Butterflyleo:
Also OP so we do not forget why this debate was set up. It was because you said the below on another thread.




And I responded thus


You now said



And I responded


So while we are here and debating I still would like to see the evidence you have for the non existence of gods or God.

Empirical - based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Let me face some of your points.
1. Mathematical truths. 1+1 = 2. This is self explanatory. One shoe set beside another shoe is two shoes.

2. Metaphysics - the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, identity, time, and space. - these things can be observed based on the definition of empirical. We observe time pass everyday..

3. Ethical truths - WHAT IS AN ETHICAL TRUTH?? what i may consider unethical may be fine by you. So answer that first.

4. Aesthetic truths - this, i assume, has to do with appreciation of beauty. this falls under the category of observation. We can observe and experience beauty around us. However, it is relative. What you find beautiful may not be beautiful to me.

5. How is science based on assumptions that can't be proven? Is the law of gravity an assumption? or the law of thermodynamics?

6. The existence of the universe - the big bang theory. If you have heard of CERN, you'll prolly have heard of the Large Hadron Collider that was used to discover the higgs boson. It is proof that matter can indeed be created from the collision of atoms.

8. Existence of scientific laws - refer to 5.
the laws were named by the discoverers at the time and they can be put to test now, tomorrow or next millennium. Science has never claimed perfection.. there was a time when some astrologers believed that man would never be able to study the stars closely... look where we are today. there are over 170 discovered solar planets orbiting over 140 stars... and these exclude the ones too small to be picked up by our most advanced telescopes.

9. the existence of the conscious mind.. i'll assume you mean self awareness. Answer me this.. are you unable to grasp your feelings and thoughts? If you aren't unable to, that simply means you are self aware.. you are conscious.

10. Explain this further.

11. Love, happiness, sadness are all emotions. Abstract concepts. They fall under the powers of observation. We can tell when other people are happy or sad because they exhibit behaviors akin to what we also exhibit when we experience those emotions. When you see a man crying, from his grimace, you can tell if they are tears of joy or tears of sorrow. These are observable concepts.

12. I'm going to assume you mean choice. Choices are influenced by a host of uncountable factors. But some of these factors can be experimented on.
I put it to you that a large majority of people living in rented apartments will either move to bigger houses or buy/build their own houses in the event that they win a lottery of a billion dollars.
I also put it to you that based on a social experiment i personally carried out, that given the option, 90% of people will press a button that will press a button that will award them with instant riches with the precondition that a random person they don't know and may never will die.

Butterflyleo:


You are beginning to drift.

Your OP says religious gods do not exist.
And I just showed you that they exist. If they are dead or not is inconsequential. They existed before and still exist in the minds of their followers as gods.

Religion is defined thus



And the list I gave you are worshipped and personal gods.

So they exist.

don't play mind games. you know very well what i mean.

and if u claim you don't, let me clarify.. i am referring to the god/gods worshiped as creator and benevolent father by all the different religions.

I also mentioned inconsistencies in nature and in man..which i addressed in that post

author=DeLioncourt post=66851708]

first of all, these people you have mentioned are dead. that they are worshiped doesn't make them gods. they existed at some point but they don't exist now. And i mean exist in a physical sense because these people were human

.

Already addressed

One of the arguments for the existence of god is intelligent design.
The question is, are we really an intelligent design?
Have you ever played a game where you play god? Games like sims... when playing such games, you have the opportunity to design your sims to your taste.
A huge majority of first time players design their sims to perfection. Some go as far as using game cheats to give their sims wealth, happiness, immunity from illness, to name a few. That sounds more like intelligent design to me.

Perception is everything. What you call perfection can be seen as imperfection by another. Wealth does not imply perfection. Happiness is relative, immunity from illness isn't also perfection but could be better as a process to perfection. For example every organism is dynamic so its better to naturally develop immunity to such organisms than to outrightly become immune otherwise other organisms who may also be beneficial to us though also sickness bearers would cease being beneficial to us. E.g there are bacteria that are beneficial to us and can also be harmful e.g E. coli. Streptomyces and Rhizobium.

Creationism says god created the world and everything in it.
Let's look at the earth first.
Natural disasters have plagued the world since time immemorial. I know your pitiful defense will be that god designed it that way. Was his design to take human life that he created? Earthquakes, flash floods, hurricanes...have consumed countless lives. Disasters that serve no purpose. To what end? Since the bible says that nothing happens without god's permission, does that mean that a loving god that sent his son to die for his creations cannot will those disasters away? or is he a sadist that enjoys watching his creation die? or does he have no control over the events on earth?

As I said earlier on the other thread. What I see is cooperation and not what you see. I have touched on natural disasters elsewhere on nairaland and here it is

Yes it's a genius plan because what you call natural disasters are only seen as so when they affect man but to the planet it's a glorious occurrence.

These are ways what you call natural disasters benefit the planet.

1. earthquakes can fertilize the earth by helping us grow plants. (plants that man benefits from and depends on)

2. Earthquakes cause a shift in the arrangement of rock forms, mineral and ore deposits, and tectonic plates. As a result of these shifts, certain portions of earth may be sucked down into the ground, and other portions may be pushed up to the surface. Earthquakes commonly force mineral and metal-rich deposits close to or above the surface, making them easier to mine and collect (still beneficial to man)

3. Similarly, shifting plates may make fossil fuels, like petroleum and natural gas, easier to access. In fact, though earthquakes often occur naturally, human activity can encourage a seismic event. Drilling for fossil fuels can cause minor earthquakes. Terrestrial shifts and drilling have a delicate relationship, with one often dramatically affecting the other. An earthquake may make a previously unknown pocket of natural resources evident. (still beneficial to man)

4. Tectonic plate shifts and earthquakes are part of the planet's natural geologic cycle. Rock and soil are constantly pulled down into the molten layers of the planet as other molten materials move toward the surface, break through and harden. The planet constantly recycles itself to sustain life and adjust to changes on the surface. Earthquakes are one process that allows the planet to maintain a life-sustaining balance (still beneficial to man)

5. tsunamis help re establish our eco system in an amazing way (still beneficial to man)

6. For volcanoes, after a volcanic eruption, the soil becomes rich due to the nutrients from the volcano. Precious stones and gems that were once deep within the earth are brought to the earth's surface and will contribute greatly to the economy of the country. Some valuable emissions from volcanoes are pumice, opal, gold, mercury, and metals. It also releases good chemicals into the atmosphere. Chemicals such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen that contributes to the water cycle. (still beneficial to man)

So you see that what you call disasters are not really so when looked at objectively. We cannot make an omelette without breaking a few eggs can we?

The best recycling system ever designed was the planet earth and anyone with a jot of intelligence would see that it does not just behave the way it does by chance but it behaves so deliberately for our sake because when the earth dies, so would the people on it. So the earth with all you call disasters are what is keeping you alive

Let's look at man. god apparently said "lets make man in our own image and likeness". (the meaning of this has been open to debate) but I am inclined to believe that he was being literal since the god of the old testament was not known for metaphors.
Man, without his tools and weapons, is one of the weakest creations. The american field ant can withstand pressure up too 5000 times its body weight...lol. the largest known deadweight lift by a man is 500kg.
The eyes of man are not even the best in the business... cats and ospreys have it wayyyy better. Our nose and ability to smell? Even rats do better. How about our hearing? Cats, rats, dogs have it better.
We are one of the slowest creatures. the fastest man runs at about 27kmh... rhinos go at 50.. dogs at 64.. horses at 40... lol. cats are even faster at 48kmh.
We are susceptible to sickness, heat, cold, injuries... our skin is easily broken... we have totally useless parts. the appendix, the tailbone..

The God you are now referring to is Yahweh despite your OP not stating so.

Anyway regarding Yahweh the bible says he is a spirit and spirit begets spirit so he was not being literal. He meant a spiritual image of himself and his attributes. This is the origin of soul and spirit. There is a different, more alive us in this shell known as a body. So basing this on strength and heat and cold is useless because because that is your perception which is entirely flawed.

Your child must be like you PHYSICALLY because you are a Physical being. God is a spirit and the bible says that He that is of the flesh is flesh but he that is of the spirit is spirit. This means he that is FROM the flesh is flesh while he that is FROM the spirit is spirit. A mango tree cannot bring forth pawpaw. I hope you get this clearly.

Again, your argument will be that we are yet to understand the purposes of those useless parts.

This isn't intelligent design. It is evolution.

Do stay on the side of your argument and do not try to speak for me. I can do so myself thank you very much.

The appendix is not useless it is designed to protect good bacteria in the gut. That way, when the gut is affected by a bout of diarrhea or other illness that cleans out the intestines, the good bacteria in the appendix can repopulate the digestive system and keep you healthy.

Also the tailbone or the coccyx serves as an attachment site for tendons, ligaments, and muscles. It also functions as an insertion point of some of the muscles of the pelvic floor. The coccyx also functions to support and stabilize a person while he or she is in a sitting position.

They are not useless. You are sadly misinformed.

Butterflyleo:
.

Already addressed



Perception is everything. What you call perfection can be seen as imperfection by another. Wealth does not imply perfection. Happiness is relative, immunity from illness isn't also perfection but could be better as a process to perfection. For example every organism is dynamic so its better to naturally develop immunity to such organisms than to outrightly become immune otherwise other organisms who may also be beneficial to us though also sickness bearers would cease being beneficial to us. E.g there are bacteria that are beneficial to us and can also be harmful e.g E. coli. Streptomyces and Rhizobium.



As I said earlier on the other thread. What I see is cooperation and not what you see. I have touched on natural disasters elsewhere on nairaland and here it is









The God you are now referring to is Yahweh despite your OP not stating so.

Anyway regarding Yahweh the bible says he is a spirit and spirit begets spirit so he was not being literal. He meant a spiritual image of himself and his attributes. This is the origin of soul and spirit. There is a different, more alive us in this shell known as a body. So basing this on strength and heat and cold is useless because because that is your perception which is entirely flawed.

Your child must be like you PHYSICALLY because you are a Physical being. God is a spirit and the bible says that He that is of the flesh is flesh but he that is of the spirit is spirit. This means he that is FROM the flesh is flesh while he that is FROM the spirit is spirit. A mango tree cannot bring forth pawpaw. I hope you get this clearly.



Do stay on the side of your argument and do not try to speak for me. I can do so myself thank you very much.

The appendix is not useless it is designed to protect good bacteria in the gut. That way, when the gut is affected by a bout of diarrhea or other illness that cleans out the intestines, the good bacteria in the appendix can repopulate the digestive system and keep you healthy.

Also the tailbone or the coccyx serves as an attachment site for tendons, ligaments, and muscles. It also functions as an insertion point of some of the muscles of the pelvic floor. The coccyx also functions to support and stabilize a person while he or she is in a sitting position.

They are not useless. You are sadly misinformed.

Surely, an all powerful god can re-arrange rocks, nourish the earth, re-establish the ecosystem, and bring forth hidden precious stones without directly threatening human life.

Of course you'd say he was being metaphorical. Whence did he get the design for the human body? You still haven't defended the mediocrity of the human body when compared to other animals in the ecosystem.

As for the appendix and the tailbone..lol. i can see you just googled them. fair enough.
what purpose does the Plica semilunaris (third eyelid) serve? or the darwin's tubercule.. or even the hair on our skins... cos it obviously doesn't protect us from cold or heat.. or the wisdom teeth that appears in some people and not in others..

And what say you about the malformed children born after the bombing of hiroshima? why didn't god prevent them from suffering something they had no part of?
Surely, god could have saved them the suffering and prevent them from being born at all...or at least being born without deformity..

author=DeLioncourt post=66852382]

Empirical - based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Let me face some of your points.
1. Mathematical truths. 1+1 = 2. This is self explanatory. One shoe set beside another shoe is two shoes.

Mathematics is regarded as an abstract it is not real. We apply it to real situations but as an abstract it can be anything. A clear example follows thus

1 ball of clay + 1 ball of clay= 1 ball of clay (because they would be mixed together and form only one big ball)

1 pair of shoes + 1 pair of shoes= 4 shoes (notice that because we are not referring directly to math, the answer can be seen directly as a practical application but ad a math language 1 + 1 does not always result to 2.

2. Metaphysics - the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, identity, time, and space. - these things can be observed based on the definition of empirical. We observe time pass everyday..

Observation does not explain or prove it. Empirical Proof is a different thing. Science cannot prove philosophy because philosophy is not science.

3. Ethical truths - WHAT IS AN ETHICAL TRUTH?? what i may consider unethical may be fine by you. So answer that first

From Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Plato believed that a man could only become good by knowing the truth, and he could not know the truth without being good. This is a quagmire and unprovable scientifically because it is a philosophy. Also an ethical truth is seen at play for example in the case of Hitler and his Jewish annihilation. Some still see it as a good thing while others don't. This is a problem for science because people follow many different ethical codes and moral beliefs.

4. Aesthetic truths - this, i assume, has to do with appreciation of beauty. this falls under the category of observation. We can observe and experience beauty around us. However, it is relative. What you find beautiful may not be beautiful to me.

Beauty is relative. What is beautiful to you may not be so for me. Example is right on this thread. You see natural disasters as problematic and ugly and I see it as purposeful and beautiful to observe as a giant recycling plant.

5. How is science based on assumptions that can't be proven? Is the law of gravity an assumption? or the law of thermodynamics?

Science cannot prove itself yet it exists. It can prove other physical things but not itself.

6. The existence of the universe - the big bang theory. If you have heard of CERN, you'll prolly have heard of the Large Hadron Collider that was used to discover the higgs boson. It is proof that matter can indeed be created from the collision of atoms.

Yet is still faced with a low mass problem and isn't sufficient to explain the alleged big bang.

8. Existence of scientific laws - refer to 5.
the laws were named by the discoverers at the time and they can be put to test now, tomorrow or next millennium. Science has never claimed perfection.. there was a time when some astrologers believed that man would never be able to study the stars closely... look where we are today. there are over 170 discovered solar planets orbiting over 140 stars... and these exclude the ones too small to be picked up by our most advanced telescopes.

Scientific laws came about after they have been shown to be true with empirical evidence. Science does not create these laws. They simply discovered these laws and these laws and named them. They have been shown to cooperate with man in many ways even before they were discovered.

9. the existence of the conscious mind.. i'll assume you mean self awareness. Answer me this.. are you unable to grasp your feelings and thoughts? If you aren't unable to, that simply means you are self aware.. you are conscious

Self awareness itself is not explainable or provable. At what point does this begin? Thoughts themselves are not explainable because they are not always straight but can be disorderly so arrive at no conclusion.

10. Explain this further.

11. Love, happiness, sadness are all emotions. Abstract concepts. They fall under the powers of observation. We can tell when other people are happy or sad because they exhibit behaviors akin to what we also exhibit when we experience those emotions. When you see a man crying, from his grimace, you can tell if they are tears of joy or tears of sorrow. These are observable concepts.

They are abstract. Think about it.

12. I'm going to assume you mean choice. Choices are influenced by a host of uncountable factors. But some of these factors can be experimented on.
I put it to you that a large majority of people living in rented apartments will either move to bigger houses or buy/build their own houses in the event that they win a lottery of a billion dollars.
I also put it to you that based on a social experiment i personally carried out, that given the option, 90% of people will press a button that will press a button that will award them with instant riches with the precondition that a random person they don't know and may never will die.

As long as there remains people who are extremely happy even in their poor situations that makes your claims non testable or empirically provable as a universal truth by science.
Many also abhor wealth and see it as a door for too many vices and would rather choose contentment over wealth.

author=DeLioncourt post=66852931]

Surely, an all powerful god can re-arrange rocks, nourish the earth, re-establish the ecosystem, and bring forth hidden precious stones without directly threatening human life.

An all powerful God would design a self working self cleansing system such as we have today. Even man is now borrowing from what they call natural disasters. Man is now advocating for recycling. Something they observed in nature (despite claiming it is a natural disaster). I suppose they also saw the good side of it.

Of course you'd say he was being metaphorical. Whence did he get the design for the human body? You still haven't defended the mediocrity of the human body when compared to other animals in the ecosystem

There is no mediocrity in humans. We are top of the food chain. How can that be mediocrity? If we are not fast we device means of compensating. What others cannot do. We develop cures for illnesses what others cannot do. We develop things that aid any area of our supposed deficiency and by so doing, also unconsciously develop other areas of human existence technology wise as one technology somehow always borrows from the next. Its a unique and very good chain reaction..

As for the appendix and the tailbone..lol. i can see you just googled them. fair enough.
what purpose does the Plica semilunaris (third eyelid) serve? or the darwin's tubercule.. or even the hair on our skins... cos it obviously doesn't protect us from cold or heat.. or the wisdom teeth that appears in some people and not in others.

Well a simple google search should have been done by you in order to save yourself the embarrassment of posting a wrong information.
The purpose of the third eyelid is to provide additional protection to the eye and cornea, and also spreads tears across the eyeball surface. Also the Darwin's tubercle even though not quite known what its for does not mean it has no function. Same way they once thought the appendix was vestigial.
The hair on your skin helps in several ways including protection, regulation of body temperature, and facilitation of evaporation of perspiration. Your skin hairs also act as sense organs. Wisdom teeth is simply a dietary issue.

And what say you about the malformed children born after the bombing of hiroshima? why didn't god prevent them from suffering something they had no part of?
Surely, god could have saved them the suffering and prevent them from being born at all...or at least being born without deformity..

In the other thread I showed you how man is inherently wicked and proud and thirsty for conquest and how we fail to.learn from our past. Man is responsible for what you are referring to and not God. The earth holds all we need to be prosperous and good people devoid of greed but no human wishes to stop and consider this. We always want more even at the detriment of others.

Deformities can serve as a lesson to us all on the things we did wrong to cause it (if we choose to learn).

[img]https://s1/images/MuttMJpopcorn.gif[/img]
So exciting...
I am going to need more popcorn

Butterflyleo:


Mathematics is regarded as an abstract it is not real. We apply it to real situations but as an abstract it can be anything. A clear example follows thus

1 ball of clay + 1 ball of clay= 1 ball of clay (because they would be mixed together and form only one big ball)

1 pair of shoes + 1 pair of shoes= 4 shoes (notice that because we are not referring directly to math, the answer can be seen directly as a practical application but ad a math language 1 + 1 does not always result to 2.



Observation does not explain or prove it. Empirical Proof is a different thing. Science cannot prove philosophy because philosophy is not science.



From Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Plato believed that a man could only become good by knowing the truth, and he could not know the truth without being good. This is a quagmire and unprovable scientifically because it is a philosophy. Also an ethical truth is seen at play for example in the case of Hitler and his Jewish annihilation. Some still see it as a good thing while others don't. This is a problem for science because people follow many different ethical codes and moral beliefs.



Beauty is relative. What is beautiful to you may not be so for me. Example is right on this thread. You see natural disasters as problematic and ugly and I see it as purposeful and beautiful to observe as a giant recycling plant.



Science cannot prove itself yet it exists. It can prove other physical things but not itself.



Yet is still faced with a low mass problem and isn't sufficient to explain the alleged big bang.



Scientific laws came about after they have been shown to be true with empirical evidence. Science does not create these laws. They simply discovered these laws and these laws and named them. They have been shown to cooperate with man in many ways even before they were discovered.



Self awareness itself is not explainable or provable. At what point does this begin? Thoughts themselves are not explainable because they are not always straight but can be disorderly so arrive at no conclusion.



They are abstract. Think about it.



As long as there remains people who are extremely happy even in their poor situations that makes your claims non testable or empirically provable as a universal truth by science.
Many also abhor wealth and see it as a door for too many vices and would rather choose contentment over wealth.

Your ball of clay example is simple multplication.
We all know that a pair of shoes refers to 2 individual shoes. Adding them to another pair and then rendering the answer in individual terms is just you trying to be smart. 1 pair of shoes + 1 pair of shoes = 2 pairs of shoes.

Observation is a part of empirical proof...observation is a scientific methodology.
When you put a culture of skin eating bacteria on a cadaver, you OBSERVE their behavior. That is scientific methodology.
Observation explains behavior and phenomenon.

Like I stated, science has never boasted perfection. That a scientific law or experiment had exceptions doesn't make it false.
Some people remain happy even in penury does not change the fact that a majority of people would be happy.
That some people choose to avoid wealth doesn't change the fact that a majority of people will choose riches even at the expense of another person.

Most of the things you requested scientific proof for can be subjected to observation and social experiments to produce definitive results.

The existence of god however, cannot be proven except thru blind Faith, pointless infinite regresses, and several vacous arguments that have come up across centuries.

Butterflyleo:


An all powerful God would design a self working self cleansing system such as we have today. Even man is now borrowing from what they call natural disasters. Man is now advocating for recycling. Something they observed in nature (despite claiming it is a natural disaster). I suppose they also saw the good side of it.



There is no mediocrity in humans. We are top of the food chain. How can that be mediocrity? If we are not fast we device means of compensating. What others cannot do. We develop cures for illnesses what others cannot do. We develop things that aid any area of our supposed deficiency and by so doing, also unconsciously develop other areas of human existence technology wise as one technology somehow always borrows from the next. Its a unique and very good chain reaction..



Well a simple google search should have been done by you in order to save yourself the embarrassment of posting a wrong information.
The purpose of the third eyelid is to provide additional protection to the eye and cornea, and also spreads tears across the eyeball surface. Also the Darwin's tubercle even though not quite known what its for does not mean it has no function. Same way they once thought the appendix was vestigial.
The hair on your skin helps in several ways including protection, regulation of body temperature, and facilitation of evaporation of perspiration. Your skin hairs also act as sense organs. Wisdom teeth is simply a dietary issue.



In the other thread I showed you how man is inherently wicked and proud and thirsty for conquest and how we fail to.learn from our past. Man is responsible for what you are referring to and not God. The earth holds all we need to be prosperous and good people devoid of greed but no human wishes to stop and consider this. We always want more even at the detriment of others.

Deformities can serve as a lesson to us all on the things we did wrong to cause it (if we choose to learn).

So, god's self-cleansing system has to involve the suffering and in most cases, death of the creations he claims to love? How malevolent.
Couldn't he have designed the system in such a way that man doesn't get harmed? Or is he not smart enough to figure a way?

Man is at the top of the food chain because we have been able to evolve and develop tools to put ourselves there. Do you think man was always at the top of the food chain? Without our evolution, we would be akin to grasscutters and puny sewer rats.

The hair is not a sense organ. When your hair gets burnt you don't feel it until the heat or flames get to your skin. The hair does no regulate body temperature. Homeostasis does. The hair does not facilitate evaporation of pespiration in any way. The third eyelid does nothing to protect the cornea.
Wisdom teeth is a dietary issue? Lol. A Google search would save you further embarrassment.

Since the beginning of time, man has been responsible for the destruction of man. Except where natural disasters are involved.
However, a benevolet god would not punish children for the sins of generations before them... Oh wait... Your God would... He even says it in the Bible. He would punish children and generations after them for the sins of their parents. Sounds more like a devil to me.

A loving god that went as far as sending his own son to the slaughter would should be nice enough to prevent children from suffering for what they had no hand in... If only he existed.

Deformities can serve as a lesson to who? The parents who will eventually die off and leave the child to face the consequences of their actions alone?
Why not punish the wrongdoers like he did Uzzah when he disobeyed and touched the ark?

A god that is claimed to never change... Can no longer perform the miracles that the old testament claimed he could? Making the sun stand still and pouring down fire from the heavens to smite his enemies (who btw are men that he created). Lol. So petty.

It's obvious that this god you believe in was created by angry, hateful, spiteful, misogynistic, control freaks.
The same God that created women and inflicted upon them 3 to 5 days of bleeding every month and proceeded to brand them as unclean when they bleed as he designed them to... god is a sham.

author=DeLioncourt post=66855615]

Your ball of clay example is simple multplication.
We all know that a pair of shoes refers to 2 individual shoes. Adding them to another pair and then rendering the answer in individual terms is just you trying to be smart. 1 pair of shoes + 1 pair of shoes = 2 pairs of shoes.

I don't know how you arrived at my ball of clay addition to be a multiplication. When you take 1 river and another river and bring them together do you have 2 rivers? When you take one cup of tea and add to to another cup of tea do you have 2 cups of tea or one much bigger cup of tea?

I repeat when you have a practical example you can have 1+1 to be 2 but in mathematics as an abstract this is not so.

Observation is a part of empirical proof...observation is a scientific methodology.
When you put a culture of skin eating bacteria on a cadaver, you OBSERVE their behavior. That is scientific methodology.
Observation explains behavior and phenomenon

Observation is not necessarily proof. Proof is testable and not just observable. When you bring both testability and observation together then you have a scientific foundation but dealing with observation alone is not scientific..

Like I stated, science has never boasted perfection. That a scientific law or experiment had exceptions doesn't make it false.
Some people remain happy even in penury does not change the fact that a majority of people would be happy.
That some people choose to avoid wealth doesn't change the fact that a majority of people will choose riches even at the expense of another person.

Science itself can never be perfect because it always renders itself obsolete. A new discovery renders the past scientific truth useless. Majority does not mean ALL and for anything to be a scientific law it must be proven to be a constant and universally acceptable so when a minority still do not subscribe to your riches and not contentment angle then it is not scientifically provable.

Most of the things you requested scientific proof for can be subjected to observation and social experiments to produce definitive results.

Refer to the above.

The existence of god however, cannot be proven except thru blind Faith, pointless infinite regresses, and several vacous arguments that have come up across centuries

.

First of all there is no such as an infinite regress. Science annuls it.

Second of all you claimed to have proof of the non existence of god or by extension God and I am still waiting to read it. I did not call you out because I wanted to prove God exists I called you out because you said you have proof of his non existence which is the reason for this debate. May I have those "tedious" proofs now please?

DeLioncourt:
Surely, an all powerful god can re-arrange rocks, nourish the earth, re-establish the ecosystem,
and bring forth hidden precious stones without directly threatening human life

Butterflyleo:
An all powerful God would design a self working self cleansing system such as we have today.
Even man is now borrowing from what they call natural disasters.
Man is now advocating for recycling.
Something they observed in nature (despite claiming it is a natural disaster).
I suppose they also saw the good side of it.

I dont pay for plastic bags as some will do but recycle ones I have

Nice to know, Man is everyday taking wise decisions, as Commonwealth leaders are now being urged to tackle plastic.
Earlier this week, British PM, Theresa May announced the new Clean Oceans Alliance
- an agreement between the UK, Vanuatu, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and Ghana,
which pledged to ban microbeads cosmetics and cut plastic bag use by 2021 waste.
Why is Nigeria missing in that agreement?

Sorry for posting without invitation
but I so detest sachet pure water, thats so popular and present or found everywhere
There is a strong need to put an end to the evil plastic causes

Apparently the use of non-biodegradable polythene bags is prohibited in Rwanda.
You heard right, use of plastic carrier bags are totally banned in Rwanda

author=DeLioncourt post=66856052]

So, god's self-cleansing system has to involve the suffering and in most cases, death of the creations he claims to love? How malevolent.
Couldn't he have designed the system in such a way that man doesn't get harmed? Or is he not smart enough to figure a way?

Death is a part of life. Love does not negate death. You probably love eating beef do you have any qualms when you kill a chicken or a goat? Or do you have a problem when you plant corn and the corn has to first die before it becomes a new plant with much more corn?

Man is at the top of the food chain because we have been able to evolve and develop tools to put ourselves there. Do you think man was always at the top of the food chain? Without our evolution, we would be akin to grasscutters and puny sewer rats.

I thought you said man was mediocre so why do you now say man has developmental capabilities? Why didn't the grasscutters or sewer rats not "evolve"? They also have a brain as we do and also have practically every thing we have physically but in their own variants.

The hair is not a sense organ. When your hair gets burnt you don't feel it until the heat or flames get to your skin. The hair does no regulate body temperature. Homeostasis does. The hair does not facilitate evaporation of pespiration in any way. The third eyelid does nothing to protect the cornea.
Wisdom teeth is a dietary issue? Lol. A Google search would save you further embarrassment

.

You probably would be the first person to claim the hair on your skin does not help with sensations. Burning is not the only sensation available. Try this right now where you are. Don't touch your skin but run your hand very lightly through the hair on your arm or legs and tell me if you felt nothing.

I actually shaved off the hair on my arms some time ago and I practically almost caught a cold immediately because my skin was exposed. This is fact about temperature regulation. You say the third eye lid has no function. Well this is from www.sciencedirect.com and I quote

The third eyelid has the following important functions:
•
Distribution of the precorneal tear film
•
Protection of the cornea
•
Production of aqueous and immunoglobulin for the tear film (in domestic mammals)
Therefore removal of the third eyelid or its gland predisposes to the following problems:
•
Increased corneal exposure, drying of the cornea, corneal trauma, and chronic keratitis
•
A chronic conjunctivitis that is often purulent and frequently resistant to treatment
•
Decreased tear production, which contributes to the first two problems

The third eyelid is a useful and important structure. The only indications for its removal are severe, irreparable trauma and histologically confirmed malignant neoplasia.

Are you saying science is wrong and telling a lie?

Since the beginning of time, man has been responsible for the destruction of man. Except where natural disasters are involved.
However, a benevolet god would not punish children for the sins of generations before them... Oh wait... Your God would... He even says it in the Bible. He would punish children and generations after them for the sins of their parents. Sounds more like a devil to me.

A benevolent God would chastise prior to punishment and this is how it has been. You are drifting away from the purpose of your own OP.

A loving god that went as far as sending his own son to the slaughter would should be nice enough to prevent children from suffering for what they had no hand in... If only he existed.

You are still drifting from your OP.

Deformities can serve as a lesson to who? The parents who will eventually die off and leave the child to face the consequences of their actions alone?
Why not punish the wrongdoers like he did Uzzah when he disobeyed and touched the ark?

Deformities can serve as a lesson to all because man is inherently wicked. At least today these deformities have given attention to the need for greater restraint and more dialogue unlike how it used to be.

A god that is claimed to never change... Can no longer perform the miracles that the old testament claimed he could? Making the sun stand still and pouring down fire from the heavens to smite his enemies (who btw are men that he created). Lol. So petty.

Still drifting.

It's obvious that this god you believe in was created by angry, hateful, spiteful, misogynistic, control freaks.
The same God that created women and inflicted upon them 3 to 5 days of bleeding every month and proceeded to brand them as unclean when they bleed as he designed them to... god is a sham.

So far you are yet to say anything but have been ranting away. I am still waiting to see your proofs for the non existence of god or God

Besides women are not inflicted with bleeding as you would want it to look like a terrible thing.

You should thank it for that bleeding because it is a self cleaning process for where you lay in your mothers womb before you were born. Its like having your own personal Butler or cleaner in the womb who prepared the place specially to be ready to accommodate you. Without that "inflicted" bleeding, you wouldn't be here.

Can god in all his omnipotence create a rock too heavy for him to lift?

Can Omniscient god know how to create something more powerful that he?

Since god is omnipresent...does the mean he is also in hell?



Reasons why God doesn't exist.
1. There is no evidence -
There is simply no undeniable evidence to god's existence. When a website asks you to answer a captcha, it does so because it doubts your authenticity as a human. As far as the website is concerned, your evidence to being human is being able to solve that captcha. One you solve it, the website grants you access as you have fulfilled the conditions to it's believing that you are infact a human.
There is no such evidence that god exists. If god exists, it would be simpler for him to provide irrefutable evidence to his existence (at least, like he did in the old testament)
There will still be doubters, so why not do it for the sake of those that will believe?

2. It is illogical
How does it make more sense to believe in God than to believe in a microscopic celestial teapot that watches over the earth and answers prayers?
Or the flying spaghetti monster... There is a church for the spaghetti monster and a holy book...yet you don't believe in it's existence...because it is illogical... Yet a spirit that created everything and intervenes in daily human activity is logical? Laughable.

3. The state of human affairs
Religion has always painted their gods as benevolent, all powerful and loving...also chastising when necessary.
The world has been in turmoil since the beginning of recorded history... From the dark ages till present.. there have been wars, suffering, famine... Entire civilizations have been wiped out by diseases or hunger or both.
Religion claims that prayers will touch the heart of God and he will ease the suffering of man.
Years and years of accumulated prayers and things have only gotten worse... Two world wars..on the verge of a third... Numerous civil wars..
Why hasn't the loving god or gods touched the heart of their creations to end the wars and ease the suffering.
There will be no such miracles because the gods being prayed to are man-made...they aren't real.

4. The purported existence of god has done more harm than good
A useless argument is usually that mankind has not torn itself to shreds because of god. That religion makes people more moral. But is that right?
Countless lives have been lost in the name of God.
The conquistadors, the Spanish inquisitions, the witch burnings, the Islamic terrorists, the Christian terrorists... The serial killers that legit heard god telling them to kill... If god existed, he should be sick of the evil being carried out in his name. A perfect spirit, all good and all knowing, all powerful and ubiquitous, will not stand idly by while lives are lost in his name.

5. The pointlessness of creation
If god exists and were truly Omniscient and omnipotent, he would have no needs. Why create man to worship him? Why would he need to create a universe to make him feel good about himself? To prove points and look awesome.. smh
If he was omniscient, he wouldn't have created Lucifer knowing that Lucifer would betray him and become the devil and then proceed to tempt and lead his human creations astray. If god exists, he isn't all knowing and all powerful.

6. Freewill.
The simple fact that we have freewill is proof that God doesn't exist.
If he does exist then we don't have freewill. If we have freewill, he can't exist. This is simply because, his existence and Omniscience will violate the principle of freewill. If the result of a football match it known before it begins, it wasn't a fair match to begin with. If the my actions in 20 years are already known, then there is no freewill.

author=DeLioncourt post=66858746]Can god in all his omnipotence create a rock too heavy for him to lift?

Can Omniscient god know how to create something more powerful that he?

Since god is omnipresent...does the mean he is also in hell?

God does not need to be everywhere literally to be everywhere. Creation speaks of his existence so we can say he is in his creation and his creation is in him. Its like asking is the universe existing outside God or in God and we can say that the universe exists in God. Its like a being too vast and too great that he sees everything inside out, outside in, upside down, right side up, backwards, forwards, in every and from every direction at the same time. This is not impossible to acknowledge because analytic computers do this all the time at their own level.

Reasons why God doesn't exist.
1. There is no evidence -
There is simply no undeniable evidence to god's existence. When a website asks you to answer a captcha, it does so because it doubts your authenticity as a human. As far as the website is concerned, your evidence to being human is being able to solve that captcha. One you solve it, the website grants you access as you have fulfilled the conditions to it's believing that you are infact a human.
There is no such evidence that god exists. If god exists, it would be simpler for him to provide irrefutable evidence to his existence (at least, like he did in the old testament)
There will still be doubters, so why not do it for the sake of those that will believe?

Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. The key here is to look for the kind of evidence that is available and not to imagine one that you can never get due to the prevalent parameters. For example you cannot make a demand on a God who created you by asking for what you term irrefutable evidence when he has already done so but you are just blind to it. So many see this evidence for Gods existence through creation and those who do would argue against your claim and they are right. You would argue against theirs and you are right because its all about perception as I earlier said. Your saying there is no evidence defeats your premise that you have evidence that god or God does not exist. You can't say with one voice you have evidence and then say that there is no evidence. That's wrong on so many levels.

2. It is illogical
How does it make more sense to believe in God than to believe in a microscopic celestial teapot that watches over the earth and answers prayers?
Or the flying spaghetti monster... There is a church for the spaghetti monster and a holy book...yet you don't believe in it's existence...because it is illogical... Yet a spirit that created everything and intervenes in daily human activity is logical? Laughable.

Its perfectly logical to say God exists and that is because

1) GOD MAKES SENSE OF HUMAN EXISTENCE

The fact is, by scientific standards, human existence is as good as not possible. Advances in cosmological science over the back half of the 20th century began to show that when the universe came into existence, the fundamental forces it came with were apparently ‘fine-tuned’ to allow for the appearance of life.
Some fundamental numbers, such as the force of gravity, the rate of expansion of the universe and the ratio of electrons to protons in the universe, are so exquisitely balanced that the smallest changes from their actual value would mean that a life permitting universe could not possibly exist.



For instance the cosmological constant (the dark energy density of the universe) is fine-tuned within 1 part in 10/120. If it had been wide of that tiny mark then the universe would either have expanded too rapidly for galaxies and stars to form or it would have collapsed in on itself before anything formed.
Perhaps the most impressive example is the initial distribution of mass energy to give the low entropy throughout the universe necessary for life. The fine tuning is 1 part in 1010(123). If you took a sheet of paper and filled it with zeros, then reproduced zeros on sheets of paper lined up across the entire universe, 15 billion light years across, that number would still be smaller than 1010(123).
These then are the odds of the correct constants, numbers and forces arising by chance. When you combine all the other odds of the other fundamental forces together, it becomes impossible to believe that our life-permitting universe is a product of chance.

As if that wasnt enough, modern cosmology has thrown up a second major shocker. The universe has not always existed. In fact, our best theories suggest that energy, space, matter, and even time itself, came into existence around 14 billion years ago in a sudden period of expansion, known as the Big Bang

2) GOD MAKES SENSE OF HUMAN VALUE

Why should humans have any more claim for special regard on the biological tree of life than a lice? There’s nothing intrinsically special about us in a universe that is blindly obeying the laws of nature.

Any beliefs in objective human rights, values and morality are ultimately an illusion, a side effect of our evolutionary history.
Why then do we feel that view of humanity to do bad is so wrong?

I believe it’s because we have the value of our Maker imprinted on us. Genesis 1:27 says that God created humans ‘in his own image’. That gives humans infinite worth. Anything else makes human worth a commodity, and makes some people disposable.

3) GOD MAKES SENSE OF HUMAN PURPOSE.

Quoting Richard Dawkins he said

‘The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.’

And he is absolutely righr. If there is no God. If atheism is true then there is no ultimate right or wrong, there is no reason to do anything. All human endeavours and self made purposes will ultimately be gone and forgotten in the future. As the universe continues to expand and its energy dissipates, all that will eventually be left is a cold, sterile void with no memory of our brief existence.

But as far as I am concerned, I see a very different universe to the one Dawkins sees Where the atheist sees only physical processes and laws that give rise to illusions of morality and free will, I see real beauty, truth, love, good and evil, purpose to life, freedom to choose and ultimate hope.

Although this cannot be proven scientifically. But I can show through the universal experience of all humans who have a yearning for something beyond our physical existence for ultimate purpose, value and meaning.

CS Lewis identified why only God makes sense of this desire, saying: ‘A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. People feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.’

3. The state of human affairs
Religion has always painted their gods as benevolent, all powerful and loving...also chastising when necessary.
The world has been in turmoil since the beginning of recorded history... From the dark ages till present.. there have been wars, suffering, famine... Entire civilizations have been wiped out by diseases or hunger or both.
Religion claims that prayers will touch the heart of God and he will ease the suffering of man.
Years and years of accumulated prayers and things have only gotten worse... Two world wars..on the verge of a third... Numerous civil wars..
Why hasn't the loving god or gods touched the heart of their creations to end the wars and ease the suffering.
There will be no such miracles because the gods being prayed to are man-made...they aren't real.

I believe I have already tackled this earlier when I spoke about the inherent wickedness in man and his desire for conquest and his greed for power. So why repeat it?

Regarding prayer, we can attest to the fact that murderers, killers, homicidal maniacs, perverts, suicidal people, armed robbers, prostitutes, many more people of diabolical or evil beginnings have been changed through the power of intercession aka prayer and even you cannot deny this. The principle of God is not an immediate universal change but an individual deliberate change so everyone would be individually accountable for his or her actions. My repentance cannot cover my friend who refuses to repent. He has to learn from me and become a better person. Its a deliberate accountable chain reaction and successfully instills self values and self worth as against an imposed change.

4. The purported existence of god has done more harm than good
A useless argument is usually that mankind has not torn itself to shreds because of god. That religion makes people more moral. But is that right?
Countless lives have been lost in the name of God.
The conquistadors, the Spanish inquisitions, the witch burnings, the Islamic terrorists, the Christian terrorists... The serial killers that legit heard god telling them to kill... If god existed, he should be sick of the evil being carried out in his name. A perfect spirit, all good and all knowing, all powerful and ubiquitous, will not stand idly by while lives are lost in his name.

Ironically God was not the one who fought those battles and the ones he instructed to be dealt with was out of judgement and nothing more. (I speak for Yahweh here and not Islam) Christianity and terrorism are not to be placed in the same room because Christianity teaches peace and not war. It teaches patience, kindness, goodness, if your enemy asks you for a cup of water or food or shelter give him. Render not cursing for cursing etc. It is peaceable.

I can also say that even more countless lives have been lost to a lack of belief in God than a belief in God. This I say authoritatively because it is fact that in the last 100 years the world has experienced about 50 atheist leaders who based on their lack of belief in God took very gory actions against their citizens of which a name stands out among them. His name is Mao Zedong. He was the atheist leader of China as at 1949 or so and it is on record that he brought about communism into China and ruled that Christianity must be expunged and the idea of God annihilated and within 4years he succeeded in carrying out between 40million to 80million murders and killings of anyone.who stood against his atheistic agenda and it was solely because of him that the word Democide was originated because Genocide could no longer accurately cover his actions and when all the other atheist leaders death counts were added up it showed that they had almost 300million murders and killings combined and this record in just 100 years far outweighed the record of deaths through religion, or wars IN HISTORY

The graph image is attached. So I can say a lack of belief in God has caused more harm than a belief in God.

5. The pointlessness of creation
If god exists and were truly Omniscient and omnipotent, he would have no needs. Why create man to worship him? Why would he need to create a universe to make him feel good about himself? To prove points and look awesome.. smh
If he was omniscient, he wouldn't have created Lucifer knowing that Lucifer would betray him and become the devil and then proceed to tempt and lead his human creations astray. If god exists, he isn't all knowing and all powerful.

Creation isn't pointless if it was, you wouldn't be sitting where you are and typing what you are typing. My point here is that purpose got you to this point of being able to even type or even access the web. Omniscient simply means all knowing and all knowing can cause actions to be deliberate and seen as a no threat situation after all he knows the end from the beginning. Lucifer isn't a threat to God and also not a threat to Gods creation (those who know God and serve him) are the ones I refer to. If you see him as a threat its because you do not know God and neither do you serve him.

6. Freewill.
The simple fact that we have freewill is proof that God doesn't exist.
If he does exist then we don't have freewill. If we have freewill, he can't exist. This is simply because, his existence and Omniscience will violate the principle of freewill. If the result of a football match it known before it begins, it wasn't a fair match to begin with. If the my actions in 20 years are already known, then there is no freewill.

Freewill is such a perfect thing. It isn't for God but for us as people because it would help build our values and show our seriousness when options are placed before us. Of course we are free to choose not to go with the good options and go with the bad. Not a problem for God after all he already gave reasons why you should choose the good.

A good example is like this,

A scientist goes into his lab to run an experiment whose outcome he already has an expectation about. He now places 5 rabbits in a cage and on one end he places carrots while on the other he places water. He expects the rabbits to crave the carrots and prove his theory or omniscience correct but the rabbits end up doing a 2 to 3 split. 2 going for the carrots and 3 going for the water. Should he be disappointed? It simply shows that man has the ability to choose what he thinks is best for him at that time even if that is not what the scientist would want but also because the scientist is omniscient he also knows the water may not be the best thing for the rabbits as at that time because he is the one running the experiment so knows the steps he wishes to take after the first step even when the rabbits have no idea.

I have to say this again, freewill is not for God but it is for men and I say this because you talk about preknown results of football matches or your actions for 20years are foreknown. Freewill means YOU CAN CHANGE THOSE ACTIONS hopefully for good based on the pointers or options you have been given.

Butterflyleo:


You are beginning to drift.

Your OP says religious gods do not exist.
And I just showed you that they exist. If they are dead or not is inconsequential. They existed before and still exist in the minds of their followers as gods.

Religion is defined thus



And the list I gave you are worshipped and personal gods.

So they exist.

Lol... if @bold is what u have always meant by God is real.. then please accept my apologies for ever arguing tye ezistence of God with u. I never knewwe have always been on the same page on the existence of God.

franky317:


Lol... if @bold is what u have always meant by God is real.. then please accept my apologies for ever arguing tye ezistence of God with u. I never knewwe have always been on the same page on the existence of God.

Lmao! me self shock o!!

DeLionCourt should go and argue with this site https://www.premierchristianity.com/Past-Issues/2016/April-2016/3-Reasons-Why-Belief-In-God-Makes-Sense

It appears your opponent here is the same person as the author of that article

What's the sense in throwing an entire article at your opponent in a "one-on-one" debate? So Delioncourt should start debunking an entire article? I still understand doing such in a open for all debate but doing that in a mano a mano screams foul play and underhanded

It's okay to plagiarise anyways so long you're doing it for Jesus and under influence of the holy spirit

This is a debate. Delioncourt is free to pull his counter facts up from anywhere. That is what happens in debates. As long as it is in line with the issue of discussion then good.

Besides all the points he has dropped as his are all rehashed points also pulled from elsewhere and are not originally tagged to him. All my points so far are originally mine except one and that was because that makes perfect and absolute sense to me and to anyone open minded enough to read it.

Maybe you do not realise that debates are all about fact finding and fact presentation even when they are not your facts originally.

DeLionCourt the floor is yours to counter. You said it would be a long debate and I am ready for that.

hopefulLandlord:
DeLionCourt should go and argue with this site https://www.premierchristianity.com/Past-Issues/2016/April-2016/3-Reasons-Why-Belief-In-God-Makes-Sense

It appears your opponent here is the same person as the author of that article

What's the sense in throwing an entire article at your opponent in a "one-on-one" debate?
So Delioncourt should start debunking an entire article?
I still understand doing such in a open for all debate but doing that in a mano a mano screams foul play and underhanded

It's okay to plagiarise anyways so long you're doing it for Jesus and under influence of the holy spirit

Please show exactly how content on this thread got plagiarised from that article
If you're unable to, then accept you've barked up the wrong tree and tender apologies

Butterflyleo:
This is a debate.
Delioncourt is free to pull his counter facts up from anywhere. That is what happens in debates. As long as it is in line with the issue of discussion then good.

Besides all the points he has dropped as his are all rehashed points also pulled from elsewhere and are not originally tagged to him.
All my points so far are originally mine except one
and that was because that makes perfect and absolute sense to me and to anyone open minded enough to read it.

Maybe you do not realise that debates are all about fact finding and fact presentation even when they are not your facts originally.

DeLionCourt the floor is yours to counter. You said it would be a long debate and I am ready for that.

hopefulLandlord doesnt know that cheese is not made from one cow's milk
but that cheese is made, out from taking milk from different cows

MuttleyLaff:
Please show exactly how content on this thread got plagiarised from that article
If you're unable to, then accept you've barked up the wrong tree and tender apologies

hopefulLandlord doesnt know that cheese is not made from one cow's milk
but that cheese is made, out from taking milk from different cows

He has no idea.

He is actually trying to discourage my opponent and make him create an excuse to quit the debate because its beginning to look rather lightweight from my opponents end. Classic tactic when all else fails

MuttleyLaff:
Please show exactly how content on this thread got plagiarised from that article
If you're unable to, then accept you've barked up the wrong tree and tender apologies

Fork that image site

hopefulLandlord:


Fork that image site

Kindly stop desperately trying to derail this thread.

Debates are all about fact finding, gathering and presentation. If you have no idea what a debate entails then go get yourself some much needed education

On the other hand hopefullandlord if you feel you can do a much better job than the OP then ask him to step down so you can take over from his obvious featherweight attempts so far. That would be a more noble thing to do than to desperately try to derail as you are attempting to do.

Kindly stop posting on this thread. This is STRICTLY between myself and the OP. If you wish to post then ask him to step down so you can take over.

I posted screenshots for the person who asked for proof of the alleged plagiarism, stop this desperate face saving tactic. it makes you look more pathetic than you already are

Oh! I just talked to you so your day's made

hopefulLandlord:
I posted screenshots for the person who asked for proof of the alleged plagiarism, stop this desperate face saving tactic. it makes you look more pathetic than you already are

Oh! I just talked to you so your day's made

I.already answered that for him as you can clearly see from my post which he put side by side with yours. I repeat stop trying to derail this thread. You are the one currently trying to be on a face saving mission for atheism considering the direction the thread is headed which obviously isn't favourable for the OP. This makes you look sickeningly pathetic to say the least which was why I asked that you should honorably ask the OP to step down so you can take over if you feel you can do a much better job than he is doing.

If you feel you cannot do a better job or cannot offer heavier counters then kindly stop derailing this thread and take several seats. This debate is between two people only. Me and the OP.

Thank you for your derailing attempts thus far however myself and the OP need to continue where we left off.

Says I'm derailing the thread, keeps replying my posts hereby tacitly encouraging the "derailing"

DeLionCourt I await your counter

DeLioncourt just to buttress my point on "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I will use your vestigial organs angle.

Once upon a time it was said that about 86 organs in the human body were vestigial and this declaration was because their functions were not yet known so based on this LACK OF KNOWLEDGE they made that profound statement in ignorance.

Several years later as science advanced, they began to discover the functions of these once thought vestigial organs and one by one began to tick them off the list of 86 until today we have about 5 left and I believe these 5 would sooner or later be also ticked off the list as their functions are revealed.

Would you say absence of evidence regarding the 81 formerly vestigial organs made them true that they were vestigial?

#FoodForThought.

DeLioncourt:


first of all, these people you have mentioned are dead. that they are worshiped doesn't make them gods. they existed at some point but they don't exist now. And i mean exist in a physical sense because these people were human. -[1]-

One of the arguments for the existence of god is intelligent design. The question is, are we really an intelligent design? -[2]-


Let's look at man. god God apparently said "lets make man in our own image and likeness".
[size=4pt](the meaning of this has been open to debate) but I am inclined to believe that he was being literal since the god of the old testament was not known for metaphors.
Man, without his tools and weapons, is one of the weakest creations. The american field ant can withstand pressure up too 5000 times its body weight...lol. the largest known deadweight lift by a man is 500kg.
The eyes of man are not even the best in the business... cats and ospreys have it wayyyy better. Our nose and ability to smell? Even rats do better. How about our hearing? Cats, rats, dogs have it better.
We are one of the slowest creatures. the fastest man runs at about 27kmh... rhinos go at 50.. dogs at 64.. horses at 40... lol. cats are even faster at 48kmh.[/size]

We are susceptible to sickness, heat, cold, injuries... our skin is easily broken... we have totally useless parts. the appendix, the tailbone..
Again, your argument will be that we are yet to understand the purposes of those useless parts. This isn't intelligent design. It is evolution. -[3]-

This your pattern of argument is too early, you should have saved it till when you dont have any point to say.

[1] Pls learn what deity or god is and compare them, dont use your assumption or personal inadequate understanding on the subject

[2] Intelligent design? there lot of point that i can raised to prove the intelligent design, starting from simplex. if you study how the Eye work and its structure it take more than just a chance to build that up.

[3] Firstly, dont mistake god for God, or you can avoid confusion by using Yahweh. Not all deity (gods) were claim to be the creator.

Secondly the verse you quote can be assumed that you accept God or Yahweh exist and you could as well assume Yahweh is an inventor, in same scientific pattern you could assume man inherit creativity of invention from Yahweh since he (man) is image/likeness of Yahweh.

Thirdly, few of men may be feeble in strength, But Majority are strong in Mental Capability. Record has it that man did actually domesticate most of the animal we see around us.
watch video below as see how 3 ordinary men chase away pack of lions

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

I know you have ever wonder why it is only man that build/create/invent big things and continue to do so, but animals are same way, they are not developing. Up till now i have never seen any animal cooking its food before eating. in summary the Strength of man lies inside his skull.

Meanwhile show in a well outline point why Yahweh does not exist, i believe you cant find any scientific research that stated so

MuttleyLaff:
[img]https://s1/images/MuttMJpopcorn.gif[/img]
So exciting...
I am going to need more popcorn

make sure you bring enough cus I'm joining the popcorn crew...

GoodMuyis:

This your pattern of argument is too early, you should have saved it till when you dont have any point to say.

[1] Pls learn what deity or god is and compare them, dont use your assumption or personal inadequate understanding on the subject

[2] Intelligent design? there lot of point that i can raised to prove the intelligent design, starting from simplex. if you study how the Eye work and its structure it take more than just a chance to build that up.

[3] Firstly, dont mistake god for God, or you can avoid confusion by using Yahweh. Not all deity (gods) were claim to be the creator.

Secondly the verse you quote can be assumed that you accept God or Yahweh exit and you could as well assume Yahweh is an inventor, in same scientific pattern you could assume man inherit creativity of invention from Yahweh since he (man) is image/likeness of Yahweh.

Thirdly, few of men may be feeble in strength, But Majority are strong in Mental Capability. Record has it that man did actually domesticate most of the animal we see around us.
watch video below as see how 3 ordinary men chase away pack of lions

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

I know you have ever wonder why it is only man that build/create/invent big things and continue to do so, but animals are same way they are not developing. Up till now i have never seen any animal cooking its food before eating. in summary the Strength of man lies inside its skull.

Meanwhile show in a well outline point why Yahweh does not exit, i believe you cant find any scientific research that stated so

allow himself and our butterfly friend dig this before they use our comments as an excuse to bail.