Blogthug:


I just showed that your logic is flawed sorry u couldn't grasp it, absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, this is primary school logic nau lol

Blogthug:


you are dodging like your life depends on it, answer my question, are concepts nothing or something? are ideas nothing or something? is the human mind nothing or something?

donnffd:


I think i am now believing you are a troll.

Air is something, it has the properties of something, it is perfectly valid to ask, is air something?

On the otherhand, concepts cannot be in the same category, it is in a different category

From what i am seeing, you are trying to say everything in the english language has to fall into either something or nothing...smh

Mehn this is just a waste of time...chaow

Blogthug:


Im actually the creator of Nigerian union of deists whatsapp group with over 40 members, I am a deist, u don't have to like it, add 07034362071 to join

Jackofall:

U have an endless abundance of strawman.
What is nothing? What is something?

Blogthug:


and I answered u beautifully, u just don't grasp the explanation, no evidence of red cup on the table isn't proof that there isn't

simply put, observing non existence of red cup isn't proof of nonexistence of red cup, but observing something contrary to what should be observed under existence is proof of nonexistence, if u are intelligent ud grasp this by now

CeoMYN:


I hate to say it, that quote you said about God is not diestic.

Blogthug:


you think we are playing here abi?

if u cannot prove that you can't prove a negative it means the claim "u can't prove a negative " by logic cannot itself be proven lol

Jackofall:


Your second paragraph is a big lie.

How do we know what should be observed?

What if we have been observing cups wrongly all these while? What if cups have different characteristics that presents with different observations, and we are only limited to some observations based on situation.

Not observing what u would "normally" observe doesn't mean it is absent.

Blogthug:


we are Theists, and theists believe in the Existence of God, but the description of God may differ among religions , and FYI Deism is a religion as well but a natural religion, others are more like " revealed religion " there are lots u need to know, join the group

hopefulLandlord:
so OP is a deist, here to argue for a deistic version of god

he's violating my rule 2 which I gave in page 0 of this thread

CeoMYN:


I don't Whatsapp, maybe when you open one on fb.

Blogthug:


what is the property of something? must a thing be physical to be something?

Jackofall:

If it cannot be proven, so what?

donnffd:


google and come back, I don't have to spoon feed u, u are not paying me

(i believe this was the exact reply you told someone after he asked you about a similar question, what goes around, comes around).

Blogthug:
if you are open minded and understand these basic fallacies such as :
Strawman
red herring...

Blogthug:
strawman, I said Describe , please read properly

Blogthug:
listen, I don't have time for your strawman, ...

CatfishBilly:

Your definition of a god is not complete.
My default position was that it interferes, you pointed that out as a strawman.
You gotta choose one bro. Your definition of god can either interfere or doesn't interfere, it can't sit on the fence.

oaroloye:
SHALOM!

If Atheists were open-minded, we would have no trouble with them at all.

Strawman...

Jackofall:
Ur nature analogy is pure strawman.

What's the correlation between nature and the different gods we have. Common u can do better than this.

Blogthug:
how can an anology be a strawman? u people are wonderful here o lol

Jackofall:
[sup][/sup]Yet another strawman ...

Jackofall:
U have an endless abundance of strawman.

What is nothing? What is something?

Blogthug:


what should be observed is a cup remember?
that's why meaning of words and terms matter, u can't ask for evidence of rain while expecting sand, that's nonsensical

Blogthug:


means it's invalid, a false claim so should be rejected

Blogthug:


u can follow me on twitter as well @tweetest_boi let me know when u do, coz I get tons of followers

Jackofall:


Fallacious.

It cannot be proven does not mean it is invalid. Please stop embarrassing yourself here.

Blogthug:


google and come back, I don't have to spoon feed u, u are not paying me

Blogthug:


it is, of what purpose is proving something that CANNOT be proven?

Jackofall:


Fallacious.

It cannot be proven does not mean it is invalid. Please stop embarrassing yourself here.

Jackofall:


Who established that it cannot be proven.

Yet another leading question.

Pls be honest with yourself.

Jackofall:

Who established that it cannot be proven.
Yet another leading question.
Pls be honest with yourself.

Blogthug:


good, the claimant established it cannot be proven , so the argument ends there except the claim is recalled

Blogthug:


if u were smart u would have figured that an Invalid statement cannot be Valid or logically sound, hence it's a fallacy

Jackofall:


How did you establish that it cannot be proven oo

Pls let's see where you logically established that "a negative cannot be proven" cannot be proven.

Blogthug:


someone made a claim " God doesn't exist "

and I say Prove it!

and he goes " negative claim cannot be proven "

by logic the claim " negative claim cannot be proven " is itself a Negative claim, so even if it were true, it cannot be proven to be true, hope u get it now?

Blogthug:


it's like a scientist asking another scientist " which nature exists ? " nature is nature and God is God, though no two scientists will describe Nature same way, so as no two religion will describe God same way , get it?