Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

IM me

collegekitchen2
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:03:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Me
hello

hunterw1134
hi

Me
why do you vote bomb?

hunterw1134
what is your DDO name?

Me
I have none, I am the elusive Askbob. I am banned every day.

hunterw1134
lol

Me 
I'm collecting information for the DDO Wiki

hunterw1134
what will you write about me?

Me
Whatever you say word for word in quotes

hunterw1134
right now?

Me
whenever

in response to the question: Why do you vote bomb?

yes

Personally I'm also curious of why you vote bomb others

hunterw1134
I vote-bomb because I want to give my vote on many debates, but lack the time to do so, so I vote according to who I overall agree with.

Me
So since you don't have the time you prefer voting based on your personal opinion of the subject rather than who argued their point the best?

hunterw1134
I guess you could put it that way

Me
So if a debate was God exists

and a Pro-God debater wrote pages of logically sound arguments

and the Con-God debater forfeited

hunterw1134
that's not possible though lol

Me
you'd give points to the con God debater

Thats not possible "In your opinion"

hunterw1134
well every argument for the existence of god is a logical fallacy

Me
which logical fallacy?

hunterw1134
begging the question, special pleading, ad hominem, etc

Me
So no argument > Argument with "logical fallacies"

hunterw1134
I've recently noticed that every argument for the existence of god can be effectively used against the existence of god

Me
Also I would love to hear your theory of why the existance of God is logically unfeasible

hunterw1134
okay, give me one reason why you believe in god

Me
Aristotle's unmoved mover theory for starters, the lack of an explanation for the existance of the primeval atom, etc.

hunterw1134
you mean the idea that there had to be an uncaused cause?

Me
not that there "has" to be one just the general likelihood that there is one

hunterw1134 
my answer to that is: If God doesn't need a cause, then the universe shouldn't need a cause; and if the universe doesn't need a cause, then we don't need a god.

Me
LOL and you talked to me about logical fallacies?

hunterw1134
how is that a logical fallacy?

Me
Your logic relies on something that your logic disproves

hunterw1134 
A more complex thing isn't the answer. If god is infinitely greater than 'mere humans,' than it would have to be infinitely more complex than humans

Me
???? I fail to see how God is "more complex" or where I even made that argument

Strawman

I'm merely arguing for an uncaused caused not an infinitely more complex being.

hunterw1134
but an uncaused cause could be anything

Me
correct

hunterw1134
it could be the universe itself

Me
define: "Universe itself"

hunterw1134
the matter or energy existing before the big bang

Me
Exactly

so now using reverse logic you have just said the following:

hunterw1134
but 'god' is generally assumed to be a creator

Me
"The existance of the primeval atom that started the big bang has as much logical consistancy as the existance of God"

hunterw1134
false

Me
Protip: Saying false doesn't make it false

you have to point out how the statement makes no sense or is "false"

hunterw1134
a creator pre-dating the universe is extremely improbable/iliiogical

Me
By whose standards?

hunterw1134
and god is generally assumed to be a 'creator' or the universe

Me
Strawman

again saying something is improbable or illogical doesn't make it so

hunterw1134
if that's a strawmen, then you're not even using the recognized definition of God

Me
God = uncaused cause = infinite being or thing

hunterw1134
but all matter is technically infinite

I'm arguing that God in that CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE sense is very improbable/illogical

Me
again strawman

adhere to my definition

hunterw1134
but your definition is too abstract

Me
How is it even close to abstract?

its a definition with clearly defined terms

hunterw1134
because it could mean everything from a cluster of atoms always existing, to a bearded man on a thrown wearing a nightgowm

Me
correct

hunterw1134
so I'm just narrowing it down with the creator definition of god

Me
and I'm saying its ad nauseam to narrow it down to anything further than my definition

because the two are one in the same

hunterw1134
not really, yours is much more abstract

Me
??

hunterw1134
my argument is against a creator of the universe, yours involves anything that's uncaused

Me
you are correct

you are essentially conceding the argument with my definition

hunterw1134
so obviously there has to be an uncaused cause, doesn't necessarily have to be a creator

Me
which equates that it is as logically probable using the current knowledge we have to say that God exists as it is to say the primeval atom exists

hunterw1134
so it's pure semantics
 
unless god refers to a creator

Me
how is that less logically probable?

hunterw1134
because complex things only emerge through gradual change

Me
and infinity isn't gradual?

hunterw1134
an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being isnt logically possible to have pre-dated the universe

Me
strawman again

hunterw1134
how, ou just asked how a creator is less logically probable?

Me 
the argument: The primeval atom is logically as consistant as a creator

hunterw1134
and I was arguing how a creator was less logical

Me
you said creator was omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent

hunterw1134
yeah

Me
not the argument but a strawman

hunterw1134
you're just arguing with semantics

Me
definition of creator = being that created or began the creation of the universe

hunterw1134
yeah

and not in a natural wayt

Me
who says so?

is the big bang not natural?

hunterw1134
that was my defition

Me
???

how is the big bang not natural?

hunterw1134     
my definition is a being that created the universe unnaturally
     
not with the big bang

Me     
So let me get this straight
     
you agree that a infinite being that created the universe using the big bang is as logical as saying the primeval atom created the big bang
     
thus creating the universe

hunterw1134     
no, I was saying that an infinite being that created the universe without the big bang is more illogical than the primeval atom always existing

Me     
thus implying that an infinite being that created the universe with the big bang is as logical

hunterw1134     
nope, since you would have to explain where that extremely complex being came from

Me     
it would be the same with explaining where the primeval atom came from so your attempt at remitting your implication fails

hunterw1134     
not necessarily, the primeval atom could have always existed, after all, we do have the law of thermodynamics

Me     
thus as God could have always existed

hunterw1134     
but what's more logical? One atom always existing, or an extremely complex, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, all-good being always existing?

Me     
again strawman

hunterw1134     
nah, you just arent using the correct definition of god

Me     
i never defined creator to be all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful, all-good

hunterw1134     
well that's my definiton, is is the generally accepted definition

Me     
We're arguing using my definition.
     
Using my definition you agree that they are equally plausible

hunterw1134     
but you're definition is too abstract

Me     
using your definition you agree that they are not equall
atheistman
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:22:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
@collegekitchen2

People don't need to see my other AIM conversations, they can find out what they want to for themselves by talking to me.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:26:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Attention Atheistman:

1: Greatness is not dependent on complexity.
2: Why do you feel an obligation to vote in every debate?
3: What fallacy does PRO use in this debate? http://www.debate.org...
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:27:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:22:40 PM, atheistman wrote:
@collegekitchen2

People don't need to see my other AIM conversations, they can find out what they want to for themselves by talking to me.

No, that IM was very informative. I have lost any respect I'd had remaining for you.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:29:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Askbob, you had me until you started debating God. You should've pushed questioning on, "So no argument > Argument with "logical fallacies."

In any case, see the video. Something cannot cause nothing to do anything, much less start existing. Things that exist can only cause other things that exist to exist in a different way. Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence that the universe ever had a starting point.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:31:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:29:27 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Askbob, you had me until you started debating God. You should've pushed questioning on, "So no argument > Argument with "logical fallacies."

In any case, see the video. Something cannot cause nothing to do anything, much less start existing. Things that exist can only cause other things that exist to exist in a different way. Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence that the universe ever had

But there must be an uncaused cause!
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:33:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:26:15 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Attention Atheistman:

1: Greatness is not dependent on complexity.
2: Why do you feel an obligation to vote in every debate?
3: What fallacy does PRO use in this debate? http://www.debate.org...

Ping.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:37:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:03:50 PM, collegekitchen2 wrote:
hunterw1134
I vote-bomb because I want to give my vote on many debates, but lack the time to do so, so I vote according to who I overall agree with.

Me
So since you don't have the time you prefer voting based on your personal opinion of the subject rather than who argued their point the best?

hunterw1134
I guess you could put it that way

Wow, atheistman way to be a dishonest, hypocritical, vote-bomber.

Look what I found here: "jwscavalier60, the voting period is already over, but the point of voting on this site is to vote for who debated better, not based on your actual beliefs." -- atheistman [1]

[1] http://www.debate.org...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:38:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:31:06 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/24/2010 6:29:27 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Askbob, you had me until you started debating God. You should've pushed questioning on, "So no argument > Argument with "logical fallacies."

In any case, see the video. Something cannot cause nothing to do anything, much less start existing. Things that exist can only cause other things that exist to exist in a different way. Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence that the universe ever had

But there must be an uncaused cause!

Not necessarily. Scientists are still debating this.

The universe could have always existed forever with no starting point and no end point.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:41:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:34:57 PM, atheistman wrote:
@wjmelements

Way to copy and paste what you just sent earlier

Way to not answer anything.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:41:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:29:27 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Askbob, you had me until you started debating God. You should've pushed questioning on, "So no argument > Argument with "logical fallacies."

In any case, see the video. Something cannot cause nothing to do anything, much less start existing. Things that exist can only cause other things that exist to exist in a different way. Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence that the universe ever had a starting point.

Considering the fact that he believes that it's possible for something to cause itself to begin to exist out of nothing I can't take his criticism seriously.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
atheistman
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:41:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
@popculturepooka
That person actually read the debate and admitted I'd done better than my opponent, yet they were still going to vote for them.

and PoeJoe, he was kidding
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:41:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:37:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/24/2010 6:03:50 PM, collegekitchen2 wrote:
hunterw1134
I vote-bomb because I want to give my vote on many debates, but lack the time to do so, so I vote according to who I overall agree with.

Me
So since you don't have the time you prefer voting based on your personal opinion of the subject rather than who argued their point the best?

hunterw1134
I guess you could put it that way

Wow, atheistman way to be a dishonest, hypocritical, vote-bomber.

Look what I found here: "jwscavalier60, the voting period is already over, but the point of voting on this site is to vote for who debated better, not based on your actual beliefs." -- atheistman [1]

[1] http://www.debate.org...

it would be weird if he was a dishonest vote-bomber that wasn't hypocritical. If you're gonna go, go all the way.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:41:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:26:15 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Attention Atheistman:

1: Greatness is not dependent on complexity.
2: Why do you feel an obligation to vote in every debate?
3: What fallacy does PRO use in this debate? http://www.debate.org...

Second ping.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:44:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:38:26 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
Not necessarily. Scientists are still debating this.

The universe could have always existed forever with no starting point and no end point.

I don't think you understand! There needs to be an uncaused cause!
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:45:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:44:04 PM, atheistman wrote:
*I've already explained to you, I can answer all of your questions over IM.

But not on the Forums? That's interesting.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:47:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:41:42 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/24/2010 6:37:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/24/2010 6:03:50 PM, collegekitchen2 wrote:
hunterw1134
I vote-bomb because I want to give my vote on many debates, but lack the time to do so, so I vote according to who I overall agree with.

Me
So since you don't have the time you prefer voting based on your personal opinion of the subject rather than who argued their point the best?

hunterw1134
I guess you could put it that way

Wow, atheistman way to be a dishonest, hypocritical, vote-bomber.

Look what I found here: "jwscavalier60, the voting period is already over, but the point of voting on this site is to vote for who debated better, not based on your actual beliefs." -- atheistman [1]

[1] http://www.debate.org...

it would be weird if he was a dishonest vote-bomber that wasn't hypocritical. If you're gonna go, go all the way.

I like being redundant, okay? Sheesh. :(
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:48:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Bob, your definition of creator is bs, you know that right. So if it turns out that a little turd was the uncaused cause of the universe, you would call that God? You also reject the monotheistic conception of God and your replacement is so vague, I don't think you can call it anything.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 6:49:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 6:47:02 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/24/2010 6:41:42 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/24/2010 6:37:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/24/2010 6:03:50 PM, collegekitchen2 wrote:
hunterw1134
I vote-bomb because I want to give my vote on many debates, but lack the time to do so, so I vote according to who I overall agree with.

Me
So since you don't have the time you prefer voting based on your personal opinion of the subject rather than who argued their point the best?

hunterw1134
I guess you could put it that way

Wow, atheistman way to be a dishonest, hypocritical, vote-bomber.

Look what I found here: "jwscavalier60, the voting period is already over, but the point of voting on this site is to vote for who debated better, not based on your actual beliefs." -- atheistman [1]

[1] http://www.debate.org...

it would be weird if he was a dishonest vote-bomber that wasn't hypocritical. If you're gonna go, go all the way.

I like being redundant, okay? Sheesh. :(

I like to redundantly repeat myself, too. lol
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"