I will debate any atheist on here
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2015, 10:23 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 02:26 PM)unfogged Wrote:  As has been noted your entire argument is based on the arguments from personal incredulity and ignorance. There's also a touch of special pleading thrown in for good measure. You have nothing original and no evidence to support your assertions.

also, *suddenly

Actually, my argument is based on how I can demonstrably prove that the universe began to exist, and the impossibility of its beginning being the product of natural law.

So it isn't based on what I don't know, it is based on what I DO know...and so far, you haven't been able to say anything of substance that can prove otherwise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 10:23 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 10:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 02:17 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Proof or citation please! 1.) that there exists a soul

The argument from consciousness is what I use to demonstrate that the mind(soul) is distinct from the body/brain, and therefore there can be no natural way to explain the origins of the mind

(09-02-2015 02:17 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  and 2.) that it would be classified as a force.

Force is synonymous with energy...and energy is can be classified as a force.

No, force and energy are not synonyms. Look it up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 10:24 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2015 10:37 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 09:09 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 07:02 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Pretends to undestand science...

Fails miserably.

[Image: M4l7yFo.gif]

You've already been intellectually spanked on quite a few occasions in pathetic attempts to keep up with me on a intellectual (I just love that word) level.

So it comes as no surprise that the above quote is the best you've got at this point.

Your self perception misses the mark by a country mile, you’re just one more pompous ass that is blinded by bullshit. Like others before you are proud of your ignorance and attempt to hide behind the bluster. I’m not impressed.

As for the Laws of Thermodynamics you’re like G. Sewell who’s papers (“Poker Entropy and the Theory of Compensation”) are always being rejected by scientific journals because they are flat out wrong. This is a PRATT (Point Refuted a Thousand Times).

"An ID proponent presents a bad argument, then pompously struts around as though it is everyone else who is confused. Nothing to see here, everyone move along now…”

Sewell got spanked, and now so are you. Again.

Here is a short explanation why you and your sources are wrong plus several links as to why your argument is false. I don’t really care if you read them but the others who are following this thread and are actually interested in understanding the “why" might.

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...eationist/

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/sh...s_problem/

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/20...econd-law/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Second_Law_...modynamics

“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
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
10-02-2015, 10:24 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 02:27 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  At one time EVERYBODY thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe.....

Belief isn't the same as evidence.

They also thought that the universe was static and eternal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 10:25 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 10:23 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 02:26 PM)unfogged Wrote:  As has been noted your entire argument is based on the arguments from personal incredulity and ignorance. There's also a touch of special pleading thrown in for good measure. You have nothing original and no evidence to support your assertions.

also, *suddenly

Actually, my argument is based on how I can demonstrably prove that the universe began to exist, and the impossibility of its beginning being the product of natural law.

So it isn't based on what I don't know, it is based on what I DO know...and so far, you haven't been able to say anything of substance that can prove otherwise.

You have argued and asserted but have not proved.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 10:26 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 02:30 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  That's like saying "light is in the eye of the beholder".

It's incorrect.

Flavor is the result of chemical compounds. Taste is the body's response to those chemicals, and not the other way around as you imply.

Next.....

This is what you call "over analyzing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 10:26 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 10:23 AM)Rik Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 10:12 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The argument from consciousness is what I use to demonstrate that the mind(soul) is distinct from the body/brain, and therefore there can be no natural way to explain the origins of the mind


Force is synonymous with energy...and energy is can be classified as a force.

No, force and energy are not synonyms. Look it up.

Oh come on..... You don't expect him to LEARN something, do you??? After all - when your invisible friend knows it all, what's the point???

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 10:27 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 02:30 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  That's like saying "light is in the eye of the beholder".

It's incorrect.

Flavor is the result of chemical compounds. Taste is the body's response to those chemicals, and not the other way around as you imply.

Next.....

This is what you call "over analyzing"

And what you'd call confusing.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 10:27 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(09-02-2015 02:30 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Um... forgive me if I'm wrong....but I thought 'Evidence' was NOT subjective....Hence, the reason it is called 'Evidence'.

Or have I missed something?

Much cheers to all.

One person may require different types of evidence than others...and different amounts of evidence than others.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 10:33 AM
RE: I will debate any atheist on here
(10-02-2015 10:27 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 02:30 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Um... forgive me if I'm wrong....but I thought 'Evidence' was NOT subjective....Hence, the reason it is called 'Evidence'.

Or have I missed something?

Much cheers to all.

One person may require different types of evidence than others...and different amounts of evidence than others.

And some will just believe ANYTHING they read in an old book....

Like talking snakes, unicorns, worldwide floods, talking burning bushes, ect, ect, ect.......

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: