winner01:
An atheist will agree with you that these artificially created items were seriously and carefully planned and created.

And none of mans creations even comes close to the real thing, yet atheists will have us believe that somehow, these extremely complex creations don't need a Creator.
Worse is, they pass it off as Logic. and maybe science (as cloudgoddess and other hardcore pseudoscientists do).

And for this creator to be able to do this it must also be even more complex than all of creation.

Yet you are still exempting this extremely complex creator from having another creator which in turn must require another creator and so it goes.

Complexity in no way connotes design because if the complexity of the universe makes you invoke a creator then surely that creator must be very complex in order to be intelligent enough to do that.

so how can that creator who is even more complex not have a creator to design it? Of course going by your argument "Complexity connotes design" this complex creator must also require an extra complex creator who in turn requires another and so it goes we are in an infinite regress of assumptive creators.

It is a known and observed truth that in nature simple values interact to form more complex values .. Just like Old stars were just a ball of Hydrogen and Helium.

Or simple values like (H) and (O) Must interact to gain a more complex result (H₂O)

Complexity connotes design argument does not work at all..

try again

LoJ:

bro, are you free from the ban

Yeah still banned from the phone section for 5 more days though and my posts were not restored

onetrack:


Einstein, by the way, was more into Spinoza's vision of a god, in other words the universe as god itself.

I made no otherwise claim, You might need to re-read what i wrote on Einstein.

onetrack:


And even if there was a creator, there is know way to know if this creator is even aware of us (maybe we are a by-product of some experiment and we are in the rubbish bin), or if this creator is dead. Maybe he died during the big bang.

Its obvious you just can't bear the reality of a Creator. You made yourself one hell of a god dude.

onetrack:

I remain agnostic with regard to knowledge of any god (though my lack of belief classifies me as atheist), but adamant that religion is man-made.

Religion may be man-made and ill love to agree with you. But its dishonest when you make this same claim about God.
The fact that religious belief of some sort is found in every culture implies that its hard-wired into us, psychologically or socially or both. It's true many people (especially in Europe) seem to get on fine without it, but even in Europe and other parts of the world, there are millions of believers who find their faith gives shape and meaning to their lives.

It's possible to explain religion in terms of its social usefulness (it helps bind communities together) or as a means of social control (priests act as reinforcers of government power) or as a way of making hard lives more bearable (it is "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions", as Karl Marx put it). And none of those things are wrong.

But the christian claim is that Christianity has developed to be what it is because it corresponds to something real, because we are responding to something which has been given to us ('revealed'), in Christian terms. Our belief that God, in some mysterious but profound way, 'looks like' Jesus comes from our sense that He is too far beyond us for us to be able to imagine him in any other way than as a human being.

There's something like this thought in the Old Testament, in the prophet Isaiah's great tirade against idol-worship (only, of course, without Jesus). He imagines a craftsman chopping down a tree, cooking his meal and keeping himself warm with part of it and making a god with the rest. "Shall I bow down to a block of wood?" he asks (44:29).

It's tremendous stuff. He senses God is more than any human representation of him can encompass and calls people to a deeper understanding. What he doesn't acknowledge, though, is that the idol-maker, too, has his spiritual urges. He isn't doing religion well, but he's trying, as all people of faith try. And you can either see all religion as just people carving gods out of bits of wood, or you can go with St Augustine, who said: "You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in you."

The former atheist, C.S Lewis summarizes my thoughts: “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.”


Personally, I have one conviction. Jesus Christ lived. And like Swami Vivekananda puts it: If Jesus Christ was not perfect, then the religion bearing his name falls to the ground

Bless you.

ref: http://izquotes.com/quote/111533

bxcode:

So if the universe came from something actually, in your opinion what could that thing be?

Scientists call it the precursor of the big bang. Some people call it Providence. I just call it the thing that we all came from. Never been big on semantics.

The particular system of nomenclature is unimportant. The claim on the table is that this thing speaks to human beings. I say you're telling lies for the benefit of advancing your own selfish interests. That's where the modern atheist/theist argument is. You say this thing speaks to you, you know other humans that it talks to.

If you were telling the truth, this would be the simple claim to prove.

johnydon22:


And for this creator to be able to do this it must also be even more complex than all of creation.

Yet you are still exempting this extremely complex creator from having another creator which in turn must require another creator and so it goes.

Complexity in no way connotes design because if the complexity of the universe makes you invoke a creator then surely that creator must be very complex in order to be intelligent enough to do that.

so how can that creator who is even more complex not have a creator to design it? Of course going by your argument "Complexity connotes design" this complex creator must also require an extra complex creator who in turn requires another and so it goes we are in an infinite regress of assumptive creators.

Leaving the concept of an Eternal Being out of this for a minute (I know its hard for the human mind to grasp), I want you to realize something.

Whether you have the ability to probe the existence of your Creator depends solely on how your Creator created you. Somehow in your (created) mind, you think you possess the ability to root out the "source" of your Creator. Its amazing how you limit and liken a Creator to his creations.

Complexity connotes design, and that is all we have ever observed even in our planet. The only difference is, you agree with all other observed occurrences but give an exception to man and the universe.

You didn't create yourself and for that you need to recognize you limits, for if you didn't have any limits, this discussion of a Creators existence would have been settled a long time ago.

I should sound like the atheist Richard Dawkins and then say: "What matters is whether God's existence is probe-able".

Your limits is why you haven't successfully probed your existence. How on earth do you think you could probe your Creator's existence.

winner01:

Interesting. You demand the same 'fate' Thomas had. Somehow you think Thomas was the only one who doubted the resurrection of Jesus.
Thomas died a long time ago, its amazing you dont demand the same 'fate' Aliko Dangote has. I'm sure you've never seen the kind of money he has. Do you then disbelieve in wealth?

Money is an illusion. I already understand the 'claims' or pretenses under which it is allowed to circulate. But that discussion belongs in the finance section.

Thomas is a literary example of someone like me. Someone who doesn't believe that dead people can give speeches. In the story, he presented his doubts to the witnesses who were "asserting" that there was a dead man giving speeches to them. You know how the story went.

I don't believe that the progenitor of the universe speaks to human beings. Like the incredulous Thomas, I have yet to experience it. I don't have to prove why this thing DOESN'T talk to you guys either just like Thomas didn't have to prove that the dead man was NOT revisiting his mates.

I must have the Thomas experience. Why are you pretending that people in the Bible were simply believing the spoken or written word? They were witnesses to magic tricks, that's why they believed.

If there is no magic, I won't believe you. The fact that this thing speaks is a very BIG MAGIC. You must show me small.

I'm so loving this thread

winner01:
Leaving the concept of an Eternal Being out of this for a minute (I know its hard for the human mind to grasp), I want you to realize something.

Whether you have the ability to probe the existence of your Creator depends solely on how your Creator created you. Somehow in your (created) mind, you think you possess the ability to root out the "source" of your Creator. Its amazing how you limit and liken a Creator to his creations.

Complexity connotes design, and that is all we have ever observed even in our planet. .

You don't listen too well. Nobody is making an exception for the universe and humans!!!! OK, I agree. Our very complexity implies a designer. Complex things imply design. That's how it is. That's all we know.

Computer software tracks the rhythm of the heartbeat, we design the computer, something designed us...

Who then designed the something? Complexity connotes design. Who designed the something if we are to go STRICTLY by complexity?

I agree that a designer could limit or put a cap on the intellect, but why is it revealing this information to you and forcing me to read what you type? Clearly your brain was designed differently, that's how you can hear it speak and I can't. If you insist on typing without providing a demonstration of this magic/miracle, then I will assume that you are hearing nothing though.

Weah96:


Scientists call it the precursor of the big bang. Some people call it Providence. I just call it the thing that we all came from. Never been big on semantics.

The particular system of nomenclature is unimportant. The claim on the table is that this thing speaks to human beings. I say you're telling lies for the benefit of advancing your own selfish interests. That's where the modern atheist/theist argument is. You say this thing speaks to you, you know other humans that it talks to.

If you were telling the truth, this would be the simple claim to prove.

In String theory it is called Dark Energy

KingEbukasBlog:


I wanted to see and witness the thrill of the magical transformation of apes to man , dinosaurs to birds , but I was told to order biology textboooks . I wanted a 3-D documentary tho



Ifenes claims the anunnaki roamed the earth in the early times . I asked him for proof and I was directed to a search engine



Do you realise that the same process - seeking knowledge in books - was what I was directed to do . I asked the atheists to do same with the bible and I'm being ridiculed

Why are you guys a bunch of clowns

Genius!!!

winner01:
Leaving the concept of an Eternal Being out of this for a minute (I know its hard for the human mind to grasp), I want you to realize something.

Whether you have the ability to probe the existence of your Creator depends solely on how your Creator created you. Somehow in your (created) mind, you think you possess the ability to root out the "source" of your Creator. Its amazing how you limit and liken a Creator to his creations.

Complexity connotes design, and that is all we have ever observed even in our planet. The only difference is, you agree with all other observed occurrences but give an exception to man and the universe.

You didn't create yourself and for that you need to recognize you limits, for if you didn't have any limits, this discussion of a Creators existence would have been settled a long time ago.

I should sound like the atheist Richard Dawkins and then say: "What matters is whether God's existence is probe-able".

Your limits is why you haven't successfully probed your existence. How on earth do you think you could probe your Creator's existence.

You see? You are now trying to shift the goal post to the measurability of this supposed creator.

For all we know this supposed creator is just an assumptive concept used as a placeholder for scientific ignorance.

Your line of arguement maintains "Complexity connotes design" so therefore anything complex must have been designed with no exception.

If we employ this cut and run case as you are trying to clutch on here then we can conclude your head is too small to probe the universe so you can never deduct the mechanisms of nature.

the point remains if complexity connotes design then this designer must be super complex in order to design the universe and the same way you assumed up a designer to explain the complexity of the universe then assume up another designer to explain the complexity of the creator.

what ever is complex must be designed is not only flawed but wronger than any wrong can get.

It is scientifically a proven fact that the universe did not pop out as a complex entity but rather went through stages of development from which simple values keep on interacting to form complex chains of values.

You can also assume that sand dunes of a desert are the works of some invisible artist..

Complexity is never a mark of design but pays homage to distinct simpler values.

Old stars are far more simpler in composition than new stars and so it keeps developing and keep getting ever more complex.

So if you maintain "complexity connotes design" then that includes your complex creator, It must require a designer and an infinite regress continues.

It will be laughable if you try to exempt this creator from your argument by pleading it has no designer.

If this creator has no designer then you no longer have an argument because you just showed something complex exists without being designed.... if something as super complex as "the creator" requires no designer then you have simply murdered your "complexity connotes design" argument

But if "anything complex must be designed" then this complex creator must require a designer and so forth..

There is no way for it to work...

KingEbukasBlog:


I wanted to see and witness the thrill of the magical transformation of apes to man , dinosaurs to birds , but I was told to order biology textboooks . I wanted a 3-D documentary tho



Ifenes claims the anunnaki roamed the earth in the early times . I asked him for proof and I was directed to a search engine



Do you realise that the same process - seeking knowledge in books - was what I was directed to do . I asked the atheists to do same with the bible and I'm being ridiculed

Why are you guys a bunch of clowns

Material knowledge is obtained by reading. You claim to be in contact with the person who started the universe, and lives outside of it, as well as in it. No amount of books can back that claim up.

In inner city high schools, students have "given ones" for lesser offences. This is like trying a nigga gangster. To give someone their ones is a slang which basically means to knuckle up.

johnydon22:

You see? You are now trying to shift the goal post to the measurability of this supposed creator.

I didnt, you started it. Im only helping you out. You were trying to measure the total power/extent of this Creator by implying that He must have a creator.

johnydon22:

For all we know this supposed creator is just an assumptive concept used as a placeholder for scientific ignorance.

Speak for yourself dude. Who are the "we". Were the greatest scientists in the world also scientifically ignorant?

johnydon22:

Your line of arguement maintains "Complexity connotes design" so therefore anything complex must have been designed with no exception.

Exactly!!!. Except you wanna agree that the robots on the picture KingEbukasBlog posted could have come about by chance or time.

johnydon22:

If we employ this cut and run case as you are trying to clutch on here then we can conclude your head is too small to probe the universe so you can never deduct the mechanisms of nature.

You might have a point, infact there are several other mechanisms in nature that we are yet to discover, that is whay science is not as close-minded as atheism.

johnydon22:

the point remains if complexity connotes design then this designer must be super complex in order to design the universe and the same way you assumed up a designer to explain the complexity of the universe then assume up another designer to explain the complexity of the creator.

The Designer of the universe is super-complex to have designed such a vast universe. The problem is i didnt assume it up. Logic did.
And if i'm right, then your chances of probing the "source" of this Designer is not even close to Zero.

johnydon22:

what ever is complex must be designed is not only flawed but wronger than any wrong can get.

KingEbukasBlog closed the thread already. Man emulates nature but fails to admit that nature was designed.
Do we have the slighest chance that those robots were unplanned and coincidental?

johnydon22:

It is scientifically a proven fact that the universe did not pop out as a complex entity but rather went through stages of development from which simple values keep on interacting to form complex chains of values.

Yeah, which is exactly my word against yours. Science says the universe had a begining, strongly suggesting that time began at this "begining". Whoever was acting before time is not bound to time, and is therefore eternal(no beginning or end). Which takes you back to the concept of an Eternal Being. And if this Being is eternal, your best bet is that He could not have been created by another.

johnydon22:

You can also assume that sand dunes of a desert are the works of some invisible artist..

Complexity is never a mark of design but pays homage to distinct simpler values.

Sand dunes are part of nature and are the results of a created universe.
Why did you choose a less complex occurence like the sand dune, why not the scorpion. Should we assume that the scorpion was created by chance, time or processes.

Complexity has design written all over it.

johnydon22:

Old stars are far more simpler in composition than new stars and so it keeps developing and keep getting ever more complex.

So if you maintain "complexity connotes design" then that includes your complex creator, It must require a designer and an infinite regress continues.

Stars are part of nature and are the results of a created universe.

You just refuted your infinite regress claim earlier by saying that the universe had a begining.
If God was acting before time began i.e (Eternal - no beginning or end ), Then the "duration" of His existence does not not fit into your brain or that of any human.
Hence, the question "Who created an Eternal God" is self-refuting.

johnydon22:

It will be laughable if you try to exempt this creator from your argument by pleading it has no designer.

No one is pleading anything.
Its simple Logic. If really you were created, then you cant even begin to fathom the depth of a Creator with your created mind.
Try harder, but you have your limits.

You haven't probed your existence successfully, yet you wanna probe your Creator's existence.
Thats biting more than you can chew or of course 'laughable'.

johnydon22:

If this creator has no designer then you no longer have an argument because you just showed something complex exists without being designed.... if something as super complex as "the creator" requires no designer then you have simply murdered your "complexity connotes design" argument

Eternal!!!. Thats single word ends it all.
The Creator is indeed complex. But i'm more concerned with wether you have the physical ability to probe the existence of an [b]Eternal[b] (No beginning or end) Being Who created you.

When you understand how Someone or Something has no beginning or end, then you will understand eternity cant be created.

johnydon22:

But if "anything complex must be designed" then this complex creator must require a designer and so forth..

There is no way for it to work...

Eternity man, Eternity. If the Universe has a beginning as science teaches. Then God was was acting before time as the Bible teaches.

It simple logic.

Weah96:

Thomas is a literary example of someone like me. Someone who doesn't believe that dead people can give speeches. In the story, he presented his doubts to the witnesses who were "asserting" that there was a dead man giving speeches to them. You know how the story went.

Read well and think my friend. Thomas was not the only one who doubted the resurrection of Jesus but was the probably the only one recorded in the Bible to have had a physical contact with the resurrected, as proof of Jesus' resurrection.

Now how about those like Thomas back in the days, who requested to touch the hands of Jesus. Some didn't even see Jesus till he ascended back into heaven. I'm sure some people in neighboring cities also doubted the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

My point is: We all have our different paths. You may not be able to physically touch the pierced hands of Jesus like Thomas did for the same reason you may not be as rich as Aliko dangote. You cant possibly demand for the same exact experience that someone had in the past and then conclude that if you do not have this experience, then a Creator does not exist.

Weah96:

I don't believe that the progenitor of the universe speaks to human beings. Like the incredulous Thomas, I have yet to experience it. I don't have to prove why this thing DOESN'T talk to you guys either just like Thomas didn't have to prove that the dead man was NOT revisiting his mates.

I must have the Thomas experience. Why are you pretending that people in the Bible were simply believing the spoken or written word? They were witnesses to magic tricks, that's why they believed.

The bolded is like saying "I must be as rich as Aliko Dangote". Though not impossible, but you may need to come to terms with the fact that it might be an unrealistic goal.

Several people have had evidences ranging from physical encounters, dreams, creation, the human mind and spirit, the moral law, beauty, religion, experience, history, the church, the bible, Jesus e.t.c. That you are yet to experience it does not mean it is false or that those who have experienced it are liars.

Weah96:

If there is no magic, I won't believe you. The fact that this thing speaks is a very BIG MAGIC. You must show me small.

Anything or even You could be the magic that you seek, but if you refuse to see yourself as magic. Then i pray you find what you seek.

Till then, dont go around preaching to people that "magic" does not exist or that those who have witnessed magic are !diots.

Winner01 ... apparently bro , atheists like johndon22 flounder terribly in their attempt to understand the eternal nature of a supreme being . Again , Energy is eternal but they dont question how its properties were derived .

Do you see how irrational they are ? This is becoming fun

These bunch of circus clowns need to understand the Logic of God and Everything .... EVERYTHING

winner01:
I didnt, you started it. Im only helping you out. You were trying to measure the total power/extent of this Creator by implying that He must have a creator.

Speak for yourself dude. Who are the "we". Were the greatest scientists in the world also scientifically ignorant?


Exactly!!!. Except you wanna agree that the robots on the picture KingEbukasBlog posted could have come about by chance or time.

You might have a point, infact there are several other mechanisms in nature that we are yet to discover, that is whay science is not as close-minded as atheism.

The Designer of the universe is super-complex to have designed such a vast universe. The problem is i didnt assume it up. Logic did.
And if i'm right, then your chances of probing the "source" of this Designer is not even close to Zero.

KingEbukasBlog closed the thread already. Man emulates nature but fails to admit that nature was designed.
Do we have the slighest chance that those robots were unplanned and coincidental?

Yeah, which is exactly my word against yours. Science says the universe had a begining, strongly suggesting that time began at this "begining". Whoever was acting before time is not bound to time, and is therefore eternal(no beginning or end). Which takes you back to the concept of an Eternal Being. And if this Being is eternal, your best bet is that He could not have been created by another.
Sand dunes are part of nature and are the results of a created universe.
Why did you choose a less complex occurence like the sand dune, why not the scorpion. Should we assume that the scorpion was created by chance, time or processes.

Complexity has design written all over it.

Stars are part of nature and are the results of a created universe.

You just refuted your infinite regress claim earlier by saying that the universe had a begining.
If God was acting before time began i.e (Eternal - no beginning or end ), Then the "duration" of His existence does not not fit into your brain or that of any human.
Hence, the question "Who created an Eternal God" is self-refuting.

No one is pleading anything.
Its simple Logic. If really you were created, then you cant even begin to fathom the depth of a Creator with your created mind.
Try harder, but you have your limits.

You haven't probed your existence successfully, yet you wanna probe your Creator's existence.
Thats biting more than you can chew or of course 'laughable'.

Eternal!!!. Thats single word ends it all.
The Creator is indeed complex. But i'm more concerned with wether you have the physical ability to probe the existence of an Eternal (No beginning or end) Being Who created you.

When you understand how Someone or Something has no beginning or end, then you will understand eternity cant be created.

Eternity man, Eternity. If the Universe has a beginning as science teaches. Then God was was acting before time as the Bible teaches.

It simple logic.

Excellent piece bro . I cant fathom why they are being disingenuous - knowing clearly what an eternal supreme being is but are just contravening the concept . Pathetic dishonesty

You cannot ask why an eternal being needs to be designed because he is complex . ETERNAL ETERNAL ETERNAL . It is illogical to ask what created Him and how he got his powers or complex nature . Because He is eternal ! ! ! Those features or attributes have been , is , will always be with Him .

Weah96:

You don't listen too well. Nobody is making an exception for the universe and humans!!!! OK, I agree. Our very complexity implies a designer. Complex things imply design. That's how it is. That's all we know.

Nahh!!!, naahh!!! Johnydon22 has a different opinion

Weah96:

Computer software tracks the rhythm of the heartbeat, we design the computer, something designed us...

Brother, i think its Johnydon22 that needs this lecture.

Weah96:

Who then designed the something? Complexity connotes design. Who designed the something if we are to go STRICTLY by complexity?

Lets quickly do this.

Get a pencil and a plane sheet of paper.

Draw a man.

In your own image of course

Now, your drawing is your creation.

Would you compare your (creator) ability with that of the man (creation) you drew?

Newsflash: You are as weak and limited as that man (creation) you drew. No matter how hard you try, no matter how many questions you ask.

Weah96:

I agree that a designer could limit or put a cap on the intellect, but why is it revealing this information to you and forcing me to read what you type? Clearly your brain was designed differently, that's how you can hear it speak and I can't. If you insist on typing without providing a demonstration of this magic/miracle, then I will assume that you are hearing nothing though.

You have a point. Like you i saw religion as fake. In short, i just wanted to live my life and do my thing. But the difference is that i always knew that we are not here by ourselves and so i kept an open mind.

Once again, i pray and hope you find what you seek, but till then dont assume and insist that those who have been privileged to witness evidences are liars or idiots.

KingEbukasBlog:


Excellent piece bro . I cant fathom why they are being disingenuous - knowing clearly what an eternal supreme being is but are just contravening the concept . Pathetic dishonesty

You cannot ask why an eternal being needs to be designed because he is complex . ETERNAL ETERNAL ETERNAL . It is illogical to ask what created Him and how he got his powers or complex nature . Because He is eternal ! ! ! Those features or attributes have been , is , will always be with Him .

Thanks Bro. These are the key words in the term ETERNITY: have been , is , will always be.

You cant possibly ask what or who created a Being who (has always been , is and will always be).

Its not even a question.

winner01:
I didnt, you started it. Im only helping you out. You were trying to measure the total power/extent of this Creator by implying that He must have a creator.

Speak for yourself dude. Who are the "we". Were the greatest scientists in the world also scientifically ignorant?


Exactly!!!. Except you wanna agree that the robots on the picture KingEbukasBlog posted could have come about by chance or time.

You might have a point, infact there are several other mechanisms in nature that we are yet to discover, that is whay science is not as close-minded as atheism.

The Designer of the universe is super-complex to have designed such a vast universe. The problem is i didnt assume it up. Logic did.
And if i'm right, then your chances of probing the "source" of this Designer is not even close to Zero.

KingEbukasBlog closed the thread already. Man emulates nature but fails to admit that nature was designed.
Do we have the slighest chance that those robots were unplanned and coincidental?

Yeah, which is exactly my word against yours. Science says the universe had a begining, strongly suggesting that time began at this "begining". Whoever was acting before time is not bound to time, and is therefore eternal(no beginning or end). Which takes you back to the concept of an Eternal Being. And if this Being is eternal, your best bet is that He could not have been created by another.
Sand dunes are part of nature and are the results of a created universe.
Why did you choose a less complex occurence like the sand dune, why not the scorpion. Should we assume that the scorpion was created by chance, time or processes.

Complexity has design written all over it.

Stars are part of nature and are the results of a created universe.

You just refuted your infinite regress claim earlier by saying that the universe had a begining.
If God was acting before time began i.e (Eternal - no beginning or end ), Then the "duration" of His existence does not not fit into your brain or that of any human.
Hence, the question "Who created an Eternal God" is self-refuting.

No one is pleading anything.
Its simple Logic. If really you were created, then you cant even begin to fathom the depth of a Creator with your created mind.
Try harder, but you have your limits.

You haven't probed your existence successfully, yet you wanna probe your Creator's existence.
Thats biting more than you can chew or of course 'laughable'.

Eternal!!!. Thats single word ends it all.
The Creator is indeed complex. But i'm more concerned with wether you have the physical ability to probe the existence of an [b]Eternal[b] (No beginning or end) Being Who created you.

When you understand how Someone or Something has no beginning or end, then you will understand eternity cant be created.

Eternity man, Eternity. If the Universe has a beginning as science teaches. Then God was was acting before time as the Bible teaches.

It simple logic.

Here it lands.

A complex entity is eternal, didn't need to be designed neither did it develop from simpler values but was just eternal ever complex but didn't need a designer.

Here murders the argument of Complexity needs design... You have simply murdered your own argument.

Am sure we have seen how nonsensical that argument remains.

The universe had a beginning the question remains what was the cause?

Now in your own lingual terms the word "God" is used to quantify what began the universe.

Was it Dark energy as string theory shows but heck you call it a God .. lol.

When the word "God" becomes a lingual expression to represent what ever caused the universe then that is your own representation.

when it becomes a complex humanoid that loves the smell of burning flesh but in turn does not need a designer then you are not only lying but swimming in abject delusion.

We have all seen where all your argument lands "if the universe has a beginning then God was the acting force behind it" am pretty sure we call the point of universal causality a singularity.

It has been seen that all your argument here centers on employing the word "God" as a placeholder for scientific ignorance... "You don't know what caused the universe then god did it"

Lol even Ptolemy invoked the design of Zeus when faced with the motion of celestial objects.

The invocation of a deity remains an ever diminishing factor with advancement of scientific discovery.

You can never explain the universe (complex entity) with an even more complex entity and plead for it to be exempted from design.

If complexity must require a designer then this super complex entity must require one. If not just like you have shown above then your argument has been murdered by you by showing something actually can be super complex without being designed.

whether you hide your assumption behind the curtain of "eternal" your argument remains "complexity must require design" so your designer is complex and must also require a designer.

am sure scientifically energy is an eternal value but in a very simple state and not a complex one... So you see even with the universe having a beginning "a complex humanoid talking to himself still does not enter into the equation"

It by far makes more sense that a simpler value like "Dark energy" through stages of quantum fluctuations developed by the interactions of these simpler values within and these interactions became even more complex as more values interact from the result of previous reactions.

That has always being the way of natural process.

So now you have killed your "Complexity requires design" argument

Try again..

johnydon22:


Here it lands.

A complex entity is eternal, didn't need to be designed neither did it develop from simpler values but was just eternal ever complex but didn't need a designer.

Here murders the argument of Complexity needs design... You have simply murdered your own argument.

Am sure we have seen how nonsensical that argument remains.

The universe had a beginning the question remains what was the cause?

Now in your own lingual terms the word "God" is used to quantify what began the universe.

Was it Dark energy as string theory shows but heck you call it a God .. lol.

When the word "God" becomes a lingual expression to represent what ever caused the universe then that is your own representation.

when it becomes a complex humanoid that loves the smell of burning flesh but in turn does not need a designer then you are not only lying but swimming in abject delusion.

We have all seen where all your argument lands "if the universe has a beginning then God was the acting force behind it" am pretty sure we call the point of universal causality a singularity.

It has been seen that all your argument here centers on employing the word "God" as a placeholder for scientific ignorance... "You don't know what caused the universe then god did it"

Lol even Ptolemy invoked the design of Zeus when faced with the motion of celestial objects.

The invocation of a deity remains an ever diminishing factor with advancement of scientific discovery.

You can never explain the universe (complex entity) with an even more complex entity and plead for it to be exempted from design.

If complexity must require a designer then this super complex entity must require one. If not just like you have shown above then your argument has been murdered by you by showing something actually can be super complex without being designed.

whether you hide your assumption behind the curtain of "eternal" your argument remains "complexity must require design" so your designer is complex and must also require a designer.

It by far makes more sense that a simpler value like "Dark energy" through stages of quantum fluctuations developed by the interactions of these simpler values within and these interactions became even more complex as more values interact from the result of previous reactions.

That has always being the way of natural process.

So now you have killed your "Complexity requires design" argument

Try again..

Try again ? Its simple ... can you prove the universe needs no creator ?

Yes or No

If No ... bye

If Yes ... provide proof . ( You may include videos , images of the genesis of the universe - these buttress your evidence )

KingEbukasBlog:


Try again ? Its simple ... can you prove the universe needs no creator ?

Yes or No

If No ... bye

If Yes ... provide proof . ( You may include videos , images of the genesis of the universe - these buttress your evidence )

Hahahahahaha just like you have proven it needs one or maybe a whole race of them not just one rather billions of eternal being.. all of them eternal yet super complex but don't require to be designed just like a less complex entity as the universe needs to be eeh?

Burden of proof reversal

Am sure since this elusive creator has always being a subject of your assumption then you need to provide the proof for it rather than ask the ones who doubt your assumptions to provide proof against.

So we are still waiting for the proof of this creator... (I'd accept even just a picture)

If not you can shout down the clouds in your sunday schools but it never leaves the walls of the sunday class and enter into the science room

so you wanna try again?

Weah96:


Material knowledge is obtained by reading. You claim to be in contact with the person who started the universe, and lives outside of it, as well as in it. No amount of books can back that claim up.

In inner city high schools, students have given ones for lesser offences. This is like trying a nigga gangster

These People just don't realize how ridiculous they sound.

The universe must have been started by something then out of no where that thing became a humanoid who didn't know you can't have day and night before the sun and stars can't fall off from the sky, likes the jews, hates others, loves burning flesh and blood and finding their keys and they are having a personal relationship with it but cannot say what it sounds like.

Considering the depth of nature these Gods are just too small..

That is what we call Retar_d raised to power Infiniti..

johnydon22:


Hahahahahaha just like you have proven it needs one eh?

Burden of proof reversal

Am sure since this elusive creator has always being a subject of your assumption then you need to provide the proof for it rather than ask the ones who doubt your assumptions to provide proof against.

So we are still waiting for the proof of this creator...

If not you can shout down the clouds in your sunday schools but it never leaves the walls of the sunday class and enter into the science room

so you wanna try again?

Lmao .. do you know that the BOP game is for the mentally indolent ? I have presented evidence of a designed nature in the front page of this thread . Y'all have blatantly denied its veritableness . Now its your turn to provide yours for scrutiny

Winner01 , this is what they are very much oblivious to - if they ( atheists) insist that the burden of proof is on the creationists then they have no proof the universe needs no designer . Why ?

Because if the atheists have an evidence indeed that shows the universe needs no creator , they wouldn't need the creationists to prove God exists

End of story !

Thread closed !

johnydon22:


These People just don't realize how ridiculous they sound.

The universe must have been started by something then out of no where that thing became a humanoid who didn't know you can't have day and night before the sun and stars can't fall off from the sky, likes the jews, hates others, loves burning flesh and blood and finding their keys and they are having a personal relationship with it.

That is what we call Retar_d raised to power Infiniti..

sup sup my brother.

What happened to your writing style? Hope it was not also banned

KingEbukasBlog:


Lmao .. do you know that the BOP game is for the mentally indolent ? I have presented evidence of a designed nature in the front page of this thread . Y'all have blatantly denied its veritableness . Now its your turn to provide yours for scrutiny

Winner01 , this is what they are very much oblivious to - if they ( atheists) insist that the burden of proof is on the creationists then they have no proof the universe needs no designer . Why ?

Because if the atheists have an evidence indeed that shows the universe needs no creator , they wouldn't need the creationists to prove God exists

End of story !

Thread closed !

Hahahaha as always mistakes a claim to be an evidence

Maybe i can also point to a tree and maintain that it is proof that a tree fairy exists thats my evidence..

A claim can never be an evidence..

We are still waiting for your evidence to back your assumptions (maybe a picture or something ) Or since you are having a personal relationship with the creator of the universe maybe you could provide us reasonable Intel ?

Common you can do better, stop asking the ones doubting your claims to provide proof against your claim rather provide your proof for it.

We all know scientifically there is never an equation where a creator is fixed, maybe in sunday school but not in science class.

Prove it and earn a noble prize

So try again?

check this thread out at homemade flybarless rc helicopter nigeria and please i want to recieve reply

LoJ:

sup sup my brother.

What happened to your writing style? Hope it was not also banned

The mod said that all bolded font style is against the rule i tire oo

Nice dialogue so far
The thing with these atheist is that they know that God exists, but arrogance won't let then swallow the bitter truth.
They want visible showing of God himself in other to believe in him, yet all the theories they stand on are predated billions of years ago. Now tell me, if you believed in those facts without seeing or witnessing them, is it not plain ignorance and naivety that you are regarding theists as delusional?

Weah96:


Material knowledge is obtained by reading. You claim to be in contact with the person who started the universe, and lives outside of it, as well as in it. No amount of books can back that claim up.

In inner city high schools, students have given ones for lesser offences. This is like trying a nigga gangster

Any kind of knowledge can be obtained from books . Words are written on the pages of books so that knowledge of which is postulated can be gained by the reader .

You need the bible to understand who the creator is and it is through the bible you can learn how to connect to the Supreme creator .

How did I learn how to pray - from the bible

How did I understand the word of God and his plan for me - from the bible

Where do Christian books draw through their words of wisdom ? - the bible

Psalm 119:105

105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Now do you see the correlation between the quoted bible verse and the aforementioned points ?

Wisdom , a plan for someone is like a light that leads and guides you

johnydon22:


Hahahaha as always mistakes a claim to be an evidence

Maybe i can also point to a tree and maintain that it is proof that a tree fairy exists thats my evidence..

A claim can never be an evidence..

We are still waiting for your evidence to back your assumptions (maybe a picture or something ) Or since you are having a personal relationship with the creator of the universe maybe you could provide us reasonable Intel ?

Common you can do better, stop asking the ones doubting your claims to provide proof against your claim rather provide your proof for it.

We all know scientifically there is never an equation where a creator is fixed, maybe in sunday school but not in science class.

Prove it and earn a noble prize

So try again?

The BOP game is for the mentally indolent ... your responses agree with me .

End of Story !

johnydon22:


The mod said that all bolded font style is against the rule i tire oo

Sukkot you dey hear

bxcode:
Nice dialogue so far
The thing with these atheist is that they know that God exists, but arrogance won't let then swallow the bitter truth.
They want visible showing of God himself in other to believe in him, yet all the theories they stand on are predated billions of years ago. Now tell me, if you believed in those facts without seeing or witnessing them, is it not plain ignorance and naivety that you are regarding theists as delusional?

A bottle of coke for you brother !