KingEbukaNaija:


This is a non sequitur to what I posted . I doubt you understand the argument .

johnydon22:


Read the post again

filling up a gap left by your ignorance with "god did it" is a ridiculous way of solving problems and it is detrimental to human intellectual development.

"I don't know how that happened, Uuhm God did it"..

The only way to know is to actually study and remove variables that doesn't fit from the equation..

Man does not know the origin of the cosmos is a call to study not fill up with the ridiculous appeal to ignorance ..

If you are only going to be placing your "god" only at the limit of scientific
knowledge then surely as it has been shown through out history your god
(s) will forever remain an ever receding factor in the face of scientific
discoveries.

It will continue to be discarded and continue to be moved to the next level
of human enquiry just to stay relevant in religious classes.

You may find places to place your Gods hypothesis but when it comes to the limits of human knowledge as regards the cosmos such hypothesis is not needed and such appeal to ignorance is vague to study.

Read the post again

taurus25:

so emulation of nature by man is enough prerequisite to infer that man(or nature) was created by a humanoid?

johnydon22:


The desired result of this supposed creator is for the universe to reach a catastrophic end?

From every cosmological knowledge the universe has only one fate A violent end This design is so random that it brews a recipe for disaster .

what a design, Neil Degress Tyson calls that The stupi_d design hypothesis

Face it the universe remains not only random but imprecise, spooky and flat out shows no evidence of an intelligent mechanics is needed...



..The last clutch to stick on to the stupi_d design hypothesis

Since the universe remains a random event of chain reactions it shows it is not a catalogued plan of a super complex intelligent plot but unsuspecting natural parts reacting to distinct vibrations of string compositions.

If you are only going to be placing your "god" only at the limit of scientific
knowledge then surely as it has been shown through out history your god
(s) will forever remain an ever receding factor in the face of scientific
discoveries.

It will continue to be discarded and continue to be moved to the next level
of human enquiry just to stay relevant in religious classes.

again Your "gods" may fit in sunday school classes but never in a science classroom.. Gain a better argument ..

Try again

CoolUsername:


Let's look at potholes on Nigerian roads for example, they are caused by gradual wear and tear from the tyres of vehicles and are made worse by rain.

So from your argument here is it safe to say that God designed those potholes? Y'know, those things that cause accidents all the time.

KingEbukaNaija:



What you have been bombarding us with are assumptions . And there is no proof that the universe needs no creator . God did it through whatever means - its left for science to find out how .

Scientists trying to understand the mystery of the universe is like perusing over a code written by someone else . Its left for you to detect what the code does , how it was written , in what programming language it was written etc. Your findings do not preclude or rule out the programmer who wrote the codes .

Im not sure why this is tough to understand

KingEbukaNaija:


By an eternal conscious creator ? Yup .

well , if that's your argument, then its weak....look for another.....bye

KingEbukaNaija:


Im tired of all these assumptions by bored scientists . Whatever leaves you drowning in delusion tho

taurus25:

well , if that's your argument, then its weak....look for another.....bye

johnydon22:


The stupi_d design hypothesis remains quite boring that's why we leave it to sunday school brain washing classes where ancient superstitions are being peddled as truth.

Only study can illuminate and not dogmatic superstitions... Lets go on..

KingEbukaNaija:


By an eternal conscious creator ? Yup .

johnydon22:



Wooooow... Now the ringtone is "god did it through what ever means it is left for science to find out how" ... seriously?

This is becoming poorer by the minute

You have been shown universal causalities do not need the actions of any humanoid freak talking to himself or vomiting the cosmos..

"God did it" will forever remain a poor pitiable answer in the face of a philosophical enquiry.

No wonder the black cat analogy likened religion to be being a dark room, looking for a black cat without any light and shouting 'i've found it "... very precise and it fits ..

It is a relic of ancient superstition, a recipe for perpetual ignorance and such ridiculous appeal to ignorance is detrimental to human intellectual development.

Just like your bible thought Rainbows were designed and was put up there by an all knowing deity as a reminder .. (How in the world does an all knowing entity need a reminder )

Well but that "god did it hypothesis" has been shown to be wrong and no humanoid is needed in the equation of rainbow formation.

If you are ever looking for answers about nature and is relying on ancient religious books filled with ancient superstition, myths and folklores, you have got the wrong answer..

Ignorance is never a gap meant to be filled with assumptions... there is no shame in not knowing..

If you keep your "god" only behind the curtain of scientific ignorance, we have shown it will remain ever receding and irrelevant in scientific enquiry..

You need to place somewhere else ...

You can try again

KingEbukaNaija:


A design that has a violent end ? I think the bible said that a new earth and heavens will come after the old one has passed away . So I think the assumption agrees with the bible . I wonder how that eluded me the first time

KingEbukaNaija:


Well that's your opinion - inferred from assumptions . Good to know . You do realise that there is no evidence being tabled here . Just assumptions.. as usual

KingEbukaNaija:


Stating that its weak ... and running away .

Ok ... lol

taurus25:

naah...i aint going nowhere.....truth is ur arguments that because man designs some aspects of nature, therefore god must have designed nature holds exactly thesame amount of water as an empty basket

johnydon22:


Hahahahahahahaha ... Earth and heaven with a new Jerusalem That's the biblical version

The cosmos is a not a fairy tale of ignorant Jews.. It's just too big for your fairy god and book.

The same bible that thinks satyrs, unicorns exists .. Rainbows are reminded for an all knowing deity.

we understand the desperate clutch, all religious books try that laughable and pitiable last clutch when trying to add a pinch of science to feed their delusion...

we get ya

taurus25:

naah...i aint going nowhere.....truth is ur arguments that because man designs some aspects of nature, therefore god must have designed nature holds exactly thesame amount of water as an empty basket

johnydon22:


what if the universe requires a designer, does this mean this designer must be eternal?

does this mean it can not be a race of intelligent beings? they surely must need a plain to exist unless this creator is just a conscious nothingness.

Not only is the assumptive creator hypothesis vague you also need to assume up it is eternal and not also a product of natural development.

-it is a humanoid
-has a son
-likes burnt flesh
-having a personal relationship with you.

This your "god" is simply too small for the cosmos ...

Your argument is that artificial entities are inspired by nature there for nature must have been also being designed just like artificial entities... it is not only weak but absurd and even kills your god hypothesis.

Because your belief pictures a god whose being also inspired nature, so if nature is designed because artificial mechanisms emulates nature then this "god" whose complexity nature emulates must also be designed as nature is .

if you argue it was not designed then you have shown emulation does not connote the emulated was also designed like the emulator ..

and your argument is killed by your own baseless assumptions more...

KingEbukaNaija:


As expected from a shallow thinker, a mediocre . Its a tough nut to crack so you can label it whatever to feel good again . I understand bro

KingEbukaNaija:


Lmao ... you didnt see that coming right ? I know . And to hide the shame and disappointment you launch vituperative attack on Christians and beliefs . Johnydon22 ... the false prophet against ad hominem and bigotry

Winner01 ... do you still remember when Johnydon22 was being sanctimonious

So its a design that indeed has an end . With the purpose of bringing a new earth and heavens .

Try again bro
I am really enjoying this !!!!

taurus25:

johnydon22:


what if the universe requires a designer, does this mean this designer must be eternal?

does this mean it can not be a race of intelligent beings? they surely must need a plain to exist unless this creator is just a conscious nothingness.

Not only is the assumptive creator hypothesis vague you also need to assume up it is eternal and not also a product of natural development.

-it is a humanoid
-has a son
-likes burnt flesh
-having a personal relationship with you.

This your "god" is simply too small for the cosmos ...

Your argument is that artificial entities are inspired by nature there for nature must have been also being designed just like artificial entities... it is not only weak but absurd and even kills your god hypothesis.

Because your belief pictures a god whose being also inspired nature, so if nature is designed because artificial mechanisms emulates nature then this "god" whose complexity nature emulates must also be designed as nature is .

if you argue it was not designed then you have shown emulation does not connote the emulated was also designed like the emulator ..

and your argument is killed by your own baseless assumptions more...

KingEbukaNaija:


And the circumlocution , baseless assumptions , inundation of science myths and the bigoted rants continue ... its interminable ...

bxcode:
The declaration "There is no God" is what is known as an absolute statement. For an absolute statement to be true, I must have absolute knowledge.
Here is another absolute statement: "There is no gold in China."
TEST FOUR
What do I need to have for that statement to be true?
A. No knowledge of China.
B. Partial knowledge of China.
C. Absolute knowledge of China..

taurus25:

bro....those gods dont know no shit about the cosmos......couldnt even properly state an orderly formation of the earth!......its absolutely no surprise tho , what do you expect from primitive middle eastern goat herders?

onetrack:
Sigh. Look up the original banana and see how it was shaped and how many seeds were in it, before artificial selection by humans turned it into the banana we see today.

And, as always, how can you be sure that this creator is the one you worship? Maybe it is Zeus or Sango or Krishna.

1 Cor 8:5-6
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
KJV

KingEbukaNaija:


Hehe .. bad guy I see you man . Its funnier how it takes years of study to come up with those emulations and then modification of the emulation just to achieve the same design that putatively came from chaos .

taurus25:

intellectual evolution bro!........chaos? whatever you wish call it, the fact is we all know we came from something!.......now the big question is WHAT?.......some say yahweh.....some say allah.......some say lets find out.

so far so good yahweh or allah did it is shrinking rather too quickly in the face of intellectual evolution and those who maintain that lets find out are constantly getting amazing result that continously send allah yahweh and many others to the pages of books where they rightfully belong

johnydon22:


Nothing at all my brother.. You can imagine a creator of the universe that thinks Stars could fall, snakes used to talk, vegetation before sunlight, and man that is predominantly Hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen is made of sand (silica).

Like seriously these Gods need secondary diploma.

It has been shown over and over again that "the god did it" hypothesis is a primitive superstition derived to fill in the gap left by the void of human ignorance in the face of the cosmos.

The Ancient greeks thought the milky way band across the sky was a milk spilled from Hera's bossoms..

it is noble poetry but is naive and chastising study to uphold these absurd personal beliefs and superstitions is an insult to human intellect..

And the people having a personal relationship with these creators cannot even relay to us a single unknown fact of cosmological manifestations but rely on science to modify their interpretations of religious books.

Psychosis has never been more obvious

gbam!! nail straight on the head.........if a soposed creator of the enormous cosmos doesnt know such little details about his creation......it would be an insult to my intellect to acknowledge it/ or whatever .........worse part is the dude says we gon roast in hell

taurus25:

gbam!! nail straight on the head.........if a soposed creator of the enormous cosmos doesnt know such little details about his creation......it would be an insult to my intellect to acknowledge it/ or whatever .........worse part is the dude says we gon roast in hell

johnydon22:


Hahahahahaha common don get frustrated when faced with the outright absurdity of your childish arguments.

Your presented the arguement of emulation connotes design and gets slapped right in the face by it

what if the universe requires a designer, does this mean this designer must
be eternal?
does this mean it can not be a race of intelligent beings? they surely must
need a plain to exist unless this creator is just a conscious nothingness.
Not only is the assumptive creator hypothesis vague you also need to
assume up it is eternal and not also a product of natural development.
-it is a humanoid
-has a son
-likes burnt flesh
-having a personal relationship with you.
This your "god" is simply too small for the cosmos ...
Your argument is that artificial entities are inspired by nature there for
nature must have been also being designed just like artificial entities... it is
not only weak but absurd and even kills your god hypothesis.
Because your belief pictures a god whose being also inspired nature, so if
nature is designed because artificial mechanisms emulates nature then this
"god" whose complexity nature emulates must also be designed as nature is
.
if you argue it was not designed then you have shown emulation does not
connote the emulated was also designed like the emulator ..
and your argument is killed by your own baseless assumptions more...

Read it over and over again so it can sink in, we understand the evasive tactics ..