Modo9:
but there’s no evidence of god

KingEbukasBlog:


Thank you very much



I'm the judge . This is why atheists who are questioning my ability to reason are not actually smart themselves : Since I lack the ability to reason , then construct an argument that is above my purview and you win the money easily because I lack the intellectual ability to refute it .

But una no get sense na ... so I dey look una

budaatum:

No! No no no no! Goddamn man. How you show your own illogicality! Though, and at the expense of the atheist, you are logical in a rather comical sense.

Any atheist who allows you to be the judge of your ability to reason is not smart at all. Since you lack the ability to reason no argument constructed can be above your purview and so the money would never be won as part of your illogicality is the inability to see logic in anyone else's argument.

Its like say you commit a jail going crime and are brought before the judge who just happens to be yourself. How much jail time do you think you would give yourself if you could find yourself guilty in the first place?

My point is not so much that you "lack the intellectual ability to refute it". In fact, you do have the intellectual ability to refute it, but your refutation lacks rational and logic and is therefore in error and dishonest (as in, in my view, you actually know better).

KingEbukasBlog:


Ok.

So are you still interested in taking up the challenge ?

budaatum:

Sorry, no. I haven't the time to waste if you are to do the judging.

JackBizzle:
By far the dumbest thread of the year.
Cc Hahn dalaman

Ranchhoddas:
Who will be the judge?

KingEbukasBlog:


Honestly , because of how incredibly shallow and naively constructed these arguments are , I could give you the 100k to buy sense .

KingEbukasBlog:


Me ! If I can't refute the argument then you win . Info is in the OP . It's a very simple task . Goodluck if you are interested !

Ranchhoddas:
What guarantees do we have that will agree with a superior argument if such was presented?

How would you even recognize it?

butterflyl1on:
-

Dohgon:
1) Why a “God” does not exist

A god in the sense that man describes (he/she/it) does not exist. There is no way to prove his physical existence because even in the bible he never revealed himself to the Hebrews. Man can only describe their so-called god by his non-physical influence on them. Even so, god as described by popular religion is unbecoming of an intelligent entity simply because his character has more flaws than that of a human.

He is jealous. The bible describes the Hebrews (Jews) as his people yet every time they disobey his rules he turned his back against them leaving them to get killed, and enslaved.

He is unethical. He does not care for the starving and suffering masses. Likewise, the deformed, lame, or ugly.

He is cruel. He alone is responsible for wickedness as explained in Job. Lucifer can do nothing without his permission and even if he doesn’t know about Lucifer’s wickedness on Earth, he knows Lucifer’s character yet he allows him to be and do evil.

I could go on but the point is clear, God has human characteristics because he is a creation of man. He is a figment of man’s imagination.

2) I am one who believes that the universe is a single intelligence. Furthermore, my definition of universe is 99% abstract (Energy). To speak of something as substantial is almost illogical like saying; my thoughts are real when you cant see, hear, or feel them. Religion simply attempts to describe that intelligence but in their imagination they always need a (Host), an anthropomorphic representation of their beliefs and morals.

KingEbukasBlog:


This has been refuted so many times on this forum . And God having human characteristics is called anthropomorphism and the writers of the bible used it so as make God comprehensible to a human reader . Deists like Xenophanes criticised the use of anthropomorphism in religious texts.

Deism also rejects divine revelation or manifestation from God . So impugning God's revelation of Itself to humans isn't really questioning His existence.

In maltheism/dystheism , God is an evil being or not totally a good being like other types of theism portray him to be .

We have rationalism as a means of obtaining knowledge of things we can't perceive through reason - and this admits empiricism is fallible and limited since our sensory experience only dwells on the physical. Though one can make use of both rationalism and empiricism to obtain knowledge Eg The Cosmological Argument for God's existence allows both empirical evidence and reason through deduction to attain the corollary which is the affirmation of the existence of God

God has morally sufficient reasons why he permits evil mainly because of freewill . Every moral agent has the ability to do things on their volition and so if God permits evil , it could because of the expression of freewill . That's why we moral laws that help us freely choose to do good not evil . Evil itself is evidence for God . Why ? Because evil is a departure from good and since God is good , evil is contrary to Its nature .






The emboldened text has been the foundation for many good arguments for God's existence .

1. Mental states are non-physical , your thoughts can't be felt or touched like you clearly . And the only logical explanation for an non-physical state is that a non-physical ultimate mind(God) exists. Material objects like your chair , table , don't experience mental states only minds do . And our thoughts could be about something else (intentionality) Eg I can think of the battle in 1800s between the Zulu warriors and British soldiers who where about 1400 were decimated. And we have a fine argument that through deduction points to the existence of God . Here is the syllogistic form :

1. If God does not exist , intentional states of consciousness do not exist .

2. Intentional states of consciousness exist

3. Therefore, God exists

From premise 1 , materialists deny the existence of intentional states of consciousness. And if intentional states of consciousness do not exist , then a non-physical ultimate mind which is the reason for such experience do not exist

From premise 2 , you are agree that intentional states of consciousness exists by admitting that thoughts are non-physical

Then the obvious conclusion is to affirm the existence of God .



2. In the idealist's world , our thoughts are basically what form our reality . And our ideas mostly are simply of what what we perceive and this includes objects : chairs , tables, etc . So here is an argument in defence of this stance

1. We perceive ordinary objects

2. We perceive ideas

3. Therefore , ordinary objects are ideas.

Don't forget ideas are mind-dependent. You need a mind to elicit ideas . And this is the basis of George Berkeley 's Esse Est Percipi - to be is to be perceived. If we go further , he addresses how this conclusion that objects are ideas prove the existence of an ultimate mind or an ultimate perceiver of things(God) - the reason why objects (which are ideas ) exist even though our finite minds are not there to perceive them .

This is how we use reason and sensory experience to obtain knowledge of things beyond our our sensory experience .

butterflyl1on:


You killed his argument, revived it and killed it again just for fun.

This is a response not just to his comment but to all other arguments that may arise. Na die dem dey o.

KingEbukasBlog:


... thank you Sir

They don't know what awaits them

All of them claiming atheism is logical have now been given an opportunity to show how tenable atheist arguments are . See them running away now and some asking God to send email to prove his existence . I guess God@yahoo.com would be the email address. Bunch of jokers !

CoolUsername:
Who's giving out the money? You?

KingEbukasBlog:


Yeah

CoolUsername:

I suddenly have a feeling that this challenge is a scam.

Dohgon:
Killed who??

1)Your rebuttal argument is a catch 22. It asserts that a god may or may not exist but man is too mentally limited to comprehend its motives and intentions. Lets say we play by the rules of religion

The objective of religion is to obey the will of god. The best example of this is Adam and Eve. He gave them freewill but put temptations in their path. Why? There is no logical reason for this having already done so in the creation of his Angels.

2) As I said, intelligence needs no host (catch 22) again. Limited logic and perception that Electro-magnetic energy cannot exist unless created by a separate thing. How was the universe created? Electro-magnetic energy. The only dispute is by what means, a big bang or the hand of an illusionart man-like being. Intelligence is the creator but it has nothing to do with how any religion describes it.

KingEbukasBlog:


This has been refuted so many times on this forum . And God having human characteristics is called anthropomorphism and the writers of the bible used it so as make God comprehensible to a human reader . Deists like Xenophanes criticised the use of anthropomorphism in religious texts.

Deism also rejects divine revelation or manifestation from God . So impugning God's revelation of Itself to humans isn't really questioning His existence.

In maltheism/dystheism , God is an evil being or not totally a good being like other types of theism portray him to be .

We have rationalism as a means of obtaining knowledge of things we can't perceive through reason - and this admits empiricism is fallible and limited since our sensory experience only dwells on the physical. Though one can make use of both rationalism and empiricism to obtain knowledge Eg The Cosmological Argument for God's existence allows both empirical evidence and reason through deduction to attain the corollary which is the affirmation of the existence of God

God has morally sufficient reasons why he permits evil mainly because of freewill . Every moral agent has the ability to do things on their volition and so if God permits evil , it could because of the expression of freewill . That's why we moral laws that help us freely choose to do good not evil . Evil itself is evidence for God . Why ? Because evil is a departure from good and since God (the epitome of moral goodness) is good , evil is contrary to Its nature .


In positive deism, God gives man reason to figure out or discover Its nature . So saying that man expressing this God-given ability to ascertain Its nature is proof that God is a figment of our imagination is ridiculous .




The emboldened text has been the foundation for many good arguments for God's existence .

1. Mental states are non-physical , your thoughts can't be felt or touched like you clearly said . And the only logical explanation for an non-physical state is that a non-physical ultimate mind(God) exists. Material objects like your chair , table , don't experience mental states only minds do . And our thoughts could be about something else (intentionality) Eg I can think of the battle in the 1800s between the Zulu warriors and the British soldiers who were about 1400 were decimated. And we have a fine argument that through deduction points to the existence of God . Here is the syllogistic form :

1. If God does not exist , intentional states of consciousness do not exist .

2. Intentional states of consciousness exist

3. Therefore, God exists

From premise 1 , materialists deny the existence of intentional states of consciousness. And if intentional states of consciousness do not exist , then a non-physical ultimate mind which is the reason for such nature and experience do not exist

From premise 2 , you agree that intentional states of consciousness exist by admitting that thoughts are non-physical

Then the obvious conclusion is to affirm the existence of God .



2. In the idealist's world , our thoughts are basically what form our reality . And our ideas mostly are simply of what what we perceive and this includes objects : chairs , tables, etc . So here is an argument in defence of this stance

1. We perceive ordinary objects

2. We perceive ideas

3. Therefore , ordinary objects are ideas.

Don't forget ideas are mind-dependent. You need a mind to elicit ideas . And this is the basis of George Berkeley 's Esse Est Percipi - to be is to be perceived. If we should go further , he addresses how this conclusion that objects are ideas prove the existence of an ultimate mind or an ultimate perceiver of things(God) - the reason why objects (which are ideas ) exist even though our finite minds are not there to perceive them .

This is how we use reason and sensory experience to obtain knowledge of things beyond our our sensory experience .

ScienceWatch:
Wow ! The King has done it again. His elegant rebuttal deserves a standing ovation from all wise persons.I am certain that Butterfly1on can design an award for the highly esteemed Nairalander Kingebukasblog and post it to all relevant topics.

I have taken the liberty of emailing the King's comments to two hundred including Atheists on my mailing list and my inbox is viral man.

May the King stay strong. More grease to his elbows !!

dammyloye:
coming, this is not an exam....it's an argument, normally I would drop points but what ever I say to you will be null because you are a religionist.
you also can't show proof of a God's existence

ScienceWatch:
Wow ! The King has done it again. His elegant rebuttal deserves a standing ovation from all wise persons.I am certain that Butterfly1on can design an award for the highly esteemed Nairalander Kingebukasblog and post it to all relevant topics.

I have taken the liberty of emailing the King's comments to two hundred including Atheists on my mailing list and my inbox is viral man.

May the King stay strong. More grease to his elbows !!

Tozara:
Lol. Those were very obvious charateristics of his. It's no surprise that I share your opinion of his person.

Tozara:
Lol. I believe you to be intellectually penurious and materially destitute, so giving the prize to the winner of this challenge would be a CHALLENGE even for you. Because:

1. You do not have the intellectual muscles to perceive rationality, even when it's leading a band before you and performing the music of reason. So, how can you know whether someone has crushed your challenges or not?

2. I don't think you can afford the prize for crushing your arguments that are as weak and watery as your *****, so this is nothing but an avenue for entertaining yourself because you're bored.

CONCLUSION: Gerrarahere, Ebuka. And go and preach the Gospel to the gullible.

ScienceWatch:
Aka TOZARA, hey fuckface, are you still DAZZLING VAGINAS with your tiny tiny WEENY?

Your pretentious language is your downfall Sir, DID you know that Kingebukasblog can easily pay for your operation to finally do that much needed penal enlargement?

Are you using many monikers to compensate for your tiny tiny WEENY and erectile dysfunction?

You are also a self proclaimed Catholic Atheist now here is your chance to Fuckin win the money to pay for your operation.

KingEbukasBlog:


Hehehehehe