jaephoenix:

Please refer to my very first post

Jaephoenix. Trace the discussions. I even apologized for doing you no wrong. I cannot be spending time here trying to trace insults or prove insults. I don't have that time. If you change, I'll talk well about you.

jaephoenix:

Yeah, so correct yourself

What am I to correct myself about? Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying

jaephoenix:

Nope. Im not. Cant you see my chat with others? How many are vile?
If you insult me, I reply you. End of

This has never been the truth and you also know it. Did I insult you today before you did again?

Please let it rest.

jaephoenix:

And my insult was a reply of your insults…

Please show me my insulin that you replied to. Let's follow it up from link to link and see the aggressor.

jaephoenix:

The screenshots actually showed I responded to your post. Youre further showing how clueless u r

Number two insult without even replying to you. Does anyone need further proof?

FxMasterz:


Jaephoenix. Trace the discussions. I even apologized for doing you no wrong. I cannot be spending time here trying to trace insults or prove insults. I don't have that time. If you change, I'll talk well about you.

Ok. Apology accepted. I apologize too

FxMasterz:


This has never been the truth and you also know it. Did I insult you today before you did again?

Please let it rest.

I was referring to your post. Read the post I referred to

jaephoenix:

Ok. Apology accepted. I apologize too

That's noble of you. Keep it up!

FxMasterz:

No worries my friend. We all have busy schedules.

You should complete it. The purpose of Nairaland is to make the creator money through socialization which attracts ad revenues. But still, Nairaland has a purpose anyway. And that is just the point.

That was not my point, but okay.

Whatever the purpose is. Nairaland has a purpose and therefore emanated from a mind. You cannot consider all the complex codes and the intricate libraries that work harmoniously on Nairaland to fulfil that purpose, and then conclude that Nairaland has no creator. The mind is the source of everything you see on Nairaland.

There was never a disagreement in this area.

In any sense and any how. Purpose is not the reason for the existence of things.

No Sir. I think I need some clarification on this. If you want to talk about the potential purpose and source of a thing that exists, you cannot ignore how and why that thing would exist in the first place. And that applies to everything.

Should that concern me? I'm only concerned that it is fulfilling a purpose because it was made to do so by the one who designed it so. If it is not fulfilling a purpose, it would be very easy for you to argue that it has no creator. Isn't it? The argument against a creator is hard simply because you yourself know that only a mind can create things that fulfil specific purposes as could be observed in our universe.

I'm not opposed to the idea of a creator. If you want to posit such idea, you need to provide reasonable evidence for it. So far, you've not provided such. Your argument rests on our observation of how things work in a system we are observing from the inside. And I have pointed out reasons why that line of reasoning is faulty.

You responded by saying we have no knowledge from outside the system, which would be the universe in this case to draw information from. And that is exactly my point.

Due to a lack of sufficient information, your conclusion is unfounded.

You'll need to point me to something purposeful in our world that has no creator. Afterwards, I'll answer your question.

That's a non-starter and you know it. The entire fulcrum of this discussion is the concept of a creator for the universe. In what way would something inside that same universe negate that premise?

FxMasterz:

Enough because you cannot prove that there's something outside of this system.

Inability to prove that there's something outside our universe does not make the claims about outside said universe automatically true.

You atheists say you believe only what you can see and be proven. Now, because you've met a superior argument, you want to start arguing based on what you cannot see and cannot be proven. We have no knowledge of any outside system. We cannot base our conclusions on what no one has ever claimed to exist.

I don't know where you got that idea about atheism from... But that's not true. Also, you've presented no superior argument so far. You're the one trying to make a case for something that cannot be proven or falsified. You sir, are the one trying to argue based on something that cannot be proven.

The argument has a very obvious imbalance. It is not always true that you must be outside of a thing before you create that thing.

Simple question. Before the thing was created then, where was the creator?

The bolded is exactly what science does.

I could take the time to explain how the scientific method works, but that would just derail from our main point. So I won't bother with that now.

The Creator is not necessarily outside of our universe. We can use what we observe to determine the possibility of an existence of a Creator. And that's perfectly normal. It becomes abnormal when you start doing mental gymnastics to say you don't believe in the existence of a Creator simply because the rules of an imaginary outer universe could be different. Who reasons like that? Scientists or Artists? Tell me.

I don't believe in a creator because I have not seen evidence of one based on the definitions, or in your case, a lack of definition given. You failed to define what you mean by a mind, and how you would go about locating or showing one. You instead avoided clearly defining a mind, by telling me we all know what a mind is.

You want to posit the existence of something you refuse to clearly define, nor explain. Sir... how exactly do you expect us to progress in the analysis of the alleged claim then?

We're do not need to apply the logic of an imaginary universe. That's mental gymnastics.

You need to first prove to us that there's a reality outside the system.

The burden of proof lies on the person making claims of some external super mind. More on this below

Yeah, if you limit it within the context of a mind only. Not trying to make it look as though I'm talking about the Creator's nature in the broader sense of the word. My position is that there is a mind. That mind can also be a creator without assuming the nature of anyone. We cannot talk about nature until we agree that there's a mind.

A mind is not nothing. It is a type of thing. If you claim a thing is responsible for creating the universe, and you call it a mind.. that is a description of said thing. That falls under the nature of said thing.

Your analogy of a house does not do justice to the point you raised. I have provided better examples to prove that a creator can actually be within what he created. You obviously ignored those and decided on a soft point.

I don't need to prove that the Creator was within the universe He created because I never said so. This is what I said, "The Creator must not necessarily be outside the universe to create it." He could be within or without because we have evidence within our own world that a Creator could be within or without his creation.

My analogy of the house was to make a point, that when talking of a thing being brought into existence, it is impossible to not make reference to a sort of metaphorical outside. The house was an example. But to buttress my point further, I will ask you the same question.

Before said creator created the universe.. where was it?

If you want to claim there was a "somewhere", then you're alluding to the possible existence of said outside, which proves my point. Just like the plot of land before the house was built.. or the area of grass or surrounding before the fence was built.

If you say there was not a "somewhere", then you're claiming there was absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing in the most absolute sense, except said mind.

In that case, you need to explain how a mind can just "exist".. because for someone who happens to draw inferences from our observable universe, you know more than anything that minds do not exist without something like a body or form, which would be in a "somewhere".

Now you see how it goes in a circle?

Wilgrea7:


That was not my point, but okay.




There was never a disagreement in this area.




No Sir. I think I need some clarification on this. If you want to talk about the potential purpose and source of a thing that exists, you cannot ignore how and why that thing would exist in the first place. And that applies to everything.

We are not ignorant about the why of the existence of these things. Science has confirmed that they work harmoniously to sustain life on earth. We can actually ignore the how because we don't need the how to know there's a source for such things. We don't need to know how a car moves or how an airplane flys to know it has a creator. Do we? We don't even need to know the source of a thing for us to know it has a source, do we?

All we're saying is that these things, by virtue of the functions they fulfil and how they fulfil those functions could have only been the products of a mind. That's sufficient information for us in this universe to know that such things have a creator.

I'm not opposed to the idea of a creator. If you want to posit such idea, you need to provide reasonable evidence for it. So far, you've not provided such. Your argument rests on our observation of how things work in a system we are observing from the inside. And I have pointed out reasons why that line of reasoning is faulty.

I opened up the foundation for more critical thinking that questions the idea of a Creator not existing. There's no evidence for the lack of a Creator too. Is there? All are speculations based on inferences. No one has any proven evidence that a Creator does not exist. Yet, people like you believe such a notion as though it was already proven. However, i am questioning that notion and telling you that, given the framework of these things and the harmony they exhibit in fulfilling a shared purpose, they cannot be without a Creator. It takes a mind to make purpose happen. This you have admitted to be correct within our universe. But your reference to an imaginary outer universe is what I find amusing.

You responded by saying we have no knowledge from outside the system, which would be the universe in this case to draw information from. And that is exactly my point.

That's not a point actually. I never said we have no knowledge from outside our universe to draw information from. I said we do not need to bother ourselves about an imaginary universe. It is actually very illogical to dismiss an observation, a finding or a discovery on the basis of something so imaginary as an outer universe. The argument does not have any basis whatsoever. It should be stricken out. That's not an argument.

Due to a lack of sufficient information, your conclusion is unfounded.

There's no lack of sufficient information on the basis of an imaginary universe. We should then say that due to a lack of information about an imaginary universe, the stored knowledge in our libraries are unfounded. You want to be sure if the mind is the source of purpose in another universe before you can draw your conclusion? That's ridiculous. You must test all scientific laws in another universe before you accept them too. For example, why should we believe that there's an equal and opposite reaction for every action? What if there's another universe where the reverse occurs? Hence this law is unfounded according to you. The same applies to all laws and all knowledge acquired in this universe based on your logic.

That's a non-starter and you know it. The entire fulcrum of this discussion is the concept of a creator for the universe. In what way would something inside that same universe negate that premise?

Is there anything purposeful in our world that has no creator?

Wilgrea7:


Inability to prove that there's something outside our universe does not make the claims about outside said universe automatically true.

It is an imaginary universe at best. There's no logical position that draws conclusions on the basis of "What ifs". You cannot use a 'what if' to negate a logical observation except the 'what if' can be tested and examined. In this case, your 'what if' is something imaginary.

I don't know where you got that idea about atheism from... But that's not true. Also, you've presented no superior argument so far. You're the one trying to make a case for something that cannot be proven or falsified. You sir, are the one trying to argue based on something that cannot be proven.

Neither have you countered the argument in any way. For the most part you have agreed that all my arguments are true within our universe. Your idea of a superior argument is a determination of facts from an imaginary outer universe which I call mental gymnastics. It's such a very easy argument to make. If someone says this thing is black, just tell the person that he cannot conclude that it is black because it might not be black in another universe - an imaginary one for that matter. You win? Nope! That's no argument at all.

Simple question. Before the thing was created then, where was the creator?

Can you please differentiate these two expressions?

1. There is a Creator.
2. Where was the Creator?

Does a lack of knowledge of the latter negate the former? Not knowing where the Creator is negates His existence? So, the question is not what this argument addresses.

Everything should be done in stages and in the right order. You first establish that there's a Creator. Then you move to the next stage. Where was the Creator? That's putting the cart behind the horse.

I could take the time to explain how the scientific method works, but that would just derail from our main point. So I won't bother with that now.

I don't believe in a creator because I have not seen evidence of one based on the definitions, or in your case, a lack of definition given. You failed to define what you mean by a mind, and how you would go about locating or showing one. You instead avoided clearly defining a mind, by telling me we all know what a mind is.

You have then contradicted yourself because you have once admitted in the course of this argument that all I have said are true within this universe. When you find your imaginary universe you can then start to see if these realities in our universe apply there too.

I don't have to define a mind for you. It's just a way of deviating from the main course because we all know what a mind is. But if you insist, I'll say that whatever your definition of a mind is, as long as it can have consciousness, perception, thoughts, plans, cognition and imagination, you already have a mind.

You want to posit the existence of something you refuse to clearly define, nor explain. Sir... how exactly do you expect us to progress in the analysis of the alleged claim then?

I should clearly define a Creator?

The burden of proof lies on the person making claims of some external super mind. More on this below

A mind is not nothing. It is a type of thing. If you claim a thing is responsible for creating the universe, and you call it a mind.. that is a description of said thing. That falls under the nature of said thing.

I didn't call the Creator of the universe a mind. I only said the purposefulness of the things we see in the universe points us to they fact that they can only have their sources in a mind. This you admitted to be correct only as far as our universe is concerned. Then, turning around to tell me to define the mind is just being too playful of you.

My analogy of the house was to make a point, that when talking of a thing being brought into existence, it is impossible to not make reference to a sort of metaphorical outside. The house was an example. But to buttress my point further, I will ask you the same question.

But your analogy of a house falls short because it only looks at a weak example out of multiple examples to draw an inadequate inference.

Before said creator created the universe.. where was it?

The question is invalid because "where was the Creator?" Is not an argument for "There must be a Creator." This is an attempt to shift the argument away from the main point rather than addressing the original argument.

If you want to claim there was a "somewhere", then you're alluding to the possible existence of said outside, which proves my point. Just like the plot of land before the house was built.. or the area of grass or surrounding before the fence was built.

The somewhere is not the stage I'm concerned with right now. I'm saying THERE IS a Creator. You should prove that there was none by negating my idea regarding purposefulness. You are not arguing against my point but creating your own points for me to argue on. That's not an argument at all. You've boy countered me at all. Asking where the Creator is or was is not in line with this argument. Did I say that the Creator existed because there was a place? No, but because we saw purpose in certain things, and we know from experience that purposeful things have only originated from a mind.

If you say there was not a "somewhere", then you're claiming there was absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing in the most absolute sense, except said mind.

I'm not concerned about a somewhere at this stage.

In that case, you need to explain how a mind can just "exist".. because for someone who happens to draw inferences from our observable universe, you know more than anything that minds do not exist without something like a body or form, which would be in a "somewhere".

Now you see how it goes in a circle?

Have you agreed that a mind exists behind these purposeful things before we would now start looking for how that mind came to exist? This is another attempt to refocus the argument in another direction away from the main argument. Please the only claim I have made is for the possibility of the existence of a Creator. I did not make a claim on how a mind can exist.

Your argument about an imaginary universe is an "appeal to possibility" fallacy, which suggests that just because something is possible, we can't draw conclusions based on our current knowledge.

We have no evidence of another universe, and even if we did, it's unclear how that would affect our understanding of purposefulness and minds in our universe.

This your kind of argument can lead to a kind of epistemological nihilism, where we question all knowledge claims because they might not be true in some hypothetical scenario. This is not a productive way to approach knowledge and understanding.

In science and philosophy, we rely on empirical evidence and observation to inform our conclusions. And based on what we've observed in our universe, it's reasonable to conclude that minds are the source of purposeful things.

If we question everything based on hypothetical scenarios like that of an imaginary outer universe, we'd never be able to make any knowledge claims or communicate meaningfully in our world.

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.

I have not seen any atheist to counter this argument. Yet those guys are still going about religiously practising their atheism in spite of the flaws in their belief.

Is atheism itself not a religion? A belief in nothingness or a god of self.

This is a wonderful thread. I'll research deeper into this. I can see how the atheists have got nothing to say to refute the bold claims made on this thread. They were just perambulating.

I’m just here to watch Nigerian theists and atheists malign each other.

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, 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.

As far as I’m concerned, both your arguments (you and the OP) are baseless.

But that’s not why I decided to quote you. I would like to know the “dark magic” you had experienced that made you so cocksure that magic is real. If you don’t mind me asking.

Biggeststar01:


As far as I’m concerned, both your arguments (you and the OP) are baseless.

But that’s not why I decided to quote you. I would like to know the “dark magic” you had experienced that made you so cocksure that magic is real. If you don’t mind me asking.

Travel to ijebu igbo and enquire. I'm not in the mood to respond to fake people hiding behind screen to prove sophisticated.

Cowards that dare not enter even a fake shrine in ikorodu.

Biggeststar01:


As far as I’m concerned, both your arguments (you and the OP) are baseless.

But that’s not why I decided to quote you. I would like to know the “dark magic” you had experienced that made you so cocksure that magic is real. If you don’t mind me asking.

If our arguments are baseless, state your reasons for the baselessness before asking any other question. I would have to plead with SIRTee15 to ignore your request until you can prove beyond reasonable doubt, the baselessness of our arguments.

Biggeststar01:


As far as I’m concerned, both your arguments (you and the OP) are baseless.

But that’s not why I decided to quote you. I would like to know the “dark magic” you had experienced that made you so cocksure that magic is real. If you don’t mind me asking.

Up till today, you could not prove the baselessness of the argument. You think you would just should "baseless" and then it would become baseless?

Atheism is foolishness and stupidity combined. I'm preparing another thread with another strong argument that destroys atheism. Just wait for it.