Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-04-2015, 10:39 PM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Ah ok I get it now. Well let's just argue then that God doesn't exist and I will argue the idea that he does.

Or we could argue that the idea of evolution is wrong.
Find all posts by this user
18-04-2015, 10:56 PM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
(18-04-2015 10:39 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Ah ok I get it now. Well let's just argue then that God doesn't exist and I will argue the idea that he does.

Or we could argue that the idea of evolution is wrong.


Without an agreed upon cogent and meaningful definition of what a god even is, arguing about it's supposed existence is as pointless as arguing over the existence of Sagan's garage dragon, the invisible pink unicorn, or a undetectable pan-dimensional emotionally stunted space-wizard.


If you're ready to publicly concede that you are simply unable to even define your god in a cogent and meaningful way (and therefore any positive belief in this meaningless concept is also meaningless), we can move on to educating you in basic evolutionary theory. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-04-2015, 05:31 PM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Well, if you have said already that you refuse to argue with the idea that God is something out of time and space, how can I argue the idea of God? Isn't part of being God being something outside of time and space?

A god outside of time and space is as meaningless as a doughnut outside of time and space.

That sounds like a refusal to me.

We can argue the existence of Jesus if you want and that He is God.
Find all posts by this user
19-04-2015, 09:38 PM (This post was last modified: 20-04-2015 09:32 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
(19-04-2015 05:31 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Well, if you have said already that you refuse to argue with the idea that God is something out of time and space, how can I argue the idea of God? Isn't part of being God being something outside of time and space?


Simple, because you cannot even begin to explain what that even means, let alone attempt to verify it as being factually true. Placing anything outside of both space and time, by which we are currently confined, places it outside the realm of falsifiability. Thus it is meaningless, because it's nothing but a baseless assertion. Your spaceless and timeless god is as meaningless as my spaceless and timeless Nork (never mind that I cannot define what a Nork is), who incidentally also created your god; and don't say it didn't happen like that because you cannot prove me wrong!

Do you now understand why that line of reasoning is total and utter bullshit?

Assume for a second that we even grant that unwarranted assumption, where does that get us? What does it even mean?

"Outside of space and time" is convenient shorthand used to further hide a volcano god from the fact that we can explore his mountain but didn't find him there. Or in the sky. Or in space. We landed on the fucking moon, and even then a god didn't deign to appear or make their presence known.

Also, as soon as something "outside of space and time" interacts with us and our world, it is now inside our space and time; and can conceivably be tested. However something that never interacts with our world, because it never enters our space and time, is effectively non-existent. A god that exists but does nothing and is both undetectable and unverifiable is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a non-existent god.


(19-04-2015 05:31 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  A god outside of time and space is as meaningless as a doughnut outside of time and space.

That sounds like a refusal to me.


Nork created your god because he's double outside space and time! Doesn't matter that you cannot prove it didn't happen!

Checkmate theist!


Dodgy


(19-04-2015 05:31 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  We can argue the existence of Jesus if you want and that He is God.

Laugh out load

Not yet. We're not moving on until you can supply a meaningful definition for your god to argue in favor of, or publicly concede that you are (once again) simply unable to even cogently define your god and that your continued positive belief in this meaningless concept is unwarranted.

This is a debate, either you defend your position or you concede that you are unable to do so. Once you've made up your mind, then we can move onto another topic, but I'll not let you squirrel out of your current obligations.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-04-2015, 02:02 PM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Ok I think I get it. If something is completely outside of space and time, how can someone argue about it, because it is like a donut outside of space and time. I can't disprove that and neither can you. Ok ok.

God isn't just outside of space and time. He interacts with space and time often, like creating the world and sending His Son to die on Earth. So He is something that can be falsifiable then. I just have to come up with a definition...

God in Christianity is the eternal being who created and preserves the world. Christians believe God to be both transcendent (wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (involved in the world).

Is this a falsifiable statement?
Find all posts by this user
20-04-2015, 10:33 PM (This post was last modified: 20-04-2015 11:11 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
(20-04-2015 02:02 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Ok I think I get it. If something is completely outside of space and time, how can someone argue about it, because it is like a donut outside of space and time. I can't disprove that and neither can you. Ok ok.


Right.


(20-04-2015 02:02 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  God isn't just outside of space and time. He interacts with space and time often, like creating the world and sending His Son to die on Earth. So He is something that can be falsifiable then. I just have to come up with a definition...


Potentially, depends on the definition. Meaningless definitions can be whatever you want, but to have a meaningful definition requires certain criteria. I'm not sure you'll be happy with the result even if you do manage to get to a falsifiable definition; unfortunately for you, I'm not here to debate the existence of meaningless concepts.


(20-04-2015 02:02 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  God in Christianity is the eternal being who created and preserves the world. Christians believe God to be both transcendent (wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (involved in the world).

Is this a falsifiable statement?


How would one potentially falsify transcendence? What does that even mean? Sure you can string words together and make a sentence, but can you even begin to explain how anything can be 'removed from the material universe', let alone how you would go about testing that?


So you're still not getting it... No


Also, how can one be both removed from a universe and take part in a world within said universe? Not only is your definition not falsifiable, it's self contradictory even at face value. Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
21-04-2015, 02:35 PM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Yeah I just copy pasted that from Google.

So God is something that is outside the material universe. That is part of the definition of God. Any theist would say that God is something outside of space and time. But that is a non-falsifiable statement. That part of God is something that can't be argued against because it has no proof or counter-proof. I don't want to argue about that part of God, because it isn't a point that I am trying to make. Who cares if God is outside of space and time, down at the center of the earth, or on top of the Statue of Liberty. But that is part of the definition of God. Lots of parts of the definition of God are non-falsifiable. He is eternal. That is non-falsifiable, because we are not eternal. There is no scientific way to test that. However, part of the definition of God is also that He created everything. That is falsifiable. But still, in the end, parts of the definition of God are non-falsifiable. Does that mean we can't argue about Him?
Find all posts by this user
21-04-2015, 10:13 PM (This post was last modified: 21-04-2015 10:26 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
(21-04-2015 02:35 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Yeah I just copy pasted that from Google.


Color me surprised... Drinking Beverage


(21-04-2015 02:35 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  So God is something that is outside the material universe.


That is the claim, one that remains unsubstantiated.


(21-04-2015 02:35 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  That is part of the definition of God. Any theist would say that God is something outside of space and time. But that is a non-falsifiable statement. That part of God is something that can't be argued against because it has no proof or counter-proof.


While I think you are overreaching, in that I'm not sure that 100% of theists would agree that their god is by necessity 'outside of space and time', it is a non-falsifiable claim.



(21-04-2015 02:35 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  I don't want to argue about that part of God, because it isn't a point that I am trying to make.


Well, if 'all theists' adhere to a god 'outside of space and time', then it is part and parcel. Either you need figure out some way to substantiate that non-falsifiable claim (good luck), or you need to modify your definition of god to no longer include such an unsubstantiated claim if you want to have a meaningful definition. You cannot have both.


(21-04-2015 02:35 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Who cares if God is outside of space and time, down at the center of the earth, or on top of the Statue of Liberty.


Those who cared enough to attribute omnipresence to him without evidence.


(21-04-2015 02:35 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  But that is part of the definition of God. Lots of parts of the definition of God are non-falsifiable. He is eternal. That is non-falsifiable, because we are not eternal. There is no scientific way to test that.


Correct. So in order to have a meaningful definition, you have to eliminate the pieces that are unsubstantiated and non-falsifiable.


(21-04-2015 02:35 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  However, part of the definition of God is also that He created everything. That is falsifiable.


Not only is it falsifiable, it is false. Unless you're going to claim that it is your god writing these forums posts to debate you. All you need to falsify 'he created everything' is one example of something not created by god, such as my forum post. Done.

Drinking Beverage


(21-04-2015 02:35 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  But still, in the end, parts of the definition of God are non-falsifiable. Does that mean we can't argue about Him?


No. It means that in order to get to a meaningful definition, where we can debate the existence or non-existence of something, requires the removal of many of the attributes traditionally associated with god concepts. This is an exercise to show you just how much you don't fucking know, nor can you know, about this nebulous concept you label 'god'. Anyone who claims to 'know' that their god is outside of space and time is utterly full of shit, because they cannot possible 'know' a non-falsifiable claim with zero supporting evidence. People who make these claims are liars and frauds, because they claim to have knowledge they do not have.


When god was on a mountain, we could in principle climb that mountain and look for him. Whenever we could do that, god move from the mountain to the skies.


Once we conquered the skies, god moved out into space.


Once we had an understanding of space, god was once again moved outside of the universe.


At some point you have to stop and realize that whenever god was falsifiable, he was indeed shown to be non-existent. This has forced theists to continuously move back the goal post, hiding their god further and further away from scrutiny, until they had to remove him from perceptible reality entirely just to hide him from the specter of falsifiability. But once again a god outside of space and time that never interacts with reality is, for all intents and purposes, identical to a non-existent god.


So either you hold fast to your definition that places your god outside of the realm of falsifiability, or you remove that attribute from your definition if you want to get anywhere meaningful. Keeping that attribute in your definition makes your god concept effectively non-existent already, in addition to making the definition meaningless.


Do you now finally understand the tenuous and untenable position you are in?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
22-04-2015, 12:32 AM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
So basically, the only way we could have an argument about God would be if I said that God is not outside of space and time and God is not eternal?
Find all posts by this user
22-04-2015, 02:58 AM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
(22-04-2015 12:32 AM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  So basically, the only way we could have an argument about God would be if I said that God is not outside of space and time and God is not eternal?


The only way to have a meaningful debate is to have a meaningful definition.

A meaningful definition necessitates that it be falsifiable.

So if you want your definition of god to be meaningful, it must be falsifiable.

Placing anything outside of space and time makes it un-falsifiable.


You figure it out. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: