The Existence of a Creator: A Challenge to Atheists

I had an argument with Jaephoenix a few days ago. He was completely floored and ran away from the discussion. I observed that unlike what used to be the norm, none of his fellow atheists came to his rescue. I have presented the argument in a more organized way and hereby table it as an open challenge to all atheists worldwide.

Now, let's begin:

Atheism posits that complex designs and functionality in the natural world can be explained without the need for a Creator. However, I argue that certain features of the natural world demonstrate intelligent design, purposefulness, and complexity, necessitating the existence of a Creator.

Key Points:

1. Intelligent Design: Complex structures like the eye exhibit intelligent design, with multiple components working together to achieve a specific purpose (sight).

2. Purposefulness: The eye's design serves a clear purpose, unlike natural processes that may create complex but purposeless structures.

3. Complexity: The eye's complexity and functionality cannot be explained by random natural processes alone.

4. Universality: The eye is a common feature across many living organisms, suggesting a deliberate design rather than a random occurrence.

5. Variety: The existence of different types of eyes (e.g., human, insect, octopus) implies a Creator who adapted designs for specific purposes.

6. Creator vs. Intelligent: The argument focuses on the existence of a Creator, not necessarily an intelligent or supernatural one.

7. Natural Processes: While natural processes can create complex structures, they lack purposefulness and intentionality, unlike the eye's design.

8. Emergence: Complex systems can exhibit emergent properties, but these do not necessarily explain the eye's purposeful design.

9. Evolutionary Explanations: Incremental adaptive changes may contribute to the eye's development, but they do not fully account for its complexity and purposefulness.

Conclusion:

The existence of complex, purposeful designs like the eye necessitates the existence of a Creator. This challenges atheistic views that rely solely on natural processes to explain the natural world. While the nature and identity of this Creator are open to discussion, the evidence from intelligent design, purposefulness, and complexity demands consideration of a Creator's role in shaping the world around us.


Modified on 24th August 2024
For purpose to be established, there needs to be a mind or a conscious entity behind it. This mind can be human, animal, or even a hypothetical artificial intelligence. The presence of a mind is necessary to:

1. Conceive goals and objectives
2. Make decisions and choices
3. Experience desires and intentions

In other words, purpose requires consciousness, awareness, and intentionality, which are all qualities of a mind. Without a mind, purpose cannot be established or exist. Hence there's definitely a mind behind the existence of these purposeful and complex designs.

No, that has nothing to do with athesim. Athesim is the lack of belief in a god. It's even ridiculous that people have to be given a name for not believing in the delusions of other people. I don't see anyone calling anybody anything for not believing in mermaids or leprechauns.
If you say the universe has a creator, then you're free to prove it. If you can't, there's no point.
Just because an atheist chose to argue with you over those subjects doesn't mean it has anything to do with Atheism.
So no, you did not "destroy" Atheism.

I have used the Eye as an example in my argument above. There are many examples of other complex and purposeful designs in the earth and universe that support the argument for Creationism. Here are a few:

1. DNA and Genetic Code: The intricate structure and function of DNA, as well as the genetic code that dictates protein synthesis, demonstrate remarkable complexity and purposefulness.

2. Cellular Machinery: The inner workings of cells, including molecular motors, pumps, and factories, exhibit remarkable complexity and functional design.

3. Planetary Fine-Tuning: The precise calibration of physical constants and planetary conditions that allow for life on Earth, such as the distance from the Sun and atmospheric composition.

4. The Brain and Nervous System: The human brain's intricate structure, functionality, and ability to process information and generate consciousness.

5. The Immune System: The complex and highly specialized defense mechanisms that protect living organisms from pathogens and diseases.

6. The Water Cycle: The intricate process by which water circulates through the environment, sustaining life and regulating Earth's climate.

7. The Earth's Magnetic Field: The protective shield that deflects harmful solar and cosmic radiation, allowing life to thrive.

8. The Universe's Large-Scale Structure: The organized distribution of galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters, suggesting a purposeful design.

These examples above and several other such examples that we see in the universe further destroy atheism and support the existence of a Creator.

There are so many individual complex and well organized systems working together for a common purpose - to make the world livable for living organisms.

------

Modified today 24th August 2024.

No atheist has been able to offer any counter-argument against the arguments in the OP. One of them was even trying to get me into a different debate while avoiding this current debate. Another one up there has suddenly denied that atheism does has anything to do with the subject matter. Atheists are liars. They argue everyday that the world came into being through natural processes but here they're trying to deny because they came face to face with an argument they couldn't counter. Many of the strong atheists on this forum have avoided this thread like a plague. They should keep deceiving themselves. Atheism has been destroyed.

FxMasterz:
I have used the Eye as an example in my argument above. There are many examples of other complex and purposeful designs in the earth and universe that support the argument for Creationism. Here are a few:

1. DNA and Genetic Code: The intricate structure and function of DNA, as well as the genetic code that dictates protein synthesis, demonstrate remarkable complexity and purposefulness.

2. Cellular Machinery: The inner workings of cells, including molecular motors, pumps, and factories, exhibit remarkable complexity and functional design.

3. Planetary Fine-Tuning: The precise calibration of physical constants and planetary conditions that allow for life on Earth, such as the distance from the Sun and atmospheric composition.

4. The Brain and Nervous System: The human brain's intricate structure, functionality, and ability to process information and generate consciousness.

5. The Immune System: The complex and highly specialized defense mechanisms that protect living organisms from pathogens and diseases.

6. The Water Cycle: The intricate process by which water circulates through the environment, sustaining life and regulating Earth's climate.

7. The Earth's Magnetic Field: The protective shield that deflects harmful solar and cosmic radiation, allowing life to thrive.

8. The Universe's Large-Scale Structure: The organized distribution of galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters, suggesting a purposeful design.

These examples above and several other such examples that we see in the universe further destroys supports the existence of a Creator.

I agree. The spaghetti monster made all of this possible. 👏🏾

kingxsamz:
No, that has nothing to do with athesim. Athesim is the lack of belief in a god. It's even ridiculous that people have to be given a name for not believing in the delusions of other people. I don't see anyone calling anybody anything for not believing in mermaids or leprechauns.
If you say the universe has a creator, then you're free to prove it. If you can't, there's no point.
Just because an atheist chose to argue with you over those subjects doesn't mean it has anything to do with Atheism.

This is a lie and an outright denial. Atheists argue here on a daily basis that there's no proof of a Creator and therefore there is no God. This argument is not about the existence of a God actually. We'll get to that later but not on this thread. This is about the existence of a Creator.

Now, let me ask you, do you believe there's a Creator? Since atheism is just the lack of belief in a God.

FxMasterz:


This is a lie and outright denial. Atheists argue here on a daily basis that there's no proof of Creator and therefore there is no God. This argument is not about the existence of a God actually. We'll get to that later but not on this thread. This is about the existence of a Creator.

Now, let me ask you, do you believe there's a Creator? Since atheism is just the lack of belief in a God.

Yes, there's no proof. And if there's no proof, there's no point. You're just suggesting.
I don't need to believe there's a tree outside my house, it'll just be a fact.

kingxsamz:


I agree. The spaghetti monster made all of this possible. 👏🏾

No matter what you agree. It's not my concern.

Do you believe in the existence of a Creator?

kingxsamz:


Yes, there's no proof. And if there's no proof, there's no point. You're just suggesting.
I don't need to believe there's a tree outside my house, it'll just be a fact.

This is very lame and does not address the matter at hand given the facts that have just been presented. This is just noise at best.

Please desist from commenting if you have nothing to say.

FxMasterz:


This is very lame and does not address the matter at hand given the facts that have just been presented. This is just noise at best.

Please desist from commenting if you have nothing to say.

No, coming on here to claim you "destroyed" athesim with arguments that has nothing to do with athesim is what's lame.

Please desist from making such inane statements.

1. DNA and Genetic Code: DNA's double helix structure, nucleotide sequence, and genetic code allow for the storage and transmission of genetic information. This complex system enables life's diversity and adaptability.

2. Cellular Machinery: Molecular motors (e.g., ATP synthase), pumps (e.g., sodium-potassium pump), and factories (e.g., ribosomes) work together to maintain cellular homeostasis, regulate processes, and facilitate life's essential functions.

3. Planetary Fine-Tuning: The Earth's:
- Distance from the Sun (allowing liquid water)
- Atmospheric composition (regulating temperature and protecting from radiation)
- Magnetic field (deflecting harmful radiation)
- Axial tilt (enabling seasonal variation)
- Water content (supporting life)

all demonstrate precise calibration for life to emerge and thrive.

4. The Brain and Nervous System The brain's:
- Neuronal structure and synaptic connections
- Information processing and transmission
- Consciousness and self-awareness
- Control over bodily functions

exhibit remarkable complexity and functional design. All purposely made to perform pre-intended functions.

5. The Immune System: The immune system's:
- Recognition of pathogens and foreign substances
- Activation of immune responses (e.g., inflammation, antibody production)
- Cell-mediated and humoral immunity
- Immunological memory

demonstrate a highly specialized defense mechanism. Purposefully designed in all complexity to defend the body.

6. The Water Cycle: The continuous process of:
- Evaporation
- Condensation
- Precipitation
- Runoff
- Infiltration

regulates Earth's climate, sustains life, and maintains ecological balance.

7. The Earth's Magnetic Field: The magnetic field:
- Protects from harmful solar and cosmic radiation
- Regulates charged particle flow
- Influences Earth's climate and weather patterns

also demonstrates a purposeful design for life's protection.

These explanations further highlight the intricate complexity and intentional functional design within each example above, further supporting the argument for Creationism.

kingxsamz:


No, coming on here to claim you "destroyed" athesim with arguments that has nothing to do with athesim is what's lame.

Please desist from making such inane statements.

Please you need to cover yourself in shame.

Openly denying what atheists are known for? Atheists argue delay in favour of evolution against Creationism with a tone that suggests that since there's no Creator, then there's no God. Who doesn't know this?

Our argument today is that there's a Creator. Atheists believe that there's no Creator. Do you believe there's a Creator? I'm asking you this question for the umpteenth time tonight.

FxMasterz:


Please you need to cover yourself in shame.

Openly denying what atheists are known for? Atheists argue delay in favour of evolution against Creationism with a tone that suggests that since there's no Creator, then there's no God. Who doesn't know this?

Our argument today is that there's a Creator. Atheists believe that there no Creator. Do you believe there's a Creator? I'm asking you this question for the umpteenth time tonight.

But i need ur hejp pls

Whatever amount u cam

Pls

FxMasterz:


Please you need to cover yourself in shame.

[s] Openly denying what atheists are known for Atheists argue delay in favour of evolution against Creationism with a tone that suggests that since there's no Creator, then there's no God. Who doesn't know this? [/s]

Our argument today is that there's a Creator. Atheists believe that there's no Creator. Do you believe there's a Creator? I'm asking you this question for the umpteenth time tonight.

"What atheists are known for" is not Atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. There are atheists who believe the earth is flat. There are those who believe evolution is a lie. No matter the kind of argument you have with any atheist about life, he/she will present their own opinion about that topic. Now, using that argument you had to make a generalization about atheists and athesim is lame.
I'm an atheist and I'm sure you already know that.
And no, I don't believe in any "creator" whatever that means. If you know there's one, provide evidence. You must tell me what this creator is, what it consists of, where it resides, how it operates and how you were able to come across such information. If you don't provide all of this then anything you say will be based on assumptions which is meaningless. ✌🏾

FxMasterz:
The Existence of a Creator: A Challenge to Atheists

I had an argument with Jaephoenix a few days ago. He was completely floored and ran away from the discussion. I observed that unlike what used to be the norm, none of his fellow atheists came to his rescue. I have presented the argument in a more organized way and hereby table it as an open challenge to all atheists worldwide.

Now, let's begin:

Atheism posits that complex designs and functionality in the natural world can be explained without the need for a Creator. However, I argue that certain features of the natural world demonstrate intelligent design, purposefulness, and complexity, necessitating the existence of a Creator.

Key Points:

1. Intelligent Design: Complex structures like the eye exhibit intelligent design, with multiple components working together to achieve a specific purpose (sight).

2. Purposefulness: The eye's design serves a clear purpose, unlike natural processes that may create complex but purposeless structures.

3. Complexity: The eye's complexity and functionality cannot be explained by random natural processes alone.

4. Universality: The eye is a common feature across many living organisms, suggesting a deliberate design rather than a random occurrence.

5. Variety: The existence of different types of eyes (e.g., human, insect, octopus) implies a Creator who adapted designs for specific purposes.

6. Creator vs. Intelligent: The argument focuses on the existence of a Creator, not necessarily an intelligent or supernatural one.

7. Natural Processes: While natural processes can create complex structures, they lack purposefulness and intentionality, unlike the eye's design.

8. Emergence: Complex systems can exhibit emergent properties, but these do not necessarily explain the eye's purposeful design.

9. Evolutionary Explanations: Incremental adaptive changes may contribute to the eye's development, but they do not fully account for its complexity and purposefulness.

Conclusion:

The existence of complex, purposeful designs like the eye necessitates the existence of a Creator. This challenges atheistic views that rely solely on natural processes to explain the natural world. While the nature and identity of this Creator are open to discussion, the evidence from intelligent design, purposefulness, and complexity demands consideration of a Creator's role in shaping the world around us.

I know being a theist makes one to be dishonest but you, my friend, have taken this dishonesty to a whole new level.
Please can you post the thread you floored me? The last thread we collided was this
https://www.nairaland.com/8183255/check-it-98-atheists-poor

And it was on Elon Musk's religion(or non -religion), where we didn't agree which it was. And I didn't run. And no, atheists don't just rush into arguments cos another atheist is there. There are some debates here I just don't fancy, or I'm not interested in, or its too boring. I won't just jump into it cos another atheist is there(especially now I want to start limiting my 'social media out-time')
So where did the flooring come into this?

Back to the topic, I wanna ask some questions before I commence. Do you believe in evolution?
I highlighted the question so you won't say you didn't see it.

Do you believe a fetus is a complex design? If you do, then who created it?

You talked about the eye. Are you aware it was a simple structure before it gradually evolved into the complex structure we are now using? If you don't know, please read up. I can't teach you everything. Same with many structures in the body. In fact some structures like pineal body, appendix, coccyx have evolved into completely useless structures.
Now there exists different types of eyes due to adaptation or evolution, like I pointed above. Example, the dominant preserved group among the early Cambrian arthropods, however, was the trilobites, which were well equipped with compound eyes from their very beginning. Humans didn’t have complex eyes at first.
Also can you point out those purposeless designs stemming natural processes ?
Also while we are at it, please can you tell us who created such an intelligent, purposeful creator? I mean such complex and powerful creature can't be a product of purposeless natural design(according to your logic)

FxMasterz:
I have used the Eye as an example in my argument above. There are many examples of other complex and purposeful designs in the earth and universe that support the argument for Creationism. Here are a few:

1. DNA and Genetic Code: The intricate structure and function of DNA, as well as the genetic code that dictates protein synthesis, demonstrate remarkable complexity and purposefulness.

2. Cellular Machinery: The inner workings of cells, including molecular motors, pumps, and factories, exhibit remarkable complexity and functional design.

3. Planetary Fine-Tuning: The precise calibration of physical constants and planetary conditions that allow for life on Earth, such as the distance from the Sun and atmospheric composition.

4. The Brain and Nervous System: The human brain's intricate structure, functionality, and ability to process information and generate consciousness.

5. The Immune System: The complex and highly specialized defense mechanisms that protect living organisms from pathogens and diseases.

6. The Water Cycle: The intricate process by which water circulates through the environment, sustaining life and regulating Earth's climate.

7. The Earth's Magnetic Field: The protective shield that deflects harmful solar and cosmic radiation, allowing life to thrive.

8. The Universe's Large-Scale Structure: The organized distribution of galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters, suggesting a purposeful design.

These examples above and several other such examples that we see in the universe further destroy atheism and support the existence of a Creator.

There are so many individual complex and well organized systems working together for a common purpose - to make the world livable for living organisms.

Ok. So those structures and phenomena are interesting…
If you suggest they were designed, then you have a problem. The problem is they were poorly designed. The immune system for example attacks some body organs, and there are no fail-safe mechanisms to curtail such attacks. So we end up with autoimmune diseases caused by the body itself. Then you have cellular diseases due to inborn error in metabolism, carcinogenic processes etc. These were products of this 'intelligent design'. Also human birth is a messy process. You have an anus sited about 10cm from the vagina, thus you see a baby popping out and covered with feces. Even the DNA is easily corrupted to code diseases like sickle cell, thalassemia etc.
I can go on and on about the errors in this very 'intelligent design' but my point is there is no intelligence in all these

kingxsamz:


I agree. The spaghetti monster made all of this possible. 👏🏾

Ramen. All praise to His Noodly Limbs

FxMasterz:


No matter what you agree. It's not my concern.

Do you believe in the existence of a Creator?

I don't know if there is a creator. Science is yet to prove it. And you cannot prove it. So rest

FxMasterz:


Please you need to cover yourself in shame.

Openly denying what atheists are known for? Atheists argue delay in favour of evolution against Creationism with a tone that suggests that since there's no Creator, then there's no God. Who doesn't know this?

Our argument today is that there's a Creator. Atheists believe that there's no Creator. Do you believe there's a Creator? I'm asking you this question for the umpteenth time tonight.

Evolution doesn't explain how we got here. It simply says we moved from Point A to Point B.And evolution is a proven fact in science. There are even evolutionary biologists. Science is yet to prove anything beyond the Big Bang

jaephoenix:

Evolution doesn't explain how we got here. It simply says we moved from Point A to Point B.And evolution is a proven fact in science. There are even evolutionary biologists. Science is yet to prove anything beyond the Big Bang

Any theist whose aim is just 2 destroy atheism tru these arguments is a waste of time

kingxsamz:
No, that has nothing to do with athesim. Athesim is the lack of belief in a god. It's even ridiculous that people have to be given a name for not believing in the delusions of other people. I don't see anyone calling anybody anything for not believing in mermaids or leprechauns.
If you say the universe has a creator, then you're free to prove it. If you can't, there's no point.
Just because an atheist chose to argue with you over those subjects doesn't mean it has anything to do with Atheism.
So no, you did not "destroy" Atheism.

You people don't think before talking, You people are so deluded that you forget that. "Action speaks louder than words"

StillDtruth:


You people don't think before talking, You people are so deluded that you forget that. "Action speaks louder than words"

So why don't you engage every atheist here every time? Did you land on your head? Please beg your gf to cum back and stop disturbing us

jaephoenix:

So why don't you engage every atheist here every time? Did you land on your head? Please beg your gf to cum back and stop disturbing us

See, Proof of madness!

jaephoenix:

I don't know if there is a creator. Science is yet to prove it. And you cannot prove it. So rest

Counter me. I presented some clues up there.

jaephoenix:

Ok. So those structures and phenomena are interesting…
If you suggest they were designed, then you have a problem. The problem is they were poorly designed. The immune system for example attacks some body organs, and there are no fail-safe mechanisms to curtail such attacks. So we end up with autoimmune diseases caused by the body itself. Then you have cellular diseases due to inborn error in metabolism, carcinogenic processes etc. These were products of this 'intelligent design'. Also human birth is a messy process. You have an anus sited about 10cm from the vagina, thus you see a baby popping out and covered with feces. Even the DNA is easily corrupted to code diseases like sickle cell, thalassemia etc.
I can go on and on about the errors in this very 'intelligent design' but my point is there is no intelligence in all these

How many times would I have to tell you that imperfection does not in anyway disprove the existence of a Creator? If a car has some defects, would that mean the car has no manufacturer?

jaephoenix:

I know being a theist makes one to be dishonest but you, my friend, have taken this dishonesty to a whole new level.
Please can you post the thread you floored me? The last thread we collided was this
https://www.nairaland.com/8183255/check-it-98-atheists-poor

And it was on Elon Musk's religion(or non -religion), where we didn't agree which it was. And I didn't run. And no, atheists don't just rush into arguments cos another atheist is there. There are some debates here I just don't fancy, or I'm not interested in, or its too boring. I won't just jump into it cos another atheist is there(especially now I want to start limiting my 'social media out-time')
So where did the flooring come into this?

Back to the topic, I wanna ask some questions before I commence. Do you believe in evolution?
I highlighted the question so you won't say you didn't see it.

Do you believe a fetus is a complex design? If you do, then who created it?

You talked about the eye. Are you aware it was a simple structure before it gradually evolved into the complex structure we are now using? If you don't know, please read up. I can't teach you everything. Same with many structures in the body. In fact some structures like pineal body, appendix, coccyx have evolved into completely useless structures.
Now there exists different types of eyes due to adaptation or evolution, like I pointed above. Example, the dominant preserved group among the early Cambrian arthropods, however, was the trilobites, which were well equipped with compound eyes from their very beginning. Humans didn’t have complex eyes at first.
Also can you point out those purposeless designs stemming natural processes ?
Also while we are at it, please can you tell us who created such an intelligent, purposeful creator? I mean such complex and powerful creature can't be a product of purposeless natural design(according to your logic)

Cha!!!

Lying atheist, I'll pull out the thread now.

This is the thread where you were floored. Very, very dishonest fellow:

https://www.nairaland.com/8177501/experience-graveyard/3#131416294

Your questions are irrelevant. Except you can't read, you would have noticed that I covered details regarding your questions in my first post. Telling me to go read is the hight of empty pride and hypocrisy. You'll teach me what I already taught you? Or you can't see my talk about natural selection and incremental adaptive changes?

This thread is about establishing the fact that there's a Creator. I'm not here to tell you who the Creator is. Yes, I believe in Evolution but I don't believe that evolution itself was not set in motion by a Creator.

kingxsamz:


"What atheists are known for" is not Atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. There are atheists who believe the earth is flat. There are those who believe evolution is a lie. No matter the kind of argument you have with any atheist about life, he/she will present their own opinion about that topic. Now, using that argument you had to make a generalization about atheists and athesim is lame.
I'm an atheist and I'm sure you already know that.
And no, I don't believe in any "creator" whatever that means>
. If you know there's one, provide evidence. You must tell me what this creator is, what it consists of, where it resides, how it operates and how you were able to come across such information. If don't provide all of this then anything you say will be based on assumptions which is meaningless. ✌🏾

My friend, we're here to discuss the bolded above. Put the long talks aside. Now face the topic since you have now admitted you do not believe in the existence of a Creator. I can't tell you who the Creator is until you first believe there's a Creator!

FxMasterz:
The Existence of a Creator: A Challenge to Atheists

I had an argument with Jaephoenix a few days ago. He was completely floored and ran away from the discussion. I observed that unlike what used to be the norm, none of his fellow atheists came to his rescue. I have presented the argument in a more organized way and hereby table it as an open challenge to all atheists worldwide.

Now, let's begin:

Atheism posits that complex designs and functionality in the natural world can be explained without the need for a Creator. However, I argue that certain features of the natural world demonstrate intelligent design, purposefulness, and complexity, necessitating the existence of a Creator.

Key Points:

1. Intelligent Design: Complex structures like the eye exhibit intelligent design, with multiple components working together to achieve a specific purpose (sight).

2. Purposefulness: The eye's design serves a clear purpose, unlike natural processes that may create complex but purposeless structures.

3. Complexity: The eye's complexity and functionality cannot be explained by random natural processes alone.

4. Universality: The eye is a common feature across many living organisms, suggesting a deliberate design rather than a random occurrence.

5. Variety: The existence of different types of eyes (e.g., human, insect, octopus) implies a Creator who adapted designs for specific purposes.

6. Creator vs. Intelligent: The argument focuses on the existence of a Creator, not necessarily an intelligent or supernatural one.

7. Natural Processes: While natural processes can create complex structures, they lack purposefulness and intentionality, unlike the eye's design.

8. Emergence: Complex systems can exhibit emergent properties, but these do not necessarily explain the eye's purposeful design.

9. Evolutionary Explanations: Incremental adaptive changes may contribute to the eye's development, but they do not fully account for its complexity and purposefulness.

Conclusion:

The existence of complex, purposeful designs like the eye necessitates the existence of a Creator. This challenges atheistic views that rely solely on natural processes to explain the natural world. While the nature and identity of this Creator are open to discussion, the evidence from intelligent design, purposefulness, and complexity demands consideration of a Creator's role in shaping the world around us.

You do realize that most atheists have better things to do than to sit on their ass all day to engage in eternal rounds of "prove the existence of God" bingo? We have lives, we have careers, and we have Netflix shows to binge. Me personally, I have a work calendar that's more crowded than a wedding reception in Lagos. In past debates, I've taken up to a month to respond to my opponent, not because I was "floored" or "ran away," but because I have priorities. Nevertheless, if you want to dance, we'll dance, but under the following conditions. Logic will be our guide: No logical fallacies, no emotional appeals, no straw men. Also, and this is very important: we must stick to the rules of reason and evidence. Empirical evidence and scientific consensus will be our benchmarks for truth claims. No sentimental arguments, and no unprovoked personal attacks that don't contribute to the discussion in any way, shape or form.

For the sake of fairness and to prevent butthurt or dishonest narratives from being peddled, I would propose that we enlist at least 3 mature, intellectual and objective monikers as our referee and judge. Someone with no stakes in this argument and who can call out fallacies, ensure we stick to the rules, and declare a winner (or a stalemate, if that's where the evidence leads). So, if you're ready to put your argument through the wringer, I'm game. But don't expect any free passes or special treatment. I'm as strict as they come when it comes to upholding the rules of logic and the scientific method.

Please respond accordingly to this post, accepting the aforementioned conditions. If you accept, then give me a mention and I'll proceed to respond to the arguments presented in your OP. Thanks.

JessicaRabbit:


You do realize that most atheists have better things to do than to sit on their ass all day to engage in eternal rounds of "prove the existence of God" bingo? We have lives, we have careers, and we have Netflix shows to binge. Me personally, I have a work calendar that's more crowded than a wedding reception in Lagos. In past debates, I've taken up to a month to respond to my opponent, not because I was "floored" or "ran away," but because I have priorities. Nevertheless, if you want to dance, we'll dance, but under the following conditions. Logic will be our guide: No logical fallacies, no emotional appeals, no straw men. Also, and this is very important: we must stick to the rules of reason and evidence. Empirical evidence and scientific consensus will be our benchmarks for truth claims. No sentimental arguments, and no unprovoked personal attacks that don't contribute to the discussion in any way, shape or form.

For the sake of fairness and to prevent butthurt or dishonest narratives from being peddled, I would propose that we enlist at least 3 mature, intellectual and objective monikers as our referee and judge. Someone with no stakes in this argument and who can call out fallacies, ensure we stick to the rules, and declare a winner (or a stalemate, if that's where the evidence leads). So, if you're ready to put your argument through the wringer, I'm game. But don't expect any free passes or special treatment. I'm as strict as they come when it comes to upholding the rules of logic and the scientific method.

Please respond accordingly to this post, accepting the aforementioned conditions. If you accept, then give me a mention and I'll proceed to respond to the arguments presented in your OP. Thanks.

The rules are already my unannounced rules. Matured reasonings. You're welcome to the challenge.

FxMasterz:


The rules are already my unannounced rules. Matured reasonings. You're welcome to the challenge.

No, no, no, no. Lol. I'm not taking this highly ambiguous response from you as a concrete agreement. Forgive me if I sound pedantic, but I'm trying my best to avoid a debate that might devolve into trolling or pointless back and forths here. "Matured reasonings" is a phrase that sounds profound but means precisely nothing. It's just a placeholder for actual substance. Be direct with your words. Are you accepting the conditions I outlined, or are you simply paying lip service to the idea of "matured reasonings"? Can you respond with a simple "yes" or "no" to the following questions?

1) Do you agree to avoid logical fallacies, emotional appeals, and straw men? And are you willing to address them properly if you're called out for committing any of the above?

2) Do you agree that empirical evidence and scientific consensus are acceptable benchmarks for truth claims?

3) Do you agree to refrain from sentimental arguments, red herrings and unprovoked personal attacks?

4) Are you willing to have our debate moderated by objective, intellectual referees to ensure fairness and call out fallacies?

Let's establish a clear understanding before proceeding please!

JessicaRabbit:


No, no, no, no. Lol. I'm not taking this highly ambiguous response from you as a concrete agreement. I'm trying my best to avoid a debate that might devolve into trolling or pointless back and forths here. "Matured reasonings" is a phrase that sounds profound but means precisely nothing. It's just a placeholder for actual substance. Be direct with your words. Are you accepting the conditions I outlined, or are you simply paying lip service to the idea of "matured reasonings"? Can you respond with a simple "yes" or "no" to the following questions?

1) Do you agree to avoid logical fallacies, emotional appeals, and straw men? And are you willing to address them properly if you're called out for committing any of the above?

2) Do you agree that empirical evidence and scientific consensus are acceptable benchmarks for truth claims?

3) Do you agree to refrain from sentimental arguments, red herrings and unprovoked personal attacks?

4) Are you willing to have our debate moderated by objective, intellectual referees to ensure fairness and call out fallacies?

Let's establish a clear understanding before proceeding please!

Yes to all.

All arguments must be contained within the limits of the stated facts. No derailment.

JessicaRabbit:


You do realize that most atheists have better things to do than to sit on their ass all day to engage in eternal rounds of "prove the existence of God" bingo? We have lives, we have careers, and we have Netflix shows to binge. Me personally, I have a work calendar that's more crowded than a wedding reception in Lagos. In past debates, I've taken up to a month to respond to my opponent, not because I was "floored" or "ran away," but because I have priorities. Nevertheless, if you want to dance, we'll dance, but under the following conditions. Logic will be our guide: No logical fallacies, no emotional appeals, no straw men. Also, and this is very important: we must stick to the rules of reason and evidence. Empirical evidence and scientific consensus will be our benchmarks for truth claims. No sentimental arguments, and no unprovoked personal attacks that don't contribute to the discussion in any way, shape or form.

For the sake of fairness and to prevent butthurt or dishonest narratives from being peddled, I would propose that we enlist at least 3 mature, intellectual and objective monikers as our referee and judge. Someone with no stakes in this argument and who can call out fallacies, ensure we stick to the rules, and declare a winner (or a stalemate, if that's where the evidence leads). So, if you're ready to put your argument through the wringer, I'm game. But don't expect any free passes or special treatment. I'm as strict as they come when it comes to upholding the rules of logic and the scientific method.

Please respond accordingly to this post, accepting the aforementioned conditions. If you accept, then give me a mention and I'll proceed to respond to the arguments presented in your OP. Thanks.

You have already started with everything you say he shouldnt do with bullyings and intimidation of your opponent and trying to cover your ass when you run away to come back with an "After thought" because you could not answer at the material time.😆

See am debate never start and you already don dey violate the rules of debate which you.say he should keep but you will never keep it. 😆😆😆

(imagine, people have to wait months for your reply. You must be living in Jupiter)😆

Even in just courts there are time frames parties must respond if they do not want to lose their respective cases, how much more in a public debate. You are not serious at all and you are just trying to cover up the fact you know you will fail.

Runaway means runaway you know do not have any valid answer to give and so you know you are losing or going to lose, so you run as you are supposed to do when losing.

Also, you did not add "No Lies" and Twistings and Perversion of an opponents statements.

FxMasterz:


Yes to all.

All arguments must be contained within the limits of the stated facts. No derailment.

Easy man. How well do you know the rules of debate?

She knows them more than you, so, you would be in trouble if she breaks one and you don't know it.