Is God real post your thoughts!

[Lenticular_J]

[stuff]

 

We're debating God.

 

 

 

You bring up logical fallacies...?

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 Question Every Intelligent Christian Must Anwser.

 

 

 

Watch it, and you will realize that God is imaginary.

 

 

 

Athieism, [bleep].

 

I really want this post removed, since it's just flamebait and trolling. :/

 

BUT. I'll take the bait.

 

 

 

Question 1: I don't believe God heals anyone more than a placebo, unless there's a literal need for it.

 

Question 2: Because the choices of governments of other people that have major effects in their lives.

 

Question 3: Because the Bible was written by men...? Of course men would put their own discrepancies into their work.

 

Question 4: Oh, all other literature written in the first century was absolutely study material we use today.

 

Question 5: Once again. Men wrote the Bible. They put their own beliefs into it. The Bible contains pitifully few of God's own words, if any. And maybe fewer of Jesus of Nazareth's.

 

Question 6: I don't really think God interferes in our lives, unless they're some sort of special person leading humanity to greatness.

 

Question 7: Could ask the same question of why his first poopy wasn't preserved in gold. His "miracles", which I cannot confirm the existence or non-existence of, were healing people. Since there really weren't the best medical records during His time, it'd be hard to find out if a dead person became healed.

 

Question 8: He's dead. :|

 

Question 9: Access to seeing the universe as He did. Ability to see love and goodness as ably as we notice gravity. See my post covering my beliefs several pages ago.

 

Question 10: We aren't some sort of angels. I mean, Buddha taught that we should be peaceful - yet Japanese Buddhist monks were some of the most feared warriors in the world in the 16th century.

 

 

 

That was a pitifully ignorant video. And I don't even have a college degree! :

[Zierro]

If by proof we simply mean support, then I would expect theists to ask me the same if I were to make an assertion that no gods exist. I'll explain my own support in detail, for the sake of argument:

 

 

 

Then if you expect the same, why would you call yourself a hypocrite in the first place? You're saying that it doesn't apply to you yet you're defending yourself as if it does. :lol: We were talking about a hypothetical scenario in which an atheist who claims that God does not exist (positive assertion) hides behind the burden of proof argument when a theist makes the claim that God does exist. All in all that is a form of hypocrisy. If you do not fit this hypothetical description then what are you sweating about?

 

 

 

Furthermore, Lenticular_J's point, that there is "no proof against Him, either," is moot. Imagine I was to point out that "There is literally no proof of the Invisible Tooth Fairy," and Lenticular_J was to retort with "there is no proof against her, either." Does this strengthen the argument of the Invisible Tooth Fairy's existence? Absolutely not.

 

 

 

It brings up the fact that she can exist, and nothing more.

[J a m e s]

I really want this post removed, since it's just flamebait and trolling. :/

 

BUT. I'll take the bait.

 

 

 

Question 1: I don't believe God heals anyone more than a placebo, unless there's a literal need for it.

 

Question 2: Because the choices of governments of other people that have major effects in their lives.

 

Question 3: Because the Bible was written by men...? Of course men would put their own discrepancies into their work.

 

Question 4: Oh, all other literature written in the first century was absolutely study material we use today.

 

Question 5: Once again. Men wrote the Bible. They put their own beliefs into it. The Bible contains pitifully few of God's own words, if any. And maybe fewer of Jesus of Nazareth's.

 

Question 6: I don't really think God interferes in our lives, unless they're some sort of special person leading humanity to greatness.

 

Question 7: Could ask the same question of why his first poopy wasn't preserved in gold. His "miracles", which I cannot confirm the existence or non-existence of, were healing people. Since there really weren't the best medical records during His time, it'd be hard to find out if a dead person became healed.

 

Question 8: He's dead. :|

 

Question 9: Access to seeing the universe as He did. Ability to see love and goodness as ably as we notice gravity. See my post covering my beliefs several pages ago.

 

Question 10: We aren't some sort of angels. I mean, Buddha taught that we should be peaceful - yet Japanese Buddhist monks were some of the most feared warriors in the world in the 16th century.

 

 

 

That was a pitifully ignorant video. And I don't even have a college degree! :

 

 

 

1) Why not?

 

2) Why does God let that happen?

 

3) But the Bible is the Word of God.

 

4) Err, okay?

 

5) But the Bible is the Word of God.

 

6) God interferes in everyone's lives every day and answers all of our prayers with one of three answers: yes, no, or maybe. It says inside the Bible, the Word of God, that God will effect our lives all the time.

 

7) Surely the Son of God could have thought of a way to preserve one scrap of evidence of his miracles, no? Why wouldn't he?

 

8) But Jesus has appeared to people before, why not anymore?

 

9) ...lol what??

 

10) Christians are supposed to be morally superior to non-Christians, so why do atheists get divorced far less often than Christians?

 

 

 

proof

 

 

 

Christian marriage is supposed to be "till death do us part." Why can human beings decide on a whim to undo a bond formed by God?

[Saru Inc]

Some food for thought:

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/

 

 

 

And it's Msnbc, which I know all of you guys love. Burden of proof anyone?

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I love how everything you guys are saying can be turned around directly. And people still don't realize that science isn't correct for all things, and that Evolution, Big Bang AND Religion is an opinion, but of different sorts.

[venomai]

We're debating God.

 

 

 

You bring up logical fallacies...?

 

Understanding logical fallacies is crucial in any debate.

 

 

 

Then if you expect the same, why would you call yourself a hypocrite in the first place?

 

I'm not calling myself a hypocrite... :roll:

 

 

 

We were talking about a hypothetical scenario in which an atheist who claims that God does not exist (positive assertion) hides behind the burden of proof argument when a theist makes the claim that God does exist.

 

Nope. We were talking about strong atheism, or those who 'flat out' say that God doesn't exist.

 

 

 

Ginger said: "Saru, [Atheists who are flat out saying God doesn't exist] are hypocrites. The whole point Atheism is that giving a conclusion (that God exists) without facts, or giving a conclusion and then making implicit references to the world around us is a cack-handed way of justifying something, and runs counter to the scientific method."

 

 

 

what are you sweating about?

 

I'm starting to wonder the same about you... :wall:

[J a m e s]

Some food for thought:

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/

 

 

 

And it's Msnbc, which I know all of you guys love. Burden of proof anyone?

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I love how everything you guys are saying can be turned around directly. And people still don't realize that science isn't correct for all things, and that Evolution, Big Bang AND Religion is an opinion, but of different sorts.

 

 

 

A lot of agnostics might conclude that there is probably a God but mere humanity cannot hope to understand or talk to it. He just switched from atheism to agnosticism. What are you trying to say?

 

 

 

The theories of Evolution and the Big Bang were founded on logic and observation, not on a book written by human beings that claims to be the word of God.

[Lenticular_J]

James, I already answered ten relatively ignorant questions. I don't feel like answering ten more that are even worse AND will only be answered by YOU by more questions. Perhaps I don't feel like reciting my personal faith to you?

 

 

 

Understanding logical fallacies is crucial in any debate.

 

I see the point you're trying to make, but you have to agree it's silly.

[J a m e s]

James, I already answered ten relatively ignorant questions. I don't feel like answering ten more that are even worse AND will only be answered by YOU by more questions. Perhaps I don't feel like reciting my personal faith to you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you aren't a Christian? What are you? The video was intended for Christians.

 

 

 

I see the point you're trying to make, but you have to agree it's silly.

 

 

 

:?: :!: :?: :!:

[venomai]

I see the point you're trying to make, but you have to agree it's silly.

 

I don't agree. Why is it silly?

[Lenticular_J]

[items and things]

 

You obviously don't understand the concept of faith in religion. It's different for every single person.

 

 

 

I'll use a comparison. A group of people like one person. Perhaps there's someone you like here on the forums? Suppose everyone that likes that person came together. Suppose I don't like them, and I demand that you all have the same exact reason to like them, or you're all morons. Will you all like that person for the same reason? No. Perhaps for similar reasons, but never the same.

 

 

 

Religion on an individual scale is as ridiculously varied as morals.

 

 

 

To answer your question, yes, I consider myself a Protestant Christian, although my PERSONAL beliefs differ from any one person that considers themselves such.

 

 

 

I don't agree. Why is it silly?

 

To use an example brought up in the past, the orbiting teacup. Nobody can prove the existence or nonexistence of it, so debating it is silly in itself. But that is also the point of debates.

 

EDIT: Fixed the quotes.

[Zierro]

Nope. We were talking about strong atheism, or those who 'flat out' say that God doesn't exist.

 

 

 

I can make a positive assertion without hardcore proof so long as I have any reasonable support at all? No matter what way you want to look at it, "God does not exist" is a positive assertion just like "God does exist". That means there is a burden of proof on you for making the assertion - you can't say that theists must give hardcore proof to backup the claim that God does exist when you don't give hardcore proof to backup your claim that he doesn't either. That's where hypocrisy would come into play.

 

 

 

Two-way street.

 

 

 

PS: I agree with Lent about the logical argument. It's almost a cop-out of a real debate. Sure it's effective but when all you do is rely on logical fallacies to back up your points, things get really boring around here. It's lack of creativity. Blah.

[venomai]

To use an example brought up in the past, the orbiting teacup. Nobody can prove the existence or nonexistence of it, so debating it is silly in itself. But that is also the point of debates.

 

Russell's teapot is an analogy used to illustrate the burden of proof fallacy. It encourages skepticism and questioning of the teapot's existence, but it does not say anything about discourse itself being silly.

 

 

 

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

 

 

 

I'm wondering what this has to do with logical fallacies being silly in a debate, though.

 

 

 

I can make a positive assertion without hardcore proof so long as I have any reasonable support at all? No matter what way you want to look at it, "God does not exist" is a positive assertion just like "God does exist". That means there is a burden of proof on you for making the assertion - you can't say that theists must give hardcore proof to backup the claim that God does exist when you don't give hardcore proof to backup your claim that he doesn't either. That's where hypocrisy would come into play.

 

What exactly is "hardcore" proof? The support I gave in my last post was pretty "hardcore," if you ask me. :)

 

 

 

Some food for thought:

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6688917/

 

 

 

And it's Msnbc, which I know all of you guys love. Burden of proof anyone?

 

Even if this one man's interpretation of science suggests that an intelligent divine being exists, it does not suggest that the Judeo-Christian God exists. And without seeing this man's reasoning and hypothesis, it doesn't provide much support for a "minimal god" existing, either.

 

 

 

Flew said he was best labeled a deist, like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in peoples lives.

 

 

 

"Im thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam . . . " he said.

 

 

 

Interesting that you bring up the burden of proof fallacy, as even Flew puts the "burden of proof on those arguing that God existed."

[Zierro]

What exactly is "hardcore" proof? The support I gave in my last post was pretty "hardcore," if you ask me. :)

 

 

 

Well, I'm pretty sure some theists say that their subjective evidence is hardcore too.

[Saru Inc]

To that vid posted:

 

 

 

1) Because amputations aren't life threatening, like Cancer, God 90% of thei time follows the laws of science and such. But not always, OR, (I don't know this, it's a guess) BUT maybe God uses parts of the body to perform miracles, or science, like a dead person touching something like am metal pipe and the static shock puts the heart back in motion, or white blood cell count raises for some reason and kills the cancer.You never know.

 

 

 

2)Because God holds us accountable for our decisions, which (I know this is off-topic) is why I think the Holocaust happened. He let it happen so we realize we f'd up, and we don't let it happen again. Same thing with hunger. This can also be applied to the flood and such, he warned us, but we did not listen, so he let it happen. Also, don't you think, that if God was God, he could answer more than one prayer at a time. :wall: =D> #-o

 

 

 

3)As someone earlier posted, those our all verses from the Old testament, God back then was not the one we knew today. He had a loving side, of course, but also, a vengeful side. If someone did not follow the rules, they sinned, thus THEY WERE NOT INNOCENT in the eyes of God, it doesn't matter what we thought, but what he thought. To think we can influence him like that is ignorant and selfish. Naturally, when Jesus came, he mede the bridge, and HE died for ALL of our sins, Atheist and Christian, so we did not have to die for then, If Jesus never came, I suspect Gays would still be killed, as along with 80% of the Teenager population. Still, Atheists will still go to hell, because Jesus died for our sins on Earth, not in Heaven.

 

 

 

 

 

4)It doesn't list any examples. So how can we be sure. Second, though, there is evidence of a flood, and many stories in many culture and many languages about the flood. Also, it ignores a SECTION of science, not science itself. I hate all those ignorant people who say that. Who says he doesn't follow it? Maybe he follows in a way, we'll never know, but is still scientific. Don't forget, we have no skeleton of Adam to look at, so how can we tell if he wasn't created by dust? We can't. Naturally, people will say 'well how do you know he WAS?' Well, the Bible.

 

 

 

5)Because, they were beaten in battle, back then, what you did was made them slaves. They didn't go on slave raiding parties, but took the defeated enemies.

 

 

 

6) Why do good things happen to bad people? And as Lent said, Go doesn't interfere, quite a weak argument actually.

 

 

 

7) There is, you see them everyday, but simply ignore them. Also, some of the evidence can be explained by science, but once again, you ignore them.

 

 

 

8) Lent's quite wrong, he's not dead. And it's so ignorant and naive to take it to a personal level. How do YOU know whether or not Jesus appeared to me? You don't, and you never will. Also, maybe Jesus won't appear physically, but mentally, if you're in an extremely panicked state, and our near hysteria, and you pray for God, and instantly a real calming emotion comes over you, who's to say it isn't Jesus?

 

 

 

 

 

9) I must say "lol" at this so: Lol. :lol: :lol: :lol: :wall:

 

Are you serious? It is all symbolism, he doesn't actually mean that, while some believe in transubstantiation, (the bread and wine becomes Jesus' body and blood as soon as you consume it) it is a symbol, of you becoming close with Jesus, and destroying the distance that separates you.

 

 

 

10) Who says Christians are perfect? Dang it, no one says we're Jesus. Jesus is Jesus because he NEVER sinned. We just believe Jesus is God, and real, even to this day. We never said we were him in any way. Also, Many Atheists call themselves Christians in polls and such, simply because they aren't pagan.

 

 

 

As Lent said, quite ignorant.

 

 

 

It is quite funny, when I skimmed the 'answers' most said "because God is imaginary." Wow, see you put a lot of thought into that one.

 

 

 

And Venomai, I'm quite aware of that, and that he does not believe in the Christian God. Just saying he thinks one exists or existed. Also, I know about the Burden of proof, I was just wondering if that's where you guys all got it from, and how the guy who talks about it changed his mind.

[tennisnick12]

Since I am not a biblical or historical scholar I can not refute your individual claims tryto, but here is some proof.

 

 

 

Flavius Josephus. Josephus was born in either 37 or 38 A. D. When he was 26 years old, he took upon himself the mission of seeking to improve the relations between the Jews and the Romans. He was a historian who was highly respected by the Roman world. He was held in such high regard that he was allowed to accompany Titus when Titus led the Romans Army against Jerusalem (70 A. D.). Josephus wrote several books that have come down to us today, History of the Jewish War (seven different books) and Jewish Antiquities, to name some. Josephus was not a Christian himself. We read:

 

 

 

"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure.And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).

 

 

 

In all fairness, many among scholars today are claiming that the above just quoted was not originally written by Josephus but is an interpolation. However, the passage is present in every copy of which we have knowledge, just as quoted. The above passage was twice quoted by Eusebius as early as 315 A. D. Another passage in which Josephus mentions the historic Jesus is found in Antiquities, Book 20, Chapter 9, and Section 1. This second reference has received comparatively little rejection. After exhaustive research, it could very well be that very early on, a copyist dressed up Josephus' first statement in an attempt to make it more favorable to Jesus. The passage is found in the context of references to sedition, before and after the passage. The above quotation does make reference to, "the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time." This is probably, no doubt, part of the pure text, if the text were doctored. However, even if we allow for the early changing of the text, most would have to agree that Josephus does historically allude to Jesus.

 

 

 

Carius Cornelius Tacitus (many of his writings were about 100 A. D.). Tacitus was a Roman historian who reportedly hated Christians. In writing about the life of Nero and the accusation that he burned the city of Rome and blamed it on the Christians, Tacitus says:

 

 

 

"Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate.At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. Their executions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt. Some were covered with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by dogs; some were crucified; others having been daubed over with combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night time, and thus burned to death" (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

 

 

 

Notice that while Tacitus had no regard for the Christians of whom he wrote, he does mention Christ as being the founder of their belief.

 

 

 

Suetonius (Roman historian, born about 88 A. D.). While Suetonius does not mention Christ by name, he does refer to Christianity. This reference and many more that could be supplied proves the early origin of Christianity and details that are congruous with the biblical account. Hear his brief statement in also writing about the life of Nero whose reign began in 54 and ended in 68 A. D.:

 

 

 

"Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief" (Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, pg. 197).

 

 

 

Pliny the younger, born in 61 A. D. Pliny was sent by the Emperor Trajan to Bithynia in 112 as propraetor. Having found a large number of Christians there, he wrote back to Trajan to get information on how to deal with them. Pliny says to Trajan:

 

 

 

"It is my rule, Sire, to refer to you in matters where I am uncertain. For who can better direct my hesitation or instruct my ignorance? I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed." Under specific item number five of his letter, Pliny wrote: "All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence, with incense and wine, to your image which I had ordered to be brought forward for this purpose, together with the statutes of the deities; and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which, it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do."

 

 

 

Under item number six, he continued:

 

 

 

"Others named by the informer first said that they were Christians and then denied it; declaring that they had been but were so no longer, some having recanted three years or more before and one or two as long as twenty years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods and cursed Christ."

 

 

 

Taken From:http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR217.htm

 

 

 

This is just some proof that has been compiled by people smarter than me.

 

 

 

*Josephus is a known forgery, an interpolation penciled in over his work sometime in the fourth century. There ARE some earlier volumes found which do not have this.

 

 

 

In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of "The Antiquities of the Jews" appeared, in which occurred this passage: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

 

 

 

Such is the celebrated reference to Christ in Josephus. A more brazen forgery was never perpetrated. For more than two hundred years, the Christian Fathers who were familiar with the works of Josephus knew nothing of this passage. Had the passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen an Clement of Alexandria would have been eager to hurl it at their Jewish opponents in their many controversies. But it did not exist. Indeed, Origen, who knew his Josephus well, expressly affirmed that that writer had not acknowledged Christ. This passage first appeared in the writings of the Christian Father Eusebius, the first historian of Christianity, early in the fourth century; and it is believed that he was its author. Eusebius, who not only advocated fraud in the interest of the faith, but who is know to have tampered with passages in the works of Josephus and several other writers, introduces this passage in his "Evangelical Demonstration," (Book III., p.124), in these words: "Certainly the attestations I have already produced concerning our Savior may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness."

 

 

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... _live.html

 

 

 

*Pliny does not mention Jesus by name, and only alludes to a Christ(again, this is ~70 years after death)

 

 

 

*Tacitus again, only refers to Christos, does not mention his name, and is ~80 years after death.

 

 

 

*Suetonius does not mention a Christ or Jesus. Heh.

 

 

 

Next.

 

Some of Josephus work was a forgery, but not all of it. So you can to choose to not accept his account. There are no 1st first century accounts that say that the gospels were false. So I would like to see proof that the gospels were not true. Since the gospels are established works.

[Lenticular_J]

[Your post]

 

I guess I just find bringing something like logical fallacies into a debate over God funny. Like trying to bring health studies into a debate over your favorite candy.

[tryto]

What exactly is "hardcore" proof? The support I gave in my last post was pretty "hardcore," if you ask me. :)

 

 

 

Well, I'm pretty sure some theists say that their subjective evidence is hardcore too.

 

 

 

Try as I might, I have never seen a theist express any proof besides:

 

 

 

*a holy text

 

 

 

*anecdotal comments

 

 

 

*a feeling

 

 

 

(I recognize none of these as persuasive evidence)

 

 

 

Casting doubt on science, making arguments from ignorance, and pointing to the God of The Gaps is what I often see.

 

 

 

If any theist will show me any evidence besides this, I'd be glad to hear it :) I just don't think any actually exists.

 

 

 

 

Sure it's effective but when all you do is rely on logical fallacies to back up your points, things get really boring around here. It's lack of creativity. Blah.

 

 

 

 

Then try to prove to me that Jesus existed historically. To be the son of God and worthy of worship, the first hurdle is to actually exist, no?

 

 

 

 

 

4)It doesn't list any examples. So how can we be sure. Second, though, there is evidence of a flood, and many stories in many culture and many languages about the flood. Also, it ignores a SECTION of science, not science itself. I hate all those ignorant people who say that. Who says he doesn't follow it? Maybe he follows in a way, we'll never know, but is still scientific. Don't forget, we have no skeleton of Adam to look at, so how can we tell if he wasn't created by dust? We can't. Naturally, people will say 'well how do you know he WAS?' Well, the Bible.

 

 

 

There is a HUGE amount of evidence against a global flood. Where did the water come from? A firmament of water? Where did the water go to?

 

How can you explain the age of mountains? Why aren't Sierra Nevada's eroded as much as the Appalachians at the time as the flood?

 

If a flood actually happened, many ice caps could not have formed, such as the Greenland Ice Cap; it could not have grown under the environmental conditions of the last 10k years.

 

 

 

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive amount of extinction, and other characters. Why do none of these show up?

 

 

 

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.

 

 

 

I won't even go into the impossibility of Noah fitting that many animals into an ark that size, the contradiction in genesis of either 2 or 7 animals of each kind, why there isn't an ENORMOUS blip in population factors, etc, etc, etc. I could go on for days.

[venomai]

Sure it's effective but when all you do is rely on logical fallacies to back up your points, things get really boring around here. It's lack of creativity. Blah.

 

Think of a philosophical debate as a sport game, and logical fallacies as the set of rules in the game. If one side makes a foul, the other side can call them out on it and point to the rules (i.e. the logical fallacies). Pointing to these rules over and over again does not ruin the originality of the game, as it's the actual "plays" (i.e. the arguments) that make the game count.

 

 

 

As I've said numerous times, logical fallacies are used to demonstrate flaws in the logic of a given argument. They are generally not used as arguments themselves.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

 

 

 

Just saying he thinks one exists or existed.

 

I'm pretty open to the idea of a sort of spiritual intelligence(s), like Flew seems to believe in. But I would not use "God" or even theism to describe my belief. Using such terms leads people to assume that the entity must be of some great importance in our lives (i.e. prayer, worship, karma and sin, baptism, church, religious texts, afterlife etc).

[Lenticular_J]

Try as I might, I have never seen a theist express any proof besides:

 

 

 

*a holy text

 

 

 

*anecdotal comments

 

 

 

*a feeling

 

 

 

(I recognize none of these as persuasive evidence)

 

And where's the atheists with the inconclusive evidence God could never exist and anyone who believes in Him should be flogged?

 

 

 

Think of a philosophical debate as a sport game, and logical fallacies as the set of rules in the game. If one side makes a foul, the other side can call them out on it and point to the rules (i.e. the logical fallacies). Pointing to these rules over and over again does not ruin the originality of the game, as it's the actual "plays" (i.e. the arguments) that make the game count.

 

 

 

As I've said numerous times, logical fallacies are used to demonstrate flaws in the logic of a given argument. They are generally not used as arguments themselves.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

 

That would be philosophical stagnation. Would Aristotle want you to unquestionably follow his trains of thought? No, he'd encourage you to explore your mind and new ways of doing things.

 

 

 

So, like the video said you would, you created weird rationalization for what "god" does.

 

I'd like to ask you a question, then.

 

 

 

Do you like cookies?

[Lenticular_J]

No, actually.

 

Prove that you don't.

[Saru Inc]

What exactly is "hardcore" proof? The support I gave in my last post was pretty "hardcore," if you ask me. :)

 

 

 

Well, I'm pretty sure some theists say that their subjective evidence is hardcore too.

 

 

 

Try as I might, I have never seen a theist express any proof besides:

 

 

 

*a holy text

 

 

 

*anecdotal comments

 

 

 

*a feeling

 

 

 

(I recognize none of these as persuasive evidence)

 

 

 

Casting doubt on science, making arguments from ignorance, and pointing to the God of The Gaps is what I often see.

 

 

 

If any theist will show me any evidence besides this, I'd be glad to hear it :) I just don't think any actually exists.

 

 

 

 

Sure it's effective but when all you do is rely on logical fallacies to back up your points, things get really boring around here. It's lack of creativity. Blah.

 

 

 

 

Then try to prove to me that Jesus existed historically. To be the son of God and worthy of worship, the first hurdle is to actually exist, no?

 

 

 

 

 

4)It doesn't list any examples. So how can we be sure. Second, though, there is evidence of a flood, and many stories in many culture and many languages about the flood. Also, it ignores a SECTION of science, not science itself. I hate all those ignorant people who say that. Who says he doesn't follow it? Maybe he follows in a way, we'll never know, but is still scientific. Don't forget, we have no skeleton of Adam to look at, so how can we tell if he wasn't created by dust? We can't. Naturally, people will say 'well how do you know he WAS?' Well, the Bible.

 

 

 

There is a HUGE amount of evidence against a global flood. Where did the water come from? A firmament of water? Where did the water go to?

 

How can you explain the age of mountains? Why aren't Sierra Nevada's eroded as much as the Appalachians at the time as the flood?

 

If a flood actually happened, many ice caps could not have formed, such as the Greenland Ice Cap; it could not have grown under the environmental conditions of the last 10k years.

 

 

 

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive amount of extinction, and other characters. Why do none of these show up?

 

 

 

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.

 

 

 

I won't even go into the impossibility of Noah fitting that many animals into an ark that size, the contradiction in genesis of either 2 or 7 animals of each kind, why there isn't an ENORMOUS blip in population factors, etc, etc, etc. I could go on for days.

 

 

 

Well, obviously, some parts of the flood are spiritual, that we do not have evidence for, such as, as you said where did the water come from, and go? Well, I'm not denying there's no evidence for that.

 

But I saw a really good link for explaining the flood, let me try and find it, I'll post it when I do.

 

And I mean, with the ark, I've noticed that myself, we weren't there, so we don't know how it fit in.

 

 

 

Found one: Not the same, but still very very good.

 

 

 

http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn046/noahsflood.htm

 

 

 

And sorry, but lol Lent, owned.

[venomai]

That would be philosophical stagnation. Would Aristotle want you to unquestionably follow his trains of thought? No, he'd encourage you to explore your mind and new ways of doing things.

 

And that is what we are doing by debating. Logical fallacies are used to ensure that we do so in a reasonable and logical manner.

[Lenticular_J]

I wasn't asking if you've ever been able to eat them. I demand you provide proof that you don't like them.

 

 

 

I believe you've seen the point I'm trying to illustrate.

 

 

 

That would be philosophical stagnation. Would Aristotle want you to unquestionably follow his trains of thought? No, he'd encourage you to explore your mind and new ways of doing things.

 

And that is what we are doing by debating. Logical fallacies are used to ensure that we do so in a reasonable and logical manner.

 

Eh, I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I find it illogical to bind your life to the logic of dead men who, in turn, wanted us to explore and find our own logic. Not just decide, "Well, I've looked at theirs, and it's pretty good."

[Lenticular_J]

If you're going to go to that, I get to demand you answer my question. Maybe I'll throw an e-fit. Maybe I'll tell you to watch a ridiculous video over the Nabisco company, and then answer more ridiculous questions.

 

 

 

Once again. Prove you don't enjoy cookies.

[Lenticular_J]

This Oreo I'm holding is neither soggy nor forboding, and smells like chocolate and cream.

 

 

 

Am I supposed to keep demanding for a hundred pages, or am I supposed to just call you a moron...?

 

 

 

Maybe I should review the most ignorant posts of our centurion-thread.

 

 

 

I'm just trying to show you how ridiculously ignorant and simply stupid a question like that is.