I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-02-2015, 06:36 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(27-02-2015 06:29 PM)pablo Wrote:  Fall of the Mild:
You're over five hours late and you didn't bring god with you.
I'm afraid this will reflect poorly on your performance record.

Laugh out load @ Fall of the Mild...as many times as you guys obliterated my name, this one is the funniest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 06:50 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(27-02-2015 06:34 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-02-2015 12:01 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  So you think reptiles understand English do you? I have to ask cause given your track record it's probable that you do.

People have already pointed out that that's not how evolution operates so take your strawman and shove it up your ass hat first. You and I both know that that is not what evolution says happens so feigning ignorance like it is at this point is just you trying to be an asshole.

Good job, you're an asshole. You done? Drinking Beverage

Have you ever seen a reptile-bird kind of transformation? No, you haven't. So regardless of how you THINK evolution operates...guess what, you haven't SEEN IT. You are relying on the unseen.

I have no reason to believe that animals that lived 400 million years ago were doing things that the animals of 2015 haven't been observed to do. You can believe that crap if you want to, but that isn't science, that is religion. Science is based on OBSERVATION....EXPERIMENT...AND PREDICTIONS...and you've never OBSERVED a macro-level change in your life...you've never conducted an EXPERIMENT that would get you macro-level results...and you cannot PREDICT when the next macro-level change will occur...so basically, evolution on a macro scale isn't even science.

Evolution is a lie...animals can/will only produce what they are, not what they AREN'T....just like Genesis 1:25 stated when God created the animals, he said "They will bring forth after their KIND"...and holy shit, that is all we see, is animals bringing forth after their KIND, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, snakes produce snakes.

So are you. Did you see Jebus create anything ? Weeping
You really know NOTHING about Evolution if you expect to "see" something happen.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 06:52 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
[Image: whoosh_by_medli20-d520mia_zpsxvw0dnbk.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like pablo's post
27-02-2015, 07:18 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(27-02-2015 06:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So are you. Did you see Jebus create anything ? Weeping

The difference is, my religion isn't based on a methodology that has observation, experiment, and predictions as its key focal points...yours is.

(27-02-2015 06:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You really know NOTHING about Evolution if you expect to "see" something happen.

Then you've just admitted that evolution isn't science, because science IS based on observation Laughat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 07:46 PM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2015 08:06 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
Here’s a test for CotW, which of the following are photoshopped/fake and which are real? Evolution spits out some very bizarre creatures.

[Image: 146380-004-623E7586.jpg]

[Image: unicorn1.jpg]

[Image: 397px-Crocoduck_4.jpg]

[Image: shoebill-duck2.jpg]

[Image: a-zookeeper-cradles-a-platypus-as-part-j...dwards.jpg]

[Image: latest?cb=20090920192843]

[Image: aye-aye2.jpg]

[Image: 196675_39ad_625x1000.jpg]

[Image: 7806f5dc3d2e939d7dbb76da67ffb206.jpg]

[Image: NHFE3.jpg]

[Image: Philippine-Tube-nosed-Fruit-Bat.jpg]

[Image: peacock-spider-1.jpg]

[Image: 729c9b36-1f81-4b84-97fa-936ebded3b8c.jpg]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Full Circle's post
27-02-2015, 08:01 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(26-02-2015 08:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  *Scratches head* Having trouble finding the right words to reply to this line. So... I never think along the line of 'What I want to be true'.

I said "some of you"...and if you are not included in that "some", then it doesn't apply to you.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  It is interesting that the history of the past 150 years would seem to build on and hence demonstrate that the theory is both sound and has been useful. Or are you saying that the science is all... wrong?

I am saying that there is no scientific evidence for evolution. Science is supposed to be based on observation, repeated experiments, and predictions.

Observation: No one has ever observed a reptile-bird type of transformation

Repeated experiment: No one has conducted an experiment that will allow for such a transformation.

Prediction: No one has ever successfully predicted when such an transformation will occur.

These are all facts...now, you can believe whatever the hell you want to believe (not you personally, but in general), but don't make it seem as if it is a brute fact that this kind of stuff happens...you've never seen it happen, you've only seen animals produce what it is, not what it isn't.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  *Nods* This is true. WE do not currently know how (As others previously have put it) chemistry became 'alive'. Though you have dodged the question of why 'life' at its most fundamental levels is some who 'special' from chemistry.

Please rephrase the last part of the quote.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  *Nods* It may be true... it may be false... as, again, others have pointed out, there may even be a third -as of yet- UN-thought of third option.

Well, tell me what is the third option and we will add that one to the mix as well. That is the problem, you guys have the "anything but God" attitude...no matter how absurd it may be, or how unlikely it may be, as long as the answer isn't God, you will go for it.

Taxi cab fallacy.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  However, given that you seem to automatically place a 'god' into this answer does not actually either answer the question, nor offer a good enough answer in itself.

It is called law of excluded middle...either God did it, or God didn't do it...if you know of any other options besides these two, then enlighten me. I have reasons to believe that God did it...the God hypothesis has more explanatory power than the other option, plus the other option can be proven to be logically absurd.

So it is based on these reasons why I believe that theism is true.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  No, I do not see how this statement makes sense. Because one thing is not true does not make something different not true. You understand this, yes? Abiogenesis and evolution are different things.

Well, I gave my reasons why, and I thought you'd directly address the reasons that I gave instead of just flatly stating that it doesn't make sense. So let me explain it again...

First off, I am talking about evolution without divine intervention, ok? Now, in order for evolution to occur, life had to already be here, right? So, abiogenesis may in fact be false...as it may NOT be possible for life to come from nonlife. So, if abiogenesis is POSSIBLY false, then evolution is also POSSIBLY false, because if what evolution was dependent upon is possibly false, then evolution itself would have to be possibly false.

Abiogenesis can't be false, with evolution being true,...that is the point, because the latter is dependent upon the former. When you think about it, it is kind of like you, as a person...your existence is dependent upon external entities (your parents)...if the entities that you owe your existence to didn't exist, then you wouldn't exist, right? It is the same thing with abiogenesis/evolution...you are right, they are different things, but one depends on the other.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Abiogenesis is "Chemistry becoming life."

While

Evolution is "The the gradual development/changing of something over time."

Dude, look at the definitions you just gave...you don't see how evolution depends on abiogenesis? There can be no gradual change over time without there being life forms to change...you don't see that?? Huh


(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  This is either just a repeat of your previous statement... Or a clarification of your previous statement. (Not sure which)

Which is not acknowledging that the two different things are independent of one another.

Ok, well let me ask you this...if abiogenesis is false, could evolution still occur?? Just a simple yes or no would be fine.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  You say 'X' MUST come before 'Y'.

Which is equivalent to saying "Before life can change (evolution), it has to come in to existence first (abiogenesis)".

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  While I would say that 'X' might come before 'Y'. 'Y', however, is not dependent on 'X' to be true.

Please explain how evolution could occur if abiogenesis is false.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  I do not want to or need to say such a thing. Evolution can occur quite happily now with out any god poking things

But it couldn't occur quite happily without abiogenesis poking things...but wait, you can't demonstrate abiogenesis...soooo, that would make any claims about the truth value of evolution irrelevant.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  , so it would be quite fare to say that evolution occurred then without any god poking things.

See, if you don't believe in God, then evolution is the only game in town...on your view, evolution MUST have had to occur, because you need to find some kind of naturalistic reason why we have life/species. So it is no wonder why virtually all unbelievers believe in evolution...it is all they have to go on.

The problem is, they accept it by faith. All you've ever seen is animals produce what they are, not what they aren't...and if you want to believe that long ago, before no one was around to witness it, animals began to produce offspring different than what they were, then fine, believe what you want...but it is intellectually dishonest to call it science, and it is intellectually dishonest to call it a fact.

You are relying on the unseen...which is what us religious folks call...FAITH.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  In a way, true. Though I would like to know what you think the brain is made up of. DO you see the difference?

Lets say the brain is made up of matter...now, whatever matter you'd like to call it is up to you...that isn't the point, the point is, where did consciousness come from??

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  And this has been answered as "An emergent property from an ever increasing amount of neural complexity."

That is the theory, but what I want is evidence for the theory. Because all I would have to do is ask how did it emerge, and wait on you to struggle to give an answer. In science, it isn't enough to just throw answers out there...you have to be able to test it...experiment...so, where did this emergent property come from, and why....I mean, it could have been just as easy to NOT have emerged, so what caused it to emerge??? Of course, first you would have to prove abiogenesis to be true as it relates to consciousness as well. I will wait.

Second, there are plenty bodies in the morgue that have brains, but no consciousness. So if the consciousness can be gone, and the brain can still be there, then the brain and the mind are obviously two different things.

Third, if you have scattered pieces of brain matter on a table, and you shaped and molded it into a perfect brain again, where would you get the consciousness? You have the brain, but where is the consciousness?? If you wanted the brain to think of a black cat, how would you place the thought of a black cat into the brain?? The thought of the black cat is not a physical entity, it is a mental entity...so how would you place this mental entity inside of the physical entity to get the two to correlate in a way at which the brain is thinking about the cat??

Fourth, if we are nothing but complex chunks of matter with neurons running through our brains, then we don't have free will. When a person commits a crime, the person is only acting according to the formation of neurons in his brain. The neurons are operating based on natural law, so when the neurons is formulated in a way to make a person want to commit a crime, and the person refuses to commit the crime, then that person is violating natural law, but wait a minute...how can a person naturally violate natural laws?

Fifth, if there is a man that is wanted for murder and he is on the FBI's Most Wanted list...and one day, you woke up, looked in the mirror, and you found yourself inside of this man's body, and right when you were trying to figure out what is going on...the FBI bust through your door and arrest you...and they say, "Sir, you are under arrest for first degree murder"....are you a murderer? You are inside of the man's body, but "YOU" didn't commit the crime, did you?

"YOU" are more than just a body..."you" are a soul...your mind is independent from your body.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay, two problems with this sentence. I think you've thrown in a 'Double negative' into the speech pattern.

Go right ahead, continue to make accusations without explaining shit Thumbsup

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Also that the evidence of people/animals WITH damaged/altered physical brains have shown that the function changes with said damages, hence that form does equate to function.

Point?

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Yes... this is why the people doing the science continue to ask the questions, testing ideas and seeking answers.

That's fine.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  No.. you keep asserting that these are big/huge/seemingly insurmountable problems. There's a difference.

Yet, I don't have a answer to the questions as of yet Laugh out load

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  These are three rather different things. You would agree?

I agree.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  This statement, which you have made before and has been shown to be in error, is... simply wrong. Science is about formulating ideas and then testing said ideas to see if said ideas,

I said that science deals with shit only after it has gotten here?? Please explain how the statement is wrong or is this just another example of you making baseless assertions.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  2) Make predictions about things we have yet to discover about the world around us.

Please make a prediction regarding the next time we will see a reptile-bird kind of transformation. You just said that science makes predictions, well, make this one.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  You keep repeating this assertion. So, you would say that the study of history, Geology, Astronomy (To name but two of the many fields within science) do not tell us about the past? That the system by which things are done is wrong and of no use?

They tell us about the past, but each claim is to be taken on a case by case basis, and it just so happens that in this particular case, I think science has it wrong.

(26-02-2015 03:34 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Again, so as not to segway into something else of a discussion between us, would you explain what it is that you think is inside the head/cranium which is 'The brain'?

The brain is made up of matter...again, whatever you want to call this matter is fine...doesn't really matter because my point stands...when I think of a black cat, there isn't a black cat inside my brain making me thinking it.

Bloody hell, I've been sat here trying to think if I've ever come across such stupidity before. Conclusion...no.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes joben1's post
27-02-2015, 08:23 PM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2015 08:35 PM by joben1.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(27-02-2015 06:18 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Except... well the research and subsequent discovery of something like DNA seems to support the idea of evolution pretty well.

How the hell does DNA support theory of evolution?

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  I do believe you've been told before that you don't get 'Croc-o-ducks' happening.

What the hell do you call archaeopteryx? Laugh out load

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay... now here's an interesting thing.
You make a prediction that 'No one can show a species changing into t different species (I'll ignore the whole 'Kind' thing for the moment as some one else is asking you about that definition)

Well I will put it to you this way, if you know the distinction between a dog and a turtle, then you know what a different "kind" means in this context...whatever word you'd like to use as a biological term for "kind", use it, but it doesn't change shit Cool

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  and YET you are happy to ignore demonstrable 'Ring species' as quite literally, one species can be seen changing through breeding gradients into another species.

Ring species Laughat

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Again, you're refusing to see anything other than your 'dream state' of things. However, this is shifting into 'Species/Kind' type of talking and some one else is asking you questions about all that.

I will tell "someone else" the same thing I am telling you...dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish....until you can show me something contrary to what man has EVER observed, then we shouldn't be having a discussion about whether the animals of yesterday is able to do something that the animals of today haven't been observed to do.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  But.. there's no evidence for any gods. Please, offer something up which can be seen as proof.

I am more than capable of defending each one of these traditional arguments for the existence of God, and I offer these arguments as evidence for God...

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument
2. The Argument from Consciousness
3. The Moral Argument
4. The Modal Ontological Argument
5. The Argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Pick one, and I challenge you or anyone else to a real-time debate on either of these topics.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay... what explanatory power does god have?

What we have is a universe that began to exist, so the cause of the universe had to be immaterial, timeless, and a being of enormous power and knowledge. Now, there is no coincidence that the attributes needed to create the universe, just HAPPENS to be the same attributes that God has always been said to have Consider

That, my friend, is explanatory power.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  What prediction can you make about god?

My belief isn't based on a method at which "prediction" is part of the methodology.


(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  No, definitely not. As has been stated, repeatedly, before. Evolution deals with life and the changes their in.

Forget the 'Beginning' bit. Currently, there is life. (To which I'll assume you agree/Say yes.)

For a very long time there has been life. (To which I'll await your saying yes or no to 'Very long.')

Over every generation all down through said very long time changes have been taking place. Hence evolution.

I see you are deliberatley missing the point. I will not explain it any further.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  While this is an interesting idea there's one small thing. The Geological records show that

A) Now we have life.

B) At one point on the planet there was no life.

So... life 'came' from some where. Now, you say a god did it. Great. That doesn't explain the 'How' of a god doing it. Do you see/understand my point here?

Well, to hell with the question of "how" God and/or nature did it...I just want good solid evidence THAT God and/or nature did it, and I believe I have the evidence that God did it, but no evidence that nature did it...in fact, I have evidence AGAINST nature doing anything.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  And...having answered all your points in sequence you can see how the above statement is simply not true.

What you've done is commit the cart before the horse fallacy...and if that is fine with you, then it is fine with me.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  You repeating it and using simple, but poor, analogies doesn't add anything.

Laugh out load @ quoting the analogy but not directly addressing it. I will attribute such a dodge to the principal of not being able to rebuttal the truth.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  You've got to, I don't know... 'Step back'? Seriously. Just concentrate on the evolution part of things and try and understand what is going on with it. Then, after you've got the understanding, you can start wailing on abiogenisis. Smile

Here is "what is going on with it". I am being sold a story that long ago, before no one was around to see it, animals were making these dramatic changes in their forms...and I am also being told that these changes take so long, that no one alive today will be able to see it...so we didn't see it 400 millions years ago, and we won't see it during our lifetime...so we will never see it, but it happens.

That is what I am being sold...sorry Charlie, I aint buying it.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  A simple 'Yes'. Again, forget about 'The beginning' and take up the tale half way through.

So, changes in life could occur even if it is scientifically impossible for life to come from nonlife? Based on such a nonsensical response, I will no longer discuss evolution with you any longer. My common-sensical mind cannot entertain such nonsense.

I will still spank you on the mind/body dualism subject though. Slap you around a few more times in that regard.



(26-02-2015 08:45 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The problem is, they accept it by faith. All you've ever seen is animals produce what they are, not what they aren't...

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay... your sentence has kind of 'spread' over a wider meaning than I think you've intended.

Asking "How can you get consciousness from unconscious matter" is pretty straight forward, in my opinion

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  There's a difference between 'Currently conscious' and 'Development of conscious'. So, lets try and keep those two terms/ideas separate, okay?

Ok, well lets start from the "development of consciousness" and work our way up, shall we?

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Seriously, stop with the trying to tie fekkin' abiogenesis into every thing. Heck, you show me how you can get up in the morning without abiogenesis. Since, if abiogenesis isn't true, you can't get up in the morning.

It is by the grace of God that I awoke this morning. I know you don't like it, but that is my story, and I'm sticking to it.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Right... but their brains (All the matter) inside the skull is , like, rotten and stuff. You get that, right? I mean, literally, once you turn off the organic systems things instantly start to break down at a cellular level. You understand that, right?

Which is only saying that one entity is still there (the brain) and the other entity is not there (the mind). No problems there...in fact, that is MY POINT Laugh out load

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  No, this analogy isn't working or making sense. It's actually working against you understanding what 'Thinking' is all about.

If I gave the analogy of you assembling a computer together if there were scattered computer parts on the table, I bet you could figure that analogy out, but since it involves the brain/consciousness (which you don't have a clue how it originated), all of a sudden, the "analogy isn't working or making sense" Laugh out load

If you are gonna dodge stuff, try to make it a little less apparent.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  No, really? You haven't seen the pictures of MRI scans showing the synapse firing pattern when images are registered? Really? What do you think neurons do? What are neurons all packed into people's skulls actually for, then?

Nonsense. Hook a machine up to my brain and tell me what it is I am thinking. If you can't do that, then you are failing to understand the kind of mess you are in.

(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  It... it, just doesn't work the way you're thinking (Argh! 'Think-ception' Hobo )

Blank assertions like the above quote is just a diversion. You don't know what is going on here, do you?


I will just leave it there. As I scroll down the post, I am failing to get answers to my questions...I am just getting a bunch of red herring diversions. If you don't have an answer to the questions, just say "I don't know".

I thought that is what atheists (the modest ones) were about...the whole "I don't know" crap??

Bloody hell, I've been sat here trying to think if I've ever come across such stupidity before. Conclusion...yes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes joben1's post
27-02-2015, 09:17 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(27-02-2015 06:18 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Except... well the research and subsequent discovery of something like DNA seems to support the idea of evolution pretty well.

How the hell does DNA support theory of evolution?

You need to read an actual science book because your understanding of the evidence is lacking.

Quote:
(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  I do believe you've been told before that you don't get 'Croc-o-ducks' happening.

What the hell do you call archaeopteryx? Laugh out load

A very clear bridge between dinosaur and modern bird.

Quote:
(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay... now here's an interesting thing.
You make a prediction that 'No one can show a species changing into t different species (I'll ignore the whole 'Kind' thing for the moment as some one else is asking you about that definition)

Well I will put it to you this way, if you know the distinction between a dog and a turtle, then you know what a different "kind" means in this context...whatever word you'd like to use as a biological term for "kind", use it, but it doesn't change shit Cool

Do you understand the similarities between and among species/genera/families/orders/classes/phyla/kingdoms? Do you understand that these are classifications based on morphology and DNA?

Quote:
(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  and YET you are happy to ignore demonstrable 'Ring species' as quite literally, one species can be seen changing through breeding gradients into another species.

Ring species Laughat

Now there's a brilliant riposte. What possible meaning are we to take from that?

Quote:
(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Again, you're refusing to see anything other than your 'dream state' of things. However, this is shifting into 'Species/Kind' type of talking and some one else is asking you questions about all that.

I will tell "someone else" the same thing I am telling you...dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish....until you can show me something contrary to what man has EVER observed, then we shouldn't be having a discussion about whether the animals of yesterday is able to do something that the animals of today haven't been observed to do.

You have no concept of gradual change, do you? You are unable to see beyond your tiny time span, your narrow preconceptions.

Quote:
(27-02-2015 02:08 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  But.. there's no evidence for any gods. Please, offer something up which can be seen as proof.

I am more than capable of defending each one of these traditional arguments for the existence of God, and I offer these arguments as evidence for God...

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument
2. The Argument from Consciousness
3. The Moral Argument
4. The Modal Ontological Argument
5. The Argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Pick one, and I challenge you or anyone else to a real-time debate on either of these topics.

Evidence. Not wordplay. Provide evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
27-02-2015, 09:41 PM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
I remember the last attempt someone made to prove god through the resurrection of Jesus. He fell at the starting line when he couldn't even prove the existence of Jesus. Was actually kinda funny.

The ontological is one that can't get me past the starting line. Perhaps it's because I'm an engineer with the mind of a scientist. Just because I can imagine something doesn't mean it exists. So this simply doesn't make sense to me.

The moral argument also doesn't make sense to me. Why does our existence as a social species mean that we have to have a god?

The argument from consciousness falls apart when you study psychology and paleontology and paleo archeology, which I thank state gen ed requirements for forcing me to take.

Kalam is also a non-starter for me. I don't accept any of the premises and don't see why they should be accepted.

But above all none of these make any sense for one reason. The existence or non of god is a fact about the universe. It is independent of anything else. Every word in all holy scriptures can be wrong and there can still be a god. Or some of the stories could be true and god could not exist. The argument must be based on its own merits.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like natachan's post
27-02-2015, 09:53 PM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2015 09:56 PM by Hafnof.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(27-02-2015 07:46 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Here’s a test for CotW, which of the following are photoshopped/fake and which are real? Evolution spits out some very bizarre creatures.

[Image: 146380-004-623E7586.jpg]
Real.
[Image: unicorn1.jpg]
Real (except the horn).
[Image: 397px-Crocoduck_4.jpg]
Fake.
[Image: shoebill-duck2.jpg]
Real.
[Image: a-zookeeper-cradles-a-platypus-as-part-j...dwards.jpg]
As real as dropbears.
[Image: latest?cb=20090920192843]
Real puppet.
[Image: aye-aye2.jpg]
Real.
[Image: 196675_39ad_625x1000.jpg]
Fake, but funny.
[Image: 7806f5dc3d2e939d7dbb76da67ffb206.jpg]
Real.
[Image: NHFE3.jpg]
Such a sweet but sadly fake smile.
[Image: Philippine-Tube-nosed-Fruit-Bat.jpg]
Real.
[Image: peacock-spider-1.jpg]
Real.
[Image: 729c9b36-1f81-4b84-97fa-936ebded3b8c.jpg]
Real muppet.

(27-02-2015 06:18 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I am more than capable of defending each one of these traditional arguments for the existence of God, and I offer these arguments as evidence for God...

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument
2. The Argument from Consciousness
3. The Moral Argument
4. The Modal Ontological Argument
5. The Argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Pick one, and I challenge you or anyone else to a real-time debate on either of these topics.

I would suggest that the standard way to proceed here would be for you to pick your best argument. If you are able to argue it successfully all but the most stubborn here will be converted: A clear win. If you are unable to argue it successfully then we can safely dismiss the arguments you have that aren't as good.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: