Total Posts:190|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

god exists: its either a fact or it is not.

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 8:10:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why don't christians grasp this? When we try to determine if something is fact or not we turn to evidence. This evidence leads us to either believe it a fact or not. You cannot define something out of this. That is called special pleading. Why don't christians ever take basic logic classes?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 8:36:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 8:10:52 AM, izbo10 wrote:
Why don't christians grasp this? When we try to determine if something is fact or not we turn to evidence. This evidence leads us to either believe it a fact or not. You cannot define something out of this. That is called special pleading. Why don't christians ever take basic logic classes?

To claim god is a faith based claim is so ridiculously arbitrary. So, can we do this for any claim we make that doesn't have evidence to support it? Or, are we suppose to change the definition of what we want to believe in to something that must be accepted on faith, first? That is all christians do is define god as faith based, it does not mean that because of a definition we should just stop with our normal way of determining the truth. That is ridiculous.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
christisking
Posts: 72
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 8:43:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 8:10:52 AM, izbo10 wrote:
Why don't christians grasp this? When we try to determine if something is fact or not we turn to evidence. This evidence leads us to either believe it a fact or not. You cannot define something out of this. That is called special pleading. Why don't christians ever take basic logic classes?

What sort of evidence do you propose we use Izbo? Purely scientific evidence is the wrong kind to look for in this circumstance. However, Christians do have evidence which makes it very believable that there is a God. The fact that there is a universe full of order suggests there was probably an inteligent being who made it. The fact that all humans have a corresponding sense of right and wrong suggests there is an inteligent being who wrote a moral code for us. The fact that we can percieve such a thing as beauty suggests that we are more than the products of 'survival of the fittest'. When added up, Christians believe that there is more evidence for God than against him, so we make an act of faith and believe in Him.

Is this not logical Izbo?
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 8:43:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also before someone goes throwing the word transcendent around, remember these 2 things:

1. It is just doing what I was saying, trying to define your belief out of the need for evidence.

2. There is no reason to believe transcendent beings do or can exist. Every other being that has ever existed is not transcendent and we have never experienced a transcendent being, so that does not help your case but hurt it.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
christisking
Posts: 72
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 8:55:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 8:43:22 AM, izbo10 wrote:
Also before someone goes throwing the word transcendent around, remember these 2 things:

1. It is just doing what I was saying, trying to define your belief out of the need for evidence.

2. There is no reason to believe transcendent beings do or can exist. Every other being that has ever existed is not transcendent and we have never experienced a transcendent being, so that does not help your case but hurt it.

Notice that you ar coming from a solely scientific realm of argumentation. You assume we shouldn't believe anything we can't see or test. The scientific meathod is sub-section of human reasoning, not the other way around. However, science itself does suggest that there is 'something' out there which we have not yet seen or experienced. We know that the movement of one atom cannot begin untill another atom moves it. This means that no atom in this universe could every have moved unless there was something else which moved the first atom. Also, there is the issue of time. It defies logic to assume that the past goes on to infinity, because that means that the present moment could never come about because it would take an eternity for the past to go by. These and other 'scientific facts' suggest that there is something beyond the realm of science.
cabio
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 9:07:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
izbo10, who has the problem with basic logic?

1) Straw man - You have built your case on the idea of blind faith. That is not the faith the Bible espouses. That is an active faith based on evidence. Therefore your case fails.

2) Circular reasoning - You say "we have never experienced a transcendant being." Only if you assume there is no transcendant being beforehand, can you make that statement.

3) Your case self-implodes - You say that to determine a fact, we must look at the evidence. Is that a fact? What evidence do you have to back up that claim?

4) Contrary to fact - There exists multitude of evidence for a god. You can deny the outcome of this evidence, but to say there is no evidence is simply dogmatic ignorance.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 9:12:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 8:10:52 AM, izbo10 wrote:
Why don't christians grasp this? When we try to determine if something is fact or not we turn to evidence. This evidence leads us to either believe it a fact or not. You cannot define something out of this. That is called special pleading. Why don't christians ever take basic logic classes?

First of all, special pleading is defined as 'a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves', which does not fit with your claims that we must look to evidence to prove God's existence. Second, as I have written before, what evidence would prove/disprove the existence of God? If a preacher states that God created the heavens and earth some time ago, but scientific findings state that it was more than his claim, how does that disprove God's existence? That only illustrates the malleability of God's concept...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 9:15:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 8:36:01 AM, izbo10 wrote:

To claim god is a faith based claim is so ridiculously arbitrary.
How so?

So, can we do this for any claim we make that doesn't have evidence to support it?
If God doesn't exist, in your view, why would it matter if there is evidence or not? Is it necessary for you to rant and 'debunk' the Christian faith?

Since you demand evidence for God, then perhaps you should give me evidence how the invisible, transparent, and incorporeal spirits of the air do not exist.

Or, are we suppose to change the definition of what we want to believe in to something that must be accepted on faith, first? That is all christians do is define god as faith based, it does not mean that because of a definition we should just stop with our normal way of determining the truth. That is ridiculous.

Your argument is quite incomprehensive...Do Christians actually define God as being defined by faith, or do they accept him as a separate being? If there is no evidence for God to exist, then what else can Christians do to maintain their belief in Him, Izbo10?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 9:18:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 8:43:22 AM, izbo10 wrote:
Also before someone goes throwing the word transcendent around, remember these 2 things:
1. It is just doing what I was saying, trying to define your belief out of the need for evidence.
How would the need of evidence logically lead to a definition of belief/faith?

2. There is no reason to believe transcendent beings do or can exist.

Every other being that has ever existed is not transcendent and we have never experienced a transcendent being, so that does not help your case but hurt it.
Well, we have never experienced an alien life-form before, so does that mean it does not exist? You forget that a transcendal being would obviously be quite different from 'every other being', and that, in the case of God, are outside the limits of time and space.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 9:26:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There are a couple of problems with Izbo10's argument:

1. Blind faith is not the only factor that leads to belief, or counts as evidence. Would a rational Christian state, 'Because I believe in Him, He must exist?'

2. Like christisking stated, what evidence is sufficient to prove God's existence? Can tangible evidence (flood geology, and so on) prove an intangible, transcendal being? Can scientific evidence prove him as well? Science concerns the 'how' of natural processes, but God is the 'why' of such natural phenomena...

3. How is god even defined as a faith-based claim? Belief in god might require faith, but god is not a claim or a concept...

4. A comparison of a transcendal being to others does not conclusively show that it does not exist...So since we have never seen other life forms on this earth, does that mean there are no other, supplementary life forms in the universe?

How would evidence prove a transcendtal being? The very word transcendent means, in a religious context, 'transcending the universe, time, and so on', and therefore connotes a sense of supremeness and divine quality. Therefore, the very constructs that we live in, or use, cannot be used to prove him...

And there's more, as well...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 9:27:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 8:10:52 AM, izbo10 wrote:
Why don't christians grasp this? When we try to determine if something is fact or not we turn to evidence. This evidence leads us to either believe it a fact or not. You cannot define something out of this. That is called special pleading. Why don't christians ever take basic logic classes?

That is why saying atheists need evidence is total bullshiit. I dunno why they don't get it lol.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 9:34:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 9:26:25 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
How would evidence prove a transcendtal being?

You're contradicting yourself all over the place. You asked, "Would a rational Christian state, 'Because I believe in Him, He must exist?'" Now you're saying that there CAN be no evidence for God, because God is a "transcendental being." So basically what you're saying is that there can be no tangible evidence, thus you ARE relying strictly on faith. Arguments (i.e. Cosmologial argument) =/= Evidence. Moreover, as I've said a zillion times, even if the Cosmological argument were true, all that would prove is a first mover. It doesn't prove the concept of God that theists try to impose, such as advocating what God is/wants/needs. Saying God is a force of nature is different than saying "God wants you to do this" or saying that Jesus was the son of God (or God incarnate or both) or any other absurd suggestions that Christians make. All of that is faith based or contrived from humanity's limited reasoning and manipulated in the furnace of human wants.

The point is that you can't just say "A transcendental being exists but I don't have to prove it because you can't prove transcendental beings exist!"
President of DDO
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 9:36:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 9:34:27 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/8/2011 9:26:25 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
How would evidence prove a transcendtal being?

You're contradicting yourself all over the place. You asked, "Would a rational Christian state, 'Because I believe in Him, He must exist?'" Now you're saying that there CAN be no evidence for God, because God is a "transcendental being." So basically what you're saying is that there can be no tangible evidence, thus you ARE relying strictly on faith. Arguments (i.e. Cosmologial argument) =/= Evidence. Moreover, as I've said a zillion times, even if the Cosmological argument were true, all that would prove is a first mover. It doesn't prove the concept of God that theists try to impose, such as advocating what God is/wants/needs. Saying God is a force of nature is different than saying "God wants you to do this" or saying that Jesus was the son of God (or God incarnate or both) or any other absurd suggestions that Christians make. All of that is faith based or contrived from humanity's limited reasoning and manipulated in the furnace of human wants.

The point is that you can't just say "A transcendental being exists but I don't have to prove it because you can't prove transcendental beings exist!"

Then what extraordinary evidence would prove his existence?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
cabio
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 9:42:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 9:27:40 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/8/2011 8:10:52 AM, izbo10 wrote:
Why don't christians grasp this? When we try to determine if something is fact or not we turn to evidence. This evidence leads us to either believe it a fact or not. You cannot define something out of this. That is called special pleading. Why don't christians ever take basic logic classes?

That is why saying atheists need evidence is total bullshiit. I dunno why they don't get it lol.
The idea is this. To say "I know God does not exist" is a claim. To ask for evidence for that is only to place the burdon of proof where it belongs. However, there is a difference between to say "I believe that God does not exist." Then to ask for evidence for that would be asking for evidence to prove a negative. But then one cannot argue for that belief, since it is an opinion and not a claim of being fact.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 9:44:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 9:34:27 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/8/2011 9:26:25 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
How would evidence prove a transcendtal being?

You're contradicting yourself all over the place. You asked, "Would a rational Christian state, 'Because I believe in Him, He must exist?'" Now you're saying that there CAN be no evidence for God, because God is a "transcendental being."

The first contention was a response to his claim that God was a faith-based claim. The second was to inquire what evidence can prove/disprove God's existence.

So basically what you're saying is that there can be no tangible evidence, thus you ARE relying strictly on faith.
I did state that OUR evidence cannot be used to prove God's existence, but I did not explicitly state that because of this, we must rely on faith. In fact, I did state that 'blind faith' was only one factor that counts as 'evidence' (which is subjective, in this case)...

Arguments (i.e. Cosmologial argument) =/= Evidence. Moreover, as I've said a zillion times, even if the Cosmological argument were true, all that would prove is a first mover. It doesn't prove the concept of God that theists try to impose, such as advocating what God is/wants/needs. Saying God is a force of nature is different than saying "God wants you to do this" or saying that Jesus was the son of God (or God incarnate or both) or any other absurd suggestions that Christians make. All of that is faith based or contrived from humanity's limited reasoning and manipulated in the furnace of human wants.
Okay....I have no disagreement with what you just wrote...

The point is that you can't just say "A transcendental being exists but I don't have to prove it because you can't prove transcendental beings exist!"
I stated that 'tangible evidence doesn't prove the intangible', but I do not recall ever explicitly stating, 'I don't have to prove it because you can't prove transcendental beings exist' or even implying that. If you are talking about 'extraordinary evidence' (which is taken from the dictum, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'), I hinted that it had to be at least outside of our own constructs. If I did hint that (possibly unintentionally), then that might be a matter of vagueness....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
cabio
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 9:46:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 9:34:27 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/8/2011 9:26:25 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
How would evidence prove a transcendtal being?

You're contradicting yourself all over the place. You asked, "Would a rational Christian state, 'Because I believe in Him, He must exist?'" Now you're saying that there CAN be no evidence for God, because God is a "transcendental being." So basically what you're saying is that there can be no tangible evidence, thus you ARE relying strictly on faith. Arguments (i.e. Cosmologial argument) =/= Evidence.
Evidence is defined as "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." The cosmo argument and others would be information that indicates whether a belief (God) is true.

Moreover, as I've said a zillion times, even if the Cosmological argument were true, all that would prove is a first mover. It doesn't prove the concept of God that theists try to impose, such as advocating what God is/wants/needs.
But it does disprove (if true) strict naturalism. For instance, the cosmo argument can prove a personal, nonmaterial, timeless cause that precedes the entire universe. That is quite close the biblical god.

Saying God is a force of nature is different than saying "God wants you to do this" or saying that Jesus was the son of God (or God incarnate or both) or any other absurd suggestions that Christians make. All of that is faith based or contrived from humanity's limited reasoning and manipulated in the furnace of human wants.
The cosmo argument says God cannot be a force of nature, since as a cause, he must precede all nature.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 9:49:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 9:36:07 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
Then what extraordinary evidence would prove his existence?

Overt miracles, not perceived ones. Saying "My husband was supposed to only have 6 months to live but miraculously survived for 6 years" doesn't count. I'm talking about blatant defiance of the supernatural. Why not send another Jesus. I'm sure if God existed, God would find a way to prove it. God in all of His infinite wisdom would also know exactly what kind of evidence was necessary, even if we couldn't fathom it off the top of our heads right now. But the point is that those claims are so extraordinary that there likely is no evidence, thus is very likely not true. Now, you can say "Well once upon a time there was no evidence for gravity until it was discovered." However that would contradict what you're seemingly saying about there CAN be no evidence for God. In other words, evidence for God can never be discovered because it simply cannot exist (but we're supposed to just accept - yes on blind faith, by your own admission - that God exists?).

Saying we should believe something that absolutely cannot be proven (even a little bit) is ridiculous. Let me ask you - If I said that invisible people existed and were flying all around us, but did not make any sounds, had no scent, were not composed of matter or energy and therefore could not be detected - would you believe me? How about if I provided a rational argument for their existence? (Also, keep in mind that even the "rational" arguments for God, i.e. the ontological argument, etc. have all been negated/argued against and are thus highly disputed anyway. They do not count as evidence.)
President of DDO
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 9:50:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 9:34:27 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/8/2011 9:26:25 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
How would evidence prove a transcendtal being?

You're contradicting yourself all over the place.
I have done that. But let me examine your claims....

You asked, "Would a rational Christian state, 'Because I believe in Him, He must exist?'" Now you're saying that there CAN be no evidence for God, because God is a "transcendental being."
I would like to argue, against your view, that I stated no tangible evidence that is provided by our constructs (whether by our time, understanding, or space)...I don't recall ever stating that there is NO evidence for God, though I might have implied that accidentally. What I meant to imply was that in order to prove God exists (by the definitions that we have set), we need extraordinary evidence (of a nature outside our construct) to prove whether or not God actually exists. Remember, I was only addressing Izbo10's points, so maybe some of the apparent contradictions in my work might be due to his poor logic (as explained by Cabio)...

So basically what you're saying is that there can be no tangible evidence, thus you ARE relying strictly on faith.
Hmmm....Again, I was only responding to his claims. Remember, when I wrote about the 'rational Christian', I was attacking his characterization of how Christians personify their own God (though he claimed God was defined as a faith-based claim)...And, yes, I did state that 'tangible evidence does not prove the intangible', but that did not make the leap that faith counts as the only evidence. In fact, I do recall writing that faith, or rather 'blind faith', was only one part of what can be considered evidence....

The point is that you can't just say "A transcendental being exists but I don't have to prove it because you can't prove transcendental beings exist!"
We'll discuss whether or not I actually stated that, if you still think that I did that....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 9:55:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 9:42:12 AM, cabio wrote:
The idea is this. To say "I know God does not exist" is a claim. To ask for evidence for that is only to place the burdon of proof where it belongs. However, there is a difference between to say "I believe that God does not exist." Then to ask for evidence for that would be asking for evidence to prove a negative. But then one cannot argue for that belief, since it is an opinion and not a claim of being fact.

I understand that making an assertion warrants a burden of proof; however, asymmetry exists in the burden. Ontologically positive claims (unicorns exist) hold a higher burden than ontologically negative ones (unicorns don't exist).

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu...
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 9:57:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 9:44:03 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
In fact, I did state that 'blind faith' was only one factor that counts as 'evidence'

BLIND FAITH IS NOT EVIDENCE. Period.

I stated that 'tangible evidence doesn't prove the intangible', but I do not recall ever explicitly stating, 'I don't have to prove it because you can't prove transcendental beings exist' or even implying that.

You're implying that there can be no evidence. If you're implying that there can be and we just haven't found it, then you're saying we have no reason CURRENTLY to accept those extraordinary claims.
President of DDO
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 9:59:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 9:49:27 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/8/2011 9:36:07 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
Then what extraordinary evidence would prove his existence?

Overt miracles, not perceived ones. Saying "My husband was supposed to only have 6 months to live but miraculously survived for 6 years" doesn't count. I'm talking about blatant defiance of the supernatural.
I hope you realize that I am an atheist, trying to use the 'devil's advocate' position to counter Izbo10's rampage against the Christian community.

Why not send another Jesus. I'm sure if God existed, God would find a way to prove it. God in all of His infinite wisdom would also know exactly what kind of evidence was necessary, even if we couldn't fathom it off the top of our heads right now. But the point is that those claims are so extraordinary that there likely is no evidence, thus is very likely not true.
While I do agree to this, I wonder how the Christians would respond. Maybe they would emphasize the word 'can' and try to prove that because God has volition, he does not have to do all of this....But then again, one can easily refute that as well...

Now, you can say "Well once upon a time there was no evidence for gravity until it was discovered." However that would contradict what you're seemingly saying about there CAN be no evidence for God. In other words, evidence for God can never be discovered because it simply cannot exist (but we're supposed to just accept - yes on blind faith, by your own admission - that God exists?).

Response:
1. Well, the statement is incorrect. Gravity could have existed before evidence was founded of it.
2. Second, I hope I am trying to clarify what I meant: there is evidence (possibly extraordinary, or beyond our construct) that can prove God. I only stated that 'tangible evidence' does not prove him....(unless I have forgotten what I stated)...Since you named supernatural events, that would probably be outside our construct [normal range of time, or experience]...
3. The word 'evidence' in my original statement was meant to be subjective. Nor did I state that blind faith was only one part of evidence....

Saying we should believe something that absolutely cannot be proven (even a little bit) is ridiculous. Let me ask you - If I said that invisible people existed and were flying all around us, but did not make any sounds, had no scent, were not composed of matter or energy and therefore could not be detected - would you believe me? How about if I provided a rational argument for their existence?
Probably not....Honestly, it is hard to believe in God if his existence is somewhat contradictory...

(Also, keep in mind that even the "rational" arguments for God, i.e. the ontological argument, etc. have all been negated/argued against and are thus highly disputed anyway. They do not count as evidence.)
Arguments are not evidence, so even the rational arguments for God do not count as justification for his existence....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 10:00:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 9:57:38 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/8/2011 9:44:03 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
In fact, I did state that 'blind faith' was only one factor that counts as 'evidence'

BLIND FAITH IS NOT EVIDENCE. Period.
Please note the quotation marks around the word 'evidence'....That was supposed to mean that it was a subjective term that was most likely false....

I stated that 'tangible evidence doesn't prove the intangible', but I do not recall ever explicitly stating, 'I don't have to prove it because you can't prove transcendental beings exist' or even implying that.

You're implying that there can be no evidence. If you're implying that there can be and we just haven't found it, then you're saying we have no reason CURRENTLY to accept those extraordinary claims.
Let's hope that previous response either clears up the issue or at least worsens the current situation.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 10:00:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also that was not meant to be bitchy. I'm just genuinely bored of these circular conversations atm. Ttyl (and no I did not realize you were an atheist).
President of DDO
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 10:02:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 10:00:43 AM, Danielle wrote:
Also that was not meant to be bitchy. I'm just genuinely bored of these circular conversations atm. Ttyl (and no I did not realize you were an atheist).

Honestly, if you're going to be like this (and not read my response anyway), then I might as well resort to circular reasoning. And I'm glad to see that you realize that I am an atheist...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 10:03:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 9:59:20 AM, Danielle wrote:
I'm bored of this conversation. ZzzZz maybe I'll come back later :)

So I take it that you don't want to read any of my responses...Oh well, at least I tried to clarify my arguments...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 10:04:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I read your response. It's contradictory and non-sensical, and I don't have the patience or desire to waste my time responding right now because I've been repeating the same monotonous arguments for 3 years. Maybe I will respond later when I get bored enough.
President of DDO
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 10:05:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 10:04:41 AM, Danielle wrote:
I read your response. It's contradictory and non-sensical, and I don't have the patience or desire to waste my time responding right now because I've been repeating the same monotonous arguments for 3 years. Maybe I will respond later when I get bored enough.

Alright....I'm glad to see DDO's best debater criticizing my argument. If it's so contradictory and nonsensical, then you might as well not respond to it anyway....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 10:09:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 10:05:42 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 8/8/2011 10:04:41 AM, Danielle wrote:
I read your response. It's contradictory and non-sensical, and I don't have the patience or desire to waste my time responding right now because I've been repeating the same monotonous arguments for 3 years. Maybe I will respond later when I get bored enough.

Alright....I'm glad to see DDO's best debater criticizing my argument. If it's so contradictory and nonsensical, then you might as well not respond to it anyway....

And if it wastes your time, you might as well simply ignore it. After all, I can tell that all what I have stated (and tried to explain) are just the same old arguments that you've been responding to, in the past few years. Oops.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 10:13:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 10:00:43 AM, Danielle wrote:
Also that was not meant to be bitchy. I'm just genuinely bored of these circular conversations atm. Ttyl (and no I did not realize you were an atheist).

In addition, did you ever read my posts in 'The Theory of Evolution' thread?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau