Need help with these questions from a Church of Christer
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2018, 10:08 PM
RE: Need help with these questions from a Church of Christer
(28-01-2018 12:09 PM)ChurchofChristerToAtheist Wrote:  What is my best way to answer these questions?

The questions are "loaded". They are intended to show that the only authority that matters is an ultimate, authority that provides a basis for objective morality.

1. Is there real objective right or wrong, good or evil? (yes or no)
If objective morality exists it would apply to god as well as man.

2. Does anyone have a real obligation to do or not do anything? (yes or no)
Too vague.

3. The evil that warrants the deduction that God does not exist is a mere subjective evil (yes or no)
This question is flawed: there is no "deduction" that god does not exist. Until sufficient proof is presented, non-belief is the default position.

4. The evil that warrants the deduction that God does not exist is a real objective evil (yes or no)
Which evil? Natural disasters? The atrocities of mankind?
Which god? jesusallahbuddhathorodinzeuskalipelecthulhuetc.

5. The evil that warrants the deduction that God does not exist is a …. (check all appropriate answers)
Really pounding down on the Problem of Evil, eh?

a. Violation of Civil Law
Is theft of land and possessions a violation of civil law?
Is it a "good" act to steal another person's land and/or possessions?

b. Violation of International Law
Is slavery a violation of international law?
Is it a "good" act to enslave another person?
What about genocide? Is genocide a "good" act?

c. Violation of an individual human being’s opinion
Is the thinking of a particular thought a crime?
Is it a crime to merely think about something?

d. Violation of the opinion of the majority of people in a given society
How many people in any given society think that rape and murder are acceptable?

e. Violation of God’s Law
Which of god's laws?
The ones that permit slavery?
SAB: slavery

The law that forces a rape victim to marry her rapist?
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

The law that allows a husband to force his wife to have an abortion?
(Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28)

But, like several other posters have noted, until proof of a god is presented it is all an exercise in speculation.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
31-01-2018, 01:45 AM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2018 01:49 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Need help with these questions from a Church of Christer
If there was such a thing as an objective right and wrong, that doesn't mean anyone actually knows what it is. And if there was a way of finding out, and it disagreed with your own opinion on a subject, would you change your opinion? I wouldn't. I'd need to understand the reason why this objective right was more desirable than my opinion. Otherwise, it's just an arbitrary statement.

It can't be the result of a calculation to maximize some set of things deemed important (such as human wellbeing), because it would be a subjective judgement to decide what is important in the first place. That would result in an "objective right" for each such possible set of desirable outcomes, at best.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
17-02-2018, 07:55 PM
RE: Need help with these questions from a Church of Christer
(28-01-2018 12:09 PM)ChurchofChristerToAtheist Wrote:  What is my best way to answer these questions?

1. Is there real objective right or wrong, good or evil? (yes or no)
2. Does anyone have a real obligation to do or not do anything? (yes or no)
3. The evil that warrants the deduction that God does not exist is a mere subjective evil (yes or no)
4. The evil that warrants the deduction that God does not exist is a real objective evil (yes or no)
5. The evil that warrants the deduction that God does not exist is a …. (check all appropriate answers)
a. Violation of Civil Law
b. Violation of International Law
c. Violation of an individual human being’s opinion
d. Violation of the opinion of the majority of people in a given society
e. Violation of God’s Law
f. Violation of something else (Explain)

Are you talking about the problem of evil with him? Because that's what it sounds like. You tell him that the problem of evil is a purely internal critique of Christianity. It arises from Christianity's own premises. What atheist think about good and evil is completely irrelevant. He's trying to redirect the debate to keep the focus on your worldview. That's because there really is no answer to the problem of evil. It is a real contradiction for them, that's why they use these diversionary tactics.

Also, notice what he has done. He's conceded that there is warrant for deducing that god does not exist. So the debate is over.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2018, 09:43 PM (This post was last modified: 17-02-2018 10:12 PM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: Need help with these questions from a Church of Christer
(28-01-2018 12:09 PM)ChurchofChristerToAtheist Wrote:  What is my best way to answer these questions?

1. Is there real objective right or wrong, good or evil? (yes or no)
2. Does anyone have a real obligation to do or not do anything? (yes or no)
3. The evil that warrants the deduction that God does not exist is a mere subjective evil (yes or no)
4. The evil that warrants the deduction that God does not exist is a real objective evil (yes or no)
5. The evil that warrants the deduction that God does not exist is a …. (check all appropriate answers)
a. Violation of Civil Law
b. Violation of International Law
c. Violation of an individual human being’s opinion
d. Violation of the opinion of the majority of people in a given society
e. Violation of God’s Law
f. Violation of something else (Explain)

One would assume that since God must be above all evils, that "evil" is a word which only makes sense relative to human interests. What are referred to as "natural evils" (earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, fires, diseases, parasites, and so on) are therefore good reasons to deduce that an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God doesn't exist. They are also good reasons NOT to worship any other kind of God even if one did exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2018, 03:44 PM
RE: Need help with these questions from a Church of Christer
This is the response that I got from the Church of Christer Preacher. It is crazy.

Edward=ChurchOfChristerToAtheist=Me

Thank you once again for the opportunity to present to you my third affirmative argument in reply to what Edward wrote in his second ‘negative’ argument, and as a continuation of my argumentation to prove that God (that is the God of the Bible) does exist, despite Edward’s attempts at making light of this important debate.
I must say, that I continue to be shocked by Edward’s blasé attitude concerning this debate which is evident with his first & second ‘negative’ arguments (IF you want to call them that). Still, despite my attempts at trying to help Edward understand how a debate works, he continues to demonstrate a lack of knowledge concerning the art of debate, or it just may be the case that he doesn’t care. During his ‘affirmative’ arguments, he argued in the negative, and now that he is in the negative, he is arguing in the affirmative. Not only has he admitted defeat that he ‘knows’ that the God of the Bible probably, that is, might not, but could, exist; Edward admits defeat by his failure to provide us with evidence that proves his proposition, as well as his failure to disprove mine.
He continues to give website references that supposedly make his case (but do not). I have told him it is not my duty to look up every site that he presents, neither is it the duty of the reader to do so, yet he persists. It is his duty to present his arguments in precisely stated propositions so that I and you the reader may know exactly where Edward stands. He still has not taken up my questions posed to him since the beginning of this debate, which is another indication that he has lost this debate. Because Edward understands that the second he provides us with answers to those questions, the jig will be up, it will be proved that his belief system is false. But Edward wants us to think that his belief system is still viable, as well as logical, but it’s not going to work, because there is no logic to atheism, let alone, his belief that he is the product of non-intelligent rocks and dirt.

Edward thinks he is disproving my arguments by listing a few logical fallacies, which are only meant to prejudice the reader. Let’s take a moment to review what a true debate is supposed to look like. First of all, there are two sides, two speakers to a debate. These two sides agree on a particular proposition that will be argued in a logical and rational manner. There is an affirmative argument and negative argument, of which both parties to the debate will take their turn in the affirmative and negative. The affirmative position is where the disputant is tasked with proving his proposition to be the logical choice, while the negative position is tasked with disproving the points made by the affirmative speaker. Once the affirmative speaker has taken his/her turn (according to the number of speeches agreed upon), then the negative speaker takes the affirmative position and visa versa. It is the duty of the affirmative speaker to prove his/her agreed upon proposition, it is not the duty of the negative speaker to prove his proposition until he is in the affirmative. Edward has thus far failed to understand his position in this debate. While in the affirmative, he constantly railed at me for not proving my proposition, when it was my duty to disprove his (which by the way, he failed to provide any arguments). It is now his duty to disprove my affirmative, which again, failing to understand how a debate works, he has yet to discuss any of the arguments I have made to prove my proposition as valid proof for the existence of God (That is the God of the Bible).
Edward also fails to understand how logical fallacies work. He thinks that all he needs to do is say that I have committed one or more fallacies and that makes it true. But the fact is, he must prove that I have committed a fallacy, not just assert it. Pressing a point that Edward has failed to make his case or does not understand the workings of a debate is not a fallacy. That is part of the debate process when one party fails or refuses to live up their part of the debate. It is making it clear to the hearer or reader that the other party is not doing their job to provide rational evidence to prove their point. So, I will not stop pressing the fact that Edward failed to prove his proposition which by failing to do so, shows he defeated himself in this debate; nor will I stop pressing the fact that he has never answered any the questions I have asked of him, nor has he yet to address the arguments given by me in my first two affirmatives. The reason this is the case, should be apparent to any rational person, he has no evidence to prove his proposition, so he relies on smoke and mirrors to make you think he has the upper hand in the debate, when in fact he does not. Edward defeated himself in this debate when he agreed to his own proposition, that he believes that God (That is the God of the Bible), probably, might not but could, exist. It’s not clear in his mind whether or not God exists, so he prevaricates; assuming that will make his case for him.
Edward loves to say I am using logical fallacies when the fact of the matter is, it is Edward who is using the logical fallacy “Argumentum ad Nauseam” to make it appear that it is not he who is repeating himself. Edward is obsessed with the Invisible Pink Unicorn making light of the existence of the God of the Bible and turning this debate into joke. Edward, I said before that can debate the existence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn another time, but for now we are debating (and you signed a proposition to the effect) that the God of the Bible probably (might not, but absolutely could) exist. It is not my duty to prove the non-existence of a so-called Invisible Pink Unicorn, because such is not involved in the proposition signed by either of us.
Now in Edward’s latest negative (2nd) retort to my affirmatives, he states that my questions are ‘garbage,’ and that they place a burden upon him rather than where it belongs. How so Edward? Again, he prevaricates. Let us define for Edward the word ‘question,’ “a linguistic expression used to make a request for information which is provided in the form of an answer.” Since it is the case that Edward and I have never met, and it is he who issued a debate challenge to me, then the only way I can acquire information from him as to what he believes or does not believe is to ask him questions. Is there a burden placed upon Edward for provide answers to such questions? Of course, there is, but not in a subversive reason behind the questions, they are only meant to gain information as to his belief system. As for being ‘garbage,’ a word that refers to “trash, or useless data,” a question has no data, so it cannot be understood as useless. A question is searching for data. See how Edward has no legs to stand on, so he continually grasps at straws to give the appearance that his proposition is true, when in fact he has not provided one shred of evidence to make his case.
Before Edward begins to answer the questions, I have set forth numerous times without so much as a consideration, he states that my questions are ‘loaded’ and badly phrased questions, based upon many unproven assumptions which are clearly designed for theists and not atheists. Again, the purpose of the questions is so that I can understand what Edward believes since we have never met or spoken. If they are ‘loaded,’ then it is only because I need to gain all the relevant information I can concerning the subject of our propositions so that I can properly answer his objections. Whether they are ‘badly’ phrased, has nothing whatsoever to do with their purpose for being asked. All Edward is doing is evading the questions.
Concerning question # 1. Is there real objective right or wrong, good or evil (suffering)? (yes or no), Edward fails to realize this is a yes or no question, which means it does not require a lengthy statement to provide an answer. I guess he has never been in court or heard how the lawyers will ask a yes or no question of the person on the stand, and should they try to give more than yes or no, they are reminded not to give more information than asked. That is the problem we have here. Instead of just giving us a straight forward yes or no, Edward expounds in such a way that pretends to give an answer, when in all actuality he is skirting the issue because he does want you the reader to know where he does or does not stand on the issue. Instead he questions the definition of words like Mr. Clinton did (depends upon your definition of ‘is’). Either words have meanings, or they don’t. But this could give us some insight to where Edward’s head is, that he holds to the belief that words mean anything the individual applies to them, that there is no right or wrong, no absolutes.
Question # 2. Does anyone have a real obligation to do or not do anything? (yes or no) is again a yes or no question, and yet he equivocates by not making up his mind as whether my questions are ‘too vague,’ or ‘too broad and ambiguous’. Which is it Edward? Please, just give us a yes or no answer.
Question #3. The evil (suffering) that warrants the deduction that God does not exist is a mere subjective evil (suffering) (yes or no). Edward there is no trap being set for you, unless it traps you into the irrational conclusion that suffering, and evil are subjective. A yes or no answer would suffice.
Question #4. The evil (suffering) that warrants the deduction that God does not exist is a real objective evil (suffering) (yes or no). Since we have never met or held a discuss concerning our beliefs, my questions are for the purpose of gaining information about Edward’s beliefs, with some of them pre-supposing certain beliefs that would be held by a self-proclaimed skeptic atheist. I would like to know for certain if my assumptions are correct, and a yes or no to this question would help me make that determination.
Question # 5. The evil (suffering) that warrants the deduction that God does not exist is a …. (check all appropriate answers)
a. Violation of Civil Law
b. Violation of International Law
c. Violation of an individual human being’s opinion
d. Violation of the opinion of the majority of people in a given society
e. Violation of God’s Law
f. Violation of something else (Explain)
Not one of the above asked question was answered by Edward in the affirmative or negative.

Now on to my third affirmative for the proof of the existence of God (that is the God of the Bible). In trying to disprove my arguments for the existence of God, Edward continues to take this debate seriously, making a joke of it by inserting into my arguments the ‘invisible pink unicorn’ for the name God. I guess I could charge him with plagiarism, since he is copying my words to use as his negative argument. As he has thus far done in this debate, he has failed to prove his affirmative proposition that God (that is the God of the Bible) might not, possibly exist; and he has so far failed to disprove my evidence for the existence of God (that is the God of the Bible). Saying that the invisible pink unicorn created the human respiratory system is admitting that there is more than the evolutionary process that did it. Something greater than us exists, no matter what you want to call it. Which means that Edward has defeated himself yet again. His side of the debate is dead, he just doesn’t want to admit it.
Edward is caught in the dilemma box from which he can never escape. He has painted himself into a corner but refuses to admit it. Since he does not want to provide me with information I have asked for no less than 7 times, I will have to proceed upon assumptions. Now, you watch and see if he tries to tell us that he never said so and so, or never admitted to believing so and so. I am going to have to put words in his mouth since he refuses to answer my questions, which would provide the necessary information allowing me to argue knowledgably about his beliefs. It will be his own fault, so I will have to proceed based upon my understanding of agnostics. And he is an agnostic even though he prefers to be called an atheist. But a true atheist would never agree to a proposition that admits to the possibility of God’s existence, like Edward has done. Only an agnostic or skeptic would do that. Now based upon my second affirmative, in which I discussed the human respiratory system, and its marvelous design. Since Edward wants to be considered an atheist, we will continue arguing according that philosophy.


Since it is the case that Edward does not believe in the existence of God, or in intelligent design, we must conclude that he holds to the idea that humanity is the direct product of the ‘Big Bang.’ That everything existing today is the result of non-intelligent matter, and that some-how, which they can’t explain, non-intelligent matter developed intelligence on its own. Let us see if Edward will tell us how non-intelligent matter developed intelligence (non-life became alive). I find this interesting, because NASA is full of atheists who are looking for ‘life’ on other planets, but why? If non-life developed into life on planet earth, would that not be the same formula for other planets? If not, why not? Secondly, lets see if Edward will tell us which was first, a human baby, or a human woman (female)? Sure, it’s like the chicken and the egg scenario, but we are talking humans here, not animals. Third, will Edward help us understand when that which was not human became human? Did a non-human produce a human, or did a human just appear? Continuing that line of thinking, when did that which was not human, without a human respiratory system, produce something human with the human respiratory system? This ought to be fascinating to witness how Edward will prevaricate, rather than simply answering the questions and providing us with proof that he is correct in his beliefs, and we are wrong. We are not looking for a list of websites to check out, we expect to read logical evidence in precisely stated propositions. I highly doubt that we will ever see such a thing from him, but we shall wait.
Friends, you should be demanding from Edward, no less than you expect from me. Evidence that proves my proposition, otherwise this debate is pointless and a waste of time, both to us the debaters and you the reader. While most debates do not settle the matter either way, they at the very least, should provide enough information for any rational individual to glean enough evidence to decide for him or herself which side has the most plausible explanation for our existence. We are not asking the question of ‘when’ humans came into existence, we are asking Edward to give us an answer as to ‘how’ they came into existence. But Edward doesn’t believe in black or white, right or wrong, or absolutes, he’s a modernist who believes that everything is fuzzy and determined by our personal likes and dislikes. Since he believes that, why is he so set on arguing that God cannot exist since evil and suffering exists? According to the atheist’s way of thinking, each of us determines for him or herself what is evil and what is not evil, what is suffering and what is not suffering. His definition of evil and suffering are most likely not the same as what other people think it is, so why is he and his fellow ‘atheists’ making this argument? Remember, there are no absolutes according to Edward. There is no right or wrong according to Edward. So why would he debate me or anyone else, since there is no right or wrong belief system? Since he believes everyone has a right to their own beliefs, why would he care what I believe? Isn’t it a waste of time and effort to argue a position that doesn’t matter, since there is no such thing as a right or wrong position?
Yet for decades, atheists have been fighting to remove every reference to God from society (that is the God of the Bible – not the god of the Buddhists, or the god of the Hindus, or the god of the Muslims, et al). Why is that, IF it is the case that there is no such thing as absolutes? And why do they only pick on one God? Why are they not equal opportunity God haters? Could it be, because they ‘know’ that gods other than the God of the Bible do not exist, could not possibly be the originator or the universe and their very existence? Of course, they will never admit, nor will Edward, but it is something to consider and ask yourself, why atheists only focus upon the God of the Bible and not others worshipped by men, let alone, why they are inconsistent in their beliefs, to say that beliefs are individual, yet fight against individual beliefs. I would like to hear what Edward has to say about that.
Now my point to asking Edward questions is for me, as well as you the reader, to gain more information as to Edward’s belief system. But I think we have enough information thus far to determine that he does not believe absolutes, that he does not believe in black and white, right or wrong. Yet, he insists that we must be rational and logical beings, which is an impossibility if there is no such thing as absolutes. To the theist, the universe either exists or it does not. But to Edward and his minions, we can’t know for certain if the universe exists because there are no absolutes, and if there are no absolutes, then how can he know if he is correct in his assumptions concerning his existence? He can’t! Do you see the dilemma he finds himself in? Do you understand the box he has locked himself up in, and cannot escape? But Edward is going to argue that that are absolutes, while at the same time holding the atheists’ belief system that there are none; which only goes to show that he can’t make up his mind; just like the proposition he signed, that he knows that God (that is the God of the Bible) probably [might not but could] exist. Do you see that? He’s waffling. He wants to have it both ways, just in case he’s wrong.
Not once has Edward dealt with my questions in an honest and rational manner. At first, he refused to deal with them at all, and now, after 7 attempts to obtain an answer from him, he does so in an irrational and flippant manner, which is not an answer at all. Thus far I have offered several arguments confirming my position that God (that is the God of the Bible) does in fact exist. Has Edward in his negative position tried to rationally and logically provide us with just one precisely stated proposition that would counter my argument? No, he has not! It’s apparent that he is unable to do so, since the lack of evidence on his part is overwhelming. I urge you, the reader, not to let Edward side-track you with lists of websites that he expects us to search, doing the work for him. Don’t let him convince you that he has the only plausible position by citing unsubstantiated logical fallacies. This is supposed to be a debate between two individuals, not the one-sided conversation he would like you to think that it is. He has a responsibility to prove his side of the issue, but so far, he has failed to do so.
Now keep in mind that Edward stands on the side of the evolutionary process as to our origin; even though he doesn’t want to admit it or answer my questions rationally and succinctly. Go back and read his affirmative arguments and you will find out what a confused fellow he is.
There are only two possibilities for our origin. (1) Intelligent Design; (2) Evolution. I hold to the fact that God (that is the God of the Bible) created our universe with humanity, animals, bugs, and dinosaurs in it at the very beginning of life’s existence. Edward believes that nothingness, suddenly exploded, releasing non-intelligent matter that over eons of time developed intelligence and eventually the planets, lizard’s, dinosaurs, lands animals and man. Now Edward believes that’s science and more rational than intelligent design. True science is built upon ‘testable’ explanations, not theories that cannot be tested. Where and when has it ever been proved (tested) that something is able to come from nothing? Where and when has it ever been proved (tested) that an explosion created order out of disorder? Where and when has it ever been proved (tested) that intelligence came from non-intelligence? Please Edward, tell us, so we can accept your position as the truth. Now please keep in mind, that I am not demeaning Edward himself, but the position he has taken. His position, his belief system is false, and cannot hold up to true science or logic. It cannot stand the test, and Edward has thus far proved that to be the case, by his lack of evidence for his proposition, and his refusal to answer my questions.
Is Edward able to provide us with a precisely stated logical argument, that contains true premises with a sound and valid argument and then a conclusion that is supported by the argument? He has not done so thus far, and I doubt that he ever will, because he knows he can’t. No atheist or evolutionist can or will, because they know they don’t have the true, testable science to back them up. According to Edward’s stand, he must admit as true, that he owes his origins to a non-human thing. What person, who cares about self-esteem, would ever agree or argue that they owe their origin to a non-human thing? I know I would not. I owe my origin to Almighty God, the creator of the universe, who created me in His image! Edward would make light of my stand and call me irrational, illogical, and a holder of a blind faith. But I ask you dear reader, who has the blind faith? Me or Edward? I of course would say Edward does, not because I’m being irrational, but because the evidence points to the fact that he does. Because it is he who holds to an ideal that is not based upon testable science, while my position is based upon testable evidence. I have provided the evidence, and instead of refuting it in a logical argument, Edward makes fun of it, but bringing his pink unicorn and flying spaghetti monster into the mix, only to confuse the matter, not to give proof that his position based in testable science.
I spent pages in my last affirmative, showing the complexity of the human respiratory system, and that it was logically impossible for such a system to evolve over eons of time. Did Edward provide us with irrefutable proof that my evidence was false? No, he did not. Instead he copied what I wrote, inserted the pink unicorn in place of God, and thought that made his case. That is not a logical argument my friends, that is simply a way to side track you from realizing he has no evidence whatsoever to refute my arguments. He’s grasping at straws, and he knows it. The patient is on his death bed but does not want to give up. Even though Edward has already lost this debate, I continue with my arguments for his sake, as well as the sake of anyone reading this who holds his position. It is my hope that you will realize that futility of your belief system, and you will turn away from the irrational, and hold on to what is truly rational and true. God (that is the God of the Bible) is love (1 John 4:8), and He loves each and everyone of us, whether we believe in Him or not. It is His desire that we turn to Him and become one of His children (John 3:16; Acts 17:30).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ChurchofChristerToAtheist's post
19-02-2018, 12:18 AM
RE: Need help with these questions from a Church of Christer
Holy shit. I don't think I have a big enough shovel. This may require some kind of industrial digger to see if there's anything underneath all of that. I don't know how you can have any kind of debate with that guy, he just wants to talk people into submission!

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
19-02-2018, 01:02 AM
RE: Need help with these questions from a Church of Christer
(18-02-2018 03:44 PM)ChurchofChristerToAtheist Wrote:  This is the response that I got from the Church of Christer Preacher. It is crazy.

Edward=ChurchOfChristerToAtheist=Me

Thank you once again for the opportunity to present to you my third affirmative argument in reply to what Edward wrote in his second ‘negative’ argument, and as a continuation of my argumentation to prove that God (that is the God of the Bible) does exist, despite Edward’s attempts at making light of this important debate.
I must say, that I continue to be shocked by Edward’s blasé attitude concerning this debate which is evident with his first & second ‘negative’ arguments (IF you want to call them that). Still, despite my attempts at trying to help Edward understand how a debate works, he continues to demonstrate a lack of knowledge concerning the art of debate, or it just may be the case that he doesn’t care. During his ‘affirmative’ arguments, he argued in the negative, and now that he is in the negative, he is arguing in the affirmative. Not only has he admitted defeat that he ‘knows’ that the God of the Bible probably, that is, might not, but could, exist; Edward admits defeat by his failure to provide us with evidence that proves his proposition, as well as his failure to disprove mine.
He continues to give website references that supposedly make his case (but do not). I have told him it is not my duty to look up every site that he presents, neither is it the duty of the reader to do so, yet he persists. It is his duty to present his arguments in precisely stated propositions so that I and you the reader may know exactly where Edward stands. He still has not taken up my questions posed to him since the beginning of this debate, which is another indication that he has lost this debate. Because Edward understands that the second he provides us with answers to those questions, the jig will be up, it will be proved that his belief system is false. But Edward wants us to think that his belief system is still viable, as well as logical, but it’s not going to work, because there is no logic to atheism, let alone, his belief that he is the product of non-intelligent rocks and dirt.

Edward thinks he is disproving my arguments by listing a few logical fallacies, which are only meant to prejudice the reader. Let’s take a moment to review what a true debate is supposed to look like. First of all, there are two sides, two speakers to a debate. These two sides agree on a particular proposition that will be argued in a logical and rational manner. There is an affirmative argument and negative argument, of which both parties to the debate will take their turn in the affirmative and negative. The affirmative position is where the disputant is tasked with proving his proposition to be the logical choice, while the negative position is tasked with disproving the points made by the affirmative speaker. Once the affirmative speaker has taken his/her turn (according to the number of speeches agreed upon), then the negative speaker takes the affirmative position and visa versa. It is the duty of the affirmative speaker to prove his/her agreed upon proposition, it is not the duty of the negative speaker to prove his proposition until he is in the affirmative. Edward has thus far failed to understand his position in this debate. While in the affirmative, he constantly railed at me for not proving my proposition, when it was my duty to disprove his (which by the way, he failed to provide any arguments). It is now his duty to disprove my affirmative, which again, failing to understand how a debate works, he has yet to discuss any of the arguments I have made to prove my proposition as valid proof for the existence of God (That is the God of the Bible).
Edward also fails to understand how logical fallacies work. He thinks that all he needs to do is say that I have committed one or more fallacies and that makes it true. But the fact is, he must prove that I have committed a fallacy, not just assert it. Pressing a point that Edward has failed to make his case or does not understand the workings of a debate is not a fallacy. That is part of the debate process when one party fails or refuses to live up their part of the debate. It is making it clear to the hearer or reader that the other party is not doing their job to provide rational evidence to prove their point. So, I will not stop pressing the fact that Edward failed to prove his proposition which by failing to do so, shows he defeated himself in this debate; nor will I stop pressing the fact that he has never answered any the questions I have asked of him, nor has he yet to address the arguments given by me in my first two affirmatives. The reason this is the case, should be apparent to any rational person, he has no evidence to prove his proposition, so he relies on smoke and mirrors to make you think he has the upper hand in the debate, when in fact he does not. Edward defeated himself in this debate when he agreed to his own proposition, that he believes that God (That is the God of the Bible), probably, might not but could, exist. It’s not clear in his mind whether or not God exists, so he prevaricates; assuming that will make his case for him.
Edward loves to say I am using logical fallacies when the fact of the matter is, it is Edward who is using the logical fallacy “Argumentum ad Nauseam” to make it appear that it is not he who is repeating himself. Edward is obsessed with the Invisible Pink Unicorn making light of the existence of the God of the Bible and turning this debate into joke. Edward, I said before that can debate the existence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn another time, but for now we are debating (and you signed a proposition to the effect) that the God of the Bible probably (might not, but absolutely could) exist. It is not my duty to prove the non-existence of a so-called Invisible Pink Unicorn, because such is not involved in the proposition signed by either of us.
Now in Edward’s latest negative (2nd) retort to my affirmatives, he states that my questions are ‘garbage,’ and that they place a burden upon him rather than where it belongs. How so Edward? Again, he prevaricates. Let us define for Edward the word ‘question,’ “a linguistic expression used to make a request for information which is provided in the form of an answer.” Since it is the case that Edward and I have never met, and it is he who issued a debate challenge to me, then the only way I can acquire information from him as to what he believes or does not believe is to ask him questions. Is there a burden placed upon Edward for provide answers to such questions? Of course, there is, but not in a subversive reason behind the questions, they are only meant to gain information as to his belief system. As for being ‘garbage,’ a word that refers to “trash, or useless data,” a question has no data, so it cannot be understood as useless. A question is searching for data. See how Edward has no legs to stand on, so he continually grasps at straws to give the appearance that his proposition is true, when in fact he has not provided one shred of evidence to make his case.
Before Edward begins to answer the questions, I have set forth numerous times without so much as a consideration, he states that my questions are ‘loaded’ and badly phrased questions, based upon many unproven assumptions which are clearly designed for theists and not atheists. Again, the purpose of the questions is so that I can understand what Edward believes since we have never met or spoken. If they are ‘loaded,’ then it is only because I need to gain all the relevant information I can concerning the subject of our propositions so that I can properly answer his objections. Whether they are ‘badly’ phrased, has nothing whatsoever to do with their purpose for being asked. All Edward is doing is evading the questions.
Concerning question # 1. Is there real objective right or wrong, good or evil (suffering)? (yes or no), Edward fails to realize this is a yes or no question, which means it does not require a lengthy statement to provide an answer. I guess he has never been in court or heard how the lawyers will ask a yes or no question of the person on the stand, and should they try to give more than yes or no, they are reminded not to give more information than asked. That is the problem we have here. Instead of just giving us a straight forward yes or no, Edward expounds in such a way that pretends to give an answer, when in all actuality he is skirting the issue because he does want you the reader to know where he does or does not stand on the issue. Instead he questions the definition of words like Mr. Clinton did (depends upon your definition of ‘is’). Either words have meanings, or they don’t. But this could give us some insight to where Edward’s head is, that he holds to the belief that words mean anything the individual applies to them, that there is no right or wrong, no absolutes.
Question # 2. Does anyone have a real obligation to do or not do anything? (yes or no) is again a yes or no question, and yet he equivocates by not making up his mind as whether my questions are ‘too vague,’ or ‘too broad and ambiguous’. Which is it Edward? Please, just give us a yes or no answer.
Question #3. The evil (suffering) that warrants the deduction that God does not exist is a mere subjective evil (suffering) (yes or no). Edward there is no trap being set for you, unless it traps you into the irrational conclusion that suffering, and evil are subjective. A yes or no answer would suffice.
Question #4. The evil (suffering) that warrants the deduction that God does not exist is a real objective evil (suffering) (yes or no). Since we have never met or held a discuss concerning our beliefs, my questions are for the purpose of gaining information about Edward’s beliefs, with some of them pre-supposing certain beliefs that would be held by a self-proclaimed skeptic atheist. I would like to know for certain if my assumptions are correct, and a yes or no to this question would help me make that determination.
Question # 5. The evil (suffering) that warrants the deduction that God does not exist is a …. (check all appropriate answers)
a. Violation of Civil Law
b. Violation of International Law
c. Violation of an individual human being’s opinion
d. Violation of the opinion of the majority of people in a given society
e. Violation of God’s Law
f. Violation of something else (Explain)
Not one of the above asked question was answered by Edward in the affirmative or negative.

Now on to my third affirmative for the proof of the existence of God (that is the God of the Bible). In trying to disprove my arguments for the existence of God, Edward continues to take this debate seriously, making a joke of it by inserting into my arguments the ‘invisible pink unicorn’ for the name God. I guess I could charge him with plagiarism, since he is copying my words to use as his negative argument. As he has thus far done in this debate, he has failed to prove his affirmative proposition that God (that is the God of the Bible) might not, possibly exist; and he has so far failed to disprove my evidence for the existence of God (that is the God of the Bible). Saying that the invisible pink unicorn created the human respiratory system is admitting that there is more than the evolutionary process that did it. Something greater than us exists, no matter what you want to call it. Which means that Edward has defeated himself yet again. His side of the debate is dead, he just doesn’t want to admit it.
Edward is caught in the dilemma box from which he can never escape. He has painted himself into a corner but refuses to admit it. Since he does not want to provide me with information I have asked for no less than 7 times, I will have to proceed upon assumptions. Now, you watch and see if he tries to tell us that he never said so and so, or never admitted to believing so and so. I am going to have to put words in his mouth since he refuses to answer my questions, which would provide the necessary information allowing me to argue knowledgably about his beliefs. It will be his own fault, so I will have to proceed based upon my understanding of agnostics. And he is an agnostic even though he prefers to be called an atheist. But a true atheist would never agree to a proposition that admits to the possibility of God’s existence, like Edward has done. Only an agnostic or skeptic would do that. Now based upon my second affirmative, in which I discussed the human respiratory system, and its marvelous design. Since Edward wants to be considered an atheist, we will continue arguing according that philosophy.


Since it is the case that Edward does not believe in the existence of God, or in intelligent design, we must conclude that he holds to the idea that humanity is the direct product of the ‘Big Bang.’ That everything existing today is the result of non-intelligent matter, and that some-how, which they can’t explain, non-intelligent matter developed intelligence on its own. Let us see if Edward will tell us how non-intelligent matter developed intelligence (non-life became alive). I find this interesting, because NASA is full of atheists who are looking for ‘life’ on other planets, but why? If non-life developed into life on planet earth, would that not be the same formula for other planets? If not, why not? Secondly, lets see if Edward will tell us which was first, a human baby, or a human woman (female)? Sure, it’s like the chicken and the egg scenario, but we are talking humans here, not animals. Third, will Edward help us understand when that which was not human became human? Did a non-human produce a human, or did a human just appear? Continuing that line of thinking, when did that which was not human, without a human respiratory system, produce something human with the human respiratory system? This ought to be fascinating to witness how Edward will prevaricate, rather than simply answering the questions and providing us with proof that he is correct in his beliefs, and we are wrong. We are not looking for a list of websites to check out, we expect to read logical evidence in precisely stated propositions. I highly doubt that we will ever see such a thing from him, but we shall wait.
Friends, you should be demanding from Edward, no less than you expect from me. Evidence that proves my proposition, otherwise this debate is pointless and a waste of time, both to us the debaters and you the reader. While most debates do not settle the matter either way, they at the very least, should provide enough information for any rational individual to glean enough evidence to decide for him or herself which side has the most plausible explanation for our existence. We are not asking the question of ‘when’ humans came into existence, we are asking Edward to give us an answer as to ‘how’ they came into existence. But Edward doesn’t believe in black or white, right or wrong, or absolutes, he’s a modernist who believes that everything is fuzzy and determined by our personal likes and dislikes. Since he believes that, why is he so set on arguing that God cannot exist since evil and suffering exists? According to the atheist’s way of thinking, each of us determines for him or herself what is evil and what is not evil, what is suffering and what is not suffering. His definition of evil and suffering are most likely not the same as what other people think it is, so why is he and his fellow ‘atheists’ making this argument? Remember, there are no absolutes according to Edward. There is no right or wrong according to Edward. So why would he debate me or anyone else, since there is no right or wrong belief system? Since he believes everyone has a right to their own beliefs, why would he care what I believe? Isn’t it a waste of time and effort to argue a position that doesn’t matter, since there is no such thing as a right or wrong position?
Yet for decades, atheists have been fighting to remove every reference to God from society (that is the God of the Bible – not the god of the Buddhists, or the god of the Hindus, or the god of the Muslims, et al). Why is that, IF it is the case that there is no such thing as absolutes? And why do they only pick on one God? Why are they not equal opportunity God haters? Could it be, because they ‘know’ that gods other than the God of the Bible do not exist, could not possibly be the originator or the universe and their very existence? Of course, they will never admit, nor will Edward, but it is something to consider and ask yourself, why atheists only focus upon the God of the Bible and not others worshipped by men, let alone, why they are inconsistent in their beliefs, to say that beliefs are individual, yet fight against individual beliefs. I would like to hear what Edward has to say about that.
Now my point to asking Edward questions is for me, as well as you the reader, to gain more information as to Edward’s belief system. But I think we have enough information thus far to determine that he does not believe absolutes, that he does not believe in black and white, right or wrong. Yet, he insists that we must be rational and logical beings, which is an impossibility if there is no such thing as absolutes. To the theist, the universe either exists or it does not. But to Edward and his minions, we can’t know for certain if the universe exists because there are no absolutes, and if there are no absolutes, then how can he know if he is correct in his assumptions concerning his existence? He can’t! Do you see the dilemma he finds himself in? Do you understand the box he has locked himself up in, and cannot escape? But Edward is going to argue that that are absolutes, while at the same time holding the atheists’ belief system that there are none; which only goes to show that he can’t make up his mind; just like the proposition he signed, that he knows that God (that is the God of the Bible) probably [might not but could] exist. Do you see that? He’s waffling. He wants to have it both ways, just in case he’s wrong.
Not once has Edward dealt with my questions in an honest and rational manner. At first, he refused to deal with them at all, and now, after 7 attempts to obtain an answer from him, he does so in an irrational and flippant manner, which is not an answer at all. Thus far I have offered several arguments confirming my position that God (that is the God of the Bible) does in fact exist. Has Edward in his negative position tried to rationally and logically provide us with just one precisely stated proposition that would counter my argument? No, he has not! It’s apparent that he is unable to do so, since the lack of evidence on his part is overwhelming. I urge you, the reader, not to let Edward side-track you with lists of websites that he expects us to search, doing the work for him. Don’t let him convince you that he has the only plausible position by citing unsubstantiated logical fallacies. This is supposed to be a debate between two individuals, not the one-sided conversation he would like you to think that it is. He has a responsibility to prove his side of the issue, but so far, he has failed to do so.
Now keep in mind that Edward stands on the side of the evolutionary process as to our origin; even though he doesn’t want to admit it or answer my questions rationally and succinctly. Go back and read his affirmative arguments and you will find out what a confused fellow he is.
There are only two possibilities for our origin. (1) Intelligent Design; (2) Evolution. I hold to the fact that God (that is the God of the Bible) created our universe with humanity, animals, bugs, and dinosaurs in it at the very beginning of life’s existence. Edward believes that nothingness, suddenly exploded, releasing non-intelligent matter that over eons of time developed intelligence and eventually the planets, lizard’s, dinosaurs, lands animals and man. Now Edward believes that’s science and more rational than intelligent design. True science is built upon ‘testable’ explanations, not theories that cannot be tested. Where and when has it ever been proved (tested) that something is able to come from nothing? Where and when has it ever been proved (tested) that an explosion created order out of disorder? Where and when has it ever been proved (tested) that intelligence came from non-intelligence? Please Edward, tell us, so we can accept your position as the truth. Now please keep in mind, that I am not demeaning Edward himself, but the position he has taken. His position, his belief system is false, and cannot hold up to true science or logic. It cannot stand the test, and Edward has thus far proved that to be the case, by his lack of evidence for his proposition, and his refusal to answer my questions.
Is Edward able to provide us with a precisely stated logical argument, that contains true premises with a sound and valid argument and then a conclusion that is supported by the argument? He has not done so thus far, and I doubt that he ever will, because he knows he can’t. No atheist or evolutionist can or will, because they know they don’t have the true, testable science to back them up. According to Edward’s stand, he must admit as true, that he owes his origins to a non-human thing. What person, who cares about self-esteem, would ever agree or argue that they owe their origin to a non-human thing? I know I would not. I owe my origin to Almighty God, the creator of the universe, who created me in His image! Edward would make light of my stand and call me irrational, illogical, and a holder of a blind faith. But I ask you dear reader, who has the blind faith? Me or Edward? I of course would say Edward does, not because I’m being irrational, but because the evidence points to the fact that he does. Because it is he who holds to an ideal that is not based upon testable science, while my position is based upon testable evidence. I have provided the evidence, and instead of refuting it in a logical argument, Edward makes fun of it, but bringing his pink unicorn and flying spaghetti monster into the mix, only to confuse the matter, not to give proof that his position based in testable science.
I spent pages in my last affirmative, showing the complexity of the human respiratory system, and that it was logically impossible for such a system to evolve over eons of time. Did Edward provide us with irrefutable proof that my evidence was false? No, he did not. Instead he copied what I wrote, inserted the pink unicorn in place of God, and thought that made his case. That is not a logical argument my friends, that is simply a way to side track you from realizing he has no evidence whatsoever to refute my arguments. He’s grasping at straws, and he knows it. The patient is on his death bed but does not want to give up. Even though Edward has already lost this debate, I continue with my arguments for his sake, as well as the sake of anyone reading this who holds his position. It is my hope that you will realize that futility of your belief system, and you will turn away from the irrational, and hold on to what is truly rational and true. God (that is the God of the Bible) is love (1 John 4:8), and He loves each and everyone of us, whether we believe in Him or not. It is His desire that we turn to Him and become one of His children (John 3:16; Acts 17:30).

The formatting on this is pretty unpleasant. Is this the fault of the writer, or did it get squashed up when you copy/pasted it into the forum window?

You know, if half of what he says about your argument is true, you aren't doing very well so far.

He's correct that, if you're offering to have an honest debate, you can't just shout "logical fallacy" and walk away. You owe it to him to explain why you think his statement was a fallacy, and give him a chance to defend himself.

Likewise, web links are not arguments. They have their place as footnotes or further reading, but they are not a substitute for you writing out what your argument is.

I'm assuming that you want to have a reasonable debate in good faith. Maybe you don't though? Maybe just poking him in the eye is enough?

Anyway, this guy is an intelligent design believer. You should have no problem articulating the reasons why you reject his arguments. And if you can't, then you aren't ready to be doing this kind of debate -- your own ideas are insufficiently supported.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2018, 01:39 AM
RE: Need help with these questions from a Church of Christer
(29-01-2018 08:36 PM)brunumb Wrote:  If there is a god, why must it be good?

A God is by definition an entity that is worshiped. There isn't a lot of people who are willing to worship (basically obey, respect and trust in all things) something that's not good unless its willingness to harm those who refuse to worship is made abundantly clear and real. Thus, most modern conception will have it be good if not omnibenevolent. Once upon a time, gods were similar to kings, sometime just and generous, sometime petty and cruel. Today, gods are frequently represented like cosmic forces (think of the unmoved mover argument). They are perceived very differently as our perception of nature and reality has changed.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
19-02-2018, 01:48 AM
RE: Need help with these questions from a Church of Christer
(19-02-2018 01:39 AM)epronovost Wrote:  
(29-01-2018 08:36 PM)brunumb Wrote:  If there is a god, why must it be good?

A God is by definition an entity that is worshiped. There isn't a lot of people who are willing to worship (basically obey, respect and trust in all things) something that's not good unless its willingness to harm those who refuse to worship is made abundantly clear and real. Thus, most modern conception will have it be good if not omnibenevolent. Once upon a time, gods were similar to kings, sometime just and generous, sometime petty and cruel. Today, gods are frequently represented like cosmic forces (think of the unmoved mover argument). They are perceived very differently as our perception of nature and reality has changed.

"By definition" explains why it must be good. All the attributes of God have been given to it based on what humans have considered a god should be like. But in terms of reality, if a god actually does exist then it is not necessarily a good entity is it?

No gods necessary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2018, 01:53 AM
RE: Need help with these questions from a Church of Christer
(18-02-2018 03:44 PM)ChurchofChristerToAtheist Wrote:  This is the response that I got from the Church of Christer Preacher. It is crazy.

Edward=ChurchOfChristerToAtheist=Me

Thank you once again for the opportunity to present to you my third affirmative argument in reply to what Edward wrote in his second ‘negative’ argument, and as a continuation of my argumentation to prove that God (that is the God of the Bible) does exist, despite Edward’s attempts at making light of this important debate.
I must say, that I continue to be shocked by Edward’s blasé attitude concerning this debate which is evident with his first & second ‘negative’ arguments (IF you want to call them that). Still, despite my attempts at trying to help Edward understand how a debate works, he continues to demonstrate a lack of knowledge concerning the art of debate, or it just may be the case that he doesn’t care. During his ‘affirmative’ arguments, he argued in the negative, and now that he is in the negative, he is arguing in the affirmative. Not only has he admitted defeat that he ‘knows’ that the God of the Bible probably, that is, might not, but could, exist; Edward admits defeat by his failure to provide us with evidence that proves his proposition, as well as his failure to disprove mine.
He continues to give website references that supposedly make his case (but do not). I have told him it is not my duty to look up every site that he presents, neither is it the duty of the reader to do so, yet he persists. It is his duty to present his arguments in precisely stated propositions so that I and you the reader may know exactly where Edward stands. He still has not taken up my questions posed to him since the beginning of this debate, which is another indication that he has lost this debate. Because Edward understands that the second he provides us with answers to those questions, the jig will be up, it will be proved that his belief system is false. But Edward wants us to think that his belief system is still viable, as well as logical, but it’s not going to work, because there is no logic to atheism, let alone, his belief that he is the product of non-intelligent rocks and dirt.

Edward thinks he is disproving my arguments by listing a few logical fallacies, which are only meant to prejudice the reader. Let’s take a moment to review what a true debate is supposed to look like. First of all, there are two sides, two speakers to a debate. These two sides agree on a particular proposition that will be argued in a logical and rational manner. There is an affirmative argument and negative argument, of which both parties to the debate will take their turn in the affirmative and negative. The affirmative position is where the disputant is tasked with proving his proposition to be the logical choice, while the negative position is tasked with disproving the points made by the affirmative speaker. Once the affirmative speaker has taken his/her turn (according to the number of speeches agreed upon), then the negative speaker takes the affirmative position and visa versa. It is the duty of the affirmative speaker to prove his/her agreed upon proposition, it is not the duty of the negative speaker to prove his proposition until he is in the affirmative. Edward has thus far failed to understand his position in this debate. While in the affirmative, he constantly railed at me for not proving my proposition, when it was my duty to disprove his (which by the way, he failed to provide any arguments). It is now his duty to disprove my affirmative, which again, failing to understand how a debate works, he has yet to discuss any of the arguments I have made to prove my proposition as valid proof for the existence of God (That is the God of the Bible).
Edward also fails to understand how logical fallacies work. He thinks that all he needs to do is say that I have committed one or more fallacies and that makes it true. But the fact is, he must prove that I have committed a fallacy, not just assert it. Pressing a point that Edward has failed to make his case or does not understand the workings of a debate is not a fallacy. That is part of the debate process when one party fails or refuses to live up their part of the debate. It is making it clear to the hearer or reader that the other party is not doing their job to provide rational evidence to prove their point. So, I will not stop pressing the fact that Edward failed to prove his proposition which by failing to do so, shows he defeated himself in this debate; nor will I stop pressing the fact that he has never answered any the questions I have asked of him, nor has he yet to address the arguments given by me in my first two affirmatives. The reason this is the case, should be apparent to any rational person, he has no evidence to prove his proposition, so he relies on smoke and mirrors to make you think he has the upper hand in the debate, when in fact he does not. Edward defeated himself in this debate when he agreed to his own proposition, that he believes that God (That is the God of the Bible), probably, might not but could, exist. It’s not clear in his mind whether or not God exists, so he prevaricates; assuming that will make his case for him.
Edward loves to say I am using logical fallacies when the fact of the matter is, it is Edward who is using the logical fallacy “Argumentum ad Nauseam” to make it appear that it is not he who is repeating himself. Edward is obsessed with the Invisible Pink Unicorn making light of the existence of the God of the Bible and turning this debate into joke. Edward, I said before that can debate the existence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn another time, but for now we are debating (and you signed a proposition to the effect) that the God of the Bible probably (might not, but absolutely could) exist. It is not my duty to prove the non-existence of a so-called Invisible Pink Unicorn, because such is not involved in the proposition signed by either of us.
Now in Edward’s latest negative (2nd) retort to my affirmatives, he states that my questions are ‘garbage,’ and that they place a burden upon him rather than where it belongs. How so Edward? Again, he prevaricates. Let us define for Edward the word ‘question,’ “a linguistic expression used to make a request for information which is provided in the form of an answer.” Since it is the case that Edward and I have never met, and it is he who issued a debate challenge to me, then the only way I can acquire information from him as to what he believes or does not believe is to ask him questions. Is there a burden placed upon Edward for provide answers to such questions? Of course, there is, but not in a subversive reason behind the questions, they are only meant to gain information as to his belief system. As for being ‘garbage,’ a word that refers to “trash, or useless data,” a question has no data, so it cannot be understood as useless. A question is searching for data. See how Edward has no legs to stand on, so he continually grasps at straws to give the appearance that his proposition is true, when in fact he has not provided one shred of evidence to make his case.
Before Edward begins to answer the questions, I have set forth numerous times without so much as a consideration, he states that my questions are ‘loaded’ and badly phrased questions, based upon many unproven assumptions which are clearly designed for theists and not atheists. Again, the purpose of the questions is so that I can understand what Edward believes since we have never met or spoken. If they are ‘loaded,’ then it is only because I need to gain all the relevant information I can concerning the subject of our propositions so that I can properly answer his objections. Whether they are ‘badly’ phrased, has nothing whatsoever to do with their purpose for being asked. All Edward is doing is evading the questions.
Concerning question # 1. Is there real objective right or wrong, good or evil (suffering)? (yes or no), Edward fails to realize this is a yes or no question, which means it does not require a lengthy statement to provide an answer. I guess he has never been in court or heard how the lawyers will ask a yes or no question of the person on the stand, and should they try to give more than yes or no, they are reminded not to give more information than asked. That is the problem we have here. Instead of just giving us a straight forward yes or no, Edward expounds in such a way that pretends to give an answer, when in all actuality he is skirting the issue because he does want you the reader to know where he does or does not stand on the issue. Instead he questions the definition of words like Mr. Clinton did (depends upon your definition of ‘is’). Either words have meanings, or they don’t. But this could give us some insight to where Edward’s head is, that he holds to the belief that words mean anything the individual applies to them, that there is no right or wrong, no absolutes.
Question # 2. Does anyone have a real obligation to do or not do anything? (yes or no) is again a yes or no question, and yet he equivocates by not making up his mind as whether my questions are ‘too vague,’ or ‘too broad and ambiguous’. Which is it Edward? Please, just give us a yes or no answer.
Question #3. The evil (suffering) that warrants the deduction that God does not exist is a mere subjective evil (suffering) (yes or no). Edward there is no trap being set for you, unless it traps you into the irrational conclusion that suffering, and evil are subjective. A yes or no answer would suffice.
Question #4. The evil (suffering) that warrants the deduction that God does not exist is a real objective evil (suffering) (yes or no). Since we have never met or held a discuss concerning our beliefs, my questions are for the purpose of gaining information about Edward’s beliefs, with some of them pre-supposing certain beliefs that would be held by a self-proclaimed skeptic atheist. I would like to know for certain if my assumptions are correct, and a yes or no to this question would help me make that determination.
Question # 5. The evil (suffering) that warrants the deduction that God does not exist is a …. (check all appropriate answers)
a. Violation of Civil Law
b. Violation of International Law
c. Violation of an individual human being’s opinion
d. Violation of the opinion of the majority of people in a given society
e. Violation of God’s Law
f. Violation of something else (Explain)
Not one of the above asked question was answered by Edward in the affirmative or negative.

Now on to my third affirmative for the proof of the existence of God (that is the God of the Bible). In trying to disprove my arguments for the existence of God, Edward continues to take this debate seriously, making a joke of it by inserting into my arguments the ‘invisible pink unicorn’ for the name God. I guess I could charge him with plagiarism, since he is copying my words to use as his negative argument. As he has thus far done in this debate, he has failed to prove his affirmative proposition that God (that is the God of the Bible) might not, possibly exist; and he has so far failed to disprove my evidence for the existence of God (that is the God of the Bible). Saying that the invisible pink unicorn created the human respiratory system is admitting that there is more than the evolutionary process that did it. Something greater than us exists, no matter what you want to call it. Which means that Edward has defeated himself yet again. His side of the debate is dead, he just doesn’t want to admit it.
Edward is caught in the dilemma box from which he can never escape. He has painted himself into a corner but refuses to admit it. Since he does not want to provide me with information I have asked for no less than 7 times, I will have to proceed upon assumptions. Now, you watch and see if he tries to tell us that he never said so and so, or never admitted to believing so and so. I am going to have to put words in his mouth since he refuses to answer my questions, which would provide the necessary information allowing me to argue knowledgably about his beliefs. It will be his own fault, so I will have to proceed based upon my understanding of agnostics. And he is an agnostic even though he prefers to be called an atheist. But a true atheist would never agree to a proposition that admits to the possibility of God’s existence, like Edward has done. Only an agnostic or skeptic would do that. Now based upon my second affirmative, in which I discussed the human respiratory system, and its marvelous design. Since Edward wants to be considered an atheist, we will continue arguing according that philosophy.


Since it is the case that Edward does not believe in the existence of God, or in intelligent design, we must conclude that he holds to the idea that humanity is the direct product of the ‘Big Bang.’ That everything existing today is the result of non-intelligent matter, and that some-how, which they can’t explain, non-intelligent matter developed intelligence on its own. Let us see if Edward will tell us how non-intelligent matter developed intelligence (non-life became alive). I find this interesting, because NASA is full of atheists who are looking for ‘life’ on other planets, but why? If non-life developed into life on planet earth, would that not be the same formula for other planets? If not, why not? Secondly, lets see if Edward will tell us which was first, a human baby, or a human woman (female)? Sure, it’s like the chicken and the egg scenario, but we are talking humans here, not animals. Third, will Edward help us understand when that which was not human became human? Did a non-human produce a human, or did a human just appear? Continuing that line of thinking, when did that which was not human, without a human respiratory system, produce something human with the human respiratory system? This ought to be fascinating to witness how Edward will prevaricate, rather than simply answering the questions and providing us with proof that he is correct in his beliefs, and we are wrong. We are not looking for a list of websites to check out, we expect to read logical evidence in precisely stated propositions. I highly doubt that we will ever see such a thing from him, but we shall wait.
Friends, you should be demanding from Edward, no less than you expect from me. Evidence that proves my proposition, otherwise this debate is pointless and a waste of time, both to us the debaters and you the reader. While most debates do not settle the matter either way, they at the very least, should provide enough information for any rational individual to glean enough evidence to decide for him or herself which side has the most plausible explanation for our existence. We are not asking the question of ‘when’ humans came into existence, we are asking Edward to give us an answer as to ‘how’ they came into existence. But Edward doesn’t believe in black or white, right or wrong, or absolutes, he’s a modernist who believes that everything is fuzzy and determined by our personal likes and dislikes. Since he believes that, why is he so set on arguing that God cannot exist since evil and suffering exists? According to the atheist’s way of thinking, each of us determines for him or herself what is evil and what is not evil, what is suffering and what is not suffering. His definition of evil and suffering are most likely not the same as what other people think it is, so why is he and his fellow ‘atheists’ making this argument? Remember, there are no absolutes according to Edward. There is no right or wrong according to Edward. So why would he debate me or anyone else, since there is no right or wrong belief system? Since he believes everyone has a right to their own beliefs, why would he care what I believe? Isn’t it a waste of time and effort to argue a position that doesn’t matter, since there is no such thing as a right or wrong position?
Yet for decades, atheists have been fighting to remove every reference to God from society (that is the God of the Bible – not the god of the Buddhists, or the god of the Hindus, or the god of the Muslims, et al). Why is that, IF it is the case that there is no such thing as absolutes? And why do they only pick on one God? Why are they not equal opportunity God haters? Could it be, because they ‘know’ that gods other than the God of the Bible do not exist, could not possibly be the originator or the universe and their very existence? Of course, they will never admit, nor will Edward, but it is something to consider and ask yourself, why atheists only focus upon the God of the Bible and not others worshipped by men, let alone, why they are inconsistent in their beliefs, to say that beliefs are individual, yet fight against individual beliefs. I would like to hear what Edward has to say about that.
Now my point to asking Edward questions is for me, as well as you the reader, to gain more information as to Edward’s belief system. But I think we have enough information thus far to determine that he does not believe absolutes, that he does not believe in black and white, right or wrong. Yet, he insists that we must be rational and logical beings, which is an impossibility if there is no such thing as absolutes. To the theist, the universe either exists or it does not. But to Edward and his minions, we can’t know for certain if the universe exists because there are no absolutes, and if there are no absolutes, then how can he know if he is correct in his assumptions concerning his existence? He can’t! Do you see the dilemma he finds himself in? Do you understand the box he has locked himself up in, and cannot escape? But Edward is going to argue that that are absolutes, while at the same time holding the atheists’ belief system that there are none; which only goes to show that he can’t make up his mind; just like the proposition he signed, that he knows that God (that is the God of the Bible) probably [might not but could] exist. Do you see that? He’s waffling. He wants to have it both ways, just in case he’s wrong.
Not once has Edward dealt with my questions in an honest and rational manner. At first, he refused to deal with them at all, and now, after 7 attempts to obtain an answer from him, he does so in an irrational and flippant manner, which is not an answer at all. Thus far I have offered several arguments confirming my position that God (that is the God of the Bible) does in fact exist. Has Edward in his negative position tried to rationally and logically provide us with just one precisely stated proposition that would counter my argument? No, he has not! It’s apparent that he is unable to do so, since the lack of evidence on his part is overwhelming. I urge you, the reader, not to let Edward side-track you with lists of websites that he expects us to search, doing the work for him. Don’t let him convince you that he has the only plausible position by citing unsubstantiated logical fallacies. This is supposed to be a debate between two individuals, not the one-sided conversation he would like you to think that it is. He has a responsibility to prove his side of the issue, but so far, he has failed to do so.
Now keep in mind that Edward stands on the side of the evolutionary process as to our origin; even though he doesn’t want to admit it or answer my questions rationally and succinctly. Go back and read his affirmative arguments and you will find out what a confused fellow he is.
There are only two possibilities for our origin. (1) Intelligent Design; (2) Evolution. I hold to the fact that God (that is the God of the Bible) created our universe with humanity, animals, bugs, and dinosaurs in it at the very beginning of life’s existence. Edward believes that nothingness, suddenly exploded, releasing non-intelligent matter that over eons of time developed intelligence and eventually the planets, lizard’s, dinosaurs, lands animals and man. Now Edward believes that’s science and more rational than intelligent design. True science is built upon ‘testable’ explanations, not theories that cannot be tested. Where and when has it ever been proved (tested) that something is able to come from nothing? Where and when has it ever been proved (tested) that an explosion created order out of disorder? Where and when has it ever been proved (tested) that intelligence came from non-intelligence? Please Edward, tell us, so we can accept your position as the truth. Now please keep in mind, that I am not demeaning Edward himself, but the position he has taken. His position, his belief system is false, and cannot hold up to true science or logic. It cannot stand the test, and Edward has thus far proved that to be the case, by his lack of evidence for his proposition, and his refusal to answer my questions.
Is Edward able to provide us with a precisely stated logical argument, that contains true premises with a sound and valid argument and then a conclusion that is supported by the argument? He has not done so thus far, and I doubt that he ever will, because he knows he can’t. No atheist or evolutionist can or will, because they know they don’t have the true, testable science to back them up. According to Edward’s stand, he must admit as true, that he owes his origins to a non-human thing. What person, who cares about self-esteem, would ever agree or argue that they owe their origin to a non-human thing? I know I would not. I owe my origin to Almighty God, the creator of the universe, who created me in His image! Edward would make light of my stand and call me irrational, illogical, and a holder of a blind faith. But I ask you dear reader, who has the blind faith? Me or Edward? I of course would say Edward does, not because I’m being irrational, but because the evidence points to the fact that he does. Because it is he who holds to an ideal that is not based upon testable science, while my position is based upon testable evidence. I have provided the evidence, and instead of refuting it in a logical argument, Edward makes fun of it, but bringing his pink unicorn and flying spaghetti monster into the mix, only to confuse the matter, not to give proof that his position based in testable science.
I spent pages in my last affirmative, showing the complexity of the human respiratory system, and that it was logically impossible for such a system to evolve over eons of time. Did Edward provide us with irrefutable proof that my evidence was false? No, he did not. Instead he copied what I wrote, inserted the pink unicorn in place of God, and thought that made his case. That is not a logical argument my friends, that is simply a way to side track you from realizing he has no evidence whatsoever to refute my arguments. He’s grasping at straws, and he knows it. The patient is on his death bed but does not want to give up. Even though Edward has already lost this debate, I continue with my arguments for his sake, as well as the sake of anyone reading this who holds his position. It is my hope that you will realize that futility of your belief system, and you will turn away from the irrational, and hold on to what is truly rational and true. God (that is the God of the Bible) is love (1 John 4:8), and He loves each and everyone of us, whether we believe in Him or not. It is His desire that we turn to Him and become one of His children (John 3:16; Acts 17:30).

So okay this preacher guy has the IQ of a bag of hammers.

This preacher wants yes or no answers to questions that can't be honestly answered with a yes or no. He's clearly doing this on purpose so that it looks like you are equivocating or prevaricating so he can say your position isn't sound. Questions 3-5 are nonsensical to an atheist & therefore unanswerable.

He's saying that atheism is a negative position when it's not, it's a neutral position.

A little advice from me would be to avoid doing the "pink unicorn" routine, it's funny in our circles but it just pisses off the theists, I would have replaced "god" with Allah or some other god name that is still seriously worshipped in the world today, and point out that everything he says about Yahweh (and I would use the name Yahweh instead of letting him refer to it as "the god of the bible") could be true of all the others. As for his stupid comment about why atheists are always going after the Christian god and not the others because somehow we know that Yahweh is the real god, I'd point out that we are living in a Christian dominated society, and that you can bet that atheists in Muslim or Hindu countries are debating theists about their particular gods too.

Next he's arguing about how the lungs are too complex to have evolved without intelligent intervention *yawn*, but he clearly hasn't got a clue how evolution works as evidenced by his absurd comment about which came first the human baby or the human mother FFS Facepalm, as well his comment about when did the first human come from a non-human thing. Frusty I guess here I'd tell him that he shouldn't be using the "complex lung" argument if he doesn't understand basic evolution.

Anyway there's more that I would add but really, debating this preacher is a waste of time, maybe I'd finish with ...science hasn't found any evidence of a god or found any reason to inject one into an equation to make a formula work and science works the same regardless of the "faith" of the person using it, or where in the world you are, that's why people of every belief system use it.

A friend in the hole

"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are." - Captain Picard
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unsapien's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: