31‬ ‭AMPC‬‬
https://www.bible.com/8/luk.16.31.ampc

Workch:
Well, they will keep shifting the goalpost

Workch:
You see why I prefer abusing you instead of having a sane argument with you?
Do you want to be reasonable or should I treat like an animal?

I have told you that I need just testable evidence. It must not be scientific, if this testable evidence comes from science then fine

Workch:
It means that you cannot disprove the claim by flying spaghetti monster that he created the Christian God.

If you God is correct then this claim has to be correct as well. They are very compatible

Crystyano:




The God(s) iS/ ARE SAID to have attributes...

The above statement is different from THERE ARE GODS OR THERE IS A GOD WITH SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES...


Let them state the definition of the supernatural/God that shows how the supernatural/God can exist before anything else...

Workch:
You are the person misunderstanding me.
I asked testable evidence.
Seems you are very weary of science

Nothingserious:


Maybe you go back and see how we got here. You forget too soon . Or you intentionally drift . Which is it?

Nothingserious:


Deflections!
Coming from someone who started by warning us to avoid fallacies.

Do I need to prove flying spaghetti for the claims of God to stand?

Have you heard of contingent and necessary existence before?

God exists contingently. I do not need to talk to you about spaghetti to show you God.

Look for spaghetti believers and argue spaghetti with them.

Nothingserious:


You can abuse me.

I hate that you started this thread with bragging and cockiness when in fact you just direct-lifted someone’s intellectual property without so much as acknowledging them. That’s plagiarism and intellectual theft.

You made it look like you were one philosophically sound juggernaut.

So go ahead and abuse me.
After that, provide the empirical tools science used in investigations of the supernatural, religion, aesthetics, scientific laws( yes science doesn’t have empirical proof for scientific laws), consciousness, maths and logic.

You can keep your circular arguments to yourself if you can’t provide any of those.

Workch:
ok, that means the Flying Spaghetti Monster created god as he claim.

We cannot know this because the current methods of theology and science are too limited to test it.

Workch:
Do want to provide any evidence or you want to keep distracting me?

Nothingserious:


Again ask believers in flying spaghetti to help you out.

Our God discussions doesn’t need the help of arguments from spaghetti to stand.
What is your obsession with the spaghetti? You bring it up in every of our engagements even though it’s unrelated to our discussions.
May I know why?

Nothingserious:


Circular arguments. Keep deflecting.
I have been consistent in this discourse on my request for empirical data testing for the supernatural. You are the one who fired the appeal to authority cannon. So let’s drop the authorities we know ( even though most of what we know came through one authority or another), tell us what empirical method YOU specifically used in testing religion and the supernatural since you don’t like and agree with the authorities who said such doesn’t exist yet.

Nothingserious:


Again ask believers in flying spaghetti to help you out.

Our God discussions doesn’t need the help of arguments from spaghetti to stand.
What is your obsession with the spaghetti? You bring it up in every of our engagements even though it’s unrelated to our discussions.
May I know why?

Dtruthspeaker:


Are you still trying to obtain good reasons from a satanist?

Can good be obtained from a hater if God?

You have made a beautiful presentation and his only opposition is that it pleads Authority without evidence whereas, his own presentation also pleads Authorities without evidence eg Jean-Paul Sartre, Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow, etc.

When you pin him down he starts running all over the place.

Nothingserious:


Abeg don’t mind the guy with his circular arguments.
Lol

Workch:
I agree to whatever fallacy you call it as long as you agree that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created Yahweh.

The logic will force you to accept it.

Workch:
I agree, it doesn’t have to be logical.
Since we don’t understand it yet, we have to understand first to see the logic in it.

The Christian god was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can develop a tool to disprove that

Workch:
if your God claim is real then that of the flying spaghetti monster has to be real.

HOW? False conclusions from unrelated premises. Remind me about fallacies again pls.

It's either you agree that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real else you may have to drop your own God claim as well.

It doesn’t work that way.

The flying spaghetti monster created Yahweh and we don't have the tool to test it, disprove it or accept it.

YOU ARE ALREADY sounding like a broken record. So all these just because I threw it at you to show us the empirical tools for investigating the supernatural and religion?
Lol

It's you against your logic now

Nothingserious:


Again, this is a poor representation of the claims on knowledge of philosophy you make.

You don’t force logic on people. You drop valid logical arguments and allow your points win the arguments.

So if it’s a difficult thing for you to see that claims of Almighty God Yahweh are not dependent on arguments for spaghetti, then I wonder how else I will help you out.

I am trying to reconcile what point you are struggling to make.

Nothingserious:


Hahahaha!
Everything now looks like a child’s play.

Nothingserious:


Abeg don’t mind the guy with his circular arguments.
Lol

Dtruthspeaker:


He and all of them if not properly cut down will Move all over the world.

No one is asking them to depart from their foolishness but they must they always attack us.

Surely, they do not want to die alone and they think that they can be safe from God's judgement, if others join them.

Workch:
It's not a child's play, this argument is consistent with your logic.

Since science doesn't have the tool to test Christian god because the Christian God who created science is beyond science, so the Christian God cannot have the tool to test its creator who's the flying spaghetti monster. The flying spaghetti monster is beyond the Christian God.


Very consistent logic

Nothingserious:


Lol!

See who is talking about shifting goal post:the kettle calling the pot black. That’s hypocritical.

I want you to stick to his scientific/empirical tools claim and follow it to conclusions.

But if you want to shift to God’s attributes, fine. It implies you already concede you really had no scientific tools to test for God and the supernatural but had been lying all along.

Nothingserious:


Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:


Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:


Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:


Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:


Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:


Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:


Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:


Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:


Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

[/quote

Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics also applies to your god

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for also applies to your god

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics, also applies to your god

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator
[quote author=Nothingserious post=107353581]

Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:


Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:


Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:


Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:


Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Nothingserious:


Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the necessary existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Crystyano:



No need to test for what has no definition that shows how it can exist