KingEbukasBlog:


If something has a cause and a beginning then it must have a creator . God -an appellation of the creator- is the reason for the existence of everything .

Anytime an atheist ask this question he has snowflakes in mind as if snowflakes are not part of nature

CoolUsername:


Why does it have to be God? It seems like an arbitrary add-on to me. Why does the precursor to the Universe have to be a God? Whatever the Universe came from would have existed before space-time, so why does it have to be such a complex and extremely improbable being?

naijadeyhia:


How did you arrive at the conclussion that God is complex and extremely improbable? Care to share your data?

CoolUsername:


If God isn't complex then it can't be the conscious creator of the Universe. It can't even be called a god.

It is more probable for a simple structure to spring up from non-existence than a universe-creator. Going by nature, complex structures always start off simple.

naijadeyhia:
[/b]


The bolded is a classic dawkins fallacy. When I saw you guys are full of fallacies you call it a lie. This is an extract from the OP. Read it then tell me thank you for pointing out your fallacy early.

[b]3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause): This fallacy makes the unjustified assumption that when one thing precedes another, the first must cause the second. Dawkins adds a peculiar twist to this fallacy by arguing that the ‘simple’ must always precede the ‘complex.’ He insists that in the history of the universe simple processes must always have preceded (and produced) more complex systems. On the one hand, as mentioned earlier, Dawkins asserts the creative power of (simple) naturalistic evolution: “Entities that are complex enough to be intelligent are products of an evolutionary process“. On the other hand, Dawkins denies the admissibility of (complex) divine creative agency: “Any entity capable of intelligently designing something as improbable as a … universe would have to be even more improbable than [a universe]”.

The renowned philosopher, Anthony Flew, has called Dawkins’ argument “bizarre.” Dawkins offers no evidence in support of these assertions other than his admitted preference for any viewpoint which precludes divine activity. The logic of Dawkins’ argument (‘simple-always-precedes-complex’) is disproved by all human artistry and engineering as well as all forms of biological reproduction. The artist always precedes the work of art; the chicken always comes before the egg. If Dawkins’ logic was valid, then any human agency capable of designing something as improbable as a watch, a cathedral, or a spaceship would have to be considered “improbable.” There’s obviously something wrong with that. It is an accepted practice in logic to “infer to the most sufficient explanation.” In the debate about human origins, a strong argument can be made that only divine agency can account for human life and reason. By refusing to consider the possibility of divine creativity and causation, Dawkins ends up by threatening human creativity and causation as well.[/b]

CoolUsername:


Why does it have to be God? It seems like an arbitrary add-on to me. Why does the precursor to the Universe have to be a God? Whatever the Universe came from would have existed before space-time, so why does it have to be such a complex and extremely improbable being?

KingEbukasBlog:

Plus it has to be a Supreme Being because It is a separate conscious entity . A separate conscious entity , the Supreme Being , can possess the mind , intelligence , power , knowledge which are required to create and design with a purpose .

CoolUsername:


How exactly does artistry refute a naturalistic argument? Don't sculptures always start off as non-descript slabs of material? Doesn't reproduction start at the moment of fertilization before the zygote (simple) develops into a foetus (complex)?

If you believe that complexity always precedes simplicity then why do you feel the Universe requires a creator, then? It is the most complex entity we know of.

CoolUsername:

If you believe that complexity always precedes simplicity then why do you feel the Universe requires a creator, then? It is the most complex entity we know of.

naijadeyhia:


A sculpture is a product of complexity. Sculptures are simple but the idea and source of it are complex. I suppose you think an idea is like a light switch and the blend of colours and form is simple. Reproduction itself has a complex source which gives a simple product which is the egg. Everything the foetus needs is already contained in the simplicity of the egg.

Like i said you laid claim that Complexity cannot produce simplicity which was why you ruled out God and called Him Extremely complex so i asked you simply how you arrived at that conclussion that God is extremely complex and like Dawkins you have absolute zero evidence to show for your assertion which clearly shows its a huge fallacy.

CoolUsername:


What? When did I say that complexity cannot produce simplicity? That is what makes it complexity. Mammalian reproduction is just a more complex form of the reproduction we see in organisms. The problem with your analogies is that you failed to take into account the fact that reproduction is an evolved property. The human brain that is capable of producing artistry is also an evolved property. But if you can give incidence of complex phenomena that can't be broken down into simpler ones, then I'll consider your point.

How exactly does artistry refute a naturalistic argument? Don't sculptures always start off as non-descript slabs of material? Doesn't reproduction start at the moment of fertilization before the zygote (simple) develops into a foetus (complex)?

If you believe that complexity always precedes simplicity then why do you feel the Universe requires a creator, then? It is the most complex entity we know of.

If God isn't complex then it can't be the conscious creator of the Universe. It can't even be called a god.

It is more probable for a simple structure to spring up from non-existence than a universe-creator. Going by nature, complex structures always start off simple.

KingEbukasBlog:


If something has a cause and a beginning then it must have a creator . God -an appellation of the creator- is the reason for the existence of everything .

Anytime an atheist ask this question he has snowflakes in mind as if snowflakes are not part of nature

KingEbukasBlog:




^^^
The text in italics answers why God has to be a being

And how is a transcendent being extremely improbable Its an appeal to common sense fallacy to say something is false because you can't imagine the possibility of it being true

CoolUsername:


Where did you get the notion that the Universe must come from a separate conscious entity? Can consciousness exist without matter? If it can, then provide proof.

Secondly, a transcendent being is as probable as Pikachu being real. First, there's nothing to indicate that the Universe needs one to exist. Second, it raises more questions and solves nothing: (what is its plane of existence like?), (how does it interact with space-time if it exists outside it? At least game sims work on the principle of electrons which affects everybody), (how can it exist without a creator? Does it also have an unfalsifiable creator in yet another dimension?). Third, there is no logical tie-in between this entity and what we know about the Universe.

It just seems to me like a placeholder for where our scientific knowledge ends in order to satisfy our curiosity. It seems like a cop-out and it prevents us from thinking.

naijadeyhia:


Its clear you did not read the OP to understand it. I suggest you do so you would stop asking questions already dealt with in the OP. Do that pls.





Thats your quote and not mine. Read it again then go back to the OP and read that.

KingEbukasBlog:


As regards to our realm , things can start off from simplicity to complexity because of laws guiding our universe . The transcendent being's eternal nature and immutability precludes it from starting off His existence as simple .

If God were to change or have a beginning then questions like how did he grow in power , in knowledge , intelligence etc would arise .

CoolUsername:


Do you now know the laws of other realms?

CoolUsername:


What exactly is your problem with my argument?

naijadeyhia:


Do you know about all the laws of your realm assuming there are laws especially since the laws were tags by men. What if the only Law that exists is simply called THE LAW OF ORDER and every thing you call chaos which still results in everything somehw working together to keep the earth and universe running is all part of this LAW OF ORDER ?

Man can only see what6 he chooses to see and is limited in sight which is exactly what you are arguing about here.

First of all you do not believe in other realms so why ask another if he knows the laws in other realms as if when presented to you it would make sense?

If you look at nature in its smallest detail you will see how everything is connected and work together even in its chaos they still work together. What we call chaos is simply Orderliness on another scale.

naijadeyhia:


If you still cannot see it then sorry.

CoolUsername:


So, if you don't know the laws of other realms, then keep them out of your arguments. It's dishonest to try to take advantage of mutual ignorance.

KingEbukasBlog:


It becomes special pleading if it has been proven that everything that exists in whatever reality or realm requires a cause and I gave God as an exception because of my belief in Him . And my statement was "if something has a cause and a beginning it must have a creator" . God has no cause or a beginning so there was no special pleading anywhere .

The universe cannot be eternal - every observational data points to it having a beginning and a cause .

Gods in various religions are simply variants of The Supreme Being each creating different concepts of the Nature of This Being . So its One God , myriads of concepts in different religions. So which religion or theological/philosophical proposition portrays the true Nature of the Supreme Being - that's an entirely different argument .

The Deistic God ? You mean an Impersonal God ? An Impersonal God is another variant of the Supreme Being whereby an attribute of It called immanence is rejected by people who subscribe to it .

Plus it has to be a Supreme Being because It is a separate conscious entity . A separate conscious entity , the Supreme Being , can possess the mind , intelligence , power , knowledge which are required to create and design with a purpose .

naijadeyhia:


Did i say i did not know about the laws of other realms? All i did was drop a very simple but intelligent analogy. Besides who says the other realms must operate based on any laws? Must everything subscribe to how humans seem to want it?

I am talking about the realm of spiritual. Do you think the spiritual are subject to natural laws?

Its like saying birds must follow the laws of lions or fish must follow the laws of bacteria.

Be a critical thinker pls. Even in nature laws even when complex are even simpler when broken down and that is where there is a disparity. Can a bacteria reproduce like a dog? Can a goat breath like a plant? Can you reason like a horse?

The laws we know are what we know but not the whole truth as it should be.

CoolUsername:


Where did you get the notion that the Universe must come from a separate conscious entity? Can consciousness exist without matter? If it can, then provide proof.

Secondly, a transcendent being is as probable as Pikachu being real. First, there's nothing to indicate that the Universe needs one to exist. Second, it raises more questions and solves nothing: (what is its plane of existence like?), (how does it interact with space-time if it exists outside it? At least game sims work on the principle of electrons which affects everybody), (how can it exist without a creator? Does it also have an unfalsifiable creator in yet another dimension?). Third, there is no logical tie-in between this entity and what we know about the Universe.

It just seems to me like a placeholder for where our scientific knowledge ends in order to satisfy our curiosity. It seems like a cop-out and it prevents us from thinking.

CoolUsername:


Where did you get the notion that the Universe must come from a separate conscious entity? Can consciousness exist without matter? If it can, then provide proof.

Secondly, a transcendent being is as probable as Pikachu being real. First, there's nothing to indicate that the Universe needs one to exist.

Second, it raises more questions and solves nothing: (what is its plane of existence like?)

(how does it interact with space-time if it exists outside it?

At least game sims work on the principle of electrons which affects everybody),

(how can it exist without a creator? Does it also have an unfalsifiable creator in yet another dimension?).

Third, there is no logical tie-in between this entity and what we know about the Universe.

It just seems to me like a placeholder for where our scientific knowledge ends in order to satisfy our curiosity. It seems like a cop-out and it prevents us from thinking.

CoolUsername:


How do you know about the realm of the spiritual? How do you distinguish it from hallucination? Can you give a direct answer for once?

KingEbukasBlog:

The issue of consciousness existing without matter was discussed here : https://www.nairaland.com/3218192/atheists-come-see-most-powerful

It was more of exasperating denial or rejection of glaring facts by the atheists just to accomodate their unbelief .



There's so much evidence that indicates that the Universe has a creator : http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html



Its immaterial , causeless - God's prescence is the transcendent reality .



You can listen to Willian Craig discuss that


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTtsddoOvm0



You are asking questions based on scientific knowledge . Science is limited to our physical universe . The spirit of man or his immaterial side connects to God . God's divinity permeates through everything that exists . https://www.nairaland.com/2973792/atheism-dead-logic-god-everything




For logical reasons such as infinite regress , there is none . It is called the Supreme Being , who is eternal , that means whatever possible dimensions or realms It transcends them all .




The entity is the universe's creator .



There are so many ridiculous hypothesis in science . Like the existence of a higher civilization controlling the thoughts and actions of man on earth , there's the existence of extra-dimensional beings who pay regular visits to earth , there's the one of the universe being a hologram , there's the one that posits that we are all living inside a gigantic computer simulation and experiencing a Matrix-style virtual world etc But when it comes to God it becomes an encumberance that prevents us from thinking This is why I don't take atheists seriously

naijadeyhia:


High 20 for you there my brother. You are bursting my brain here. This is so the truth! Science in an attempt to have this "WE MUST EXPLAIN EVERYTHING " syndrom just spew all manner of trash. The bible says in Psalm 2 vs 4

4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.

naijadeyhia:
kingebukasblog

William craig the guy that nearly pealed all the skin off the Buttock of Sam Harris in their debate


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTtsddoOvm0

KingEbukasBlog:


Thank you bro ! When it comes God they insist that his existence should be explained using science , though limited , whereas they propound ridiculous theories with no basis for scientific explanation .

KingEbukasBlog:


The guy is super smart and does know how to expose the speciousness of atheist arguments Damn !

jonbellion:
Sharrap sharrap it's like you guys don't have the slightest clue on how high of a pedestal you have put your version of The supreme being. Is it only a coincidence that he doesn't seem to be breaking the laws of nature upandan like he was doing back in Palestine when he was putting up a show for everybody who dared to challenge him