This thread pepper dalaman

winner01:
Long talk, still bullsh*t.

How about you tell me what evidence will convince you of Gods existence and I'll quickly provide how an atheist can dance around it.

I've stated it already and you even brought it up yourself with a very lame attempt of trying to show that it's not adequate. Here it is again.

:
Anything that consistently agrees with observable reality based on the claims of the said God. Provide evidence that consistently agrees with observable reality based on the claims of your own God. Provide that evidence and see if I don't change my mind. So go ahead and provide the evidence of your God that agrees with observable reality based on the claims of your own God.

I stem from an Islamic background. This is the umpteenth time I'm typing this on this forum, I typed it here several years ago and it hasn't changed. So please expose me
I have the archives, thanks to Seun.]

Ogbeni were you ever a Muslim?

winner01:

We are not saying the same thing. I'm definately not trying to provide sufficient evidence for anyone neither am I trying to prove or disprove anyone's evidence.

This thread simply proves that nothing will serve as evidence for Gods existence to an atheist, and I sure hit some nerves

Why not tell me what evidence will cause your "open-minded" self to believe in God, and let me simulate how your atheist brothers will dance around it.

You have NOT provided any evidence according to what you've said but somehow you know that no evidence provided will convince aNY atheist? The many many lies you tell yourselves so that you can sleep well at night.

winner01:


KingEbukasBlog posted this sometime ago

Man emulates nature but fails to admit that nature was indeed designed.

Roboscorpion vs scorpion
www.nairaland.com/attachments/3478285_jkn4_jpeg590e06ec66546a26bdad7d553f52c4ae

Robodog vs dog
www.nairaland.com/attachments/3478286_dog3_jpeg45f9ded25907cbd52aa3cac664d8ad03

Artificial neuron vs human neuron
www.nairaland.com/attachments/3478287_jkn1_pngfc7f76f16e335adbf7cc27a1835eace1

Man vs robot
www.nairaland.com/attachments/3478288_jkn5_jpeg3b3e2823911f6127cb63c85e999033cf


Neither will the existence of fakes allow me to disprove originals.

You hit it spot on.

There was a time I wanted to create a thread about the science of God in man where I wanted to illustrate that man (as an earthly body) is just a very much advanced science by God where he used the best material to make a housing for our soul.

I did quite a bit of research on it and one of the things that hit me during my research is how scientists all agree that human bone is stronger than steel when compared based on equal mass.

However, the human bone is lighter than steel yet stronger.

In addition, the human bone is alive and gets even stronger over time. The more it gets injured, the stronger it becomes as it heals itself. Something steel cannot do.

And somehow scientists have been unable to replicate the human bone into everyday usage. If they could, then steel would have long been discarded as trash.

Yet someone would sit somewhere and claim we were not designed by the highest scientifically divine mind there is.

Gods own science definitely is far far above our own science which is why it does not subscribe to our limited scientific scrutiny but it can still lend us some of its simplest principles which we have chosen to translate as scientific laws.

I wonder why those laws somehow have also proven to be constant despite "as they claim" were not intelligently set in place.

winner01:

We are not saying the same thing. I'm definately not trying to provide sufficient evidence for anyone neither am I trying to prove or disprove anyone's evidence.

Simply because you have none. End of story!

This thread simply proves that nothing will serve as evidence for Gods existence to an atheist, and I sure hit some nerves

No, the thread proves you have no single evidence for gods existence. Yeah, you sure did hit the strawman harder than you ever did on any other thread. Bravo!

Why not tell me what evidence will cause your "open-minded" self to believe in God, and let me simulate how your atheist brothers will dance around it.

Imagine! You want me to provide the type of evidence I need for your own claims. Ogbeni, if you have any substantial evidence for the existence of your god, bring it forward for scrutiny.

dalaman:


I've stated it already and you even brought it up yourself with a very lame attempt of trying to show that it's not adequate. Here it is again.

:
Anything that consistently agrees with observable reality based on the claims of the said God. Provide evidence that consistently agrees with observable reality based on the claims of your own God. Provide that evidence and see if I don't change my mind. So go ahead and provide the evidence of your God that agrees with observable reality based on the claims of your own God.


Ogbeni were you ever a Muslim?

Why do you just love repetitions?

No be me and you today.

dalaman:


You have NOT provided any evidence according to what you've said but somehow you know that no evidence provided will convince aNY atheist? The many many lies you tell yourselves so that you can sleep well at night.

You'll have to sort this out with johnydon22, he's the one who asked what evidence would convince you. I simply refuted all the evidences you brought forward Ij the thread.

chemystery:
Simply because you have none. End of story!

You're making no point and I'm not ready for this.

chemystery:

No, the thread proves you have no single evidence for gods existence. Yeah, you sure did hit the strawman harder than you ever did on any other thread. Bravo!

Either you're demented or just being unreasonable. I reiterate, I have nothing to prove to any atheist here, neither am I interested in providing any evidence for any atheist. This thread proves, based on johnydon22's question, that nothing will serve as proof for Gods existence to an atheist.

chemystery:

Imagine! You want me to provide the type of evidence I need for your own claims. Ogbeni, if you have any substantial evidence for the existence of your god, bring it forward for scrutiny.

You'll need to get back to johnydon22 on this, he's the one who asked "what will serve as evidence for the existence of a God". I simply reiterated it.

Once again, my point remains, there is no evidence that any atheist can give to johnydon22 on this matter, that cannot be refuted.

Cést finí.

Butterflyleo:




You hit it spot on.

There was a time I wanted to create a thread about the science of God in man where I wanted to illustrate that man (as an earthly body) is just a very much advanced science by God where he used the best material to make a housing for our soul.

I did quite a bit of research on it and one of the things that hit me during my research is how scientists all agree that human bone is stronger than steel when compared based on equal mass.

However, the human bone is lighter than steel yet stronger.

In addition, the human bone is alive and gets even stronger over time. The more it gets injured, the stronger it becomes as it heals itself. Something steel cannot do.

And somehow scientists have been unable to replicate the human bone into everyday usage. If they could, then steel would have long been discarded as trash.

Yet someone would sit somewhere and claim we were not designed by the highest scientifically divine mind there is.

Gods own science definitely is far far above our own science which is why it does not subscribe to our limited scientific scrutiny but it can still lend us some of its simplest principles which we have chosen to translate as scientific laws.

I wonder why those laws somehow have also proven to be constant despite "as they claim" were not intelligently set in place.

They wants to confine God to their own scientific standards. Really ridiculous.

I look forward to your thread Bro.

Winner01 these guys are not half as smart as they tend to give themselves credit for. In fact, the bible was right by aptly describing them as fools.

Let me explain.

1) We speak about divinity

They say divinity does not exist

Then they turn around and ask us for proof of this divinity despite saying it does not exist.

If divinity does not exist, what proof would then suffice for a non existent divinity? Would such proof not also be non existent along with the non existent divinity?

2) We speak supernatural

They believe in the Natural

Then they turn around and ask for scientifically verifiable proof of the supernatural despite science being scrictly bound to the natural.

3) When something supernatural is even presented, they attempt to use NATURAL science to scrutinize it using the standards of Natural science and pretending as if they forgot that the presentation is a supernatural one.

4) We see scientists and technological advancement and medicine borrowing from Nature every single time in the course of their designs and advancements and when they apply what they got from that which they borrowed from, it works and is perfectly suited for what they designed it for but somehow nature is a fluke.

If nature is a fluke wouldn't their designs also be flukes and erratic? Wouldn't their medical breakthroughs be erratic?

1) Consider skin grafting (borrowed from nature)
2) Medicinal potential for treatment ( borrowed from plants in nature)
3) Engineers have incorporated structural design lessons from trees and bones into software design programs for optimizing the weight and performance of materials.
4) Engineers building an upgrade to Japan’s bullet trains, succeeded in making them travel 200 miles per hour by borrowing from the shape of the kingfishers beak.
5) The makers of urinary catheters which inhibit bacterial growth, borrowed their design from the sharks skin which has the ability not to pick up algae or barnacles due to "dermal denticles."
6) Right now the military are working on a kind of glove which mimics the feet of a wall gecko (as their inspiration) in order to enable soldiers climb up the walls of buildings with ease.

The list is endless.

In fact Biomimetics is all about mimicking nature in science yet nature wasn't designed but when science mimics it, their own becomes designed.

winner01:
Why do you just love repetitions?

No be me and you today.


You'll have to sort this out with johnydon22, he's the one who asked what evidence would convince you. I simply refuted all the evidences you brought forward Ij the thread.

You're making no point and I'm not ready for this.

Either you're demented or just being unreasonable. I reiterate, I have nothing to prove to any atheist here, neither am I interested in providing any evidence for any atheist. This thread proves, based on johnydon22's question, that nothing will serve as proof for Gods existence to an atheist.


You'll need to get back to johnydon22 on this, he's the one who asked "what will serve as evidence for the existence of a God". I simply reiterated it.

Once again, my point remains, there is no evidence that any atheist can give to johnydon22 on this matter, that cannot be refuted.

Se fini.

Which evidence have you provided? You did not provide any of the stated evidence but somehow you know that no evidence will convince any atheist. Provide the evidence first and see if it fails to convince anybody before engaging in your meaningless la la la dance.

winner01:
Either you're demented or just being unreasonable. I reiterate, I have nothing to prove to any atheist here, neither am I interested in providing any evidence for any atheist. This thread proves, based on johnydon22's question, that nothing will serve as proof for Gods existence to an atheist.


You'll need to get back to johnydon22 on this, he's the one who asked "what will serve as evidence for the existence of a God". I simply reiterated it.

Once again, my point remains, there is no evidence that any atheist can give to johnydon22 on this matter, that cannot be refuted.

Se fini.

Lol. Why the ad hominem? Don't get emotional yet. You can always put you point across without all that. Try it next time and thank me later.

And where do you want to find the interest in providing proof when you have none. You should have a proof first before talking about interest.

Yeah. So far, nothing seem to serve as proof for the existence of god because nothing has yet been served as proof.

winner01:
What will you accept as evidence for Gods existence?

And why are you so angry

Calm down. How you expect me to respond to your arguments when you ignored mine is really baffling.

Read the thread again, the thread was not an evangelical thread. Its simply a point I tried to make. Why are you so agitated?

Yes he is extremely agitated because he can't deal with the glaring fact that you are not willing to engage insane circular pretentious arguments, instead you are fabricating a deliberate approach to avoid another dangerous societal meltdown.
I haven’t fully wrapped my head around your comments yet.
Regarding your initial response to the questions, well put and, I think you are certainly a good candidate for our long term survival.
Thank you for adding beneficial content to the debate.

chemystery:

Lol. Why the ad hominem? Don't get emotional yet. You can always put you point across without all that. Try it next time and thank me later.

And where do you want to find the interest in providing proof when you have none. You should have a proof first before talking about interest.

Yeah. So far, nothing seem to serve as proof for the existence of god because nothing has yet been served as proof.

I think everyone is misunderstanding the fundamental premise of this argument.

It is built from the original premise of my thread which assumes that evidence to prove the existence of God is necessary but the understanding the nature of evidence you must understand the sort of evidence that is necessary to satisfy the need for proof.

My thread asks: What sort of evidence would serve as sufficient proof in this regard?

And i think a short summary of Winner01's argument is "No evidence is necessary or will be sufficient enough to convince an atheist'

i quite do not agree with that. If an atheist sets his expected nature of evidence and such evidence is confirmed then such an atheist by his own standard has confirmed the illegitimacy of his doubt.

if he fails in the face of this evidence (which he think is necessary) to at least entertain the possibility of being wrong then that could be an intellectual dishonesty at play.

I hope this clears the argument though

Op stop wasting ur time,it is not by writing long articles that are self contradictory
This is very simple,u believe your own version of god which us Yahweh exists,fine present an irrefutable evidence,and by that we mean something more convincing than the evidence that the sun and moon exists,because in the aforementioned cases we only need to see them and it is obvious that they exist,but in your case since you say that one can not see your god then you have to present something that completely defeats every opposing logic that your god exists,let me not stress you,show us a video of a miracle where an amputee grows a new limb and I promised to follow you to church on sunday
For the argument that atheists are 5% of the world population, let us not deceive ourselves we know the role that childhood indoctrination plays,even though a lot of people were introduced into religion when they were most gullible,they were still able to overcome that grip,now imagine if children were not taught religion but allowed to group up and choose for themselves,religion will surely become extinct in a matter of centuries

Butterflyleo:
Winner01 these guys are not half as smart as they tend to give themselves credit for. In fact, the bible was right by aptly describing them as fools.

Let me explain.

1) We speak about divinity

They say divinity does not exist

Then they turn around and ask us for proof of this divinity despite saying it does not exist.

If divinity does not exist, what proof would then suffice for a non existent divinity? Would such proof not also be non existent along with the non existent divinity?

2) We speak supernatural

They believe in the Natural

Then they turn around and ask for scientifically verifiable proof of the supernatural despite science being scrictly bound to the natural.

3) When something supernatural is even presented, they attempt to use NATURAL science to scrutinize it using the standards of Natural science and pretending as if they forgot that the presentation is a supernatural one.

4) We see scientists and technological advancement and medicine borrowing from Nature every single time in the course of their designs and advancements and when they apply what they got from that which they borrowed from, it works and is perfectly suited for what they designed it for but somehow nature is a fluke.

If nature is a fluke wouldn't their designs also be flukes and erratic? Wouldn't their medical breakthroughs be erratic?

1) Consider skin grafting (borrowed from nature)
2) Medicinal potential for treatment ( borrowed from plants in nature)
3) Engineers have incorporated structural design lessons from trees and bones into software design programs for optimizing the weight and performance of materials.
4) Engineers building an upgrade to Japan’s bullet trains, succeeded in making them travel 200 miles per hour by borrowing from the shape of the kingfishers beak.
5) The makers of urinary catheters which inhibit bacterial growth, borrowed their design from the sharks skin which has the ability not to pick up algae or barnacles due to "dermal denticles."
6) Right now the military are working on a kind of glove which mimics the feet of a wall gecko (as their inspiration) in order to enable soldiers climb up the walls of buildings with ease.

The list is endless.

In fact Biomimetics is all about mimicking nature in science yet nature wasn't designed but when science mimics it, their own becomes designed.

Aptly put.

Nice one Bro.

winner01:
You still don't get it, do you?

This thread is not an attempt to tender evidence or to prove that God exists.

Its simply a thread on why no evidence presented can be sufficient for an atheist.

What would be sufficient evidence for Gods existence according to you?

Why not start by showing us a video of a regrown limb after prayer was made ?

darkchild64:
Op stop wasting ur time,it is not by writing long articles that are self contradictory
This is very simple,u believe your own version of god which us Yahweh exists,fine present an irrefutable evidence,and by that we mean something more convincing than the evidence that the sun and moon exists,because in the aforementioned cases we only need to see them and it is obvious that they exist,but in your case since you say that one can not see your god then you have to present something that completely defeats every opposing logic that your god exists,let me not stress you,show us a video of a miracle where an amputee grows a new limb and I promised to follow you to church on sunday
For the argument that atheists are 5% of the world population, let us not deceive ourselves we know the role that childhood indoctrination plays,even though a lot of people were introduced into religion when they were most gullible,they were still able to overcome that grip,now imagine if children were not taught religion but allowed to group up and choose for themselves,religion will surely become extinct in a matter of centuries

okay

dalaman:


Which evidence have you provided? You did not provide any of the stated evidence but somehow you know that no evidence will convince any atheist. Provide the evidence first and see if it fails to convince anybody before engaging in your meaningless la la la dance.

Neither am I interested in providing evidence.

chemystery:

Lol. Why the ad hominem? Don't get emotional yet. You can always put you point across without all that. Try it next time and thank me later.

And where do you want to find the interest in providing proof when you have none. You should have a proof first before talking about interest.

Yeah. So far, nothing seem to serve as proof for the existence of god because nothing has yet been served as proof.

Really you're just being unreasonable.

Which part of I'm not interested in proving anything to anyone don't you understand?

The question was by johnydon, I'm simply interested in proving that the answers to johnydons question can be refuted.

darkchild64:


Why not start by showing us a video of a regrown limb after prayer was made ?

Who told you that limbs can regrow and why do you think I'd want to show you anything of that sort

Clearly, this one didn't read the part of the thread where I addressed amputation miracles.

I laugh at the arguments you folks bring,it is very easy for me an atheist to become a christian and I have presented a request which shouldn't be a problem considering that in the bible your god was waking dead people and dividing seas and promised that you shall do greater works but unfortunately it seems that the greater works you fellows are doing is arguing and arguing and arguing when a some video can shut every atheist up once and for all

winner01:
Neither am I interested in providing evidence.

Really you're just being unreasonable.

Which part of I'm not interested in proving anything to anyone don't you understand?

The question was by johnydon, I'm simply interested in proving that the answers to johnydons question can be refuted.

Who told you that limbs can regrow and why do you think I want to show you anything

Clearly, this one didn't read the part of the thread where I addressed amputation miracles.

Well I don't have time to waste if you can not provide any evidence I guess I wIwoukd remain the atheist I am,it is not as if I am not comfortable the way I am I just wonder how hypocritical you people can be,you claim that the evidences you have is so vivid and undeniable but when we ask you to present them you start playing peek a boo,okay choose the evidence you want to bring since the one I presented is not food enough, if you don't have an evidence then you don't have any argument, I wonder why you folks are the ones defending your god,are you his spokesman can't he speak for himself ?

darkchild64:
I laugh at the arguments you folks bring,it is very easy for me an atheist to become a christian and I have presented a request which shouldn't be a problem considering that in the bible your god was waking dead people and dividing seas and promised that you shall do greater works but unfortunately it seems that the greater works you fellows are doing is arguing and arguing and arguing when a some video can shut every atheist up once and for all

Okay, a video is what this one would consider evidence.

Well, any video presented can be manipulated and for this reason, smarter atheists than you like cutemadridsta, superhumanist, budaatum, Hahn, dalaman, johnydon22 are likely to reject any video and request to witness such events first hand.

But seriously, why do you guys think every theist thread is out to prove anything to you? Are you thirsty?

Because of the mental disease inherent in atheism, no evidence is good enough for them.
Everyone are bored to tears with atheists lame attacks on what to them is a non existent God and Jesus and they wonder why atheism has never filled any sports stadium to 3% capacity, while Christians always overfill the worlds largest Olympic Stadiums.
Atheists fail to realize that fighting the personal experiences of billions of Theists is the toughest challenge an atheist will face in dismissing God’s existence. Regardless of how many experiences they explain away with sound logic and scientific principles there will always be those who through real life experiences believe in the supernatural and ultimately in a God.

I LOVE JESUS !!!

darkchild64:


Well I don't have time to waste if you can not provide any evidence I guess I wIwoukd remain the atheist I am,it is not as if I am not comfortable the way I am I just wonder how hypocritical you people can be,you claim that the evidences you have is so vivid and undeniable but when we ask you to present them you start playing peek a boo,okay choose the evidence you want to bring since the one I presented is not food enough, if you don't have an evidence then you don't have any argument, I wonder why you folks are the ones defending your god,are you his spokesman can't he speak for himself ?

I doubt if you can read at all

1. I'm not here to give you or anyone for that matter evidence for anything.

2. I'm less interested if you blatantly wish to remain an atheist or not.

3. How does this thread defend God or pass me off as Gods spokesman?

4. Why can't you get your brain out of that cage and realize that not everyone is interested in going back and forth meaninglessly with you on the issue of Gods existence?

winner01:
Okay, a video is what this one would consider evidence

But seriously, why do you guys think every theist thread is out to prove anything to you? Are you thirsty?

At the bolded, they most definitely are scavenging for droplets of water everywhere.

Seriously though none of them have been able to grasp what your thread is saying even when the message is very clear

Makes me wonder how come.

johnydon22:


I think everyone is misunderstanding the fundamental premise of this argument.

It is built from the original premise of my thread which assumes that evidence to prove the existence of God is necessary but the understanding the nature of evidence you must understand the sort of evidence that is necessary to satisfy the need for proof.

My thread asks: What sort of evidence would serve as sufficient proof in this regard?

And i think a short summary of Winner01's argument is "No evidence is necessary or will be sufficient enough to convince an atheist'

i quite do not agree with that. If an atheist sets his expected nature of evidence and such evidence is confirmed then such an atheist by his own standard has confirmed the illegitimacy of his doubt.

if he fails in the face of this evidence (which he think is necessary) to at least entertain the possibility of being wrong then that could be an intellectual dishonesty at play.

I hope this clears the argument though

I didn't take part in that thread and I don't know what exactly a god evidence looks like or is suppose to look like. His topic says nothing will serve as evidence for god's existence to any atheist and I simply don't agree with that. Therefore winner01 who is a god claimant should provide a substantial evidence that will prove the existence of god beyond any iota of doubt and see if he won't be winning a convert here and now. I might not be in line with the father thread created by you but that does not mean i misunderstood the child thread in any way.

johnydon22:


I think everyone is misunderstanding the fundamental premise of this argument.

Beats me man.

johnydon22:

And i think a short summary of Winner01's argument is "No evidence is necessary or will be sufficient enough to convince an atheist'

More accurately, No evidence will be sufficient to convince an atheist, "except such atheist is willing to first embrace his inadequacies and limitations before looking again".

johnydon22:


i quite do not agree with that. If an atheist sets his expected nature of evidence and such evidence is confirmed then such an atheist by his own standard has confirmed the illegitimacy of his doubt.

if he fails in the face of this evidence (which he think is necessary) to at least entertain the possibility of being wrong then that could be an intellectual dishonesty at play.

But no atheist can set their expected nature of evidence without me being able to find a loophole in such evidence. And if a theist like me can find loopholes in such evidences, then so can atheists. That's why I created this thread.

Any evidence which an atheist can present, in response to your question. I promise to refute it . I've refuted the answers they provided on your thread, I'm willing to refute any ones they will provide in the future.

Except you feel they have the rights to provide evidences according to their own standards as you've written. That would mean I have no grounds to refute such evidence. Atheists do the exact opposite of this every time.

winner01:
Okay, a video is what this one would consider evidence.

Well, any video presented can be manipulated and for this reason, smarter atheists than you like cutemadridsta, superhumanist, budaatum, Hahn, dalaman, johnydon22 are likely to reject any video and request to witness such events first hand.

But seriously, why do you guys think every theist thread is out to prove anything to you? Are you thirsty?

Well if that is the case what you are saying is that you can not present an irrefutable argument that your god exists,it is good you know that .

chemystery:

His topic says nothing will serve as evidence for god's existence to any atheist and I simply don't agree with that. Therefore winner01 who is a god claimant should provide a substantial evidence that will prove the existence of god beyond any iota of doubt and see if he won't be winning a convert here and now.

This is so low!

What is this nonsense you've written now?

If I say you're demented now, you'll start screaming Ad hominem

winner01:


I doubt if you can read at all

1. I'm not here to give you or anyone for that matter evidence for anything.

2. I'm less interested if you blatantly wish to remain an atheist or not.

3. How does this thread defend God or pass me off as Gods spokesman?

4. Why can't you get your brain out of that cage and realize that not everyone is interested in going back and forth meaninglessly with you on the issue of Gods existence?

Well if that is the case you should stop creating thread addressing atheism,if you are not ready to provide an evidence proving they are wrong then stop talking about them,why are you concerned about what other people believe since you know you can't convince them why not focus your energy on your Christian life or are you convinced that you have already made it into your heaven

Butterflyleo:


At the bolded, they most definitely are scavenging for droplets of water everywhere.

Seriously though none of them have been able to grasp what your thread is saying even when the message is very clear

Makes me wonder how come.

I'm tired

Is it that hard to understand?

I think they didn't read it. None of them did except johnydon22.

And to think they ridicule theists for nor reading

Its ironic.

winner01:

What is this nonsense you've written now?

If I say you're demented now, you'll start screaming Ad hominem

OK I have to give it to you,this is so funny
Chemystery wahts ur take

darkchild64:

Well if that is the case what you are saying is that you can not present an irrefutable argument that your god exists,it is good you know that .

I can, I'm just not interested in wasting my time with you or anyone here
A thick veil of dishonesty has been woven by Seun and cast upon this section.

darkchild64:


Well if that is the case you should stop creating thread addressing atheism,if you are not ready to provide an evidence proving they are wrong then stop talking about them,why are you concerned about what other people believe since you know you can't convince them why not focus your energy on your Christian life or are you convinced that you would make your heaven

Ehyaa, I offended your atheism

Sorry o

winner01:
I can, I'm just not interested in wasting my time with you or anyone here
A thick veil of dishonesty has been woven by Seun and cast upon this section.


Ehyaa, I offended your atheism

Sorry o

Fine at this point all I can say is suit yourself