StillDtruth:


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.

Go sit in the corner, child. And let the adults talk. 😂

StillDtruth:


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.

You're a lawyer. You can join the debate and be our referee. I'll try my best to spot infractions as they come.

Thanks in advance.

JessicaRabbit:


Go sit in the corner, child. Let the adults talk. 😂

😆 hahahahahahaha 😆 You are already complaining because you.have been caught. 😆😆😆😆

And the debate has not even started 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

FxMasterz:


Yes to all.

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

Okay.

As for the independent referees. I nominate budaatum and DeepSight.

Budaatum is unallied to both Christians and Atheists to the best of my knowledge. Plus he frequents these parts a lot and definitely won't have any stakes in the outcome of this debate.

As for DeepSight, I've never interacted with him personally, but I follow and observe his posts. I believe he's a deist (correct me if I'm wrong DeepSight 😁). Plus he's a fierce intellectual who's been active since around the early Nairaland days and has a track record of arguing with both Christians and Atheists alike.

I'll try and reach out to them, and if they decline. I have a couple more people to call upon as referees.

You can also make two nominations if you want.

JessicaRabbit:


Okay.

As for the independent referees. I nominate budaatum and DeepSight.

Budaatum is unallied to both Christians and Atheists to the best of my knowledge. Plus he frequents these parts a lot and definitely won't have any stakes in the outcome of this debate.

As for DeepSight, I've never interacted with him personally, but I follow and observe his posts. I believe he's a deist (correct me if I'm wrong DeepSight 😁). Plus he's a fierce intellectual who's been active since around the early Nairaland days and has a track record of arguing with both Christians and Atheists alike.

I'll try and reach out to them, and if they decline. I have a couple more people to call upon as referees.

You can also make two nominations if you want.

Your nominees are in no way neutral. I reject them.

FxMasterz:


You're a lawyer. You can join the debate and be our referee. I'll try my best to spot infractions as they come.

Thanks in advance.

Emphasis on unbiased referees.

You really believe that a guy who desperately hates atheists is a right choice? Really? 😂😂😂

FxMasterz:


Your nominees are in no way neutral. I reject them.

Well I reject yours too. Can we try this again?

I have many more to pick from.

JessicaRabbit:


Well I reject yours too. Can we try this again?

I have many more to pick from.

Mine is just a lawyer to check you when you break the rules. Nothing more. You might need someone to check me too.

I've not yet nominated a judge. You can try again with others on your list.

JessicaRabbit:


Emphasis on unbiased referees.

You really believe that a guy who desperately hates atheists is a right choice? Really? 😂😂😂

He's not here as a judge but as a check for rule breakers.

FxMasterz:


Mine is just a lawyer to check you when you break the rules. Nothing more. You might need someone to check me too.

I've not yet nominated a judge. You can try again with others on your list.

This is not what we agreed on my dear.

We agreed to have two or three unbiased referees to supervise the debate. Think of it like a jury. None of them should be allied to one side to check the other, because that's what a lawyer is: someone arguing for one party alone. You're trying to make this a free for all where any and everybody can shoe in his unsolicited opinion, and I'm not having it. This is strictly between the both of us.

And DeepSight is also a lawyer. If you really need a lawyer to be involved, why involve one who has a history of dishonesty and incompetence (StillDtruth), as opposed to one who is probably one of the most revered and respected intellectuals to ever grace this forum in DeepSight.

StillDtruth is heavily biased, and if you think he isn't, then I might have to start wondering if YOU are actually interested in having this discussion. DeepSight and budaatum to the best of my knowledge are objective commentators, but if you reject them, fine. You'll also have to respect my decision to reject StillDtruth as well.

JessicaRabbit:


This is not what we agreed on my dear.

We agreed to have two or three unbiased referees to supervise the debate. Think of it like a jury. None of them should be allied to one side to check the other. You're trying to make this a free for all where any and everybody can shoe in his unsolicited opinion, and I'm not having it. This is strictly between the both of us.

And DeepSight is also a lawyer. If you really need a lawyer to be involved, why involve one who has a history of dishonesty and incompetence (StillDtruth), as opposed to one who is probably one of the most revered and respected intellectuals to ever grace this forum in DeepSight.

StillDtruth is heavily biased, and if you think he isn't, then I might have to start wondering if YOU are actually interested in having this discussion. DeepSight and budaatum to the best of my knowledge are objective commentators, but if you reject them, fine. You'll also have to respect my decision to reject StillDtruth as well.

StillDtruth is my own personal referee. Not yours. He alerts me when you break a rule. He's not here to judge us or decide the outcome of the debate. Hope I'm clearer now? You might need someone Ike him beside you too who'll alert you when I break a rule.

FxMasterz:


You're a lawyer. You can join the debate and be our referee. I'll try my best to spot infractions as they come.

Thanks in advance.

I can't and will not always be here at the material time to point out any infraction she may make before you respond. And i'm about signing off now to do somethings things and will only come in when i.want to play here.

And you have a very big weakness going against her, she is not the ordinary people you argue with, she knows how to argue and decitfull arguments which sound reasonable but are all invalid arguments because they break many rules of debates which she knows including ones she does not know.

Then you have a second problem. She does not fight fair, she always, always fights dirty and Lies when she sees she is going to lose.

And atheism is built on Lies, so if you cannot spot or prediict the lie in advance, you would walk into trap for she guarantees that she will Lie and throw every dirty trick and misrepresentation and distortion of facts and natural Truth, so the debate will never ever be fair as you have already seen she did even from the beggining.

I recommend you do not engage her for she is not the normal people you engage.

JessicaRabbit:


This is not what we agreed on my dear.

We agreed to have two or three unbiased referees to supervise the debate. Think of it like a jury. None of them should be allied to one side to check the other, because that's what a lawyer is: someone arguing for one party alone. You're trying to make this a free for all where any and everybody can shoe in his unsolicited opinion, and I'm not having it. This is strictly between the both of us.

And DeepSight is also a lawyer. If you really need a lawyer to be involved, why involve one who has a history of dishonesty and incompetence (StillDtruth), as opposed to one who is probably one of the most revered and respected intellectuals to ever grace this forum in DeepSight.

StillDtruth is heavily biased, and if you think he isn't, then I might have to start wondering if YOU are actually interested in having this discussion. DeepSight and budaatum to the best of my knowledge are objective commentators, but if you reject them, fine. You'll also have to respect my decision to reject StillDtruth as well.

DeepSight a lawyer? is a Lie!

Lawyers are trained to be impartial that is why we are Judges

The partisan nature of a lawyer is because the opponent already has a lawyer on his side and boh sides will be going to a Judge himself a lawyer, who suppports no side.

That is why you must have seen lawyers representing the 2 sides because in that moment he is an Arbitrator as you see ADR.

StillDtruth:


I recommend you do not engage her for she is not the normal people you engage.

. Haba oga!!! This is too much Na. Why are you making her seem as if she's some kind of boss character that requires an entire trained squad to take her on?

FxMasterz:


StillDtruth is my own personal referee. Not yours. He alerts me when you break a rule. He's not here to judge us or decide the outcome of the debate. Hope I'm clearer now? You might need someone Ike him beside you too who'll alert you when I break a rule.

Well then, I reject this format.

The idea is to have referees who have no stake in this debate. StillDtruth is not one of those people. If I wanted, I could call in Maynman or AntiChristian or Judas1x. But I don't need them here. If I need someone who leans more to one side of the debate than the other, then what's the point of making it an exclusive debate? We can as well make it a free for all where everybody can just butt in and argue against each other.

I personally don't need a lawyer. I'm more than capable myself of pointing out fallacies in others' argument without having someone else do it for me. That's the point of having referees, or a jury if you will. They will vote in the end to decide a winner based on the logical framework of their argument.

If you're not willing to reconsider this, then I'm not having this debate.

FxMasterz:


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!

Oh, I must believe in this creator which you claim very much exists before you can provide any proof? 😂😂😂
Is this how you "destroyed" Atheism?
Oga, it's either you provide proof of this creator you've been rambling about or you sit aside.
Like I said, if you won't provide proof of what this creator is, what it consists of, where it resides, how it operates and how you came across such information, you're only wasting your time.
I don't need anyone to believe I have a flying horse before I show them proof, I can simply just clear their doubts by showing them undeniable evidence.
🤷🏾‍♂️

StillDtruth:


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

You didn't wish me death today. Or did you forget? 😂

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.

Even if there's no god, there has to be a creator.
Law of infinite regress makes lack of a creator impossible.
Nothing comes from nothing, and the chain of creation cannot be infinity, otherwise there will be no 1st cause. And without a first cause, there can't be an existence.
Everything that exists has a cause. If there is no first cause, then the chain of causes would go back infinitely, and there would be no explanation for why anything exists
There has to be an ultimate intelligent design for the universe, metaverse or whatever verse to make sense.

The argument of existence happening by chance or random makes no sense. Its a theory that has no example in our world or universe or existence.
I'm yet to see any complex creation coming by chance or random- None.
Instead there are thousands of evidence purposeful creation and generation of complex creations including the eye.
And that's what Fxmasterz just proved.

And if there's actually a creator and he generates living souls, why do U think this intelligent design do not want us to be grateful to him.
A non living soul cannot create a living soul. So that intelligent design must have a soul. If he has a soul, why do U think he doesnt want to communicate with us?

Some may argue the intelligent designer doesn't need to have a soul but the dark powers in our world is evidence of existence of a soul.

If any atheist is denying existence of dark powers, he should allow me take him to my village and witness things. At least I can prove to any atheist existence of dark powers.

I would have been an agnostic myself if not for things I saw and witnessed while growing up in my home town.

Everyday247:
. Haba oga!!! This is too much Na. Why are you making her seem as if she's some kind of boss character that requires an entire trained squad to take her on?

🤣🤣

I must have gotten into his head. He can't seem to get over the fact that he lacks the intellectual competence to keep up in a mature debate. I exposed him in our last debate and he didn't take it so well. He's been trying to troll me ever since. 😂

StillDtruth:


I can't and will not always be here at the material time to point out any infraction she may make before you respond. And i'm about signing off now to do somethings things and will only come in when i.want to play here.

And you have a very big weakness going against her, she is not the ordinary people you argue with, she knows how to argue and decitfull arguments which sound reasonable but are all invalid arguments because they break many rules of debates which she knows including ones she does not know.

Then you have a second problem. She does not fight fair, she always, always fights dirty and Lies when she sees she is going to lose.

And atheism is built on Lies, so if you cannot spot or prediict the lie in advance, you would walk into trap for she guarantees that she will Lie and throw every dirty trick and misrepresentation and distortion of facts and natural Truth, so the debate will never ever be fair as you have already seen she did even from the beggining.

I recommend you do not engage her for she is not the normal people you engage.

Thanks for the heads-up. I understand the situation about you rejecting my invite.

I'll be very much at alert against her antics since I'm now aware of them. The Spirit of God would raise a higher standard against her.

I have challenged AI before challenging Atheists here. Even AI gave in. Screenshot posted below. Atheism is just lies upon lies upon lies. The more you're able to quickly spot the lies and deceits, the quicker atheism falls.

Thanks again.

kingxsamz:

Oh, I must believe in this creator which you claim very much exists before you can provide any proof? 😂😂😂
Is this how you "destroyed" Atheism?
Oga, it's either you provide proof of this creator you've been rambling about or you sit aside.
Like I said, if you won't provide proof of what this creator is, what it consists of, where it resides, how it operates and how you came across such information, you're only wasting your time.
I don't need anyone to believe I have a flying horse before I show them proof, I can simply just clear their doubts by showing them undeniable evidence.
🤷🏾‍♂️

Can you show me where I said you should believe in a Creator?

Is this thread about proof of what the Creator is? We're talking about the existence of a Creator only. If you have nothing to say, shouldn't you sit back and read what others have to say?

JessicaRabbit:


Well then, I reject this format.

The idea is to have referees who have no stake in this debate. StillDtruth is not one of those people. If I wanted, I could call in Maynman or AntiChristian or Judas1x. But I don't need them here. If I need someone who leans more to one side of the debate than the other, then what's the point of making it an exclusive debate? We can as well make it a free for all where everybody can just butt in and argue against each other.

I personally don't need a lawyer. I'm more than capable myself of pointing out fallacies in others' argument without having someone else do it for me. That's the point of having referees, or a jury if you will. They will vote in the end to decide a winner based on the logical framework of their argument.

If you're not willing to reconsider this, then I'm not having this debate.

If you reject the format then you're not being sincere about engaging in a honest debate. This shows you really want to break the rules and get away with it.

SIRTee15:


Even if there's no god, there has to be a creator.
Law of infinite regress makes lack of a creator impossible.
Nothing comes from nothing, there has to be an ultimate intelligent design for the universe, metaverse or whatever verse to make sense.

And if there's actually a creator and he generates living souls, why do U think this intelligent design do not want us to be grateful.
A non living soul cannot create a living soul. So that intelligent design must have a soul. If he has a soul, why do U think he doesnt want to communicate with us?

Some may argue the intelligent designer doesn't need to have a soul but the dark powers in our world is evidence of existence of a soul.

If any atheist is denying existence of dark powers, he should allow me take him to my village and witness things. At least I can prove to any atheist existence of dark powers.

I would have been an agnostic myself if not for things I saw and witnessed while growing up in my home town.

Telling me "there has to be a creator" shows you're not even sure. So like I told the other guy, I'm not going to be arguing based on speculations and assumptions.
Also, if you say you can prove that supernatural powers exist, click this thread and stand a chance to win millions of naira. Thank me later.

https://www.nairaland.com/6761238/win-2.5-million-naira-prove

If the link doesn't work, contact him on Twitter and tell him you want to join the challenge. Good luck.

Everyday247:
. Haba oga!!! This is too much Na. Why are you making her seem as if she's some kind of boss character that requires an entire trained squad to take her on?

Ah! She is the worst kind of person to debate with. She is very very unfair and cheats, fights dirty and hits below the belt breaking every rule you know and don't know.

Its like that olympic woman who fought a man.

It is already an unfair fight.

That is one of the reasons i joined nairaland. Atheists don't have a valid case that is why you see that they are always underground crawling like bandits and.drug dealers and scammers. It is only in social discuss that they have power because they know most people have not yet seen.that they are big deluded people trying and struggling to sound intelligent, which people accept as intelligent.

Not knowing it is materially void and empty.

FxMasterz:


Can you show me where I said you should believe in a Creator?

Is this thread about proof of what the Creator is? We're talking about the existence of a Creator only. If you have nothing to say, shouldn't you sit back and read what others have to say?

Seems like you have memory loss.

FxMasterz:


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?

You said an 'intelligent design'. And I just showed you those 'designs' aren't intelligent at all. So whats your point?

FxMasterz:


Thanks for the heads-up. I understand the situation about you rejecting my invite.

I'll be very much at alert against her antics since I'm now aware of them. The Spirit of God would raise a higher standard against her.

I have challenged AI before challenging Atheists here. Even AI gave in. Screenshot posted below. Atheism is just lies upon lies upon lies. The more you're able to quickly spot the lies and deceits, the quicker atheism falls.

Thanks again.

See it. Misinterpretation.

If you misinteprete her statement, you may find yourself in trouble.

I did not reject, i only warned you that i.may not be here when you need me.

And she is not AI. She is human and she fights very very dirty.

Gat to go.

FxMasterz:


Thanks for the heads-up. I understand the situation about you rejecting my invite.

I'll be very much at alert against her antics since I'm now aware of them. The Spirit of God would raise a higher standard against her.

I have challenged AI before challenging Atheists here. Even AI gave in. Screenshot posted below. Atheism is just lies upon lies upon lies. The more you're able to quickly spot the lies and deceits, the quicker atheism falls.

Thanks again.

Well, well, now if this isn't a beautiful irony. Uhm.. I thought you were the same guy who tried to punk Jaephoenix and say he ran away from a debate with you. You're chasing fishes in the sky my dear. This is starting to look like a scene in a 90s sitcom. 😂

I'll tell you what, let's do it like this. It may seem far fetched because it depends on the willingness of people to participate, but if you really want to prove the unfalsifiability of your argument, I'm sure you may agree.

Let's create a thread where you highlight the arguments you presented here, and we'll debate it over there. No other person besides the both of us is allowed to comment on that thread.

Then we'll open yet another thread for 13 other monikers who will comprise the jury. I'll try and come up with a method to select the jury in a way that will be fair to both parties. Just to give you a head start, I'll give you StillDTruth as one of the members of the jury, which means we'll have to find 12 more. They're not going to comment on the main thread, but they can comment on the commentary thread where they will eventually cast their votes on who possesses the superior logical argument.

If you don't accept, then it's a shame we won't be having any debate.

By the way I can't stop laughing at your screenshot of the AI conceding your point. You do realize AI is designed to avoid confrontational language and arguments revolving around faith and politics, right?

FxMasterz:


If you reject the format then you're not being sincere about engaging in a honest debate. This shows you really want to break the rules and get away with it.

You're really one to talk about honesty demanding that a user with a long history of dishonest arguments should be your lawyer. You must really lack self-awareness.

If you don't want a debate, then you can run off with your tail between your legs.

kingxsamz:


Telling me "there has to be a creator" shows you're not even sure. So like I told the other guy, I'm not going to be arguing based on speculations and assumptions.
Also, if you say you can prove that supernatural powers exist, click this thread and stand a chance to win millions of naira. Thank me later.

https://www.nairaland.com/6761238/win-2.5-million-naira-prove

If the link doesn't work, contact him on Twitter and tell him you want to join the challenge. Good luck.

If he's willing to follow me to my home town, I will prove it to him. Simple as ABC.

'There has to be' mean it's impossible for an alternative to exist.
That's the point.
That we cannot prove it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It only shows we have not developed the technology/innovation to discover it.
There was a time people didn't know about the existence of virus. Will U then say virus didn't exist at the time of their ignorance from people.

Again read more about metaphysical. All these weak arguments have been dealt with by philosophers as far back as the time of Aristotle and Plato. They all came down with the same conclusion- there must be an intelligent design for existence to make sense.

Nothing comes from nothing, and the chain of creation cannot be infinity, otherwise there will be no 1st cause. And without a first cause, there can't be an existence.
Everything that exists has a cause. If there is no first cause, then the chain of causes would go back infinitely, and there would be no explanation for why anything exists
There has to be an ultimate intelligent design for the universe, metaverse or whatever verse to make sense.

FxMasterz:

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.

So a thread where I explained how deja vu works is where you floored me? Lol 😆
Ahahahahahahahaha
Did you learn that word 'floored' today and maybe want to use it in a sentence? Cos the only thing I saw in that thread was me schooling you on how the brain works.
Please how did u floor me? Hahahahahaha
And please what did you teach me? Be specific

jaephoenix:

So a thread where I explained how deja vu works is where you floored me? Lol 😆
Ahahahahahahahaha
Did you learn that word 'floored' today and maybe want to use it in a sentence? Cos the only thing I saw in that thread was me schooling you on how the brain works.
Please how did u floor me? Hahahahahaha
And please what did you teach me? Be specific

Come on go and sit down. We were arguing about purposeful designs and the existence of a Creator before you ran away as everyone who goes through the thread can see. Why do you love lying and dishonesty this much? You can't speak a single truth in your life ? Should I bring screenshots to disprove you?