dalaman:


Ogbeni na wah oò. Why the serious vexation na ? My argument is very simple, just because mental states exists, there’s no reason to attribute that to being derived from a diety without any supporting evidence at all. It's very simple.

This is why I said you understand the argument . You are materialist right? Materialists and Naturalists generally deny the existence of intentional states of consciousness - that's why the premise holds true - because agreeing to this will only point to the existence of an immaterial ultimate mind and utterly demolishing their thoughts that all things are made of matter and they all came to being through only natural processes . The second premise agrees that intentional states of consciousness exist because right now I'm thinking of Genghis Khan of Mongol destroying Khwarezm empire and forcing the Shar Muhammed 11 into being a derelict . Then of course , the corollary is to affirm the existence of this immaterial ultimate mind being the reason why mental states which are immaterial exist since the first and second premises are true .

KingEbukasBlog:


Artificial intelligence is evidence for artificial intelligence and we cannot deduce from the nature of AIs that it was created by a mind
Unearthed pots , plates , spoons , idols in an area by Archaeologists isn't evidence for human settlement in an area but evidence for pots , spoons etc .

This is why atheists are very poor at logic .

We known that humans have a mind and we also known that himans create artificial intelligence, we also know that humans create pots, spoons, idols etc.These are things that we KNOW for a fact.

We also know that humans created all the ideas of Gods they chose to worship and ascribe to this ideas many different things. Just as you are ascribing a mind to your own God idea.

What we don't know is if any God exist on its own and has a mind. No God has ever demonstrated that it exist own it's own independently without human input and shown that it has a mind.

The human mind has different explanations for it existence, some say it was created by their various God while others say it evolved over time. No one has been able to provide irrefutable evidence for their various hypothesis.

You are only showing me what you belief and not providing evidence because your foundation is empty.

That is why theist are very good at accepting mythology and folklore.

dalaman:


We known that humans have a mind and we also known that himans create artificial intelligence, we also know that humans create pots, spoons, idols etc.These are things that we KNOW for a fact.

We also know that humans created all the ideas of Gods they chose to worship and ascribe to this ideas many different things. Just as you are ascribing a mind to your own God idea.

What we don't know is if any God exist on its own and has a mind. No God has ever demonstrated that it exist own it's own independently without human input and shown that it has a mind.

The human mind has different explanations for it existence, some say it was created by their various God while others say it evolved over time. No one has been able to provide irrefutable evidence for their various hypothesis.

You are only showing me what you belief and not providing evidence because your foundation is empty.

That is why theist are very good at accepting mythology and folklore.

check out how this person napalms that WLC argument http://bahnsenburner..com/2015/03/craigs-eight-arguments-for-god-part-vi.html?m%3D1&grqid=jeREDVEd&hl=en-NG

rekinomtla:


Belief and knowledge are not mutually exclusive. In fact in order to have knowledge of anything, you must have belief and truth. For instance, you can't say you know 2+2=4 but don't believe it.

True.

You can say you believe in Santa Claus but don't know him.

Wetin i dey read sha...
KingEbukasBlog can you tell me how intentional states of consciousness does not require objects?

KingEbukasBlog:


This is why I said you understand the argument . You are materialist right? Materialists and Naturalists generally deny the existence of intentional states of consciousness - that's why the premise holds true - because agreeing to this will only point to the existence of an immaterial ultimate mind and utterly demolishing their thoughts that all things are made of matter and they all came to being through only natural processes . The second premise agrees that intentional states of consciousness exist because right now I'm thinking of Genghis Khan of Mongol destroying Khwarezm empire and forcing the Shar Muhammed 11 into being a derelict . Then of course , the corollary is to affirm the existence of this immaterial ultimate mind being the reason why mental states which are immaterial exist since the first and second premises are true .

The ability to intentional think about things only shows that humans posses the ability. It doesn't point to any ultimate mind. Saying that it does is only an assumption that lack any foundation and basis.

Your ability to think about anything or anybody only shows that you have the ability, it doesn't point to any ultimate mind. Can you demonstrate any ability of this ultimate mind? Can you show it at work independently?
How can you make the statement without any foundation at all, and I asked you to state what even led you to make that statement?

There are many other credible theories about how intentional states of the mind can be achieved that do not need a God as any part of their explanations.

Theories that indicate evolutionary mechanisms by which intentional states of mind may have been brought into existence have been put forward and they do not require any God as it's source.

If I ask you to use God ALONE and explain the origin, function and mechanism behind the intentional state of the mind you will NOT be able to do that. So why are you filling the gap with God and making unfounded assumptions about it?

ScepticalPyrrho:
True.

You can say you believe in Santa Claus but don't know him.

Just as believers believe in Jesus but don't know him.

dalaman:

We known that humans have a mind and we also known that himans create artificial intelligence, we also know that humans create pots, spoons, idols etc.These are things that we KNOW for a fact.

If life is obliterated on earth , do you think this would be a fact millions of years later when aliens would visit the earth to find if intelligent life existed during space exploration ? How would they decipher that these were products on an intelligent mind? From the nature of the products of course .

We also know that humans created all the ideas of Gods they chose to worship and ascribe to this ideas many different things. Just as you are ascribing a mind to your own God idea.

This is an assumption .

What we don't know is if any God exist on its own and has a mind. No God has ever demonstrated that it exist own it's own independently without human input and shown that it has a mind.

A mind has the ability to create . And since God creates , therefore It has a mind . You are making so many assumptions and making poor conclusions .

The human mind has different explanations for it existence, some say it was created by their various God while others say it evolved over time. No one has been able to provide irrefutable evidence for their various hypothesis.

You are funny man . Evolution does not exclude that the mind has a creator . And the nature of this creator has been conceived differently by various philosophical and theology positions .

You are only showing me what you belief and not providing evidence because your foundation is empty.

And again , you have proven to me that you are inept at logic and assumptions on your part should be taken as truth .

That is why theist are very good at accepting mythology and folklore.

Not all theists accept mythology and folklore . And there are atheists who accept mythology and folklore .

dalaman:


The ability to intentional think about things only shows that humans posses the ability. It doesn't point to any ultimate mind. Saying that it does is only an assumption that lack any foundation and basis.

Your ability to think about anything or anybody only shows that you have the ability, it doesn't point to any ultimate mind. Can you demonstrate any ability of this ultimate mind? Can you show it at work independently?
How can you make the statement without any foundation at all, and I asked you to state what even led you to make that statement?

There are many other credible theories about how intentional states of the mind can be achieved that do not need a God as any part of their explanations.

Theories that indicate evolutionary mechanisms by which intentional states of mind may have been brought into existence have been put forward and they do not require any God as it's source.

If I ask you to use God ALONE and explain the origin, function and mechanism behind the intentional state of the mind you will NOT be able to do that. So why are you filling the gap with God and making unfounded assumptions about it?

This is not a rebuttal to what I posted . Please read again and stop the red herrings . Thank you .

hopefulLandlord:


check out how this person napalms that WLC argument http://bahnsenburner..com/2015/03/craigs-eight-arguments-for-god-part-vi.html?m%3D1&grqid=jeREDVEd&hl=en-NG

The writer presupposes that everything is made of matter and that consciousness is a biological function which requires objects then turns around to accuse someone of the same thing he did . Why are atheists inept at logic ?

KingEbukasBlog:


This is not a rebuttal to what I posted . Please read again and stop the red herrings . Thank you .

Why is it not a rebuttal and what is the red herring?

We have other theories that explain the origins of intentional states of consciousness that have nothing to do with God. So that destroys your argument that it points to any God. You can not even use God alone and explain anything about the origin of intentional states of consciousness, how it functions and the mechanism behind it.

I try always to cut your endless sophism and get to the real point. You guys always want dwell on endless philosophical rigmaroles that will allow you room to be dancing around boxing the air.

dalaman:


Just as believers believe in Jesus but don't know him.

Exactly.

KingEbukasBlog:


The writer presupposes that everything is made of matter and that consciousness is a biological function which requires objects then turns around to accuse someone of the same thing he did . Why are atheists inept at logic ?

Where is the logic in a believing that the creator of the universe sacrificed himself unto himself so that he can save humans from some elusive damnation?

dalaman:


Why is it not a rebuttal and what is the red herring?

We have other theories that explain the origins of intentional states of consciousness that have nothing to do with God.

The argument is an ontological one not based on epistemology i.e by the nature of intentional states of consciousness , not by its origin or how it came to be . Again , you don't understand the argument .

dalaman:


Where is the logic in a believing that the creator of the universe sacrificed himself unto himself so that he can save humans from some elusive damnation?

Red herrings whenever you are trying to catch your breath ... I understand sir

KingEbukasBlog:


The argument is an ontological one not based on epistemology i.e by the nature of intentional states of consciousness , not by its origin or how it came to be . Again , you don't understand the argument .

The argument is baseless. Since it has been shown/theorized that intentional states of consciousness can come from a source that is not God then any argument linking it to God is baseless.

ScepticalPyrrho:
True.

You can say you believe in Santa Claus but don't know him.

But in this case you speaking about acquaintance knowledge. I'm only speaking about propositional knowledge.

KingEbukasBlog:


The writer presupposes that everything is made of matter and that consciousness is a biological function which requires objects then turns around to accuse someone of the same thing he did . Why are atheists inept at logic ?

lol, what a strawman!

he never even presupposed anything, the only one presupposing was Craig lol, Why are theists comprehension ability so pathetic?

dalaman:


The argument is baseless. Since it has been shown/theorized that intentional states of consciousness can come from a source that is not God then any argument linking it to God is baseless.

Even after explain why mentioning source and origin is wrong because the argument is an ontological one , you still went ahead with it .

jimmyjenseng:

You're strawmanning me.

I'm not. I said it seems to me you implying that if one has knowledge one doesn’t have belief, something you seem to have said explicitly in your original post:

jimmyjenseng:
... Truth is, if god does exists, I wouldn't need to believe it; I'd have knowledge of it. Existence, with proof, doesn't require believe; it requires knowledge...

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to have known that by the above you meant "faith" when it's not mentioned anywhere in the post. And considering that I've seen many atheists contrast "belief" and knowledge in a similar way. I'm sure you have heard atheists say they don't believe in evolution, they accept it.

What I mean is: faith isn't knowledge.

No one claims it is.

Let me ask this: if you believe something to be true and it's true, does it matter if your believe is justified?

No, but we not talking about "truth." We talking about knowledge.

hopefulLandlord:


lol, what a strawman!

he never even presupposed anything, the only one presupposing was Craig lol, Why are theists comprehension ability so pathetic?

You do realize that I clearly mentioned the major presuppositions he made , right ?

hopefulLandlord:


lol, what a strawman!

he never even presupposed anything, the only one presupposing was Craig lol, Why are theists comprehension ability so pathetic?

He just gave a rebuttal without reading the link.

dalaman:


He just gave a rebuttal without reading the link.

I read it thats where I saw his presuppositions .

Haba sir ! Na wa o .

KingEbukasBlog:


I read it thats where I saw his presuppositions .

Haba sir ! Na wa o .

But he never presupposed anything na.

KingEbukasBlog:


Yeah , that's how to refute logical arguments - wrong , correct, therefore wrong . What a joke . Please don't embarrass yourself bro. Good night

You do know that your argument was the no better

1. Correct
2. Correct
3. Therefore correct!

dalaman:


He just gave a rebuttal without reading the link.

I don't believe a thinking person can read the article and claim the author presupposed at any point there, I think he just misconstrued some of the rebuttals by the author as claims on their own meanwhile all the author set out to do is show how fallacious the arguments are rather than making any claim of his own

budaatum:

You do know that your argument was the no better

1. Correct
2. Correct
3. Therefore correct!

He is expected to refute the premises of the argument . Please don't tell me you've joined them too in this silly thinking

hopefulLandlord:


I don't believe a thinking person can read the article and claim the author presupposed at any point there, I think he just misconstrued some of the rebuttals by the authors as claims on their own meanwhile all the author set out to do is show how fallacious the arguments are rather than making any claim of his own

I tire oo. That's why I said he didn't read it.

KingEbukasBlog:


You always dont have a good understanding of the argument before you start making baseless arguments and accusations.

KEB please take you fingers out of you ears and listen to yourself, if not others!

The gods are putting all the words at your fingertips but you still insist on not seeing any of them!

Emmanystone:

But, God said he did it, but, you, the scientist said it's a lie, so tell me how it came to be.

Really? Is it not truer that it is written in a book that god said he did it?

hopefulLandlord:


he said "he did it" is a claim NOT a proof

Not true!

It is written that he said he did it.

budaatum:
Not true!
It is written that he said he did it.

Lol