vooks:


It is a fact you can't prove that God doesn't exist, but this is no proof for existence of God.

Why this argument is employed by those who believe in God is because those who don't categorically CLAIM God does not exist. So it is actually a demand in them to substantiate their claims. At this point, they back down and actually claim there is no proof for God's existence. The theists will respond by asking what proof would suffice for them and so forth..... So you can see this is not really proving a negative but really demanding evidence for a claim. But I repeat, it is no proof for existence of God

The best proof that God does not exist is the fact that there is no proof he exist.

frank317:


The best proof that God does not exist is the fact that there is no proof he exist.

You made that up. Be humble enough to at least say you don't have any proof. You can ask for proof of you are really interested.

vooks:


You made that up. Be humble enough to at least say you don't have any proof. You can ask for proof of you are really interested.

Lol... I should ask for proof of my creator? How ridiculous do you sound right now. I should ask you, my fellow human for proof of my creator (a supposedly almighty powerful God). Isn't that funny?
Did u even read what u confidently wrote? The fact that you are asking me yo ask u for proof of God is another proof God does not exist.

frank317:


Lol... I should ask for proof of my creator? How ridiculous do you sound right now. I should ask you, my fellow human for proof of my creator (a supposedly almighty powerful God). Isn't that funny?
Did u even read what u confidently wrote? The fact that you are asking me yo ask u for proof of God is another proof God does not exist.

Does the fact that you don't know Subaru manufacturer mean they never manufactured the Subaru?

You are funny

In short what you don't know does not exist. The blind man who has never seen the sun lives in a sunless Galaxy?

Is your reality governed by your knowledge?

Welcome, Vooks, you take this Frank guy to the cleaners all the time.

vooks:


Does the fact that you don't know Subaru manufacturer mean they never manufactured the Subaru?

What's this? Subru manufacturers should be a concern for Subaru not me. Knowing Subaru manufacturers has got nothing to do with my creator. As a matter of fact, all Subaru's know their manufacturers. How does it sound to you that a Subaru (if I assume it is suddenly conscious) does not know its manufacturer. Now I need u, my fellow human to prove to me my manufacturer exists. Again, you dont see how ridiculous u sound. You dont see how non existent u make ur so call God sound.

You are funny

If you can think just a little bit harder, you will actually see who the funny one is.

In short what you don't know does not exist. The blind man who has never seen the sun lives in a sunless Galaxy?

Why should I not know my CREATOR!!!! Does not exist? Why is it even possible that a creation does not know his creator exist? Even a child born outside wedlock knows his earthly father exist somewhere. It is written in his consciousness even if he has never seen his father. But here I am waiting upon u to tell me my creator exist. Isn't there something fishy?

Is your reality governed by your knowledge?

The existence of a creator shouldn't be governed by knowledge... It should be a universal knowledge just like the existence of the sun.

And no, my reality is not governed by knowledge, but here I am, waiting upon you, to learn/reach of the existence of my creator which should have been just a reality to me.

analice107:
Welcome, Vooks, you take this Frank guy to the cleaners all the time.

Trust me, if he keeps this conversation, I will take him on a thinking journey he has never been, and he will sure come back here to tell you to shut the f***k up.

frank317:

What's this? Subru manufacturers should be a concern for Subaru not me. Knowing Subaru manufacturers has got nothing to do with my creator. As a matter of fact, all Subaru's know their manufacturers. How does it sound to you that a Subaru (if I assume it is suddenly conscious) does not know its manufacturer. Now I need u, my fellow human to prove to me my manufacturer exists. Again, you dont see how ridiculous u sound. You dont see how non existent u make ur so call God sound.

You don't need another human to prove existence of your creator but it is preposterous to claim that since you don't know who created you then you were not created. That's al there is to the analogy. Think through what I teach you

If you can think just a little bit harder, you will actually see who the funny one is.

Funny is reasoning this;
I don't know who created me= I'm uncreated

Why should I not know my CREATOR!!!! Does not exist? Why is it even possible that a creation does not know his creator exist? Even a child born outside wedlock knows his earthly father exist somewhere. It is written in his consciousness even if he has never seen his father. But here I am waiting upon u to tell me my creator exist. Isn't there something fishy?

Nobody said you shouldn't but it's nonsensical to claim that you MUST know who created you else you were uncreated.
Fishy and actually silly is equating your ignorance with nonexistence

The existence of a creator shouldn't be governed by knowledge... It should be a universal knowledge just like the existence of the sun.

This is plain illogical; you barely understand the working of the solar system, a tiny portion of the Galaxy, you are still discovering the physical realm. Do you know everything? If you knew everything, then knowledge of your creation should be in your possession

Do you know half of everything? Supposing you know half of everything,which is overrating your brains, had it occurred to you that knowledge of creation exists in the other half you know nothing about?

Think through what am saying; a kid had no idea that they are a product of ovum and sperm deep inside their mother's uterus. They may or may not LEARN this with time but one sure thing is, during their ignorance, the fact remained about their origin

And no, my reality is not governed by knowledge, but here I am, waiting upon you, to learn/reach of the existence of my creator which should have been just a reality to me.

Nonsense.
Is it a 'reality' to babies that they are a product of sex?
Once you concede ignorance we can proceed

frank317:


Trust me, if he keeps this conversation, I will take him on a thinking journey he has never been, and he will sure come back here to tell you to shut the f***k up.

Make my day Negro,
Got a few hours to pick your puny brains before I rejoin my family

vooks:

You don't need another human to prove existence of your creator but it is preposterous to claim that since you don't know who created you then you were not created. That's al there is to the analogy. Think through what I teach you

Thank you... I dont need human to prove me his existence. Only the so called creator can but...
All right, since I dont know my creator I should just assume that I was created? What kind of self deceit is that? If I have a creator, why is he hiding?
Personally, I dont know how life began, and claiming to have a creator without evidence of a creator is purely nonsensical, you know it.

Funny is reasoning this;
I don't know who created me= I'm uncreated

Is that what you think? Wrong, that's not my reasoning, listen:

"I dont know who created me, therefore my options are open until I know."

Nobody said you shouldn't but it's nonsensical to claim that you MUST know who created you else you were uncreated.
Fishy and actually silly is equating your ignorance with nonexistence

How can u be so sure that you were created when you dont know your creator? What if you were uncreated? Dont you think if the creator exists and want man to know he is our creator, we would know already? Would we be here arguing if the creator really want us to know he exists?
I can see you prefer making this creator up in your mind and tarahhhhh, it becomes your reality.

This is plain illogical; you barely understand the working of the solar system, a tiny portion of the Galaxy, you are still discovering the physical realm. Do you know everything? If you knew everything, then knowledge of your creation should be in your possession

Listen to yourself wise one... So u know everything that's why you have knowledge of your creation? Or you dont have knowledge of that? What else are we saying here? You accept we can't have knowledge of our creation. But you just want us to ascribe it to a creator? How does that solve any problem?

Do you know half of everything? Supposing you know half of everything,which is overrating your brains, had it occurred to you that knowledge of creation exists in the other half you know nothing about?

Think through what am saying; a kid had no idea that they are a product of ovum and sperm deep inside their mother's uterus. They may or may not LEARN this with time but one sure thing is, during their ignorance, the fact remained about their origin

Your confusion knows no bound. Stop blowing hot and cold at the same time. You accept we know nothing about our creation so what are you barking about the existence of a creator? How did u come about this knowledge? Are u super human?

Nonsense.
Is it a 'reality' to babies that they are a product of sex?
Once you concede ignorance we can proceed

Stop asking me dumb questions.... Are babies aware of anything?

frank317:

Thank you... I dont need human to prove me his existence.

That's right. You don't need ANOTHER human

Only the so called creator can but...

That's an assumption right there.
Like the iPhone 6 Plus am using. If Apple won't tell you they made it then Apple never made it.

See your scatter logic? To you ignorance=nonexistence

All right, since I dont know my creator I should just assume that I was created?

Silly presumption. Don't assume, SEEK,find out

What kind of self deceit is that? If I have a creator, why is he hiding?

Another foolish assumption. Who said he is hiding?

Personally, I dont know how life began,

But am sure you know how it NEVER began; randomly

and claiming to have a creator without evidence of a creator is purely nonsensical, you know it.

More nonsensical is claiming that natural random processes began life out of nowhere,all by themselves

Is that what you think? Wrong, that's not my reasoning, listen:

"I dont know who created me, therefore my options are open until I know."

No they are not. You can for instance rule me out as having created you because you damn well know I can't
You may not know how you got here but you know how you never got here

How can u be so sure that you were created when you dont know your creator?

Because it is either I was designed and created by an intelligent being or am a product of natural random processes. But since I fully understand the limits of randomness, I can rule them out just as you can rule out a Subaru erupting out of a Japanese volcano

What if you were uncreated?

What is 'uncreated'?

Dont you think if the creator exists and want man to know he is our creator, we would know already?

Who said we don't?
First look at the high order and complexity of the simplest living organism. Everything about it screams DESIGN. We know there can't be design without a designer, right?

Would we be here arguing if the creator really want us to know he exists?

We are here because you are playing dumb and pretending you can't see design which is evidence of a designer yet when you see a Subaru you automatically know some Intelligence was behind it

I can see you prefer making this creator up in your mind and tarahhhhh, it becomes your reality.

I can see you wish to pretend that a Subaru can erupt of volcano

Listen to yourself wise one... So u know everything that's why you have knowledge of your creation?

I don't know everything

Or you dont have knowledge of that? What else are we saying here? You accept we can't have knowledge of our creation.

Stop hallucinating, I admit our knowledge is limited and am open to the possibility that what I don't know may be what created me.

But you just want us to ascribe it to a creator? How does that solve any problem?

How does denying design solve anything


[wuote]Your confusion knows no bound. Stop blowing hot and cold at the same time. You accept we know nothing about our creation so what are you barking about the existence of a creator? How did u come about this knowledge? Are u super human?[/quote]
There are two options;either we got here naturally or somebody put us here. I can eliminate the former because it is plain silly

Stop asking me dumb questions.... Are babies aware of anything?

It's analogy; not knowing your origin does not wish away your origin

Cc anas09

2 very funny people arguing back and forth about God whether It exists or not as if God cares whether people acknowledge his existence or not. from God you came and to God you will surely return when you drop the physical body in death.
it is all a matter of time.

benodic:

2 very funny people arguing back and forth about God whether It exists or not as if God cares whether people acknowledge his existence or not. from God you came and to God you will surely return when you drop the physical body in death.
it is all a matter of time.

The only reason there is room for argument is because he does not exist. God cannot be real and this arguemnet will be taking place

vooks:

That's right. You don't need ANOTHER human


That's an assumption right there.
Like the iPhone 6 Plus am using. If Apple won't tell you they made it then Apple never made it.

See your scatter logic? To you ignorance=nonexistence

If you can't wrap ur head around a God you made up, you will never explain anything meaningful. You can never be clear or go straight to the point. If God exists... Should a creation be ignorant of his existence? Why then shouldnt ignorant = nonexistent? Or are u suggesting that: ignorance should = existence? What kind of logic is that.

I dont know if a green cow exists, so therefore a green cow exists.

Or

I dont know if a green cow exists so therefore a green cow does not exist.

Which of the two assumptions above makes better sense to you oh wise one.

Silly presumption. Don't assume, SEEK,find out

Seek and find out my creator? Where is he hiding?
Besides, this is ur statement below

This is plain illogical; you barely understand the working of the solar system, a tiny portion of the Galaxy, you are still discovering the physical realm. Do you know everything? If you knew everything, then knowledge of your creation should be in your possession

How then can I seek a God when I dont know everything? Should our creator be something we should be seeking for? What relevance is that?

Another foolish assumption. Who said he is hiding?

He is not hiding and you are asking me too SEEK for him.

But am sure you know how it NEVER began; randomly

I dont know what you are sure of... I dont know how life began and I am sure you dont know too, I dont know why you are making noise about something you don't know.

More nonsensical is claiming that natural random processes began life out of nowhere,all by themselves

What?

No they are not. You can for instance rule me out as having created you because you damn well know I can't
You may not know how you got here but you know how you never got here

Isn't that the beauty of having the ability to think? I dont accept anything just because I dont know.

Because it is either I was designed and created by an intelligent being or am a product of natural random processes. But since I fully understand the limits of randomness, I can rule them out just as you can rule out a Subaru erupting out of a Japanese volcano

So what's the noise about? A mere assumption? To achieve what with this assumption?

What is 'uncreated'?

In my own opinion... Any other unimaginable means of existence apart from coming from a manufacturer. Or isn't that a possibility?

Who said we don't?
First look at the high order and complexity of the simplest living organism. Everything about it screams DESIGN. We know there can't be design without a designer, right?

That's just your opinion... Do you have idea what design is not? What did you use to compare the world you find yourself in that makes you think it was designed?

We are here because you are playing dumb and pretending you can't see design which is evidence of a designer yet when you see a Subaru you automatically know some Intelligence was behind it

Listen to ur logic...
The fact that man created or designed a Subaru means that A God (something u dont know) created you.

Can we then say that the fact that man excretes shiitt means that God excretes u?

The making of Subaru is mans activity... How does that have anything to do with a God? How did u even know that this your assumed God is a designer? Because man designs? Think... Is this your God just a glorified man in your imagination?

I don't know everything

Lol, but u know a God whose knowledge of requires man to know everything.

Stop hallucinating, I admit our knowledge is limited and am open to the possibility that what I don't know may be what created me.

Again you boast and call yourself wise just because of a simple assumption which u accept could be wrong.

How does denying design solve anything

It makes u open to possibilities

There are two options;either we got here naturally or somebody put us here. I can eliminate the former because it is plain silly

In order words, its better to assume (possibly falsely] than saying I dont know.

It's analogy; not knowing your origin does not wish away your origin

Cc anas09

Next time use a more reasonable analogy... Dont ask dumb questions because u want to make an analogy. Babies ain't aware of anything.

And pls talk more reasonably:

NOT KNOWING YOUR ORIGIN MEANS YOU DONT KNOW YOUR ORIGIN. ASSUMPTIONS DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNKNOWN.

[size=1pt]

frank317:

If you can't wrap ur head around a God you made up, you will never explain anything meaningful. You can never be clear or go straight to the point. If God exists... Should a creator be ignorant of his existence? Why then shouldnt ignorant = nonexistent? Or are u suggesting that: ignorance should = existence? What kind of logic is that.

I dont know if a green cow exists, so therefore a green cow exists.

Or

I dont know if a green cow exists so therefore a green cow does not exist.

Which of the two assumptions above makes better sense to you oh wise one.


Seek and find out my creator? Where is he hiding?
Besides, this is ur statement below



How then can I seek a God when I dont know everything? Should our creator be something we should be seeking for? What relevance is that?


He is not hiding and you are asking me too SEEK for him.


I dont know what you are sure of... I dont know how life began and I am sure you dont know too, I dont know why you are making noise about something you don't know.


What?


Isn't that the beauty of having the ability to think? I dont accept anything because I dont know.


So what's the noise about? A mere assumption? To achieve what with this assumption?


In my own opinion... Any other unimaginable means of existence apart from coming from a manufacturer. Or isn't that a possibility?

[/size]
Merry Christmas,
Look for me when am free, for now it's family time

How market, Kingebukasblog?

AllNaijaBlogger:
How market, Kingebukasblog?

Lol ... bro dem ban me for one week for promoting B. ia . fra

This na my back up account

How ur xmas dey go ?

KingEbukaBlog:


Lol ... bro dem ban me for one week for promoting B. ia . fra

This na my back up account

How ur xmas dey go ?

Xmas is fine.

How will a grown man like yourself be supporting Biafra?

KingEbukaBlog:


Lol ... bro dem ban me for one week for promoting B. ia . fra

Smh.

AllNaijaBlogger:




Xmas is fine.

How will a grown man like yourself be supporting Biafra?

Because he's a Biafran!

vooks:


When dealing with 'evidence' of evolution, I usually ask for a definition of terms just to make sure we are on the same page. The reason is evolutionists are notorious for bait-and-switch tactics of switching meaning of terms into their arguments to confuse you. For instance, in one short paragraph you have defined evolution as adaptation and 'modification of cells'

Briefly define what evolution is and then give your BEST proof for it. Only then can we examine your 'proof'

Evolution has to do with adaptation of a specie due to environmental factors. Thus it is the gradual modification of organisms.

I used mostly primitive life to explain it because they are the easiest to observe when evolving because some take just decades compared to advanced life like humans that take millions of years. And for my proof, read my prev post on the topic.

ValentineMary:

Evolution has to do with adaptation of a specie due to environmental factors. Thus it is the gradual modification of organisms.

I used mostly primitive life to explain it because they are the easiest to observe when evolving because some take just decades compared to advanced life like humans that take millions of years. And for my proof, read my prev post on the topic.

So how come the shark hasn't evolved in 450 million years, the dragon fly has not evolved in 400 million years and the crocodile has not evolved in 250 million years.

Annunaki:


So how come the shark hasn't evolved in 450 million years, the dragon fly has not evolved in 400 million years and the crocodile has not evolved in 250 million years.

This is a very naive qus I must confess.
First of all, even if the shark has evovlved how would you know? you are just 19 years. And yes those animals has actually evolved. At least archeological discoveries has shown that There has been some physiological changes over the century.

ValentineMary:

This is a very naive qus I must confess.
First of all, even if the shark has evovlved how would you know? you are just 19 years. And yes those animals has actually evolved. At least archeological discoveries has shown that There has been some physiological changes over the century.

You are the one that is being extremely daft and naive as archaeological records reveal that these and several other animals have not evolved for millions of years. Concerning my age, I am probably old enough to be your father so don't even go there.

And going by your pedestrian logic of a nineteen year old not being old enough to know if evolution did not occur, you will need to produce the person that is old enough(millions of years old) that witnessed evolution and confirmed to you it actually happened that way.

ValentineMary:

Evolution has to do with adaptation of a specie due to environmental factors. Thus it is the gradual modification of organisms.

I used mostly primitive life to explain it because they are the easiest to observe when evolving because some take just decades compared to advanced life like humans that take millions of years. And for my proof, read my prev post on the topic.

You won't define evolution. Define EVOLUTION and then you will be worth my while

The fossil record, far from the tenuous succession of gaps described by creationists, provides an admittedly incomplete but beautiful and coherent set of clues to life in the distant past. That any traces at all remain from so long ago is astounding, and anyway it is not the completeness of the fossil record but its consistency that matters. When asked what observation would disprove the theory of evolution, J.B.S. Haldane, a pioneering British geneticist, replied: “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era.” But such anachronisms have never been found. Then there is the evidence written on the bodies of all living things. The mammalian skeleton is consistently recognisable in creatures as various as bats, monkeys, horses and humans. Vestiges such as the stumpy wings of flightless birds, and the hairs that prickle on human skin just like the rising hackles on furry mammals, are further testimony to our shared origins. Glitches, like the laryngeal nerves that are so neatly laid out in fish but that must detour in animals with necks—by a crazy 15 feet (4.6m) in the case of giraffes—demonstrate the incremental, undirected business of evolution in touching detail. At the microscopic scale, molecular genetics connects the various parts of the grand family tree with fantastic detail and accuracy. The evidence that Mr Dawkins sets out so persuasively here is already widely known. Yet two-fifths of Americans still refuse to accept that human beings share a common ancestry with animals, preferring to believe that they were created in their present form in the past 10,000 years.
And u said there are no archeological proof.

vooks:


You won't define evolution. Define EVOLUTION and then you will be worth my while

It seems u can't read. So you are not worth my time.

ValentineMary:


It seems u can't read. So you are not worth my time.

It seems you can't think nor articulate yourself, definitely not worth my while

[size=1pt]

ValentineMary:
The fossil
record, far from the tenuous succession of gaps
described by creationists, provides an admittedly
incomplete but beautiful and coherent set of
clues to life in the distant past. That any traces
at all remain from so long ago is astounding,
and anyway it is not the completeness of the
fossil record but its consistency that matters.
When asked what observation would disprove
the theory of evolution, J.B.S. Haldane, a
pioneering British geneticist, replied: “Fossil
rabbits in the Precambrian era.” But such
anachronisms have never been found.
Then there is the evidence written on the bodies
of all living things. The mammalian skeleton is
consistently recognisable in creatures as various
as bats, monkeys, horses and humans. Vestiges
such as the stumpy wings of flightless birds, and
the hairs that prickle on human skin just like the
rising hackles on furry mammals, are further
testimony to our shared origins. Glitches, like
the laryngeal nerves that are so neatly laid out
in fish but that must detour in animals with
necks—by a crazy 15 feet (4.6m) in the case of
giraffes—demonstrate the incremental,
undirected business of evolution in touching
detail. At the microscopic scale, molecular
genetics connects the various parts of the grand
family tree with fantastic detail and accuracy.
The evidence that Mr Dawkins sets out so
persuasively here is already widely known. Yet
two-fifths of Americans still refuse to accept
that human beings share a common ancestry
with animals, preferring to believe that they
were created in their present form in the past
10,000 years.

And u said there are no archeological proof.

[/size]

Name your sources and stop pretending to be brainier that you be
http://www.economist.com/node/14361755

ValentineMary:

It seems u can't read. So you are not worth my time.

You are yet to prove that MACROEVOLUTION is true.

timonski:

You are yet to prove that MACROEVOLUTION is true.

The way all these theist argue is funny. That is why I decide to ignore vooks and some other people.

Anyways wait and observe. Maybe one day u might evolve into iceman.

ValentineMary:

The way all these theist argue is funny. That is why I decide to ignore vooks and some other people.

Anyways wait and observe. Maybe one day u might evolve into iceman.

Yadayada... You still havn't proven evolution to be true. Even some hare-brained atheists have pointed that out to you.