Aemmyjah:



(1) Does evolution define morality?
Why should I treat others the way I'd like to be treated when there's a survival for the fittest?



Again, you keep diverting

(2) If your child, I mean your very own child - son or daughter wants to find a purpose as a serial killer, a stripper or a terrorist... You said we should all find our purpose
Will that make you happy. Yes or No?

Both questions asked and answered here👇🏽

Thorrn:


(1) Good and evil can be explained via evolution, yes. In fact this article from the Scientific American does a very good job at explaining this:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-origins-of-human-morality/


(2) First, this retarded_ question does not actually disprove the fact that purpose is subjective, so the point you tried to make here is about as sharp as a busted rubber ball. In fact, it only reinforces my argument. Your stupidity here is that not only do you believe that "purpose" is external and/or objective, you also believe that it is fixed IE not subject to change.

Your question has more to do with the source of human morality. Technically, it has absolutely nothing do with purpose in life. That's a different topic entirely.

Secondly, if anybody seriously believes being a serial killer is what gives him a sense of identity, the best I can do to appeal to his sense of logic and empathy is to convince him of the adverse effects of his actions. The utilitarian philosophy captures this idea perfectly: actions that maximize happiness and enhance peace and harmony in the society are inherently beneficial to the greater good of mankind. You've heard this idea commonly as follows: "treat others how you want to be treated. In the event that s/he refuses to acknowledge my advice, I will simply treat that person as a psychopath who is immune to rationality and empathy, even if s/he is my own child.

Why are you repeating answered questions? Oga don jam rock. No road for you again. Kpele 😂😂😂.

Aemmyjah:


😂
Abiogenesis is a scientific fact
Yes or No

Remember that I dropped mine too
Answer a simple yes or No question

I was going to ignore this question again, until I saw that you had finally grown enough balls to address my questions. I'll look into your answers shortly.

Meanwhile, no. Abiogenesis is NOT a scientific fact. Anything else?

Aemmyjah:



I have 5 questions earlier which you refused to answer

Thus far I have addressed and answered all your questions. Nearly all of my questions were asked towards the beginning of this thread, and you have not even acknowledged them, much less answered them until now.

I was going to ignore any further questions from you because it was starting to seem like you were not interested in a bi-directional conversation by expecting me to answer your questions when you blatantly refuse to answer mine. But since you've finally obliged my questions, I will give you the benefit of the doubt once more. Although if I'm being honest, it will take a lot for you to really impress me now given your atrocious performance so far on this thread.

You think writing long stories to avoid a simple question makes you intelligent shey?

How ironic in retrospect, given that you're now writing long notes too to answer my questions. Talk about a proper lack of self-awareness 😂.

As you will soon realize, if you do the same diligence to my questions that I do to yours, I bet you won't see me bickering and moaning about it, unless you are completely going off-topic.

Whether na Allah or Krishna. Does it dispute the existence of the Creator...

It doesn't dispute a creator. However, it disputes Christianity specifically as a religion, since it will be deprived of any special status over other religions. I would then ask you why you don't worship Allah or Krishna instead of Yahweh, after all they are all placeholders for a supreme creator, according to you. It's basic common sense.

Haven't you heard of Deism?

You clearly haven't thought properly about your objections.

I might say my phone brand is Samsung, someone say infinix, someone says Tecno... Does these arguments mean my phone evolved by itself?

This analogy is nonsensical. And I've demonstrated why ages ago on this thread 👇🏽

Thorrn:
More importantly, the preceding examples presume that we can even recognize design in the first place! The reason we think we can recognize design is because we have witnessed the design of cars, wristwatches, phones and so on. But nobody witnessed the inception of the universe, so assertions about what caused it to be can NOT be made with certainty. There is a difference between the perception of design and intentional design. Aemmyjah's arguments rise to little more than "look at that; it looks designed!". He is either relying on the assumption that something couldn't possibly happen by chance, due to incredibly long odds (which is an argument from incredulity fallacy) or stating there is no known explanation for the order we see other than purposeful design (which is an argument from ignorance fallacy). In light of these facts, P3 is completely invalidated as well.

Long story short, you can't compare the universe to a simple phone. See reasons above.

Again, no road for you.

Aemmyjah:


If a Biology teacher says that cell is not the basic unit of life without any evidence

Biology textbook says that cell is the basic unit of life
That is contradictory... Does the man's statement invalidate the definition of the cell as we read in Biology textbook?
😉

Again, poor analogy.

In your analogy: The biology textbook says one thing, and the teacher says another thing without referencing that same biology textbook. Obviously the teacher is talking out his ass. He has no basis.

In the case of the Bible: Some passages say the earth is flat. Other passages say it is spherical. And there are Christian apologists on both sides of the argument, using the same Bible to support their point.

Once again you don miss road dey go where you no know 🤣.

Try again.

The question remains:
WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE YOUR CLAIM THAT THE EARTH IS SPHERICAL WHEN THERE ARE OTHER CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS WHO CLAIM THE EARTH IS FLAT? Remember both views are based on the Bible!

Ahn ahn... Lol. Say it ain't so 🤣.

Las las Aemmyjah has finally succumbed to the relentless pangs of overwhelming shame building up within him and decided to answer my questions 😃. This probably has to be your finest moment on this thread -- which isn't saying much though, because your conduct in this debate has been appalling.

Anyways, all of that is in the past now. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and see if you've learned anything at all from our correspondence so far. Let us now critically examine the answers you have given here. Now, if you don't mind I've decided to split your answers into seven different posts. I want to make sure there is no derailment or mixing up unrelated issues together. It's easier for me that way because I can see what I'm talking about in every given post.

QUESTION 1: Can you kindly demonstrate how evolution being false serves as undeniable proof that an intelligent creator deity exists?

Aemmyjah:
Science agrees that life and the universe has a beginning.

I'd be careful of making such affirmative pronouncements if I were you. The question of the origins of life and the universe are very complex topics, of which active scientific research and philosophical exploration are still being carried out with varying degrees of success. For instance, besides the Big Bang theory which posits an expanding universe, there are less popular theories of a cyclic universe, as well as an infinite universe, both of which easily dispel the notion that the universe had a beginning at all. Clearly the argument that the universe has a beginning is not a general consensus within the scientific community. I'll give you life since there isn't many theories contesting the fact that life has an origin (there's the panspermia theory but it is believed to be speculative at best).

There is no evidence that something can emerge from nothing.

That depends on what you mean by "nothing". In physics, even seemingly empty space is not entirely devoid of properties. Quantum mechanics includes a concept known as the "vacuum", which isn't actually empty but contains fluctuations and energy.

More importantly, I'm still waiting to see how all this points to a creator deity.

No evidence that life can emerge from non-life. Have you and jaephoenix considered the mathematical probability of even the DNA evolving by chance or of life itself?

There isn't any conclusive evidence yet that life can emerge from non-life, but active research is still ongoing with regards to the topic, and abiogenesis is still a very plausible hypothesis due to several experiments and observations that lend some credence to it. How confident are you that there won't be some sort of breakthrough in this research topic in the next 100-500 years, probably long after you've departed from this earth? You said it yourself later on in your post that "Our wealth of knowledge is expanding." So are now you asserting that evidence showing life came from non-life will never be found?

Anyways, I'm still waiting to see the connection to an intelligent creator deity. So far, what I can see here is that you are merely arguing from your ignorance. You can't fathom how certain phenomena came about, so therefore you attribute it to God. I fail to see how this argument even comes close to my demands for you to prove the existence of a creator deity.

Google is at your service.

If I wanted to have this discussion with Google, then I wouldn't be talking to you.

Mutation they said is also responsible is seen to be more harmful than beneficial. We have seen changes in living forms but it has not resulted in anything new. If jaephoenix knows little science, he should know that gametes must be compatible when 2 species copulate and two different species cannot copulate let alone producing offsprings... Darwin's theories has modified time and again and we now have what is called modern darwinism. Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, not a fact or even theory. If an hypothesis is used evolution regrading the origin of life, hiw then is evolution a fact? If it is by natural selection, artifical selection with the best minds with the resources and conditions should do better but that has failed. Even so, a scientist or group of scientists who create life cannot represent blind, irrational and mindless process... Don't forget that evolution does not even bring about complexity.

All these are continued rantings against the theory of evolution, which ultimately accomplishes nothing for me. I want to know more about intelligent design. As it stands, you are only just wasting your time with these incessant complaints when you should be developing a model for Intelligent Design or adducing actual evidence for creationist ideas. You seem to appeal to science a lot but you continue to show a lack of respect for the scientific method.

The cycles, the inter-relationships, the immune systems, the digestive systems, circulatory system, the human brain... All these and many more show the footprint of intelligent design

You're just pointing at things and saying "this looks designed! that looks designed! Therefore, God exists!". These are all claims, not evidence. I will fully address this part of your post in the next quote below since it coincides with another question I asked you. I have noticed though, that in all your ramblings so far, you haven't still managed to offer any convincing evidence that suggests a creator deity. So tell me again why I should give a damn about evolution being true or not, if it has no bearing on the justification of my atheism?

==================================================================

My full critique of your last paragraph above will coincide with my critique to your answer to question number 4, so I'll just merge them both together here,

QUESTION 4: How do you measure and/or recognize design? How can you tell the difference between a designed object and one that was not designed?

4. That's deep. Can you mention anything that has no design

Lol. Now you've just gone around and asked me the very same question I asked you 🤦🏽‍♀️. Seriously, read my question again. Did you understand it at all 😂?

The fact that can run around and point at things, saying they look designed, means that you can easily distinguish a designed object from one that isn't designed! So the onus is on YOU to show me examples of objects that were not designed.

What is designed has a purpose right? Chaos cannot bring about design.

More rhetorical assertions that have nothing to do with my question.

For instance, if you go to a forest where no one has ever visited (and truly no one visited) and you see a toothpick or matchstick. You know someone dropped it there. But who and how and when and from where? You don't know but that does not mean what you saw evolved from the trees. Glass is made from sand particles. If you go to an island where no one has even touched and you see a glass bottle, what will be your conclusion?

...and you're still stuck with the same problem -- can you show us an object that was not designed? I asked you how we can recognize design and so far, you have provided no mechanism by which to distinguish "design" from "non-design". The only reason you know the glass bottle is different from the sand it's laying on is because of what? How hard it is? Because you can look through it? How streamlined it looks? Its' chemical composition? Are the atoms in the sand not just as complex and designed? What of the trees in the forest?

In the universe, especially in space, there are things that are even more precise than what we have on earth such as the 'traffic' of planetary bodies... Don't forget that many of our designs on earth were inspired from what we observe in the original world. Who deserves the credit?

Maybe when you can give an example of a non-designed object, I'll start to appreciate this "design" you keep alludung to. But for now, I think it's safe to say you have nothing to show for your position that God exists.

==================================================================

I'll score you nothing for both numbers 1 and 4 because you have not shown me how evolution being false constitutes proof an intelligent creator deity, and you have not shown me how you are able to recognize design.

QUESTION 2: Do you mean to tell me that the only thing that motivates you to get up in the morning is your God? Nothing else inspires your energy and dedication? Not even your family?

Aemmyjah:
2. No. I majored in Biology but I shifted focus from Zoology to Environmental Biology cos of climate change and from 2024,I'm focusing on ecosystem restoration and conservation. I also enjoy music, sports and many more.

While I'm happy that you derive a sense of purpose and fulfillment with regards to the things you mentioned up there, I can't help but be amused by the fact none of those things you highlighted have no direct relationship with religion, (except maybe music if gospel is your favorite genre). Biology (and by extension, Environmental Biology), just like any of the other fundamental sciences, is not subject to religious ideologies and doctrines. Rather, it adheres strictly to the scientific method. There's also no element of religious ideology in sporting activities that I'm aware of. The fact that you consider these things to be of immense value to you practically suggests that you don't actually need religion to enjoy life and derive pleasure or purpose from it.

Writing has been a passion of mine ever since I was in primary school. I graduated with first class in English Language, and now I'm a practicing journalist working with the print media. I also love reading philosophy books and novels by Stephen King, Charles Dickens etc, and I write my own novels. I enjoy reading my own works and I derive a huge sense of purpose from my profession.

I don't know if you've noticed by now, but the idea of subjective purpose has been firmly established with your answer here. Both Christians and Atheists find meaning and purpose in their lives doing the things they enjoy. So your supposition that Christians are better of based on "purpose in life" is completely null and void.

Permit me to ask you this follow-up question to burtress my point: can you list just one thing in this life that Christians enjoy which atheists don't have?

I'm not an extremist. All these stuffs are things to expect under the religious section of Nairaland 😉

Forgive my curiosity at this juncture, but which "stuffs" are you referring to you here that I should expect? I assume you're talking of the back and forth banter between us, which obviously I know it should be expected because it is a faceless forum where anyone has some degree of freedom to do what he wants under the guise of anonymity. I risk sounding pedantic here, but are you suggesting that because we're in the "religious section of Nairaland", that respect for the basic rules of intellectual debate should be discarded in favor of redundant back and forths that do nothing to further the purpose of the debate? Because I'm well aware that Nairaland is very notorious for this. If that's the case, does it mean it's okay to be dishonest because we're arguing on Nairaland? Just want to hear your thoughts 🤔.

QUESTION 3: Since the start of this thread, where did I make any claim that everything came from nothing?

Aemmyjah:
3. What do you think 🤔? Do you believe life emerge from nothing

Lol. This question is medicine after death 😂😂.

Why are you asking me what I think? Haven't you been singing all over the thread that I believe something came out of nothing?

This is the intellectual dishonesty and laziness of some of you Christians that I keep talking about. Simply because I'm asking you to provide proof of your God, you automatically start making up beliefs and ascribing them to me without having the courtesy to ask me what I really think.

There's only one thing that all atheists have in common, and that is the LACK OF BELIEF in God(s). We may not (and often do not) share the same opinions about the origin of the universe, origin of life and existence of a spiritual realm. Ideally most of these topics are within the jurisdiction of physicists and biologists. It has nothing to do with atheism. That's why your tantrums about evolution are irrelevant and hilarious to me, because I don't give a shit about it 💁🏽‍♀️.

Seriously, go read up on what atheism really is before coming here to misrepresent us in your stubborn ignorance. Or if you're just too lazy to do that, then maybe next time ask an atheist his opinion on certain subjects before running amock with your baseless assumptions.

As to your question, I don't have any fixed belief on the origins of life or the universe. I only lend credence to what science says because it is our most reliable method for understanding the reality we can observe, and thus far, there is no definitive consensus within the scientific community on how life and the universe came to be. Special attention is often given to hypotheses that are backed by empirical evidence, and so far, I've found that there are lesser flaws with the Big Bang and Evolution theories, than there is with Creationism and Intelligent Design. You said you were a biologist, but I don't know if you're a seasoned researcher and author of research papers. However, if you can present hard evidence proving Intelligent Design and maybe even publish a peer reviewed research work, I'll become convinced that your theory is more plausible than Evolution.

Unfortunately, I'm not impressed with your arguments so far because they seem more fixated on pointing out supposed "flaws" in the evolution theory, as opposed to justifying your own claims.

QUESTION 5: If everything in the universe was designed as you claim, how does it prove the existence of the God of the Bible, as opposed to Allah, Vishnu, Krishna etc etc? What if Allah is the true creator deity?

Aemmyjah:
5. Hmm. The Bible claims to be inspired by God.

So? That's not even remotely impressive. The Koran is said to be the literal words of Allah.

Go figure.

It is scientifically and historically accurate.

That's a false claim. The bible is filled with constant errors and inaccuracies that are clearly influenced by the authors' lack of understanding of scientific, historical and geographical knowledge during the period which has been proven to be fundamentally false. If you truly subscribe to Biblical inerrancy, it is impossible to reconcile the statements in the Bible to known scientific facts.

I should note that there are some Christians who love to claim that many of the inaccuracies are "metaphors" and it should not be taken as a scientific/historical book. However, this is also wrong because these texts are clearly written in the form of a scientific and historical fact to be taught and spread, they are not written as metaphors. Many of these misconceptions align with common misconceptions that were believed in many different cultures outside the Hebrews until they were debuked scientifically later.

It foretells the future including millenia in advance and they have been fulfilled and we are see many fulfilled today.

Two things here,

1, To my memory, most of the so-called prophecies touted to have come to pass in the Bible are often sufficiently vague enough -- some in the form of riddles -- that anybody can claim that a particular event was predicted by the Bible in retrospect. Perhaps you should give examples of detailed, specific prophecies that cannot be re-interpreted to have multiple meanings.

2, Prophecies aren't an exclusive signature of Christianity. There are many Muslim, Buddhist and even pagan prophecies that have been claimed to come to pass in recorded history.

The Koran itself gives credence to the Bible and confirms the historicity of some of the people and events mentioned in the Bible.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but both Islam and Christianity originated from the Hebrew religion called Judaism. So, it shouldn't come as a surprise that they both share similar places and events therein.

The Bible is unique as it has been the best seller for centuries. The most widely distributed and translated book by far. We'd expect that from a book of God to mankind.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Truths do not gain credence by virtue of fame and popularity.

🤷‍♂️...Oh, the Bible also mentions the name of the God of creation. ☺

Other religions also have a name for their own God of creation. What makes the name mentioned in the Bible any more special than the names of other deities?

I'm still waiting for the deal breaker that seals the status of the Christian deity as being more valid and reasonable to believe in, as opposed to the other deities I mentioned.

QUESTION 6: Abraham Lincoln, one of the foremost presidents of the USA was the titular character in the Vampire Hunter book mentioned above, and he hunted vampires. So I guess going by your logic (that the Bible is true because it contains real people and real places), vampires have been proven to exist?

Aemmyjah:
Abraham Lincoln claims to have hunted a vampire? Besides, what has hunting a vampire as mentioned in a book got to do with the existence of the CREATOR

Answer the question.

I'm scrutinizing the logic of your argument. You claimed that the mention of real people in the Bible that existed in history proves that the Bible is true. And in your OP, you used the Bible as your main premise to justify God's existence.

Does the existence of real people and places in the book "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" prove that vampires exist?

QUESTION 7: If everything has a creator, then who or what created God?

Aemmyjah:
7. Wrong question.

Oh really? How so?

Everyone does not have a creator as if there are many creators like there are many parents.

Nope, this is just you backtracking. Lol 😂.

You've been harping on and on for nearly 50 pages now about how it is impossible for something to emerge from nothing, but suddenly when it comes to your God, you believe he came from nothing.

Continue 🤣🤣🤣.

Science agrees that the universe has a beginning

False. There is no general consensus on this subject.

and logic tells us that the universe cannot be the cause of its own existence.

Your own subjective logic, you mean? Physics as we know it breaks down at Planck time. Using your "logic", can you confidently tell us the state of universe at t=0?

If god did not need to be created, if God always existed, so too does the universe not need to be created and could always have existed.

Did the universe emerge from nothing? No.

And you have arrived at this conclusion how? Can you define nothing? Even science doesn't have a definitive answer to this question. Lmao 😂.

... Is it from someone eternal or something eternal? Answer for yourself

Your entire argument right here is a textbook example of the Special Pleading fallacy.

Special pleading (or claiming that something is an overwhelming exception) is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading

When and where did your God exist before space and time? If you say that God exists outside of space and time, that means that God does not exist in space or time. That's the same as not existing. This is a paradox.

If God does not exist in time, God doesn't exist. Is there a superplane of existence? A space-time outside of our space-time that God exists? If so, what created that space-time? When was that super space-time created? Who created it?

If space-time didn't exist before God created it, how could there be a "before"? This is another paradox. "Before time" is like saying "square circle". It cannot exist. Time is temporal, sequences are temporal. "Before" requires time. If you wish to say that God existed before time, then that is another nonsensical proposition.

I may not have all the answers

Lol. Nothing better than false-claiming modesty after confidently throwing about a bunch of assertions and insisting they are true without any justification.

Even in science, we don't know 1% of the material universe and there are things or phenomena they say is mysterious but that does not falsify everything about them. Our wealth of knowledge is expanding

...then maybe you should wait for science to reach definite conclusions on topics such as the origins of the universe and how life came about before spouting baseless arguments that only cater to your subjective beliefs. Savvy?

Dtruthspeaker:


All these are just noises from a broken silencer

Of course, it's very convenient for you to dismiss my refutations as "noise" because you're at a loss as to which other way you can push your failure of an argument. Clearly you noticed that you were quickly running out of ammo in the debate, so then you tried to dishonestly conflate two unrelated issues and use it as your get-out-of-jail-free card to evade my points and run away from the discussion. But nooooo sire! I'm not letting you off that easy 😇.

If truly you had any shred of intellectual integrity, you'd have found a more cogent reason to escape the thread, instead of mendaciously weaving up bald-faced lies about me by quotemining my words out of context and mixing up two entirely different aspects of my argument. That's where you messed up. I can accept and concede to honest refutations of my points. What I will NOT accept is the blatant lies you've fashioned from my comments.

Your backup plan to obfuscate the debate when you lose has tumbled over and flopped, and I will demonstrate why shortly. Meanwhile, hold on to your knickers, old man. Cos by the time I'm done rendering your infantile objections baseless, you'll end up looking even more clueless and stupid than when you first began 😂😂.

Before moving on to the main point of contention, I'll briefly address a few other comments relating to the overall topic:

Dtruthspeaker:
Suggestion is not a Truth

Then you don't know dick squat about basic principles in logic.

In any TRUE dichotomy, the rejection of one alternative lends credence to the suggestion of the other alternative as the truth. Therefore, it follows that if I should deny the facts of alternative A, I am suggesting that alternative B is the truth. For instance, (1) if it is said that there is no peace in a town, it suggests that there is turmoil or unrest in that town. (2) If you claim you didn't fail your final term exams, it suggests that you passed them.

With regards to our debate, you claim that "no thing in this world created itself". If this is true, then what it means is that you are suggesting "everything in this world has a creator". So your suggestion is your truth here.

Your assertion here that "suggestion is not truth" is an absolute statement, eschewing any plausible caveats or conditions. You have now unwittingly roped yourself into a dangerous corner with this confident assertion. Your only way out is to prove that a FALSE dichotomy exists between the two claims about things in the world having/not having a creator.

So, Dtruthspeaker, we have two alternatives:

(a) nothing in this world created itself.

(b) everything in this world has a creator.

If as you claim, suggestion is not the truth, then the burden is on you to prove that the two alternatives above are a FALSE DICHOTOMY. And the only way you can do this is by presenting a third alternative that is completely separate in concept and cannot be married with the other two.

Failure to provide a third option will prove that "everything has a creator" has been your claim all along, after you've lied that it wasn't your claim.

I'm also anticipating one of two kinds of response from you. (1) You run away stumped without a reply 😂, although (2) I can also guess the exact response you're going to make trying to twist things like you always do, and I should be generous by warning you that if you go down this route, you'll only be helping me to completely bury you and your position in this thread for good. So go ahead. Over to you, sir.

Fowl nyansh don open 🤣.

kkins25 & Jaephoenix, I don catch am 😂😂😂.

Dtruthspeaker:

In the absence of your valid rebuttal...

LOL, please. Your assertions were diligently ripped apart and discarded. Refusing to acknowledge this fact will not alter the reality of how things played out. Everyone here can see it for themselves.

You presented your claim (God exists).

I asked you to prove your claim.

You responded by making another claim (nothing in this world created itself).

I then demanded that you show the connection between the two claims, by clarifying what the second claim could possibly suggest.

You dodged and ran away 😭.

So you can see that I don't have to do anything. You made a non-argument. And you and I both know that THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST A NON-ARGUMENT. 😎

...for if I have not given any proof...

...If?

You didn't give any proof. You gave a meaningless sentence, with absolutely no context💀💀. Get real my guy 😂.

you won't have had the burden of rebutting nor you struggling to find a valid rebuttal

A claim need not be valid before it warrants any form of attention. There's a popular axiom within the scientific community that "bad ideas exist to be destroyed". Stupid claims and baseless beliefs deserve even more attention than valid ones, because when taken seriously they can become recipe for disaster, resulting in needless problems and unfortunate events that could have been avoided.

And I don't know what you mean by struggling, I've literally been pointing out the same flaws in your position, which you keep trying to dodge and push away 🤷🏽‍♀️😂.

That's how I won

The only thing you've won is the pity of the onlookers, who are dying with second-hand embarrassment after watching you score own goals and dance naked in the glory of your ignorance 😂😂✌️.

Dtruthspeaker:


The point is that you lied that I did not give clarification whereas, you got my clarification.

==================================================================

^^^^^^
| | | | |

So, apparently this is Dtruthspeaker's reason for his decision to abandon ship in our debate over God's existence 😂😂. Well, I'm a very patient and meticulous person who likes to leave no stone unturned. I don't do vague, shoddy arguments (which Dtruthspeaker seems to derive a lot of joy in). I go straight for the jugular, dissecting every bit of information in a post to arrive at a plausible conclusion.

For us to critically and honestly scrutinize this allegation Dtruthspeaker is tendering here, we're going to have to backtrack completely to the starting point of our debate on this thread, and follow the trail of my correspondence with him since then, to determine if this accusation has any merit. So here goes,

==================================================================

Thorrn & Dtruthspeaker Debate on the Existence of God

Prior to the proper start of our debate, I and DT had a little discussion concerning Aemmyjah's OP. I will ignore those conversations, since they technically weren't his arguments and he was just holding brief for the OP. I won't be including links though (for fear of spambot). I'll only just include the link to the starting point of our conversation so that observers can follow up from there.

I've taken the liberty to reconstruct parts of our conversation below to illustrate my argument and give his accusation a bit of context. I will be interjecting to give my thoughts on the discussion as it goes along. Our main debate (concerning his proof for God) began here:
https://www.nairaland.com/post/126880682

DTRUTHSPEAKER: Clearly I do know God is Real and most certainly exists and my first proof is simply on the ground that it is seen and clearly proven that it is impossible for a thing in this world to create itself.

THORRN: Sounds like a non-sequitur to me. How does something not having the capacity to create itself provide conclusive proof that God exists? Going by your logic, God must have been created by something then?

DTRUTHSPEAKER: This is goal post shifting for the topic is on proof of God and not on proof that God was created.

Let me briefly come in here. The Cambridge Learner's Dictionary defines "proof" as a "fact or a piece of information that shows something exists or is true". Dtruthspeaker's claim that I've shifted the goalposts to "proof that God was created" is dishonestly misleading. The only warrant for me to make such any inquiry as to proof of God's creation would be if someone made a positive claim saying "God was created". To that end, I would say "prove that God was created". However, in this case, the positive claim made here, by Dtruthspeaker was "God exists". And I have asked him to prove it, to which he responded with his reason saying "it is impossible for a thing in this world to create itself". So here I am simply examining the logic behind his "proof that God exists". Ergo, no goalposts were shifted. Keen observers will notice how Dtruthspeaker slyly and deceptively tries to reject my attempt at scrutinizing his logic by spuriously claiming that I've shifted the goalposts. This already betrays a lack of confidence in his own position. So already things aren't looking good for Dtruthspeaker 🤔.

Sensing that Dtruthspeaker was feigning ignorance and/or trying to deny the implications of his argument, I simply demanded that he should restate his claim so that we could be on the same page:

THORRN: Let's take this step by step because it seems you're not even aware of the scope of your argument. Now, you claimed that everything has a creator; that NOTHING exists that has the capacity to create itself. This was your claim: yes or no? Answer accordingly, and then we may proceed.

DTRUTHSPEAKER: No! I said that "no thing in this world created itself." You missed the "in this world" part where all this God/No God issues are and exactly where the bible concentrated its focus. No off point space travel!

At this juncture, I'll be dividing the conversation into two parts: (1) Dtruthspeaker's definition of the term "world", and (2) The meaning of the full sentence "nothing in this world created itself".


(1) DTRUTHSPEAKER'S DEFINITION OF THE TERM "WORLD"

This part of the discussion should be paid very close attention, because right here is where all the confusion begins. Dtruthspeaker himself emphasizes the relevance of the phrase "...in this world" as the core of his argument, claiming that all issues pertaining to God and the Bible are limited to "this world" only. This was where my FIRST REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION was made. I asked Dtruthspeaker to define his meaning of the term "WORLD", to which he responded,

DTRUTHSPEAKER: ...this "WORLD" consist of the earth alone in which humans are one of the inhabitants. That's why I kept saying that we are all arguing using our knowledge and experiences in and from this world to make our arguments.

Thus, on the definition of the term "WORLD" I was sufficiently clarified. I had gone further to posit that since he's defined the "WORLD" to mean "earth alone", that he had not explained who created the other parts of the universe, but he responded with a superfluous analogy, accusing me of a logical fallacy, which he laughably misapplied. And I rightly called him out on it.

NOTE: This part of the discussion involved me trying to understand the terminologies Dtruthspeaker was using in his argument, not me trying to establish God's existence!

Now that that's settled, we move onto the second part of the conversation...


THE MEANING OF THE FULL SENTENCE "NOTHING IN THIS WORLD CREATED ITSELF"

Remember, I've already been clarified on the meaning of the term "WORLD". However, I'm still trying to figure out how his overall argument establishes God's existence. My mission to connect the dots of Dtruthspeaker's overall claim to the establishment of God's existence began thus.

THORRN: ...the assertion that everything must have a creator also implies that your God must have a creator as well given that your God also falls into the category of things that exist in this world according to the Christians.

DTRUTHSPEAKER: And I have continually stated that I did not say so about "everything must have a creator" i clearly said "no thing in this world created itself.

THORRN: In the context of proving the existence of God, what is this statement supposed to mean if it's not supposed to suggest a first cause?

So in this conversation, Dtruthspeaker reiterates that "no thing in this world created itself", yet he insists that this claim does not mean that "everything must have a creator", which is basically the Kalam Cosmological Argument (Argument of the First Cause). Obviously, I find this to be a meaningless distinction because it makes the argument self-contradictory. If you must assert that nothing in this world created itself, then surely it follows that those things in the world -- which didn't create themselves, must therefore have a creator! Nevertheless, I refrained myself from preempting him any further and decided to give him the opportunity to explain himself properly. This was where my SECOND REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION was made, which you can see above where I asked, "In the context of proving the existence of God, what is this statement supposed to mean if it's not supposed to suggest a first cause?"

Having gone back to check for a response to my query about what the statement "nothing in this world" created itself suggests, I can still confirm that Dtruthspeaker has offered no clarifications as to what his claim implies, if it doesn't suggest the existence of a first cause.


CONNECTING THE DOTS

And so we're back to the present moment in the timeline of our debate. I started by drawing my conclusions based on Dtruthspeaker's points thus far in the debate. In this next post, I remind Dtruthspeaker that he hasn't clarified what his claim suggests if it doesn't suggest a first cause who created everything,

THORRN: You offered the claim that nothing [in this world] created itself as a response to my query to prove your god's existence. Given the context of my request, it is safe to assume that your belief that nothing created itself means that everything [in this world] has a creator, according to you. Since you wilfully declined to make any further clarifications, I simply inferred that you were suggesting that there is a source from which everything that exists [in this world] was created.

....after which Dtruthspeaker unwittingly blundered by responding with this blatant non-sequitur! 🤦🏽‍♀️🤣🤣

DTRUTHSPEAKER: You clearly asked what "in this world" means asking if I meant "this "WORLD" consist of the earth alone in which humans are one of the inhabitants"

....which, as we can see from prior analysis that has just been carried out, has absolutely nothing to do with the primary topic of God's existence! The definition of the term "WORLD", and the implications of the sentence "it is impossible for a thing in this world to create itself" are completely different arguments as I have satisfactorily demonstrated above. Dtruthspeaker's rebuttal isn't directed towards anything at all as I never contested his definition of the term "WORLD" after he had presented it.=

==================================================================

@Dtruthspeaker,

As you can see, you literally have no case here. Your "proof" for God is invalid given that it is riddled with numerous flaws that you have left unattended to, even at this moment. Not only did you repeatedly fail to show the connection of your vague and nonsensical statement to the idea of God's existence, but you also clearly misread my arguments to you, and even after you were shown your errors, you did nothing but double down on your ignorance, pretending like you didn't just goof like a helpless rookie 😂. I don't have any problem with your belief in any Gods. However if you want to engage in actual philosophical discourse, at least try not to sacrifice your integrity on the altar of lies and mendacity. In every discussion I've watched you partake in on this section of Nairaland, you've always been a liar, a fraud and a manipulator. You're literally that pigeon who knocks over all the chess pieces, shits on the board, and struts about as if he has accomplished anything worthy of note.

I didn't fail to notice that you ignored every other point in my rebuttal to you about prophecies and other religious deities, instead choosing to harp on only one frivolous segment of my post. After reading the room and noticing that the inconsistencies in your argument were eating you up, you immediately defaulted to shamelessly making up lies and awarding yourself an imaginary victory to convince yourself that you're not actually bereft of any intellectual substance. But we know the truth. We know that your sojourn on this thread has amounted to nothing, and your non-arguments have not made any significant impact on this thread. You are empty and your "proof of God" (if it can be called that) shows that you are useless when it comes to discussions aimed at establishing facts.

I'm happy to know that you learnt from me in our debate, even though I learnt nothing new from you except the fact that your burning stupidity seems to be a permanent condition 💀.

Oh, and when you eventually find yourself cringing in embarrassment after remembering your disgraceful performance here, and are willing to properly debate the subject of God's existence to make up for your lost dignity, as well as the issue of prophecies, and the existence of other non-Christian deities, reach out to me and as always, I will carefully walk you through your self-inflicted minefields. In the meantime, you've continued to validate the axiom that THERE CAN BE NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST A NON-ARGUMENT!

Does the illiterate fraud called Dtruthspeaker have another excuse to justify his defeat on this topic? 😭😭😭

Quod

Erat

Demonstradum

✌️.

cc kkins25
jaephoenix
Aemmyjah
Mayman
LordReed

Thorrn:

QUESTION 7: If everything has a creator, then who or what created God?

Oh really? How so?



Nope, this is just you backtracking. Lol 😂.

You've been harping on and on for nearly 50 pages now about how it is impossible for something to emerge from nothing, but suddenly when it comes to your God, you believe he came from nothing.

Continue 🤣🤣🤣.



False. There is no general consensus on this subject.



Your own subjective logic, you mean? Physics as we know it breaks down at Planck time. Using your "logic", can you confidently tell us the state of universe at t=0?

If god did not need to be created, if God always existed, so too does the universe not need to be created and could always have existed.



And you have arrived at this conclusion how? Can you define nothing? Even science doesn't have a definitive answer to this question. Lmao 😂.



Your entire argument right here is a textbook example of the Special Pleading fallacy.

Special pleading (or claiming that something is an overwhelming exception) is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading

When and where did your God exist before space and time? If you say that God exists outside of space and time, that means that God does not exist in space or time. That's the same as not existing. This is a paradox.

If God does not exist in time, God doesn't exist. Is there a superplane of existence? A space-time outside of our space-time that God exists? If so, what created that space-time? When was that super space-time created? Who created it?

If space-time didn't exist before God created it, how could there be a "before"? This is another paradox. "Before time" is like saying "square circle". It cannot exist. Time is temporal, sequences are temporal. "Before" requires time. If you wish to say that God existed before time, then that is another nonsensical proposition.



Lol. Nothing better than false-claiming modesty after confidently throwing about a bunch of assertions and insisting they are true without any justification.



...then maybe you should wait for science to reach definite conclusions on topics such as the origins of the universe and how life came about before spouting baseless arguments that only cater to your subjective beliefs. Savvy?

It is generally agreed that the universe has a beginning. About 14 billion years old
You know nothing about science
Hot ignorant woman
I don't know all
Does Science know all?

Blind ignorant atheist

Thorrn:

QUESTION 6: Abraham Lincoln, one of the foremost presidents of the USA was the titular character in the Vampire Hunter book mentioned above, and he hunted vampires. So I guess going by your logic (that the Bible is true because it contains real people and real places), vampires have been proven to exist?

Answer the question.

I'm scrutinizing the logic of your argument. You claimed that the mention of real people in the Bible that existed in history proves that the Bible is true. And in your OP, you used the Bible as your main premise to justify God's existence.

Does the existence of real people and places in the book "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" prove that vampires exist?

Abraham Lincoln claims to have hunted a vampire. Yes or No?
You love hearsays

Thorrn:

QUESTION 5: If everything in the universe was designed as you claim, how does it prove the existence of the God of the Bible, as opposed to Allah, Vishnu, Krishna etc etc? What if Allah is the true creator deity?

So? That's not even remotely impressive. The Koran is said to be the literal words of Allah.

Go figure.



That's a false claim. The bible is filled with constant errors and inaccuracies that are clearly influenced by the authors' lack of understanding of scientific, historical and geographical knowledge during the period which has been proven to be fundamentally false. If you truly subscribe to Biblical inerrancy, it is impossible to reconcile the statements in the Bible to known scientific facts.

I should note that there are some Christians who love to claim that many of the inaccuracies are "metaphors" and it should not be taken as a scientific/historical book. However, this is also wrong because these texts are clearly written in the form of a scientific and historical fact to be taught and spread, they are not written as metaphors. Many of these misconceptions align with common misconceptions that were believed in many different cultures outside the Hebrews until they were debuked scientifically later.



Two things here,

1, To my memory, most of the so-called prophecies touted to have come to pass in the Bible are often sufficiently vague enough -- some in the form of riddles -- that anybody can claim that a particular event was predicted by the Bible in retrospect. Perhaps you should give examples of detailed, specific prophecies that cannot be re-interpreted to have multiple meanings.

2, Prophecies aren't an exclusive signature of Christianity. There are many Muslim, Buddhist and even pagan prophecies that have been claimed to come to pass in recorded history.



I don't know if you're aware of this, but both Islam and Christianity originated from the Hebrew religion called Judaism. So, it shouldn't come as a surprise that they both share similar places and events therein.



Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Truths do not gain credence by virtue of fame and popularity.



Other religions also have a name for their own God of creation. What makes the name mentioned in the Bible any more special than the names of other deities?

I'm still waiting for the deal breaker that seals the status of the Christian deity as being more valid and reasonable to believe in, as opposed to the other deities I mentioned.

Mention the scientific errors in the Bible na since you know

Mention one prophecy in the Koran

Queen of hearsays

Thorrn:

QUESTION 3: Since the start of this thread, where did I make any claim that everything came from nothing?

Lol. This question is medicine after death 😂😂.

Why are you asking me what I think? Haven't you been singing all over the thread that I believe something came out of nothing?

This is the intellectual dishonesty and laziness of some of you Christians that I keep talking about. Simply because I'm asking you to provide proof of your God, you automatically start making up beliefs and ascribing them to me without having the courtesy to ask me what I really think.

There's only one thing that all atheists have in common, and that is the LACK OF BELIEF in God(s). We may not (and often do not) share the same opinions about the origin of the universe, origin of life and existence of a spiritual realm. Ideally most of these topics are within the jurisdiction of physicists and biologists. It has nothing to do with atheism. That's why your tantrums about evolution are irrelevant and hilarious to me, because I don't give a shit about it 💁🏽‍♀️.

Seriously, go read up on what atheism really is before coming here to misrepresent us in your stubborn ignorance. Or if you're just too lazy to do that, then maybe next time ask an atheist his opinion on certain subjects before running amock with your baseless assumptions.

As to your question, I don't have any fixed belief on the origins of life or the universe. I only lend credence to what science says because it is our most reliable method for understanding the reality we can observe, and thus far, there is no definitive consensus within the scientific community on how life and the universe came to be. Special attention is often given to hypotheses that are backed by empirical evidence, and so far, I've found that there are lesser flaws with the Big Bang and Evolution theories, than there is with Creationism and Intelligent Design. You said you were a biologist, but I don't know if you're a seasoned researcher and author of research papers. However, if you can present hard evidence proving Intelligent Design and maybe even publish a peer reviewed research work, I'll become convinced that your theory is more plausible than Evolution.

Unfortunately, I'm not impressed with your arguments so far because they seem more fixated on pointing out supposed "flaws" in the evolution theory, as opposed to justifying your own claims.

Life came by mindless chance
Yes or No
Simple question

Aemmyjah:


Mention the scientific errors in the Bible na since you know

Mention one prophecy in the Koran

Queen of hearsays

It's a shame that after such a delivery by thorrn, this is what you come up with. Very demotivating! You see why folks like Lordreed got tired of talking with y'all. When we bring credible arguments, you guys shift the goalpost and burden us, the Satans, to prove the existence of God on your behalf. Who does that? You claimed to know God, but also claim the human mind cannot understand God.
If your mind is incapable of knowing God, yet claims to know the "way to God", there's only one thing I can say to y'all. Scammers. Just like you Daddy G.Os. That's why Cognitive Dissonance is my new favorite catchphrase.

Even if you cannot provide evidence for the existence of God, the very least you can do is address the discrepancies we find all over the bible. I already mentioned the Colossal Titan level difference between Gen. 1 and Gen 2.

1) Did God create man on the Sixth day or not?
2) Did God create Adam and Eve before other earthly beings, yes or no?
3) Why does the God of Chapter 1 bear a different name from that of Chapters 2 and 3.
4) Why then, does another God distribute land and according to Isreal to Adonai? Why? That's two Gods; one with higher authority than God of Isreal. Please, these are just surface-level issues with the first few pages of the bible (bar no.4)... Answer this questions. they should be very simple to answer.


After that, we can then begin to teach you what Evolution is.

Thorrn:

Oh, and when you eventually find yourself cringing in embarrassment after remembering your disgraceful performance here, and are willing to properly debate the subject of God's existence to make up for your lost dignity, as well as the issue of prophecies, and the existence of other non-Christian deities, reach out to me and as always, I will carefully walk you through your self-inflicted minefields. In the meantime, you've continued to validate the axiom that THERE CAN BE NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST A NON-ARGUMENT!

Does the illiterate fraud called Dtruthspeaker have another excuse to justify his defeat on this topic? 😭😭😭

Quod

Erat

Demonstradum

✌️.
LordReed

Well done. I must commend you for the ocean of faith you have in our brethen; Dtruthspeaker without any iota of truth, and the cunny cunny Aemmyjah.

Aemmyjah:


Life came by mindless chance
Yes or No
Simple question

yes. If not, explain to me why God created a certain parasite, Plasmodium falciparum, known for the malaria "pandemic" in Africa. Huh? what was the purpose of HiVirus? Why did God create H. plylori, which is responsible for ulcer? Why did God create trypanosoma spp, which is responsible for sleeping sickness? Why? Why? Why? Why does a Chimpanzee have 97% DNA similarity with humans? Why?

SIRTee15:


My friend, there are more male than female population... fake dokita.
The audacity to even mention statistics to his wrong claim is utmost ridiculous.
Only God knows what he reads, almost all public health students including medical students know there are more male than female.

https://countrymeters.info/en/World

Oh, Sirtee, you pretend like every man is marry-able. It's you who will go to twitter and mock women for attending shilo--beging god to send down their husband for them. Abi? kikikiki...

"Only God knows what He reads" This is so ridiculous I should have it framed and hanging on my wall. Goddamn.

Yes God exist. He lives in GOD SPHERE. The UNIVERSE is His FOOTSTEPS.

SIRTee15:


Another one with dubious claims. Now let's see if he can defend his claims.

U claim the Europeans gave us the bible, tell me a single European among the authors of the books in the bible.
Mention one white man who wrote one of the books in the bible just one.
Let's see how u will expose your ignorance.

Interestingly an African man was among the bible authors. But according to this one, it was the white man who gave Africans the bible.

Or better still how many English man were present at the council of nicea since they were the ones who whipped Christianity into our blood.

Finally, mention one single bible character who was white. Just one positive character who has blond hair and blue eyes in the bible.
Mention one and I will show u multiple bible characters from Africa including Moses' wife who was a Cushite from present-day Sudan.

I do hope you realize that the bible was translated from Greek/latin to English. Tell me sir, are they indigenous African dialects? Is English African? How many white men were in Africa?

Do you know no ounce of history? Don't you know the romans conquered the shores of North Africa? How do you think today, it's white people living in North Africa? A combo of Muhammadans and greeks and Turkish, but mostly turkish (ottoman).

At the council of Nicea where the core doctrine of Christianity was established, there were 318 bishops in attendance from all over the Christian churches as far as India, persia and Arabia.

Rome nko? Kindly check a map of the roman empire.

kkins25:



I do hope you realize that the bible was translated from Greek/latin to English. Tell me sir, are they indigenous African dialects? Is English African? How many white men were in Africa?

Do you know no ounce of history? Don't you know the romans conquered the shores of North Africa? How do you think today, it's white people living in North Africa? A combo of Muhammadans and greeks and Turkish, but mostly turkish (ottoman).

Rome nko? Kindly check a map of the roman empire.

The bible has been translated into over 3000 languages. Just like the bible was translated to English, same way it was translated to other languages.
All versions are translated from the Hebrew bible and the codex sinaticus koine greek NT. Translators dont use the English bible to translate to other languages.
Get your fact right.

Regarding the wife of Moses, here is your answer
Number 12.1

And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

Now tell me who are ancient Ethiopians?
Next time get your fact right b4 bringing junk opinion from unfounded website.

3. Are u saying Roman bishops were at council of nicea? If yes, How many of them attended. That's my question.
Tell us the number of western bishops who were in attendance at nicea.
I already answered the question. Only 6 of the 381 bishops were Europeans. Yes, U read that right! Only 6.

SIRTee15:


The bible has been translated into over 3000 languages. Just like the bible was translated to English, same way it was translated to other languages.
All versions are translated from the Hebrew bible and the codex sinaticus koine greek NT. Translators dont use the English bible to translate to other languages.
Get your fact right.

Regarding the wife of Moses, here is your answer
Number 12.1

And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

Now tell me who are ancient Ethiopians?
Next time get your fact right b4 bringing junk opinion from unfounded website.

3. Are u saying Roman bishops were at council of nicea? If yes, How many of them attended. That's my question.
Tell us the number of western bishops who were in attendance at nicea.
I already answered the question. Only 6 of the 381 bishops were Europeans. Yes, U read that right! Only 6.

Tell me my friend, what was europe in that time?

Other statements are irrelevant. History class is needed here, and I'm no history teacher.

kkins25:


Tell me my friend, what was europe in that time?

Other statements are irrelevant. History class is needed here, and I'm no history teacher.

Then keep quiet on matters that are beyond your level of understanding.
U came here claiming Christianity is a white's man religion yet failed to back the claim with fact when critically examined.

How can Christianity be a white man's religion when no white man wrote the book, no blue eye or blond hair character exist in the book.
The white man was barely present when the doctrines of Christianity were established.

Father Augustine, one of the prominent church fathers present in Nicea council was a berber of ancient Numidia tribe from present day Algeria.
John Mark who wrote the gospel of Mark was born in Libya.

There are over 20 black people mentioned in the bible including the wife of Moses. Over 50 Africans mentioned in the bible including hagar the mistress of Abraham and bathsheba the wife of David.
Simon the Cyrene who helped Jesus Christ with his cross to Golgotha was an African and possibly black.
Yet not one single blond hair, blue eyes and pale skin was ever mentioned, Not one. The only way white people will appear in the bible is if the people of turkey are regarded as white, and of course they won't be blonde hair, pale skin or blue eyes.

U came here claiming black Christians are being brainwashed by Europeans yet u are the one who has Benn gullible all along fallen for the antics of the Europeans who painted all bible characters as white people.
U failed in your due diligence to examine the objectivity of your claim, a problem synonymous with atheist in general. U guys just open your mouth n utter whatever fits your pseudo intelligence delusion.
Hopefully u ve learnt something, and this experience will challenge your mind to learn the real truth in Christianity rather than just following the bandwagon.

Happy new year

SIRTee15:


Then keep quiet on matters that are beyond your level of understanding.
U came here claiming Christianity is a white's man religion yet failed to back the claim with fact when critically examined.

How can Christianity be a white man's religion when no white man wrote the book, no blue eye or blond hair character exist in the book.
The white man was barely present when the doctrines of Christianity were established.

Father Augustine, one of the prominent church fathers present in Nicea council was a berber of ancient Numidia tribe from present day Algeria.
John Mark who wrote the gospel of Mark was born in Libya.

There are over 20 black people mentioned in the bible including the wife of Moses. Over 50 Africans mentioned in the bible including hagar the mistress of Abraham and bathsheba the wife of David.
Simon the Cyrene who helped Jesus Christ with his cross to Golgotha was an African and possibly black.
Yet not one single blond hair, blue eyes and pale skin was ever mentioned, Not one. The only way white people will appear in the bible is if the people of turkey are regarded as white, and of course they won't be blonde hair, pale skin or blue eyes.

U came here claiming black Christians are being brainwashed by Europeans yet u are the one who has Benn gullible all along fallen for the antics of the Europeans who painted all bible characters as white people.

U failed in your due diligence to examine the objectivity of your claim, a problem synonymous with atheist in general. U guys just open your mouth n utter whatever fits your pseudo intelligence delusion.
Hopefully u ve learnt something, and this experience will challenge your mind to learn the real truth in Christianity rather than just following the bandwagon.

Happy new year

Happy New Year to You to.. I haven't tried cocaine before, and I'm starting to wonder if I'm not missing out.

You be deluded werey sha. Answer me this one question..


What language did Jesus speak? Then, what language is the New testament written in? Which continent does that language belong to? Next, the people who own that language, what do they call them, Africans?

Answer this first, maybe the cocaine you are sniffing will clear from your eye.

.

kkins25:




Happy New Year to You to.. I haven't tried cocaine before, and I'm starting to wonder if I'm not missing out.

You be deluded werey sha. Answer me this one question..


What language did Jesus speak? Then, what language is the New testament written in? Which continent does that language belong to? Next, the people who own that language, what do they call them, Africans?

Answer this first, maybe the cocaine you are sniffing will clear from your eye.

It's obvious your knowledge of history is poor.
Instead of u to eat the humble pie and do more research u back here waiting to be buried.

What is the lingua Franca of the Roman empire in the eastern region. Did Jesus speak that Lingua Franca.

I already debate other atheist on this subject matter. Not ready to waste my time on someone who has no idea what's he talking about.

Go thru this thread and be enlightened.

https://www.nairaland.com/7885438/how-did-bible-bibliogy/8

Have u ever asked yourself how u are able to communicate in English right from childhood when English language is not native to Africa.
I'm beginning to think u are not smart. No offense.

SIRTee15:

What is the lingua Franca of the Roman empire in the eastern region. Did Jesus speak that Lingua Franca.

There would have ‘been no “lingua Franca” per se during those times. However, since it was the early period of imperial Rome when the power was in Rome and the Emperor was Tiberius, the “lingua Franca” would be Latin. While the “Greek” Seleucids and Ptolemaic had controlled the Judea area prior to the Romans, there is no reason to think the common people that had no direct business with rulers would be able to speak Greek.
Your example below is negated by the fact that despite the area called Nigeria being an English colony, speakers of the indigenous languages remained the majority and English was thought until a need for local clerical workers arose.

SIRTee15:


Have u ever asked yourself how u are able to communicate in English right from childhood when English language is not native to Africa.
I'm beginning to think u are not smart. No offense.

He speaks English due to being educated to speak English. The Jesus character would not have spoken Latin because he would not be educated to speak the language. Additionally, the people of Judea were fighting against Roman rule so adopting the language of the “enemy” would be out of the question. The people who would be able to speak Latin would be the highly educated wealthy/ruling class, a group that Jesus the carpenter was not part of.

SIRTee15:


Then keep quiet on matters that are beyond your level of understanding.
U came here claiming Christianity is a white's man religion yet failed to back the claim with fact when critically examined.

How can Christianity be a white man's religion when no white man wrote the book, no blue eye or blond hair character exist in the book.
The white man was barely present when the doctrines of Christianity were established.

Father Augustine, one of the prominent church fathers present in Nicea council was a berber of ancient Numidia tribe from present day Algeria.
John Mark who wrote the gospel of Mark was born in Libya.

There are over 20 black people mentioned in the bible including the wife of Moses. Over 50 Africans mentioned in the bible including hagar the mistress of Abraham and bathsheba the wife of David.
Simon the Cyrene who helped Jesus Christ with his cross to Golgotha was an African and possibly black.
Yet not one single blond hair, blue eyes and pale skin was ever mentioned, Not one. The only way white people will appear in the bible is if the people of turkey are regarded as white, and of course they won't be blonde hair, pale skin or blue eyes.

U came here claiming black Christians are being brainwashed by Europeans yet u are the one who has Benn gullible all along fallen for the antics of the Europeans who painted all bible characters as white people.
U failed in your due diligence to examine the objectivity of your claim, a problem synonymous with atheist in general. U guys just open your mouth n utter whatever fits your pseudo intelligence delusion.
Hopefully u ve learnt something, and this experience will challenge your mind to learn the real truth in Christianity rather than just following the bandwagon.

Happy new year

Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the above, your Christianity came via the Church of England, an entity created by King Henry VIII of England because the Pope refused to let him get a divorce. That’s when Henry remembered that he was “ The King”, not the Italian dude in Rome claiming to get his authority from god.