Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-04-2015, 02:33 AM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Ok. Can we talk about evidence about such a thing as God?
Find all posts by this user
24-04-2015, 09:32 PM (This post was last modified: 25-04-2015 12:32 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
(24-04-2015 02:33 AM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Ok. Can we talk about evidence about such a thing as God?


Explain how we can talk about evidence for a 'god', when you've still failed to define a 'god'?


Are we talking about invisible pink unicorns? Pasta, sauce, and meatballs? Pan-dimensional space wizard? Krom on his mountain? The four winds? Someone great in the sack?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
27-04-2015, 04:32 PM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Well all I mean is it isn't my fault if you can't argue about something that is outside of space and time. If God isn't outside of space and time, then there is no point in arguing at all.
Find all posts by this user
28-04-2015, 12:16 AM (This post was last modified: 28-04-2015 04:21 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
(27-04-2015 04:32 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  Well all I mean is it isn't my fault if you can't argue about something that is outside of space and time. If God isn't outside of space and time, then there is no point in arguing at all.


No, that's not how it works. Three whole days, and that's the best you can do? You don't get to feign like it's my fault that I won't debate your currently undefined and meaningless concept. You wanted to debate, you are arguing in the affirmative, and yet it is you who still cannot supply a meaningful definition of what you want to argue in favor of. It is not my fault that you have never given enough thought about any of this until our debate, and only now do you realize how dramatically you come up short.


You level of ineptitude is truly staggering.


So once again; either supply a meaningful definition so that we can start to have a meaningful debate, or concede that you are unable to supply a meaningful definition and that subsequently your belief in your undefined concept is also meaningless. Either meet the requirements needed to defend your position, or withdraw your position and concede the debate.


This is post #34, and you still cannot even define your concept. It's like wanting to participate in a triathlon when you cannot even tie your shoe laces. Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
28-04-2015, 03:15 PM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Sorry I don't spend all my time on the computer. If it is impossible to have a debate about something that is eternal and outside of space and time, then I don't think we can have a debate, as God is outside of space and time and eternal. That is part of the definition. It doesn't really matter for me to come up with some dictionary definition if that is part of the definition and something that you can't accept.

It is more like trying to run a triathalon, and the person I am competing against is saying that I am not allowed to bring my bicycle or swim in this race and if I do, then he won't race with me.
Find all posts by this user
28-04-2015, 10:51 PM (This post was last modified: 29-04-2015 12:18 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
(28-04-2015 03:15 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  If it is impossible to have a debate about something that is eternal and outside of space and time, then I don't think we can have a debate, as God is outside of space and time and eternal.


An unfalsifiable assertion gets us nowhere. I can just assert things by fiat and without evidence or justification, but that too gets us nowhere.

Want to debate how my Nork is the creator of the Universe, exists outside of space and time, and how your god is just his puppet? After all that's how I define my Nork, as a timeless, extra-dimensional creator of universes and universe creating deities. Everything leads back to my Nork, because that's how I defined him! Never mind that I cannot possible falsify or justify and of these assertions, they are a part of my definition so you should accept them uncritically!


Yeah, I didn't think so... Drinking Beverage


(28-04-2015 03:15 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  That is part of the definition.


And as shown earlier, an unfalisifable definition is a meaningless definition. Remember too that my Nork is also outside of space and time and created your god, but just because I define my Nork that way doesn't make it true or meaningful.


(28-04-2015 03:15 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  It doesn't really matter for me to come up with some dictionary definition if that is part of the definition and something that you can't accept.


I can accept that you're entirely out of your depth and with your back in a corner. Faced to own up to the fact that your concept of god is so nonsensical and unfalisfalbe as to be utterly meaningless, you double down on the meaninglessness and act as if I'm the asshole for not taking your bullshit at face value.


Grow the fuck up.


(28-04-2015 03:15 PM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  It is more like trying to run a triathalon, and the person I am competing against is saying that I am not allowed to bring my bicycle or swim in this race and if I do, then he won't race with me.


Imaginary unfalsifiable bicycles don't count... Facepalm

Just remember, if you are either unable or unwilling to continue, you can always concede and go about your merry way.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
29-04-2015, 01:33 AM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
You know, what you have said has actually got me to think a bit. Why do I actually believe in something that is outside of space and time? Goodness. It started to actually not make sense for a bit.

But when I thought that space and time is something that couldn't have existed forever, thus meaning that something has to be outside of space and time, if it had a beginning, that made it. And unless that too had a beginning, which would lead back to what started that, eventually you would have to run into something that is eternal.

So that isn't a non-falsifiable statement. That is something that can certainly be studied and thought about and falsified. Do things ever start without something starting it?
Find all posts by this user
29-04-2015, 01:48 AM (This post was last modified: 29-04-2015 06:32 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
(29-04-2015 01:33 AM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  You know, what you have said has actually got me to think a bit. Why do I actually believe in something that is outside of space and time? Goodness. It started to actually not make sense for a bit.


Your sarcasm is noted.


(29-04-2015 01:33 AM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  But when I thought that space and time is something that couldn't have existed forever...


Nice assumption you have there, it would be a shame if someone demanded evidence before granting that assertion.


(29-04-2015 01:33 AM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  ...thus meaning that something has to be outside of space and time, if it had a beginning, that made it. And unless that too had a beginning, which would lead back to what started that, eventually you would have to run into something that is eternal.


So you're proposing an un-caused first cause. If a god can exist without a beginning, so can a universe; and to demand otherwise is special pleading. How trite and unoriginal. Are you trying to crimp notes from William Lane Craig? Cause if so just come clean, because his fallacious bullshit has been debunked every way imaginable.


(29-04-2015 01:33 AM)gwsm1992 Wrote:  So that isn't a non-falsifiable statement. That is something that can certainly be studied and thought about and falsified. Do things ever start without something starting it?


See above. Your premise is flawed before you even start because you're trying to get around falsifiability by using causality and then proposing an un-caused first cause, otherwise known as special pleading. If a god can be eternal, so can a universe; an eternal anything (let alone your undefined 'god') is not needed to explain the existence of the universe. So once again, you cannot even tie your shoe laces.


So we're still back where we started, with you being either unable or (most likely) unwilling to provide a meaningful definition for your god.


Nice try, but this apologetic is fucking bush-league. Step it up already. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
29-04-2015, 03:53 PM
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Sorry I wasn't trying to be sarcastic sounding. I was serious Big Grin

Do you believe that space and time has existed forever? I thought that there was scientific evidence to the contrary? I thought that matter couldn't exist forever, that it breaks down? Isn't that the second law of thermodynamics?
Find all posts by this user
30-04-2015, 02:37 AM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2015 03:10 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Gabriel vs EvolutionKills
Funny, this looks like a bunch of questions and not a meaningful definition for your god.


gwsm1992 Wrote:Do you believe that space and time has existed forever?


I don't know, as there is not enough evidence to justify a positive belief in eternity or its lack thereof. Since based on the available evidence nobody can claim to know, you can bet that I'm going to call 'bullshit' on anyone making a positive claim one way or the other without presenting new complying evidence in favor of that conclusion.

And an unfalsifiable definition in not sufficient evidence; because it is not evidence.


gwsm1992 Wrote:I thought that there was scientific evidence to the contrary?


There is evidence in support of the expansion of our universe, otherwise known as the Big Bang. However we do not know if this was a creation event out of 'nothing', or if there existed something else before our universe, or even if our universe is cyclic and will eventually revert and repeat the process.


gwsm1992 Wrote:I thought that matter couldn't exist forever, that it breaks down?


E=mc^2

Matter is energy and vice versa. Matter is never destroyed, it only changes state.


gwsm1992 Wrote:Isn't that the second law of thermodynamics?


That Law applies to closed systems only, and we do not know if our universe is a closed system. This doesn't apply to life on Earth because the Sun is constantly dumping more energy into our biosphere, which is why this is an utterly fallacious talking point when used by ignorant Creationist attempting to 'debunk' evolution, when they clearly don't understand what they are talking about.

One would think that if you were capable of using Google and could read from sources other than Answers In Genesis and other lying propaganda mills, you'd easily have been able to answer all of these questions on your own with a little time investment. That you either couldn't, or wouldn't, speaks volumes.


So how is that definition coming along? Yeah, if you think you can side track the debate that easily, think again.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: