Evangkatsoulis:


Since cause and effect works only inside the universe, how the this "OUTSIDE CAUSE" cause this universe from outside.

It is so because OUR UNIVERSE HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE A BEGINNING. A beginning means it never existed before until A CAUSE brought it to be. All we see today IS THE EFFECT of that cause. What we call our universe is the effect of that FIRST CAUSE.

What CAUSED our universe to begin to exist, Never existed within our universe because when it existed, our universe did not until it CAUSED it to.

This is very simple.

Butterflyleo:


In case you didn't notice, we are saying the same thing.

You and I can only speak about our known universe and even it did not come from nothing. It was CAUSED into effect. Even science agrees to this.

Anything beyond that is simply information not available to the scientific world and can never be due to our limitation to our known universe.

You want to be fixated on "outside the universe" when the only information you have available to you scientifically is limited to INSIDE THIS UNIVERSE.

I am not about to discuss pseudoscience with you because its totally unscientific based on my position.

And this is what I was also trying to tell you on that thread.

You can speculate but I do not wish to speculate. I would only present scientific information available which shows that our known universe did not come from NOTHING. It came from a singularity (according to them)

This singularity is yet unknown and indeed cannot be known but it is on record that there is nothing known beyond this singularity so your speculation is totally off the mark.


Logical laws apply to ONLY OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE because WE DISCOVERED THEM AND CALLED THEM LAWS based on repeated observation carried out FROM WITHIN OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE AND NOT OUTSIDE IT.

There cannot be an exception to any logical law WITHIN OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE.

Outside our known universe then YES!

case closed

exactly at bold. that the universe had a cause means the universe had a cause and nothing else. any other conclusion is just speculation.

Gggg102:


exactly at bold. that the universe had a cause means the universe had a cause and nothing else. any other conclusion is just speculation.

Good we both agree the universe had a cause with made it so from OUTSIDE it and based on the order we see in our universe down to the smallest atom, it shows that intelligence was behind the origins of the universe. Without order there would be no shapes, no seasons, no weather, no life, NOTHING!

My position is not speculative as a theist. Your position might be as an agnostic theist but not mine. Let each hold his position. Mine is solid.

I am done with this.

Butterflyleo:


Good we both agree the universe had a cause with made it so from OUTSIDE it and based on the order we see in our universe down to the smallest atom, it shows that intelligence was behind the origins of the universe. Without order there would be no shapes, no seasons, no weather, no life, NOTHING!

My position is not speculative as a theist. Your position might be as an agnostic theist but not mine. Let each hold his position. Mine is solid.

I am done with this.

nothing shows intelligence is behind the cause. you are speculating.

is it based on science and observable reality of the universe? because scientifically speaking and as shown in the universe, there was no intelligence in the beginning then after intelligence came into existence. order is observed in the universe even when there are no intelligence behind it. e.g ice crystals, sand dunes... forces of nature are not intelligent yet they produce order.

even if intelligence is required, which by the way is not supported by science, outside the universe no law of logic applies(as you said yourself). so unintelligence could have caused intelligence.

either way, the odds are against you.

Gggg102:


nothing shows intelligence is behind the cause. you are speculating.

is it based on science and observable reality of the universe? because scientifically speaking and as shown in the universe, there was no intelligence in the beginning then after intelligence came into existence. order is observed in the universe even when there are no intelligence behind it. e.g ice crystals, sand dunes... forces of nature are not intelligent yet they produce order.

even if intelligence is required, which by the way is not supported by science, outside the universe no law of logic applies(as you said yourself). so unintelligence could have caused intelligence.

either way, the odds are against you.

Is it logical to conclude unintelligence brings forth intelligence?

Are you certain of this or are you speculating?

You were referring to nature as a practical example of how order is observed without intelligence. Yet you didn't consider how nature came to be in the first place.

Have you effectively ruled out the input of intelligence in the origin of nature?

tintingz:
Ofcos negative can be proven, the same way we can prove unicorn, santa, fairies, leprechauns, vampires etc doesn't exist also apply to gods in religions and cultures.

E.g - Yahweh is all-knowing, all-powerful and all loving, how come evil exist?

- Olorun sent Obatala to create the world with chicken, corn and sand, what kind of chicken breed is that and why does an all-powerful God stress the poor chicken?

Negative can be proven with the attributes and mythical stories about these gods.

flawed as usual, By definition, you can't prove a negative. That's the funny thing about life - if God exists, it can be known for real, but if God does not exist, it is not possible to know for sure. Note, this is not my opinion, I am stating an indisputable fact - if God exists, it can be known, because then God can verify His own existence. And if He does not exist, then it cannot be known. It is simple

THEISTS are called believers, while ATHEIST are called unbelievers. don't you notice error in those phrase ? As an atheist you believe in something that cannot be verified. But as a theist we believe in something that, at least theoretically, has a chance of being verified.

Thus it can be concluded that it is a an intellectually superior position to believe in God, rather than the opposite. The first assumption, that there is a God, has a chance of verification, whereas the second position, that there is no God, cannot be verified.

But if i point out these theoretical things - even though they are indisputable facts - i will be met with a wall of resistance - no, no, i do not knows the truth. God is merely a fairy tale,it is yet to be understanding by science ,to believe in God is no more different than believing in tooth-fairies and Santa Claus.all sort of crap. That's what you will tell me.

Gggg102:


nothing shows intelligence is behind the cause. you are speculating.

is it based on science and observable reality of the universe? because scientifically speaking and as shown in the universe, there was no intelligence in the beginning then after intelligence came into existence. order is observed in the universe even when there are no intelligence behind it. e.g ice crystals, sand dunes... forces of nature are not intelligent yet they produce order.

even if intelligence is required, which by the way is not supported by science, outside the universe no law of logic applies(as you said yourself). so unintelligence could have caused intelligence.

either way, the odds are against you.

From where I sit, there are no odds against me especially with the limitation of science to our known universe.

The odds are hugely stacked against science and anyone who leans on them particularly with regard to what was prior to origin of the universe and how they always fail and fall short when it comes to explaining how we have so much meaningful outcome from what they call chaos in our universe. They would want you to think that randomness is what is keeping you alive in our universe when clearly it is not so.

There is order we cannot quite explain but clearly see how that same order has got everything working like clockwork that ensures we get all we need daily and keep getting until we grow old and die.

Like I said, there are no odds against me from where I sit.

vaxx:
flawed as usual, By definition, you can't prove a negative. That's the funny thing about life - if God exists, it can be known for real, but if God does not exist, it is not possible to know for sure. Note, this is not my opinion, I am stating an indisputable fact - if God exists, it can be known, because then God can verify His own existence. And if He does not exist, then it cannot be known. It is simple

That we can't prove negative as been term pseudo-logic.

I used to subscribe to this before.

If God exist it can be known, if God doesn't exist it can also be known.

If you tell me there's milk in the cup on the table and I told you there is no milk and you demand for a prove, I can simply prove that to you by verifying what's in the cup.

THEISTS are called believers, while ATHEIST are called unbelievers. don't you notice error in those phrase ? As an atheist you believe in something that cannot be verified. But as a theist we believe in something that, at least theoretically, has a chance of being verified.

I believe in the sun because I can see it up there, I don't believe there's a white whale revolving the earth and I can prove that to you.

I believe in gravity because it can be measured, I don't believe in holy Spider because it cannot be measure nor observe, if holy Spider exist webbism shouldn't be divided, a born again webbist should be perfect.

Thus it can be concluded that it is a an intellectually superior position to believe in God, rather than the opposite. The first assumption, that there is a God, has a chance of verification, whereas the second position, that there is no God, cannot be verified.

We can assume there is a God and then examine it if it's true or not.

Not able to verify that God exist as proven negative itself.

But if i point out these theoretical things - even though they are indisputable facts - i will be met with a wall of resistance - no, no, i do not knows the truth. God is merely a fairy tale,it is yet to be understanding by science ,to believe in God is no more different than believing in tooth-fairies and Santa Claus.all sort of crap. That's what you will tell me.

No one has been able to demonstrate the existence of thier God, if God actually exist we shouldn't be discussing it just like how we don't debate if the sun is up there.

No religion has been able to prove Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Ukulunkulu, Olorun, Ra, Brahma etc exist, we just read them from some mythical books which has flaws and self-contradictions.

tintingz, johnydon22, superhumanist, cutemadridsta, hahn, gabe, DeSepiero, AnonyNymous and Budaatum can you attempt to answer the question johnydon asked.

Here's the question: What would serve as evidence for Gods existence to you?


Let's subject your evidences to test if indeed there are any

OkaiCorne:


Is it logical to conclude unintelligence brings forth intelligence?

Are you certain of this or are you speculating?

You were referring to nature as a practical example of how order is observed without intelligence. Yet you didn't consider how nature came to be in the first place.

Have you effectively ruled out the input of intelligence in the origin of nature?

yes. if logic is based on our observable universe.
if we are using the realm of science and our observable reality then I am certain.

we don't know how nature came to be in the first place. any conclusion on this is just speculation.
an intelligence could have been involved or not. we don't know for now and scientifically, can not know.

when we talk of logic, are we not talking based on experience in the universe.

e. g something can not come from nothing.
we know this is logical since something does not just appear out of nothing in the universe.

but what is the basis of saying intelligence can only come from another intelligence?
what observation led to this conclusion?

even if it is true that intelligence can only come from intelligence, it would not apply outside the universe.

Butterflyleo:



There is order we cannot quite explain but clearly see how that same order has got everything working like clockwork that ensures we get all we need daily and keep getting until we grow old and die.

we cannot explain this order and therefore cannot jump into conclusions. we can't make baseless speculations.

there is no basis to conclude that order can only come from intelligence. even though it sounds better logically than order coming from unintelligence.

Gggg102:


we cannot explain this order and therefore cannot jump into conclusions. we can't make baseless speculations.

there is no basis to conclude that order can only come from intelligence. even though it sounds better logically than order coming from unintelligence.

I am a theist so I do not speculate. Only agnostics such as you are can speak of speculation.

Do not pass your deficiency to me.

Butterflyleo:


I am a theist so I do not speculate. Only agnostics such as you are can speak of speculation.

so you already have confirmed knowledge of the truth.

Gggg102:



so you already have confirmed knowledge of the truth.

Yes I do and the spirit of God bears witness of this truth to me.

I am not deficient regarding this truth and do not doubt it because PERSONALLY I have tested it and proven it to myself.

Deficiency of this truth is what breeds agnostics of which I am not one

Butterflyleo:


Yes I do and the spirit of God bears witness of this truth to me.

I am not deficient regarding this truth and do not doubt it because PERSONALLY I have tested it and proven it to myself.

Deficiency of this truth is what breeds agnostics of which I am not one

this is where this discussion would have gone another angle, but I will just leave it at;

the atheists also say they have knowledge of the truth, although their truth is the direct opposite of your truth. the two camps can't both be true. so what is your opinion about the atheists and their truth?

[quote author=tintingz post=69671248]

That we can't prove negative as been term pseudo-logic.

lol .But wait I’ll take the science-ish route and attempt to answer “can you demonstrate a negative?”

NO, Lets supply constraints.

“There are no GOD.” Indemonstrable or can u demonstrates it.

I used to subscribe to this before.

you now subscribe to mumbo jumbo

If God exist it can be known, if God doesn't exist it can also be known.

Gibberish. how do you demonstrates what u consider not in existence

If you tell me there's milk in the cup on the table and I told you there is no milk and you demand for a prove, I can simply prove that to you by verifying what's in the cup.

mumbo jumbo. milk has a verifiable factor that is objectively accepted same its not with GOD.that is why we have theist,deist,pantheist and so forth.

I believe in the sun because I can see it up there, I don't believe there's a white whale revolving the earth and I can prove that to you.

i will be waiting for a demonstration on this flaws.

I believe in gravity because it can measure, I don't believe in holy Spider because it cannot be measure nor observe, if holy Spider exist webbism shouldn't be divided, a born again webbist should be perfect.

flawed . not scientifically correct. there should be objective verified evidence of what should be holy spider ..

We can assume there is a God and then examine it if it's true or not.

Even if we are to assume , It must be put in a way that can be objectively verified . so how do we assume that there is no GOD objectively

Not verifying that God exist as proven negative itself.No one has been able to demonstrate the existence of God, if God actually exist we shouldn't be discussing it just like how we don't debate if the sun is up there.

it's very easy for humans to ignore anything that might be construed as "evidence," no matter how pervasive that evidence. Obviously, confirmation bias is not the exclusive domain of theists.

No religion has been able to prove Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Ukulunkulu, Olorun, Ra, Brahma etc exist, we just read them from some mythical books which has flaws and self-contradictions.

religion has given enough insightful argument of the evidence of God. but if you are composing in your head the comment that tells me this is simply "argument from ignorance" or "argument from incredulity," you have not considered those points, but have instead decided to quote from the anti-theist word view while just skimming the arguments. You are instead committing confirmation bias and ignoring the greatest body of evidence possible.

Gggg102:


this is where this discussion would have gone another angle, but I will just leave it at;

the atheists also say they have knowledge of the truth, although their truth is the direct opposite of your truth. the two camps can't both be true. so what is your opinion about the atheists and their truth?

I really do not care about what they term as their truth. Perhaps I did before but now I no longer do which explains my new disposition toward them and their many monotonous rantings.

My truth speaks of God who is supernatural and has given me a part of his supernatural self which enables me to hear him, and thus obey him.

The atheist disregards God from the natural while not accepting the existence of the supernatural where he belongs.

Logically I stand on a much better footing because

1) I acknowledge the divine

2) God is divine and thus my acknowledgement gives me the advantage needed to deal on that level.

But for atheists, the opposite is the case and that weakens their position because the natural is limited in all ramifications while we as theists follow after the limitless nature of the supernatural which overshadows the natural.

I am openminded as a theist while they are closed minded. That alone settles it

I have a question.

How much do you need to know before concluding on the presence or absence of God?

winner01:
tintingz, johnydon22, superhumanist, cutemadridsta, hahn, gabe, DeSepiero, AnonyNymous and Budaatum can you attempt to answer the question johnydon asked.

Here's the question: What would serve as evidence for Gods existence to you?


Let's subject your evidences to test if indeed there are any

I've mentioned it hundreds of times on this forum that I'm not an atheist. Unfortunately, Christians like you are too closed minded to listen to anything but your own religion and are convinced anyone who doesn't believe in your horseshit is an atheist. After today I'll probably have to repeat it to you again.

Nairaland discussions are more of arguments anyway and there's always a lot of intellectual dishonesty going on. Its like both sides just scream whatever they want at each other and whoever gets tired of the saliva droplets on their face first, quits. Declaring the other screamer as the winner.

Its not productive and achieves nothing. And I honestly don't have the energy to keep going back and forth when I know nothing will cone out of it.

So there you have it. I'm not an atheist, so I'm excluded from this. Bye.

AnonyNymous:

I've mentioned it hundreds of times on this forum that I'm not an atheist. Unfortunately, Christians like you are too closed minded to listen to anything but your own religion and are convinced anyone who doesn't believe in your horseshit is an atheist. After today I'll probably have to repeat it to you again.

Nairaland discussions are more of arguments anyway and there's always a lot of intellectual dishonesty going on. Its like both sides just scream whatever they want at each other and whoever gets tired of the saliva droplets on their face first, quits. Declaring the other screamer as the winner.

Its not productive and achieves nothing. And I honestly don't have the energy to keep going back and forth when I know nothing will cone out of it.

So there you have it. I'm not an atheist, so I'm excluded from this. Bye.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, this was my quote.

winner01:
tintingz, johnydon22, superhumanist, cutemadridsta, hahn, gabe, DeSepiero, AnonyNymous and Budaatum can you attempt to answer the question johnydon asked.

Here's the question: What would serve as evidence for Gods existence to you?


Let's subject your evidences to test if indeed there are any

Doesn't say anything about you being an atheist or not and certainly the question isn't exclusive to atheists.
It's a valid question even when asked to theists, agnostics and other views.

So

What would serve as evidence for Gods existence to you?

winner01:
tintingz, johnydon22, superhumanist, cutemadridsta, hahn, gabe, DeSepiero, AnonyNymous and Budaatum can you attempt to answer the question johnydon asked.

Here's the question: What would serve as evidence for Gods existence to you?


Let's subject your evidences to test if indeed there are any

Hi winner01,

I saw your response earlier but didn't have the time to address it due to work. I don't need evidence for or against God's existence. The bigger problem is what we call God and how we describe it.

That brings me back to the phrase 'interventionist God' like johnydon22 mentioned. How so?

winner01:



Maybe I didn't make myself clear, this was my quote.

Doesn't say anything about you being an atheist or not and certainly the question isn't on exclusive to atheists.
It's a valid question even when asked to theists, agnostics and other views.

So

Stop trying to play smart Mr. Man. Why am I even replyng to this? This is exactly what I talked about, not admitting it when you goof. You're asking me what would serve as evidence. . .suggesting that there currently isn't any evidence that could convince me, and that I should present a hypothetical situation where something would be able to make me believe in the existence of some form of god.

Or maybe I'm the one that doesn't understand English. And if I don't understand English it'd be pointless to have any discussion/argument with a fluent English speaker like you, wouldn't it be?

This thread gave me cancer.

DeSepiero:


Hi winner01,

I saw your response earlier but didn't have the time to address it due to work. I don't need evidence for or against God's existence. The bigger problem is what we call God and how we describe it.

That will depend on what johnydon meant by "God" when he asked the question.

DeSepiero:

That brings me back to the phrase 'interventionist God' like johnydon22 mentioned. How so?

I already replied that. There are levels to intervention so I'll need you to define it clearly.

winner01:
That will depend on what johnydon meant by "God" when he asked the question.

I already replied that. There are levels to intervention so I'll need you to define it clearly.

What should I define? What levels of intervention are there? Isn't Intervention either present or absent. Isn't the levels you speak of based on human perspective which is fallible?

AnonyNymous:

Stop trying to play smart Mr. Man. Why am I even replyng to this?

I really don't know why you're getting so defensive.

AnonyNymous:

You're asking me what would serve as evidence. . .

True

AnonyNymous:

suggesting that there currently isn't any evidence that could convince me, and that I should present a hypothetical situation where something would be able to make me believe in the existence of some form of god.

Maybe there is, but wouldn't that depend on us subjecting such evidence to a fair test?

AnonyNymous:

Or maybe I'm the one that doesn't understand English. And if I don't understand English it'd be pointless to have any discussion/argument with a fluent English speaker like you, wouldn't it be?

I really don't know what this is supposed to mean.

Wouldnt it be much easier if you just answer the question?

DeSepiero:


What should I define? What levels of intervention are there? Isn't Intervention either present or absent. Isn't the levels you speak of based on human perspective which is fallible?

I guess you are also referring to the Judeo-christian God like john.


If so, I already explained that earlier and I'll repost it. This is why I need you to clearly define what you mean by intervention.

winner01:
In the Old testament yes. The Level of intervention reduces in the New testament. Are the levels of intervention decided or will we agree that it's varied different periods of human history?

winner01:
I guess you are also referring to the Judeo-christian God like john.


If so, I already explained that earlier and I'll repost it. This is why I need you to clearly define what you mean by intervention.

Intervention by God in this sense would mean 'the action of God in affecting or altering the normal or expected course of an event or events.
John first mentioned 'interventionist God' so perhaps he may add to that.

OkaiCorne:
I have a question.

How much do you need to know before concluding on the presence or absence of God?

For an atheist to even begin to formulate relevant questions on such a lofty issue, I would reccomend that each of them first get at the very least a PhD degree majoring in three relevant subjects.

Low level atheists need not be ashamed or left out as they can rely on their superior scientifically verified historical lineage as fish and monkey to carve out the correct questions that will embarrass Theists delusions on creation.

If atheists faithfully follow the guidelines above they should be publishing their updated Atheists Training Manual V1.001 soon.

winner01:
I guess you are also referring to the Judeo-christian God like john.


If so, I already explained that earlier and I'll repost it. This is why I need you to clearly define what you mean by intervention.

Judging Intervention of God into different levels of intensity from Bible isn't correct because the bible seems to focus on some middle eastern countries.
Did God intervene in other parts of the world while the New Testament apostles were busy in Israel and its environs?

Abeg quote me well and no dey give me stress.

vaxx:
lol .But wait I’ll take the science-ish route and attempt to answer “can you demonstrate a negative?”

How did science demonstrate the Earth is not flat? Except you're one of those flat earthers.

How did historian was able to tell us Moses never existed in ancient Egypt?

Or Santa not in North Pole?

You think something is just term myth with just spoken words?

NO, Lets supply constraints.

“There are no GOD.” Indemonstrable or can u demonstrates it.

Yes, since Yahweh and Allah claim they are all-knowing and omini-benevolent how come they didn't know Satan will rebel and this will cause doom to humanity?

If they claim they answer prayers, how come thier worshipers suffers like every other people?

How come Christianity is so divided despite the holy book claim holy spirit will guide them right?

God is so powerful that we still argue if he exist or not.

Just demonstrate it with paradox.

you now subscribe to mumbo jumbo

Can't prove a negative is now term pseudo-logic.

A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. Claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative is a pseudologic, because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics, including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Gibberish. how do you demonstrates what u consider not in existence.

By simply try to observe, research, investigate, critical thinking etc. With this you can demonstrate how you came to your conclusion.

mumbo jumbo. milk has a verifiable factor that is objectively accepted same its not with GOD.that is why we have theist,deist,pantheist and so forth.

Lol, oga wetin I talk wetin you talk?

How can we prove the positive and negative if there is milk in the cup?

Theist, deist, panthiest etc all believe there's God/s but the problem here is these gods contradict in attributes and thier stories(verifiable factor) which beg the question if this God/s exist or just some imaginary man-made creation.

will be waiting for a demonstration on this flaws.

flawed . not scientifically correct. there should be objective verified evidence of what should be holy spider.

Yes, since observations tells us people behave in contrary to what holy spider claim in the holy book, then this prove holy spider doesn't exist.

Another example is morality, Yahweh claim he's the source of morality which makes it objective but in reality if we observe humanity and society morality is subjective.

If you tell me morality is objective, I can prove to you morality is subjective with demonstrations.

Even if we are to assume , It must be put in a way that can be objectively verified . so how do we assume that there is no GOD objectively.

Gather all hypothesis, idea of Gods on one table, we do research about these Gods and thier origin then come out with a consensus agreement.

There's something called consensus decision-making.

If only theists have balls to do this.

But the fact that each religion has it own idea of God shows that thier God doesn't exist.

it's very easy for humans to ignore anything that might be construed as "evidence," no matter how pervasive that evidence. Obviously, confirmation bias is not the exclusive domain of theists.

religion has given enough insightful argument of the evidence of God. but if you are composing in your head the comment that tells me this is simply "argument from ignorance" or "argument from incredulity," you have not considered those points, but have instead decided to quote from the anti-theist word view while just skimming the arguments. You are instead committing confirmation bias and ignoring the greatest body of evidence possible.

Religions are yet to give us evidence of each of their Gods or God in general.

Some claim God has children, some claim God is childless, some claim God has many hands, some claim God ran away, some claim God died and so many other "mumbo jumbo".

festwiz:
This thread gave me cancer.

I am sorry hear that. I got Perlapertapersous from reading this thread, but when I decided to read the entire thread again, focusing only on what all those wise Theists said, I was healed.
I recommend you read this thread again, slowly, deliberately while focusing only on what these gifted Theists has said. Your cancer will be healed.

Please sir, only scientifically verified evidence of your healing is acceptable, so post a copy of your medical report and details of at least 75 witnesses.