tintingz:
What creation event?

A beginning when it came into existence ,around 13.7 billion yrs ago...give or take a couple hundred million yrs.

jamesid29:

A beginning when it came into existence ,around 13.7 billion yrs ago...give or take a couple hundred million yrs.

Yes so...,

What then is the gravitational singularity?

tintingz:
Yes so...,

What then is the gravitational singularity?

Could you elaborate on your question?
Are you asking if our universe actually started out as a singularity? or you just want to know what a gravitational singularity is?

jamesid29:

Could you elaborate on your question?
Are you asking if our universe actually started out as a singularity? or you just want to know what a gravitational singularity is?

It's a state where the universe becomes infinite, if this is the case when was it created?

tintingz:


It's a state where the universe becomes infinite, if this is the case when was it created?

Hmmm, that's incorrect ... I think you've got ur models mixed up... Or do u mean to say when the universe was infinitely dense?

shadeyinka:

No one can Empirically prove the Source

End of discussion.

shadeyinka:

I think you raised the point in defence of Atheism. Atheists are not as sweet as you think on Nairaland. You need to experience some of them to understand. But I've also met great and friendly Atheist.

But no one can prove God. It's impossible. You can only know Him.

Dude, do you read to respond? I seem to remember telling you something along the lines of "Your lying and crap arguments will work with your fellow christians, not atheists". You're the one who blew the statement out of proportion, twisting the facts and making strawmen. I never stated that theists were rude to atheists. If i did, you can fact check me and show me a screenshot. If i did not, well, i guess this further proves (and even you can see) why everyone is calling you a liar.

Please can everyone participating in this thread help me answer this: Is it more logical and intellectually honest to a) Believe in something you can not know OR b) Withdraw belief in something you can not know
XxSabrinaxX LordReed Budaatum Jamesid92 Tintingz Martinez39 Shadeyinka

jamesid29:

Hmmm, that's incorrect ... I think you've got ur models mixed up... Or do u mean to say when the universe was infinitely dense?

What again is our argument?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

TheArranger:
Please can everyone participating in this thread help me answer this:
Is it more logical and intellectually honest to
a) Believe in something you can not know
OR
b) Withdraw belief in something you can not know

XxSabrinaxX
LordReed
Budaatum
Jamesid92
Tintingz
Martinez39
Shadeyinka

"I may not know" would be ok for me.

The word "believe" is something without proof.

If something has some evidence pointing to it, I can still believe or hold to it possibility but if it has no evidence, full of contradictions I've no reason to believe in it.

TheArranger:
Please can everyone participating in this thread help me answer this:
Is it more logical and intellectually honest to
a) Believe in something you can not know
OR
b) Withdraw belief in something you can not know

XxSabrinaxX
LordReed
Budaatum
Jamesid92
Tintingz
Martinez39
Shadeyinka

The "You cannot know" is a finality!

If certainly it is true "you can't know" then the second position is more honest. The second case is a case of "personal research/inference while the first may be actually a position of ignorance.

First case: you had never even believed
Second case: you had erroneously believed

TheArranger:

Dude, do you read to respond? I seem to remember telling you something along the lines of "Your lying and crap arguments will work with your fellow christians, not atheists". You're the one who blew the statement out of proportion, twisting the facts and making strawmen. I never stated that theists were rude to atheists. If i did, you can fact check me and show me a screenshot. If i did not, well, i guess this further proves (and even you can see) why everyone is calling you a liar.

I honestly don't know what the argument is about with you.
You laid an accusation and you expect a mute response!?

shadeyinka:

Thanks for the lecture on the definition of Atheism. Unfortunately, I wish you had checked what you wrote as per your belief and your know
A reference is attached in attachment 1
Compare with what I wrote in attachment 2

You have no basis (Yee I got the spelling right this time) for your lecture. I only used your own description of what makes you an agnostic Atheist.



Your desire to respond is clouding your judgement of facts and comprehension.

I didn't propose the argument of "my experience is real to me therefore it is a proof!"
Rather, I told you that even if my experiences are real to me, it doesn't hold any waters (and I used the example of Big Foot to buttress it).

That's why Science, Reason and Logic is my way of dealing with Atheists.

See attachment 3.



You speak good English, so I don't know why you deliberately ignore the fact that cosmos is a synonym for universe.

If the universe is a subset of the cosmos, what is the size of the cosmos?
What else is contained in the cosmos apart from our universe?

Please check out Webster's Dictionary definition of cosmos:
1cosmos
nouncos·mos\ˈkäz-məs, senses 1 & 2 also -ˌmōs, -ˌmäs\


: the universe especially when it is understood as an ordered system
: a tall plant that has usually white, pink, or red flowers
Full Definition
1 a : universe
b (1) : an orderly harmonious systematic universe — compare chaos (2) : order, harmony
2 : a complex orderly self-inclusive system
3 plural cosmos\ˈkäz-məs, -məz\ also cos·mos·es\ˈkäz-mə-səz\ [New Latin, genus name, from Greek kosmos] : any of a genus (Cosmos) of tropical American composite herbs; especially : a widely cultivated tall annual (C. bipinnatus) with yellow or red disks and showy ray flowers




Your argument is like saying that the Computer CPU is not a good synonym for the Brain!

I have not even attempted to prove Gods existence. That is impossible!
What I have done is this:


1. All I have shown with my arguments is that "an intelligent SOURCE" of the universe seem to exist.
2. You can give this SOURCE any name you like (a name is just a NOUN). I call the SOURCE God, because it fits the description of God.
3. None here had been able to show the fallacy of my postulates nor advance a counter argument against my thrust of view.
4. If by postulates and reasoning I presented my points, it would take far more than mere assertions to present a different position (this seem to be your position) on this thread.

Let's forget the name (God: as a noun) and ask the logical/Scientific questions:
1. Is there a real possibility of a non-material SOURCE for the universe?
2. If there is a source/sources, would it be a mere Force/Substance or a Personality?

My arguments has been to help you Atheists reason out the answers to these two questions using readily available Scientific information.

Shadeyinka,

I have skimmed through your most recent response and found nothing intelligible to reply to. Thus, I am terminating MY OWN contributions to this thread. You've even admitted on this thread that you can not prove and you've not even been trying to which goes to show that this whole debate has been a fat waste of my time. It is a big red flag you keep completely ignoring the fact that you are repeatedly using known logical fallacies in your polemic for a deity.

Even if you didn't know what they were before, you must know by now as they've been pointed out and explained to you again and again, yet you just roll right past repeating the same fallacies.

Do you not see that any debate is over in the face of such duplicity?

Incidentally, can you link any peer reviewed work in genetics published in a worthy scientific journal, that agrees with your assumption that it requires a supernatural cause? (Perhaps, if you can accomplish this, i will return to the debate)

I could also point to your dishonest misrepresentation of atheism and agnosticism, which long ago could no longer be assigned to ignorance or willful stupidity, as this has also been explained with references to the Oxford English dictionary.

You needn't answer of course, as we already know your claim for scientific support is as ludicrous a lie as your dishonest claim for sound logical argument. Or your asinine claims that lie about the meaning of atheism and agnosticism.

No one here is perfect. I don't claim to be the epitome of honesty. But if YOU can't muster any basic integrity, then what do you hope to gain in any debate? You surely can't believe all opponents you face here will be fooled by such obvious dishonesty.

LordReed:


End of discussion.

You can only know the SOURCE!

Neither can anyone DISPROVE the SOURCE Empirically!

With which instrument or equipment will you use to prove or disprove the Source?

LordReed:


End of discussion.

Except for a miracle. They are gone forever.
All children of the neighborhood played together.
This is not possible in the days with everyone having their cartoon network studio at home

TheArranger:
Please can everyone participating in this thread help me answer this:
Is it more logical and intellectually honest to
a) Believe in something you can not know
OR
b) Withdraw belief in something you can not know

XxSabrinaxX
LordReed
Budaatum
Jamesid92
Tintingz
Martinez39
Shadeyinka

B is certainly more logical and intellectually honest. The religious especially pastors, tell you to believe despite evidence to the contrary.

shadeyinka:

You can only know the SOURCE!

Neither can anyone DISPROVE the SOURCE Empirically!

With which instrument or equipment will you use to prove or disprove the Source?

Which part of end do you have a problem with? The e or the d?

shadeyinka:

Except for a miracle. They are gone forever.
All children of the neighborhood played together.
This is not possible in the days with everyone having their cartoon network studio at home

What are you on about?

shadeyinka:

I honestly don't know what the argument is about with you.

I don't know what it is with you either. You're pointlessly dragging an irrelevant issue.

You laid an accusation and you expect a mute response!?

And i've asked you to screenshot the accusation you claim. Are you obsessed with pointless squabbles?

XxSabrinaxX:

Shadeyinka,

I have skimmed through your most recent response and found nothing intelligible to reply to. Thus, I am terminating MY OWN contributions to this thread. You've even admitted on this thread that you can not prove and you've not even been trying to which goes to show that this whole debate has been a fat waste of my time. It is a big red flag you keep completely ignoring the fact that you are repeatedly using known logical fallacies in your polemic for a deity.

Even if you didn't know what they were before, you must know by now as they've been pointed out and explained to you again and again, yet you just roll right past repeating the same fallacies.

Do you not see that any debate is over in the face of such duplicity?

Incidentally, can you link any peer reviewed work in genetics published in a worthy scientific journal, that agrees with your assumption that it requires a supernatural cause? (Perhaps, if you can accomplish this, i will return to the debate)

I could also point to your dishonest misrepresentation of atheism and agnosticism, which long ago could no longer be assigned to ignorance or willful stupidity, as this has also been explained with references to the Oxford English dictionary.

You needn't answer of course, as we already know your claim for scientific support is as ludicrous a lie as your dishonest claim for sound logical argument. Or your asinine claims that lie about the meaning of atheism and agnosticism.

No one here is perfect. I don't claim to be the epitome of honesty. But if YOU can't muster any basic integrity, then what do you hope to gain in any debate? You surely can't believe all opponents you face here will be fooled by such obvious dishonesty.

Not surprised at your stereotyped atheistic response. Typical pretence and Hyena-like scorn to that which you've not processed is your logo.

A rebuttal is what is needed not a meaningless emotional response!

LordReed:


What are you on about?

I don't understand you?

LordReed:


Which part of end do you have a problem with? The e or the d?

Can you disprove the source Empirically?

Only a dishonest fellow will avoid saying the answer!

shadeyinka:

I don't understand you?

What is the relevance of:

shadeyinka:

Except for a miracle. They are gone forever.
All children of the neighborhood played together.
This is not possible in the days with everyone having their cartoon network studio at home

shadeyinka:

Can you disprove the source Empirically?

Only a dishonest fellow will avoid saying the answer!

LMFAO! End of discussion is end of discussion.

TheArranger:

I don't know what it is with you either. You're pointlessly dragging an irrelevant issue.


And i've asked you to screenshot the accusation you claim. Are you obsessed with pointless squabbles?

TheArranger:
@SHADEYINKA
Just a little food for thought here.

* I am NOT a scientist
* I am NOT a physicist
* I am NOT an astrophysicist
* I am NOT a cosmologist
* I am NOT a mathematician
.

So that being said, i think it is great if you happen to have advanced studies or a degree in one or more of those fields. Fantastic. Good for you. I happen to enjoy learning about and discussing various things in some of those areas myself. What i find hilarious, however, is how you and other such theists attack us atheists , spouting all types of "advanced" science/physics/cosmology and such, and then try to claim some sort of victory for your god when most of us are unable to counter your psychobabble. It truly is amusing on many levels.

If there is a Logical or Scientific or other defences, rebut or otherwise then let's have it rather than accusations of what Atheists or Theists did on NL.

LordReed:



What is the relevance of:

There must have been a mistake in response to threads. Someone asked if the days before the Indomie Generation can be back in Nigeria.

LordReed:


LMFAO! End of discussion is end of discussion.

No shame. Like a hyenas: always avoiding the Light.

I assume you have nothing meaningful to say again as answering a question is tantamount to self destruction!

Bye for now.

shadeyinka:

Can you disprove the source Empirically?

Only a dishonest fellow will avoid saying the answer!

No one can prove or disprove a source empirically. And that is why we should not conclude at least not yet, that there is a source. It is more reasonable to withhold belief. If you knew anything about the burden of proof, you wouldn't be asking such nonsense.

LordReed:


LMFAO! End of discussion is end of discussion.

Lol. Dude has started ranting and throwing boring shades. He's getting emotional. Smh

shadeyinka:






If there is a Logical or Scientific or other defences, rebut or otherwise then let's have it rather than accusations of what Atheists or Theists did on NL.

Wtf is this? What is the accusation here? Can you listen to yourself?

I stated that theists use advanced science to assault theists and claim that their favourite god exists. I stated the reasons why this was amusing and pointed out the fact that some theists dismiss science as a way of proving god.

You know what? I give up with you. Go and enjoy your god.

tintingz:


So in your argument, the proof of a self-existing God is from the Bible? Please provide an empirical evidence of a self-existing entity.

We have not fully understood the universe, how did you conclude it must be created?

According to law of conservation, energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

And God don't change?

First, self-existent is what any true God is. That is just a definition, not a technical proof. In other words, a true God is anything that is self-existent.

Second, I said that the Bible claims that the God that Christians worship is the true God, that is, that He is self-existent. The proof that it offers for this claim is the universe around us.

Third, is it your opinion that the universe around us is not empirical enough proof of the Trinity? Why is it not?

Fourth, is it your opinion that we cannot know if the universe changes from one qualitative state to another unless we know every last thing there is to know about it?

Fifth, what is the point of your reference to the law of conservation of energy?

Sixth, I said both that a true God is invulnerable to external influence and thus does not change and that the Bible claims that the Trinity does not change. Which of those statements are you challenging with your question? And what precisely is your challenge? Why do you seem incredulous about it?

TheArranger:

Lol. Dude has started ranting and throwing boring shades. He's getting emotional. Smh

Very yawn inducing.