OtemAtum:


It makes sense. This is what all developed countries did that enlarged their brains. This is what Africans fear to do that made their brains undeveloped.

It isn't as if anybody will win a GOD-ARGUMENT, but it helps the brain develop a very strong philosophical background which will eventually result into scientific possibilities.

Thank you Socrates, Plato, Hypatia and co. Nigerian Luwabi and Bantoo Bongo are not left out too.

ambassagod:


I agree with you, except the your view of "Africans". But, anyway this thread is not for that. Thanks for visiting. But, i plead with you not to come back till the debate is over. Please, i beg.

OtemAtum:

What if atheists are only a part of the creator and they only don't believe that the religious gods are the creator, wouldn't they be right while you are wrong?

promise10:
My own definition and understanding of what God is:

God is the self-eternal One, having no need of being created, since He is eternal and is the cause of all things, INCLUDING the dimension of time, to which He is NOT SUBJECT. Likewise, God is NOT SUBJECT to the physical creation, but is spiritual in nature,
residing in the SPIRITUAL DIMENSIONS(the infinite) of heaven. God's power over the physical creation is ABSOLUTE, such that He can manipulate matter,
energy, space, and time AT WILL. For this reason, God is said to be all powerful—able to accomplish any possible task He wills to do. Along with being ALL POWERFUL, God is also ALL KNOWING—having knowledge of all things that are possible to be
known, including the entire history of the universe—past, present, and future. Because God is all powerful(omnipotent) and all knowing (omniscient), He is also able to be present at ALL PLACE OF THE UNIVERSE AT ALL TIME(omnipresent). God is also ALL LOVING.

God is ABSOLUTELY HOLY—without any moral or character defect. In fact, the Bible says that God is INCAPABLE of doing any evil, despite being all
powerful. God is UNCHANGEABLE. In other words, He does not change any of His attributes or character at any time. Despite humanity's tendency to change its definition of morality, God's moral character DOESN'T EVOLVE WITH TIME, but remains constant.

SO ON THIS BASIS I ARGUE.

hopefulLandlord:
Ambassagod, I'm not here to argue against first cause, I've not met any atheist that claims "There is no first cause", please if you do, kindly mention them

I'm very agnostic to the "First Cause" argument and so do all atheists I've met.

if your definition of "God" is "first cause", then I'm open to its existence cuz what you've given so far is an untestable, unverifiable and undisputable claim

is that why we are here though?

hopefulLandlord:
Ambassagod, I would like to know what you mean by "Self-Eternal"

and I'm also very curious, what made your definition of "God" change to drastically from the one you gave in the previous thread to this watered down version?

hopefulLandlord:
Ambassagod, I would like to know what you mean by "Self-Eternal"

and I'm also very curious, what made your definition of "God" change to drastically from the one you gave in the previous thread to this watered down version?


below was the definition you gave in the previous thread



just putting this out there for the readers

ambassagod:
NOTE: The simple phrase I gave about God does not actually SUM UP "GOD" in it's entirety as a concept. But, simply an attribute of God that can be used to extend to other attributes in support of of my points

ambassagod:


Actually, according to the first bolded, there are many atheist who claim that! Quite many of them believe that everything came from "NOTHING" and in reality "NOTHING" is not a thing in any form or manner. So, you making that claim, is kind of "FALSE" and more of "ESCAPE ROUTE" to me. Yeah, that's my personal opinion. Because, actually many atheists, we can start from NL, believe everything to just pop out from NOTHING. Which is extremely ridiculous.


Your attention is needed in the second bolded, because it is simply "Tricky" to me. So what do you mean by being agnostic to "FIRST CAUSE" because in the first bolded statement, since you agreed that you aren't against the "EXISTENCE OF THE FIRST CAUSE"?

Okay, seeing GOD as a "SELF ETERNAL FIRST CAUSE" according to your point simply means you believe in God. Am I right?

Then if so, why are you an atheist, since Atheism is a disbelief in God/gods(whether as a first cause or a religious God)??

ambassagod:


Actually, according to the first bolded, there are many atheist who claim that! Quite many of them believe that everything came from "NOTHING" and in reality "NOTHING" is not a thing in any form or manner. So, you making that claim, is kind of "FALSE" and more of "ESCAPE ROUTE" to me. Yeah, that's my personal opinion. Because, actually many atheists, we can start from NL, believe everything to just pop out from NOTHING. Which is extremely ridiculous.

Your attention is needed in the second bolded, because it is simply "Tricky" to me. So what do you mean by being agnostic to "FIRST CAUSE" because in the first bolded statement, since you agreed that you aren't against the "EXISTENCE OF THE FIRST CAUSE"?

Okay, seeing GOD as a "SELF ETERNAL FIRST CAUSE" according to your point simply means you believe in God. Am I right?

Then if so, why are you an atheist, since Atheism is a disbelief in God/gods(whether as a first cause or a religious God)??

Ever8054:
this question just justify what I said that atheist don't even understand there point.
now that u don't understand your point,even if I make a point to answer your question you would still not understand. so don't don't waste my time...

hopefulLandlord:

please, read my posts properly cuz it appears you didn't

I said "mention them", even Lawrence Krauss that used the word "Nothing" did not mean "Literally nothing"

so my question still stands, mention those atheists that claim nothing and let's see what they mean by

Ambassagod, I'm not here to argue against first cause, I've not met any atheist that claims "There is no first cause", please if you do, kindly mention them

I'm very agnostic to the "First Cause" argument and so do all atheists I've met

if your definition of "God" is "first cause", then I'm open to its existence cuz what you've given so far is an untestable, unverifiable and undisputable claim

is that why we are here though?

please stop this attempt at defining who I am, I've been through this many times, like I said I'm agnostic to the first cause, sorry if that's not what you think I am, I can't sit here and tell you there's no first cause; its senseless to do that; so what is this "first cause"? isn't this going circular? first cause=God, God=first cause

I just see no reason to argue against "first cause"

are you here to argue for first cause? is that what we are doing here?

I hope I'm clear

hopefulLandlord:

Ambassagod, I hope we are not wasting our time here?

are you here to define god as first cause?

please I'm not here for meaningless wordgames

ask those atheists what they mean by "nothing" because its definition varies from person to person and I'm not redefining "COMMON AND GLOBAL" terms to suite me, what Krauss means by nothing in his book isn't what you would agree as nothing, which is what I'm talking about, I think you've not even read the book which explains the confusion

"First Cause" is simply a foggy term that neither I see no sense in arguing against nor agree with

you do not in an argument define things into existence then claim some points on the fact that your opponent didn't argue against it

what is "First Cause"? aren't we moving in circles here?

I Still say, again, I'm agnostic to "first cause"

BTW I wonder what's so difficult in mentioning those " Many Atheists" that claim nothing, we need to check out what those atheists mean

Chuukwudi:


Debating the existence of the spiritual by means of the intellect is futile. Not to talk of the existence of the Divine Spiritual Unsubstantiate (God).


The Intellect is gross material and highly limited under the confines of time and space.

ambassagod:


NOT AT ALL!


NO! NO!! NO!!!
I have been debunking this question from the beginning of this debate. But, you ignored all of them to ask me this quest. I am here to debate you on the reality of God, by presenting you attributes around which the concept "God", logically stands real to exist. Of which if you agree with me, it would simply imply that you have accepted that "God is real" based on the argument. And also flushes out all logical reasoning you would ever show for to claim being an atheist or an agnostic PERIOD!

So, go back to my previous questions. Otherwise, you are willingly taking a vicious circle, BY AVOIDING QUESTIONS THROWN AT YOU.


I assume quite well that you have a different meaning of the word "GOD". So, bring it up, if I am right.



This is quite an open display of meaningless wordgame. So stop it by attempting the questions you are running away from. Otherwise, you are the one guilty here.



The bolded is a thorough affirmation of my opinion when I said that most atheists wouldn't mind changing a meaning of a word to support themselves. And that's quite sad.

To any sensible person following this debate; HOW CAN THE WORD "NOTHING" REALLY MEAN ANYTHING OUTSIDE IT'S COMMON MEANING??(Just pause a bit and think about this. Don't comment your answer )

HopefulLandlord let me ask you again , if what Krauss implied to "NOTHING", doesn't mean "NOT A SINGLE THING", What then was he implying, to mean "NOTHING". (Don't mention vicious circle, because i asked this question and you avoided it. So over to you.)


AHA!!!

Okay, for people who would find the word "foggy" to comprehend. Let me tell you the meaning so that you will continue to follow up carefully.

fog·gy
ˈfôɡē,ˈfäɡē/
adjective
adjective: foggy; comparative adjective: foggier; superlative adjective: foggiest

opposite: clear
simply means "confused".

So my audience here, what exactly is confused about the word "FIRST CAUSE". Should I also give you the meaning of those words differently too.

NOTE: you are still avoiding my questions up there.


The last time I checked, if it is a debate where the topic is "Is education important", there must be a uniform understanding of the word "EDUCATION". And the meaning must be based on what "Education" really means. Otherwise the debate would never be logical and can never met.

So it is in this argument. You came in, only to throw a question to me like a newbie in debates. That's not how debates are done. We have to like expose our approach to the root of the matter "GOD". Which, I did!

NOTE(in case you are confused): So, to take off, you have to tell me if you AGREE OR NOT. If you agree that there is a (Self-eternal) UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE(GOD, until you disagree with my proposition of GOD) through which everything came into existence, THEN WE CAN STOP THE DEBATE. If you disagree, then you ask for my proofs, which I will have to provide
I wonder why I should be teaching you how to debate. That's actually terrible.


what is "First Cause"? aren't we moving in circles here?[/b]
This is someone who agreed to the meaning, now asking a quite phony question as if he doesn't an "UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE" means.


It is pretty clear here who is running a vicious circle. How can you be agnostic to a concept you don't know about. If you are agnostic to the "UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE", why then did you ask a what it is.



And he continues running around the circle.

I am not finding it difficult. You helped me mention one of them. So, Krauss is one of them. He is a good person to start from. So, approach the below,(I know you will avoid it again)

THEN A GOOD QUESTION YOU MUST ATTEND TO IS(If you avoid it, I would call you back to it):
According to what you said, that Krauss use the word "NOTHING", If the likes of Lawrence Krauss, who use the word "NOTHING" does not literally meaning "nothing", then what else does the word "NOTHING" mean?

And the last time I checked "NOTHING" in a dictionary, this was what i saw, and anything that doesn't agree with it, must be a thing!

noth·ing
ˈnəTHiNG/
pronoun
pronoun: nothing; plural noun: nothings

1.
not anything; no single thing.
"I said nothing"
synonyms: not a thing, not anything, nil, zero,

hopefulLandlord:


this is pure gish gallop

have you read Lawrence Krauss's book? if yes, can you tell us what he means by "Nothing"?

if that's the definition of "Nothing" you want to hang dearly on, then that's not what Krauss means by Nothing, Please Richrich717, you've read the book, can you please educate Ambassagod on what Krauss means by Nothing?

ambassagod:


AND HE CONTINUES TO AVOID!

He calls empty space and/or the quantum vacuum, nothing. Which simply tells us that Krauss does not know what the word "NOthing" means. Which means that what he actually believes to be nothing is actually "SOMETHING".

Dictionary.com defines ‘nothing’ as:

1) no thing; not anything; naught: to say nothing.
2) no part, share, or trace (usually followed by of ): The house showed nothing of its former magnificence.
3) something that is nonexistent.
4) nonexistence; nothingness: The sound faded to nothing.


This affirms my opinion the more that most atheists wouldn't mind lying against the real meaning of a word to support themselves.


Sorry, don't call anybody into this! If you want to escape, just say it. And as soon as any third party comes in here AT YOUR REQUEST, then the debate will have to stop. Because, you have nothing else to contribute or even argue against.

hopefulLandlord:


okay, like I've repeated many times over, what Krauss means by nothing is NOT what you mean by nothing

you're now free to mention another atheist out of the " many atheists" that agree with your definition of nothing and said we came from nothing

remember, "there are many, even many on Nairaland"

spacetacular:
Hey Jackbizzle this right here is what a debate ought to be and not your sorry excuse for one.

Loving it!

I see someone being dodgy on "nothing". Good stuff here.

ambassagod:
So, now since you have helped me to debunk those "Everything came from Nothing" lies, I gotta point you to the below. So you review your opinion and know which way to follow.

So, to take off, you have to tell me if you AGREE OR NOT. If you agree that there is a (Self-eternal) UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE(GOD, until you disagree with my proposition of GOD) through which everything came into existence, THEN WE CAN STOP THE DEBATE. If you disagree, then you ask for my proofs, which I will have to provide

ambassagod:


Hahahahaha!!!!

Is this a good way to take the escape route?

The bolded is simply shameful, because Krauss simply lied against the true word, "NOTHING". If he didn't lie, then I DARE YOU to defend him!!

NO. Mentioning another person into this would derail the argument, which I can figure out quite well as your agenda. So, start from where I pointed to you.

This is not an argument of "Nairaland atheist who believe that Everything came from nothing". If that's what you want, after the debate, you can simply create a thread on that, just the way I created this and then invite me to it.

So, stick to the argument. If you don't want to continue, then say it out. After all, you can save our day with that.

Chuukwudi:


There is only one true God. Only 3 religions on earth proclaim it: Christianity, Islam and Judaism. He is the Creator of the whole universe.

Mine is not a religion. It's a recognition and understanding of the Truth which both Christians, Muslims etc can embrace in order to find their way back to paradise.

hopefulLandlord:


I'm not in any way derailing, my point is that I've NOT seen any atheist deny first cause,

you said there are "many" as a counter to that, the onus is now on you to mention those, inability to do that proves there's NO atheist that denies first cause!

I mentioned Krauss and you've not read the book but concluded that what he's referring to nothing is the same as yours, having proven that is not the case your point has no leg to stand on until you mention them

this is very simple and I wonder why its proving difficult for you

[let me reiterate that I'm agnostic to first cause and so are all atheists I know

please we've wasted too many a time on this, names of those atheists please..