Deep Sight:

I only see this as cowardice. The questions are simple and very short. Do you fear perhaps that answering them will show up just how ridiculously untenable and thoughtless the materialist position is?

Please just keep that ego to one side. Me sef, I no dey vex for small jibes, so get over that already and stop wasting your time in that regard. I am not here to score petty sucker points. So it irritates me when anyone takes my yaps seriously.

If you will, be a man, and address yourself straight to my very simple and very short questions.

mazaje:

I am talking about a specific god like the christian god that has defined attributes, not your imaginary oneness of infinity that is undefined and has no defined attributes except what YOU personally chose to give it. . .Oneness of infinity is just a god idea you personally created out of thin air and it has nothing to do with the point am making. . .

Image123:
you said that the Bible does NOT talk about an undetectable or hidden God anywhere. Your ignorance is not my fault, no vex.

wiegraf:

You seem to misunderstand. I have, and had, absolutely no intention of indulging in your chocolate flavored $hit. Get to your point. And, um, the f*&k do I care if you're annoyed? That's your prerogative, it's a free world.

Deep Sight:

I am not annoyed, I can only smile at a coward.

I see you are scared sh1tless and cant address the simple and short questions. It thus makes sense to pretend that I never asked the questions and also pretend that the point is not obvious within the questions - by asking me to get to my point.

I had credited you with better than this.

Whenever you are ready, be it tomorrow, next week, next month, next month, or even when we are all six feet under, the questions are there. You can go back to them and answer them.

Good evening, kind, noble and gracious sir.

wiegraf:

Did you have a point?

Mr anony: How can I say that I know it is designed without knowing what it is designed for? In the same way I can know that this was designed without knowing what it was designed for.
[url]www.glmorris.net/pilot/concept art/Complex Machine_small.jpg[/url]
If you disagree with me then it will mean that every machine you have ever used, you thought they assembled themselves by chance until you learnt how to use them. These include your phone, TV, car, clothes, paintings, writings e.t.c.

chance has no laws that can make behavior predictable

Try Occam's razor. There is no need to multiply causes beyond necessity

Deep Sight:

Its been almost 30 minutes since I posted those questions and you have made several replies. I would have thought it wise and honest to simply invest that time (which of course you do not have) into answering the very simple and short questions directly.

Anything less is just plain dodgy my friend, and you must per force agree that you are by now being absolutely dodgy.

chance has no laws that can make behavior predictable

Mazaje:
You haven't show this to be true in any way. . .

wiegraf:

So you have one? Can you get to it pls?

Deep Sight:

Aite. That's it. I see you won't answer the questions coz of fear. I am happy that the questions are there. Posterity and the reading public will judge for themselves the following -

1. The questions
2. If the point was made already in the questions
3. Your refusal to address them squarely.

I'm on my second Big stout, I need to sleep early today, stop wasting my time, Good night, kind noble and gracious sir.

chukkynwob: @Deepsight you have been around for so long to recall that weigraf only specialises in abuse and ad hominem.

Engaging him I must warn is not only futile but might dent your image in this section as an intellectual.

wiegraf:

That's some butthurt, did I perchance jizz in your break fast my good intellectual?

Mr anony: Read this 4 times. It still doesn't make sense.

Mr anony:
Good then we are both agreed that none of your chaos examples violates the physical laws by which the universe is defined. The only problem is our inability to measure them precisely.

Mr anony:
You have expressly claimed ignorance of whether or not the universe exists necessarily hence there is no need to show you previous places where you conceded it didn't exist necessarily.

Mr anony:
Asked and answered here

Mr anony:
....uhm no you miss the point. Nairaland represents the universe in the analogy and the submit button represents the moon. Now please go and read it again

Image123:
Bros, there are more gainful things that can be done, sorry.

Deep Sight:

Fvcking hell, lolz. You dis guy, you dey on sometin i swear! That brought a laugh!

thehomer:

Maybe there are but don't you think that as a Christian, you shouldn't be bearing false witness? What you've said amounts to lying against me. The way for you to show that you're not lying is for you to back up your slander with evidence.

Deep Sight:

There really are better things to do than worry about someone who regards himself as a stone.

wiegraf:

Well, it was a bit confusing. Not saying I'm not an a$$, but it still comes of as silly, my opinion.

We'll deal with our issues another day good ser, I really shouldn't be procrastinating and I'm fairly sure we'll reach a pointless impasse. I will open a thread when I'm in the mood, and whenever you could, you could then indulge me at your discretion.

But yes, most of those are (for the most part, I'll have to look at them) abstract. My point being materialists do not deny the existence of the abstract, and I already mentioned that hence I see no need to answer to the questions. Materialist POV is simply that they rely on the physical, the physical being the base. Also, I view thoughts simply as computations, like any PC can do. Only thing they miss are emotions, the ability to feel, etc, so I don't consider them anything special.

Anyhoo, enjoy the stouts.

Deep Sight:
I asked if they are material.

Deep Sight:

Dont worry, I am myself planning a big say-all; where I will say everything about why I think strict materialist atheism is siilly, and when I do that, you can b.ang me on the head with a baseball bat full of reasons why I am wrong.

wiegraf: Manly? Well.

For the most part, no, abstract like I mentioned. I only mentioned the 'not special' bit to highlight I don't think consciousness is particularly special. You might be heading in other directions though.

I'll defend my manly honor if you get around to opening a thread, or address these questions directly by opening another thread.

Looking forward to it oga..

Ah, I was supposed to have left.

Deep Sight:
End of story, you have shown that, after-all, you believe that non-physical things exist!

Deep Sight:
I will hold you to that; once I am done with my key assignments 2moro, I will start by going back to your old thread which I still have in mind. Forgot the title tho. Send it to me, you slave of mine, will, ya. Now!

Deep Sight:
Honestly, this addiction. Same here o, ought to be up early for important stuff. Instead I am nursing guiness stout and answering crazy materialists like you.

One thought - Has it ever occurred to you how strange life is?

einstein:
What I'm really interested in is whether God could have made the world in a different way; that is, whether the necessity of logical simplicity leaves any freedom at all.

mazaje:

You are a joke. . Pls re-read the verse again. . .Here it is. . .

1Timothy 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen

Where in this verse does it can that god can not be detected?. . .The verse only talks about god who is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. It does not say he is undetectable. . .Where does the bible say that god is undetectable any where? A god that is said to speak to humans and be in a personal relationship with them?. . .Where does it say that god is undetectable. . .Seems you read your own bible upside down as always. . .

thehomer:

Maybe there are but don't you think that as a Christian, you shouldn't be bearing false witness? What you've said amounts to lying against me. The way for you to show that you're not lying is for you to back up your slander with evidence.

Image123:
i did not lie against you. i also thank God that there are other readers that see your fallacies oh king. You may keep living in denial as an unbelievaber.

thehomer:

If you weren't lying against me, then surely you should be able to show me these fallacies. So, where are they?

Image123:
Going by experience on this thread and others, you have the defect of not being able to recognize one when shown.

thehomer:

This is another slanderous claim that you'll have to demonstrate.

Image123:
wow, you're now going selective on your own statements? You said God is not undetectable or hidden anywhere. It seems the meaning is lost on you.

Deep Sight:

No one has to demonstrate this. It is like asking people to demonstrate that the sun exists. It is self evident. In Latin -Res ipsa loquitor. The thing speaks for itself.

Deep Sight:
EVERYONE, sees how dumbfoundingly THICK you are.

By the by, I opened thread to ask if u have ever heard a good theistic argument. Did you see it or just ignore it? Your choice.

mazaje:

Where does it say that god is hidden or undetectable in the passage?. . .The passage only says your god dwells in a place no man can approach, it also says no man has seen him(its a contradiction since other passages have stated that some people have seen him e.g Moses). Seeing is NOT the only way an entity can be detected. . .There are many things that have been detected though other means than sight. . .The passage does NOT say the bible god can not be detected. . .