Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Proving the existence of God with 'Logic'...

tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 9:13:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's starting to bug me when people who can't understand basic concepts like evolution (show you a man who is a monkey? Seriously?) start throwing down the logical arguments.

SO, I'm calling ya'll out.

If you think you can prove the existence of your God using logic and historical arguments, without any appeal to faith... come at me.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 9:15:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Scientific evidence is welcome too!
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 9:18:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 9:13:22 PM, tvellalott wrote:
It's starting to bug me when people who can't understand basic concepts like evolution (show you a man who is a monkey? Seriously?) start throwing down the logical arguments.

SO, I'm calling ya'll out.

If you think you can prove the existence of your God using logic and historical arguments, without any appeal to faith... come at me.

1: Intelligent Design
2: Cosmological Argument
3: Fine Tuning
4: Teleological Argument
5: Modern Game Theory
6: Personal experience with God

All of these were more than enough to eradicate my agnosticism.

I have found anyone that has doubted the veracity of these arguments has not really understood them.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 9:34:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 9:18:44 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/18/2011 9:13:22 PM, tvellalott wrote:
It's starting to bug me when people who can't understand basic concepts like evolution (show you a man who is a monkey? Seriously?) start throwing down the logical arguments.

SO, I'm calling ya'll out.

If you think you can prove the existence of your God using logic and historical arguments, without any appeal to faith... come at me.

1: Intelligent Design
If you still can't accept the evidence against intelligent design, I'm afraid nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. It's pretty much a slam-dunk for Atheism in my opinion.

2: Cosmological Argument
First cause doesn't have to be God.
First cause REALLY doesn't have to be YOUR God.

3: Fine Tuning
This is hardly a concrete argument, now is it?
I put this in the "I don't know" basket.
Remember, but admitting ignorance I am not conceding this point. You don't know either and if you say you do, you are displaying incredible arrogance.

4: Teleological Argument
Isn't this the same as the finely tuned universe?

5: Modern Game Theory
Care to elaborate?

6: Personal experience with God
Sure... you have documented evidence of these experiences right? No?
That's a shame.

I have found anyone that has doubted the veracity of these arguments has not really understood them.
AHHH! So it's MY fault that I'm an Atheist because I simply don't understand all this evidence you have mounted against me.
Wait... Which part of this proves that Christianity is correct?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 9:35:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Are you seriously putting game theory in that list? Either you need to explain something, or you need to be slapped.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 9:46:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 9:34:40 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 12/18/2011 9:18:44 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/18/2011 9:13:22 PM, tvellalott wrote:
It's starting to bug me when people who can't understand basic concepts like evolution (show you a man who is a monkey? Seriously?) start throwing down the logical arguments.

SO, I'm calling ya'll out.

If you think you can prove the existence of your God using logic and historical arguments, without any appeal to faith... come at me.

1: Intelligent Design
If you still can't accept the evidence against intelligent design, I'm afraid nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. It's pretty much a slam-dunk for Atheism in my opinion.
Professor Anthony Flew, one of the greatest proponents for Athiesm converted to Deism due Intelligent Designs major and clear advances.
Perhaps you can review it more openly?


2: Cosmological Argument
First cause doesn't have to be God.
First cause REALLY doesn't have to be YOUR God.

The Cosmological does not assert THE cause. It only asserts that logic and empiricism necessitates that a cause exists. The Teleological argument reconciles what the cause is.


3: Fine Tuning
This is hardly a concrete argument, now is it?
I put this in the "I don't know" basket.
Remember, but admitting ignorance I am not conceding this point. You don't know either and if you say you do, you are displaying incredible arrogance.

I through research affirm what nearly every scientist affirms. The universe is fine tuned for life. I can cite countless scientists including Stephen Hawking who affirm the universe if fine tuned.

Perhaps a bit more research?


4: Teleological Argument
Isn't this the same as the finely tuned universe?

It uses fine tuning as a fact and then follows:

1. The fine tuning of the universe is caused by either physical necessity, random chance or design.
2. It was not by physical necessity or random chance, these are both ruled out via scientific process.
3. Therefore it must have been design.


5: Modern Game Theory
Care to elaborate?

Ouch tomorrow. I need to crash.


6: Personal experience with God
Sure... you have documented evidence of these experiences right? No?
That's a shame.

Countless people have even videotaped it. You have not been convinced by them, what makes you think you should be convinced by my video?

As I have stated countless times, to a naturalist even if I prayed and caused a leg to regrow, they would just claim, we would search "diligently" for another explanation and then claim humans must share a genetic link of regeneration with reptiles.


I have found anyone that has doubted the veracity of these arguments has not really understood them.
AHHH! So it's MY fault that I'm an Atheist because I simply don't understand all this evidence you have mounted against me.

I find it is more along the lines of naturalistic presuppositions that causes a lack of understanding. Try defending the points rather than attacking and see if you do not get further along.

Wait... Which part of this proves that Christianity is correct?
Modern Game Theory and Personal Experience.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2011 10:26:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 9:46:46 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Professor Anthony Flew, one of the greatest proponents for Athiesm converted to Deism due Intelligent Designs major and clear advances.
Perhaps you can review it more openly?

Review what, exactly?
Which specific items do you find most convincing? Stuff like "The skull of this aboriginal looks remarkably like the skull evolutionists claim is a transitional fossil..."
No. If anything, I'll ask that we agree to disagree on the natural selection versus intelligent design argument. It's been done to death.

The Cosmological does not assert THE cause. It only asserts that logic and empiricism necessitates that a cause exists. The Teleological argument reconciles what the cause is.

See, here was thinking the Cosmological Argument asserted the first cause was God. If it doesn't, it has no place on your list.

I through research affirm what nearly every scientist affirms. The universe is fine tuned for life. I can cite countless scientists including Stephen Hawking who affirm the universe if fine tuned.

Please show me the quote of Stephen Hawking saying "The universe is finely tuned."
I must have missed that.
As far as we know, the state the universe exists in and the laws that govern it are a mere chance consequence of it's first cause, which we don't really know anything about. It's an argumentum ad ignorantiam to say it was God. It's REALLY fallacious to try and say it was Yahweh rather than Allah or whatever.

Perhaps a bit more research?
I don't need to research it to know I won't find anything that would prove to me it was God, because I don't have any faith in the existence of a God.

It uses fine tuning as a fact and then follows:

1. The fine tuning of the universe is caused by either physical necessity, random chance or design.
Sure.
2. It was not by physical necessity or random chance, these are both ruled out via scientific process.
WAIT a second... How are physical necessity and random chance ruled out by scientific process?
I must have missed that press release.

Countless people have even videotaped it. You have not been convinced by them, what makes you think you should be convinced by my video?

Again, I must have missed the video taped evidence. Surely you can find me a link or two on youtube... given there are "countless examples".

As I have stated countless times, to a naturalist even if I prayed and caused a leg to regrow, they would just claim, we would search "diligently" for another explanation and then claim humans must share a genetic link of regeneration with reptiles.

LOL. If you regrew a limb naturally... without any scientific assistance...
You would completely destroy modern biology and that particular school of science would have a lot to answer for.

But it's not going to happen.

I find it is more along the lines of naturalistic presuppositions that causes a lack of understanding. Try defending the points rather than attacking and see if you do not get further along.

Naturalistic presuppositions... You mean presuming that nothing supernatural exists? I find that an admirable trait to be honest. I asked you to provide arguments. All the arguments you provided were without any sources, evidence or actually arguments.
You basically said "Here are 6 massive subjects... disprove them."
You ignore the fact that all of your 6 points are not even remotely accepted outside of Theist circles. There are thousands of videos on YouTube which serve to disprove them just as there are thousands of videos which supposedly prove them. They're all contested points.

And that's my point and the point of this thread.
Don't bring in such widely contested philosophical or scientific arguments and try to pass them off as being on the same level as something as well studied as evolution...
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 4:30:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 10:26:14 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 12/18/2011 9:46:46 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Professor Anthony Flew, one of the greatest proponents for Athiesm converted to Deism due Intelligent Designs major and clear advances.
Perhaps you can review it more openly?

Review what, exactly?
Which specific items do you find most convincing? Stuff like "The skull of this aboriginal looks remarkably like the skull evolutionists claim is a transitional fossil..."
No. If anything, I'll ask that we agree to disagree on the natural selection versus intelligent design argument. It's been done to death.

The Cosmological does not assert THE cause. It only asserts that logic and empiricism necessitates that a cause exists. The Teleological argument reconciles what the cause is.

See, here was thinking the Cosmological Argument asserted the first cause was God. If it doesn't, it has no place on your list.

I through research affirm what nearly every scientist affirms. The universe is fine tuned for life. I can cite countless scientists including Stephen Hawking who affirm the universe if fine tuned.

Please show me the quote of Stephen Hawking saying "The universe is finely tuned."
I must have missed that.
As far as we know, the state the universe exists in and the laws that govern it are a mere chance consequence of it's first cause, which we don't really know anything about. It's an argumentum ad ignorantiam to say it was God. It's REALLY fallacious to try and say it was Yahweh rather than Allah or whatever.

Perhaps a bit more research?
I don't need to research it to know I won't find anything that would prove to me it was God, because I don't have any faith in the existence of a God.

It uses fine tuning as a fact and then follows:

1. The fine tuning of the universe is caused by either physical necessity, random chance or design.
Sure.
2. It was not by physical necessity or random chance, these are both ruled out via scientific process.
WAIT a second... How are physical necessity and random chance ruled out by scientific process?
I must have missed that press release.

Countless people have even videotaped it. You have not been convinced by them, what makes you think you should be convinced by my video?

Again, I must have missed the video taped evidence. Surely you can find me a link or two on youtube... given there are "countless examples".

As I have stated countless times, to a naturalist even if I prayed and caused a leg to regrow, they would just claim, we would search "diligently" for another explanation and then claim humans must share a genetic link of regeneration with reptiles.

LOL. If you regrew a limb naturally... without any scientific assistance...
You would completely destroy modern biology and that particular school of science would have a lot to answer for.

But it's not going to happen.

I find it is more along the lines of naturalistic presuppositions that causes a lack of understanding. Try defending the points rather than attacking and see if you do not get further along.

Naturalistic presuppositions... You mean presuming that nothing supernatural exists? I find that an admirable trait to be honest. I asked you to provide arguments. All the arguments you provided were without any sources, evidence or actually arguments.
You basically said "Here are 6 massive subjects... disprove them."
You ignore the fact that all of your 6 points are not even remotely accepted outside of Theist circles. There are thousands of videos on YouTube which serve to disprove them just as there are thousands of videos which supposedly prove them. They're all contested points.

And that's my point and the point of this thread.
Don't bring in such widely contested philosophical or scientific arguments and try to pass them off as being on the same level as something as well studied as evolution...

One of the greatest? Please. Intelligent design is, was and always shall be nonsense, designed to circumvent the law by those who were not up to the task. The greatest proponent for atheism is, were, Aristotle and Plato, and they did not convert. Anyone who tries to distill evolution down to Darwin, is either a fool or just engaging in a absurdum. Come to think of it, both are foolish.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 5:09:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 4:30:52 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/18/2011 10:26:14 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 12/18/2011 9:46:46 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Professor Anthony Flew, one of the greatest proponents for Athiesm converted to Deism due Intelligent Designs major and clear advances.
Perhaps you can review it more openly?

Review what, exactly?
Which specific items do you find most convincing? Stuff like "The skull of this aboriginal looks remarkably like the skull evolutionists claim is a transitional fossil..."
No. If anything, I'll ask that we agree to disagree on the natural selection versus intelligent design argument. It's been done to death.

The Cosmological does not assert THE cause. It only asserts that logic and empiricism necessitates that a cause exists. The Teleological argument reconciles what the cause is.

See, here was thinking the Cosmological Argument asserted the first cause was God. If it doesn't, it has no place on your list.

I through research affirm what nearly every scientist affirms. The universe is fine tuned for life. I can cite countless scientists including Stephen Hawking who affirm the universe if fine tuned.

Please show me the quote of Stephen Hawking saying "The universe is finely tuned."
I must have missed that.
As far as we know, the state the universe exists in and the laws that govern it are a mere chance consequence of it's first cause, which we don't really know anything about. It's an argumentum ad ignorantiam to say it was God. It's REALLY fallacious to try and say it was Yahweh rather than Allah or whatever.

Perhaps a bit more research?
I don't need to research it to know I won't find anything that would prove to me it was God, because I don't have any faith in the existence of a God.

It uses fine tuning as a fact and then follows:

1. The fine tuning of the universe is caused by either physical necessity, random chance or design.
Sure.
2. It was not by physical necessity or random chance, these are both ruled out via scientific process.
WAIT a second... How are physical necessity and random chance ruled out by scientific process?
I must have missed that press release.

Countless people have even videotaped it. You have not been convinced by them, what makes you think you should be convinced by my video?

Again, I must have missed the video taped evidence. Surely you can find me a link or two on youtube... given there are "countless examples".

As I have stated countless times, to a naturalist even if I prayed and caused a leg to regrow, they would just claim, we would search "diligently" for another explanation and then claim humans must share a genetic link of regeneration with reptiles.

LOL. If you regrew a limb naturally... without any scientific assistance...
You would completely destroy modern biology and that particular school of science would have a lot to answer for.

But it's not going to happen.

I find it is more along the lines of naturalistic presuppositions that causes a lack of understanding. Try defending the points rather than attacking and see if you do not get further along.

Naturalistic presuppositions... You mean presuming that nothing supernatural exists? I find that an admirable trait to be honest. I asked you to provide arguments. All the arguments you provided were without any sources, evidence or actually arguments.
You basically said "Here are 6 massive subjects... disprove them."
You ignore the fact that all of your 6 points are not even remotely accepted outside of Theist circles. There are thousands of videos on YouTube which serve to disprove them just as there are thousands of videos which supposedly prove them. They're all contested points.

And that's my point and the point of this thread.
Don't bring in such widely contested philosophical or scientific arguments and try to pass them off as being on the same level as something as well studied as evolution...


One of the greatest? Please. Intelligent design is, was and always shall be nonsense, designed to circumvent the law by those who were not up to the task. The greatest proponent for atheism is, were, Aristotle and Plato, and they did not convert. Anyone who tries to distill evolution down to Darwin, is either a fool or just engaging in a absurdum. Come to think of it, both are foolish.

...They both believed in a deity (Demiurge and Prime Mover).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 5:21:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 5:09:09 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 12/19/2011 4:30:52 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/18/2011 10:26:14 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 12/18/2011 9:46:46 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Professor Anthony Flew, one of the greatest proponents for Athiesm converted to Deism due Intelligent Designs major and clear advances.
Perhaps you can review it more openly?

Review what, exactly?
Which specific items do you find most convincing? Stuff like "The skull of this aboriginal looks remarkably like the skull evolutionists claim is a transitional fossil..."
No. If anything, I'll ask that we agree to disagree on the natural selection versus intelligent design argument. It's been done to death.

The Cosmological does not assert THE cause. It only asserts that logic and empiricism necessitates that a cause exists. The Teleological argument reconciles what the cause is.

See, here was thinking the Cosmological Argument asserted the first cause was God. If it doesn't, it has no place on your list.

I through research affirm what nearly every scientist affirms. The universe is fine tuned for life. I can cite countless scientists including Stephen Hawking who affirm the universe if fine tuned.

Please show me the quote of Stephen Hawking saying "The universe is finely tuned."
I must have missed that.
As far as we know, the state the universe exists in and the laws that govern it are a mere chance consequence of it's first cause, which we don't really know anything about. It's an argumentum ad ignorantiam to say it was God. It's REALLY fallacious to try and say it was Yahweh rather than Allah or whatever.

Perhaps a bit more research?
I don't need to research it to know I won't find anything that would prove to me it was God, because I don't have any faith in the existence of a God.

It uses fine tuning as a fact and then follows:

1. The fine tuning of the universe is caused by either physical necessity, random chance or design.
Sure.
2. It was not by physical necessity or random chance, these are both ruled out via scientific process.
WAIT a second... How are physical necessity and random chance ruled out by scientific process?
I must have missed that press release.

Countless people have even videotaped it. You have not been convinced by them, what makes you think you should be convinced by my video?

Again, I must have missed the video taped evidence. Surely you can find me a link or two on youtube... given there are "countless examples".

As I have stated countless times, to a naturalist even if I prayed and caused a leg to regrow, they would just claim, we would search "diligently" for another explanation and then claim humans must share a genetic link of regeneration with reptiles.

LOL. If you regrew a limb naturally... without any scientific assistance...
You would completely destroy modern biology and that particular school of science would have a lot to answer for.

But it's not going to happen.

I find it is more along the lines of naturalistic presuppositions that causes a lack of understanding. Try defending the points rather than attacking and see if you do not get further along.

Naturalistic presuppositions... You mean presuming that nothing supernatural exists? I find that an admirable trait to be honest. I asked you to provide arguments. All the arguments you provided were without any sources, evidence or actually arguments.
You basically said "Here are 6 massive subjects... disprove them."
You ignore the fact that all of your 6 points are not even remotely accepted outside of Theist circles. There are thousands of videos on YouTube which serve to disprove them just as there are thousands of videos which supposedly prove them. They're all contested points.

And that's my point and the point of this thread.
Don't bring in such widely contested philosophical or scientific arguments and try to pass them off as being on the same level as something as well studied as evolution...


One of the greatest? Please. Intelligent design is, was and always shall be nonsense, designed to circumvent the law by those who were not up to the task. The greatest proponent for atheism is, were, Aristotle and Plato, and they did not convert. Anyone who tries to distill evolution down to Darwin, is either a fool or just engaging in a absurdum. Come to think of it, both are foolish.

...They both believed in a deity (Demiurge and Prime Mover).

LOL it is unmoved mover and it wasn't a diety
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:02:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 10:26:14 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 12/18/2011 9:46:46 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Professor Anthony Flew, one of the greatest proponents for Athiesm converted to Deism due Intelligent Designs major and clear advances.
Perhaps you can review it more openly?

Review what, exactly?
Which specific items do you find most convincing? Stuff like "The skull of this aboriginal looks remarkably like the skull evolutionists claim is a transitional fossil..."
No. If anything, I'll ask that we agree to disagree on the natural selection versus intelligent design argument. It's been done to death.

I believe you were the one that posted "Bring it on". You said Logic and Evidence.
This evidence has convinced a Major Athiestic advocate of over half a century.

It has not been done to death, it has been done clearly to a "point of conversion" for Anthony Flew.
As long as it wins over people, it warrants being on the list.


The Cosmological does not assert THE cause. It only asserts that logic and empiricism necessitates that a cause exists. The Teleological argument reconciles what the cause is.

See, here was thinking the Cosmological Argument asserted the first cause was God. If it doesn't, it has no place on your list.

The purpose of a premise is to support the conclusion. An axiom of necessary cause indeed deserves to be a premise to support the cause.


I through research affirm what nearly every scientist affirms. The universe is fine tuned for life. I can cite countless scientists including Stephen Hawking who affirm the universe if fine tuned.

Please show me the quote of Stephen Hawking saying "The universe is finely tuned."

http://en.wikipedia.org...
As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

The majority of scientists agree that indeed the fine tuning based upon the mathematics is a certainty.
Like the number for dark energy etc...

I disagree with Stephen Hawkings approach to fine tuning in his recent book but clearly fine tuning is a common and verified concept.

I must have missed that.
As far as we know, the state the universe exists in and the laws that govern it are a mere chance consequence of it's first cause, which we don't really know anything about. It's an argumentum ad ignorantiam to say it was God. It's REALLY fallacious to try and say it was Yahweh rather than Allah or whatever.

The numbers themselves do not indicate any particular reason as to why they are the numbers. However, the numbers themselves do exist. Hence the Teleological argument is used to work out if random chance was the generator.

As to designer being asserted again that is the Teleological argument.
Modern Game Theory and Personal experience assert "who" that God is.

It uses fine tuning as a fact and then follows:

1. The fine tuning of the universe is caused by either physical necessity, random chance or design.
Sure.
2. It was not by physical necessity or random chance, these are both ruled out via scientific process.
WAIT a second... How are physical necessity and random chance ruled out by scientific process?
I must have missed that press release.

I do recognize your studies have been limited.
See Dembski, Craig and Reese's work to name a few.

Physical necessity is ruled out by logic.
As Stephen Hawking points out, the first physical principle is clear, in that nothing physical existed prior to the big bang so it simply could not have been physical necessity.

Stephen Hawking points to random chance.

Dembski points out that "pure" chance never generates anything, physical necessity is required for chance to operate.

That leaves design. Now was that designer using chance to generate as a deist? or was there a extrinsic purpose desired for the creation.


Countless people have even videotaped it. You have not been convinced by them, what makes you think you should be convinced by my video?

Again, I must have missed the video taped evidence. Surely you can find me a link or two on youtube... given there are "countless examples".

Sure, avoiding Supernaturalist tvs shows like Ghost Hunters on Travel channel etc...
Lets spin the wheel of supernatural evidence
see first video.

Do think Indians are credible?

How about America? See second video.

CBN documents many of these things.

As I have stated countless times, to a naturalist even if I prayed and caused a leg to regrow, they would just claim, we would search "diligently" for another explanation and then claim humans must share a genetic link of regeneration with reptiles.

LOL. If you regrew a limb naturally... without any scientific assistance...
You would completely destroy modern biology and that particular school of science would have a lot to answer for.

No it wouldn't. It would just change the theory for the naturalist.
Modern Biology has countless examples of unexplained healings and have not changed the science at all.


But it's not going to happen.

Sure.
http://www.cbn.com...
Here is a CBN documented occurrance.
This is quite common in Christendom.

My own Father in Law, an Internal MD, fell from a treestand and broke 3 ribs.
He attended a Healing Mass from the Pope and was instantly healed, despite being over 60.

My own child was dramatically healed from prayer.

I have a sneaking suspicion you will just claim all of these people as having a naturalistic explanation and prayer had nothing to do with it.

I find it is more along the lines of naturalistic presuppositions that causes a lack of understanding. Try defending the points rather than attacking and see if you do not get further along.

Naturalistic presuppositions... You mean presuming that nothing supernatural exists? I find that an admirable trait to be honest. I asked you to provide arguments. All the arguments you provided were without any sources, evidence or actually arguments.
You basically said "Here are 6 massive subjects... disprove them."
You ignore the fact that all of your 6 points are not even remotely accepted outside of Theist circles. There are thousands of videos on YouTube which serve to disprove them just as there are thousands of videos which supposedly prove them. They're all contested points.

And that's my point and the point of this thread.
Don't bring in such widely contested philosophical or scientific arguments and try to pass them off as being on the same level as something as well studied as evolution...

These are not so widely contested as you would have made out, the vast majority of people agree with them.

I asserted them as more than enough to eradicate my agnosticism. I cited these things, with the assumption you did not know everything about these claims.

Your above reply amounts to "TEACH ME THESE THINGS!".
That is a long process.

I first have to cite the arguments to determine what you do not know, what you are unaware of and work from there.
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:16:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 9:13:22 PM, tvellalott wrote:
It's starting to bug me when people who can't understand basic concepts like evolution (show you a man who is a monkey? Seriously?) start throwing down the logical arguments.

SO, I'm calling ya'll out.

If you think you can prove the existence of your God using logic and historical arguments, without any appeal to faith... come at me.

why did you have to start out so hostile? I know you hate god but don't place that hate on me.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 11:17:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
...They both believed in a deity (Demiurge and Prime Mover).

LOL it is unmoved mover and it wasn't a diety

Plato actually believed his consciousness was from God, which it is. Therefore, Plato believed that there was some type of deity.

Explain your conscious.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 6:07:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 11:16:56 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/18/2011 9:13:22 PM, tvellalott wrote:
It's starting to bug me when people who can't understand basic concepts like evolution (show you a man who is a monkey? Seriously?) start throwing down the logical arguments.

SO, I'm calling ya'll out.

If you think you can prove the existence of your God using logic and historical arguments, without any appeal to faith... come at me.

why did you have to start out so hostile? I know you hate god but don't place that hate on me.

I'm hostile because I hate wilful ignorance.
You're wilfully ignorant. You take the Bible as fact without question and anything that doesn't fit into your narrow belief is wrong..
This is intellectual dishonesty at it's most despicable.

As for hating God. Yes, I hate YOUR God, because he would have me suffer for eternity simply for no believing in him. On the other hand, a Christian like PCP believes (I'm fairly certain) in a much more reasonable God. I don't hate HIS God.
You all have different Gods as far as I'm concerned.
Now, when I say "hate" I mean the same kind of hate I have for many fictional characters. Umbridge from the Harry Potter books is an example.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 6:09:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 6:07:20 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:16:56 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/18/2011 9:13:22 PM, tvellalott wrote:
It's starting to bug me when people who can't understand basic concepts like evolution (show you a man who is a monkey? Seriously?) start throwing down the logical arguments.

SO, I'm calling ya'll out.

If you think you can prove the existence of your God using logic and historical arguments, without any appeal to faith... come at me.

why did you have to start out so hostile? I know you hate god but don't place that hate on me.

I'm hostile because I hate wilful ignorance.
You're wilfully ignorant. You take the Bible as fact without question and anything that doesn't fit into your narrow belief is wrong..
This is intellectual dishonesty at it's most despicable.

As for hating God. Yes, I hate YOUR God, because he would have me suffer for eternity simply for no believing in him. On the other hand, a Christian like PCP believes (I'm fairly certain) in a much more reasonable God. I don't hate HIS God.
You all have different Gods as far as I'm concerned.
Now, when I say "hate" I mean the same kind of hate I have for many fictional characters. Umbridge from the Harry Potter books is an example.

God loves you, you choose hell, god doesn't want to send you there, but that is where you choose to go.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 6:12:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 6:09:46 PM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 6:07:20 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:16:56 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/18/2011 9:13:22 PM, tvellalott wrote:
It's starting to bug me when people who can't understand basic concepts like evolution (show you a man who is a monkey? Seriously?) start throwing down the logical arguments.

SO, I'm calling ya'll out.

If you think you can prove the existence of your God using logic and historical arguments, without any appeal to faith... come at me.

why did you have to start out so hostile? I know you hate god but don't place that hate on me.

I'm hostile because I hate wilful ignorance.
You're wilfully ignorant. You take the Bible as fact without question and anything that doesn't fit into your narrow belief is wrong..
This is intellectual dishonesty at it's most despicable.

As for hating God. Yes, I hate YOUR God, because he would have me suffer for eternity simply for no believing in him. On the other hand, a Christian like PCP believes (I'm fairly certain) in a much more reasonable God. I don't hate HIS God.
You all have different Gods as far as I'm concerned.
Now, when I say "hate" I mean the same kind of hate I have for many fictional characters. Umbridge from the Harry Potter books is an example.

God loves you, you choose hell, god doesn't want to send you there, but that is where you choose to go.

...he really does love you, but if you happen to be mistaken about his existence he'll send you to an eternity of torture in the fiery depths of hell where every waking moment will be spent in great suffering beyond what we on Earth could conceive of...but he loves you...
bigbob91
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 6:17:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 6:12:33 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/19/2011 6:09:46 PM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 6:07:20 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:16:56 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/18/2011 9:13:22 PM, tvellalott wrote:
It's starting to bug me when people who can't understand basic concepts like evolution (show you a man who is a monkey? Seriously?) start throwing down the logical arguments.

SO, I'm calling ya'll out.

If you think you can prove the existence of your God using logic and historical arguments, without any appeal to faith... come at me.

why did you have to start out so hostile? I know you hate god but don't place that hate on me.

I'm hostile because I hate wilful ignorance.
You're wilfully ignorant. You take the Bible as fact without question and anything that doesn't fit into your narrow belief is wrong..
This is intellectual dishonesty at it's most despicable.

As for hating God. Yes, I hate YOUR God, because he would have me suffer for eternity simply for no believing in him. On the other hand, a Christian like PCP believes (I'm fairly certain) in a much more reasonable God. I don't hate HIS God.
You all have different Gods as far as I'm concerned.
Now, when I say "hate" I mean the same kind of hate I have for many fictional characters. Umbridge from the Harry Potter books is an example.

God loves you, you choose hell, god doesn't want to send you there, but that is where you choose to go.

...he really does love you, but if you happen to be mistaken about his existence he'll send you to an eternity of torture in the fiery depths of hell where every waking moment will be spent in great suffering beyond what we on Earth could conceive of...but he loves you...

He gives you a choose, if you don't want to be with him you choose to go to hell. You reject his love for you.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 6:21:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 6:17:16 PM, bigbob91 wrote:
He gives you a choose, if you don't want to be with him you choose to go to hell. You reject his love for you.

Great choice...
"Love me or suffer for eternity in the hell fire."

Furthermore, he gives us no definitive proof of his existence outside the Bible, which from my perspective is a book of bronze age fairy tales.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 6:24:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 6:17:16 PM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 6:12:33 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 12/19/2011 6:09:46 PM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/19/2011 6:07:20 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 12/19/2011 11:16:56 AM, bigbob91 wrote:
At 12/18/2011 9:13:22 PM, tvellalott wrote:
It's starting to bug me when people who can't understand basic concepts like evolution (show you a man who is a monkey? Seriously?) start throwing down the logical arguments.

SO, I'm calling ya'll out.

If you think you can prove the existence of your God using logic and historical arguments, without any appeal to faith... come at me.

why did you have to start out so hostile? I know you hate god but don't place that hate on me.

I'm hostile because I hate wilful ignorance.
You're wilfully ignorant. You take the Bible as fact without question and anything that doesn't fit into your narrow belief is wrong..
This is intellectual dishonesty at it's most despicable.

As for hating God. Yes, I hate YOUR God, because he would have me suffer for eternity simply for no believing in him. On the other hand, a Christian like PCP believes (I'm fairly certain) in a much more reasonable God. I don't hate HIS God.
You all have different Gods as far as I'm concerned.
Now, when I say "hate" I mean the same kind of hate I have for many fictional characters. Umbridge from the Harry Potter books is an example.

God loves you, you choose hell, god doesn't want to send you there, but that is where you choose to go.

...he really does love you, but if you happen to be mistaken about his existence he'll send you to an eternity of torture in the fiery depths of hell where every waking moment will be spent in great suffering beyond what we on Earth could conceive of...but he loves you...


He gives you a choose, if you don't want to be with him you choose to go to hell. You reject his love for you.

Then I suppose that God doesn't value honesty then. You can't seem to reconcile the idea that he is simultaneously perfect and jealous.

If he truly loved us all and was as forgiving as Christians postulate, wouldn't he forgive everyone?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2011 7:10:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 6:17:16 PM, bigbob91 wrote:

He gives you a choose, if you don't want to be with him you choose to go to hell. You reject his love for you.

If i could, i would choose to believe that God exists. But i would be lying to myself.

The only way to believe that something is true, is by being convinced. Thats the only way.

So God has placed a gun to my head and told me to believe. But i cannot, because i cannot lie to myself, and God has not convinced me one iota.

In other words, its Gods fault, and hes sending me to hell because of it. How unfair that Paul gets a blinding light that blinds him for 3 days to convince him, while all i get is some guy on the other end of a computer telling me that God exists.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 9:57:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/19/2011 6:21:47 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 12/19/2011 6:17:16 PM, bigbob91 wrote:
He gives you a choose, if you don't want to be with him you choose to go to hell. You reject his love for you.

Great choice...
"Love me or suffer for eternity in the hell fire."

Furthermore, he gives us no definitive proof of his existence outside the Bible, which from my perspective is a book of bronze age fairy tales.

I would like to point out that, I am indeed outside of the Bible.
As is the entirety of the Church.

God is also outside of the Bible and completely approachable.

Science continues to point to a designer of the universe.

I believe the problem is you want a "huggable" God.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 10:09:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Couple things to think about:

Humans are way smarter then any animal on earth.

Also think about our conscience.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 10:15:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/18/2011 9:46:46 PM, Gileandos wrote:

As I have stated countless times, to a naturalist even if I prayed and caused a leg to regrow, they would just claim, we would search "diligently" for another explanation and then claim humans must share a genetic link of regeneration with reptiles.

Now that you mention it, what is your take on amputee healing? Miraculous healing is often attributed to faith but we don't often hear of many regrown limbs.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 10:17:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 10:09:24 AM, tyler90az wrote:
Couple things to think about:

Humans are way smarter then any animal on earth.

Dolphins are way smarter than most other animals on earth as well, that doesn't make them special any more than an animal having the most physical strength does.

Also think about our conscience.

Think about the fact that not everyone has a conscience. Also, you'd think that everyone would feel the same level of remorse for everything if there was an omni-deity. That would atleast somewhat level the playing field as to who is good and who is evil. It's difficult to condemn a psychopath to hell for horrible acts if they're incapable of feeling remorse.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 11:02:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 10:15:51 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/18/2011 9:46:46 PM, Gileandos wrote:

As I have stated countless times, to a naturalist even if I prayed and caused a leg to regrow, they would just claim, we would search "diligently" for another explanation and then claim humans must share a genetic link of regeneration with reptiles.

Now that you mention it, what is your take on amputee healing? Miraculous healing is often attributed to faith but we don't often hear of many regrown limbs.

There are claims in the Bible and I have recently heard the claims from the Gospel for Asia.

Even caved in skulls and such have been restored.

I have not personally seen a regrown Limb.
But if I videotaped it with the express purpose of evidence I would instantly become a world reknown fraud, even more so if it was true.

But many miraculous healings have been documented with no natural explanation alongside a word of knowledge or prayer.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 3:52:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 10:17:58 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 12/20/2011 10:09:24 AM, tyler90az wrote:
Couple things to think about:

Humans are way smarter then any animal on earth.

Dolphins are way smarter than most other animals on earth as well, that doesn't make them special any more than an animal having the most physical strength does.

We are superior in intelligence, to all animals, by a long shot. We also have language, the ability to communicate, no other animal has communication abilities like we do.

Also think about our conscience.

Think about the fact that not everyone has a conscience. Also, you'd think that everyone would feel the same level of remorse for everything if there was an omni-deity. That would atleast somewhat level the playing field as to who is good and who is evil. It's difficult to condemn a psychopath to hell for horrible acts if they're incapable of feeling remorse.

We all start out with the same conscience, however, it is changed by our lives. Psychopaths are a product of their environment, some type of trauma. It is hard for me to be angry at anybody for their actions, as they are a product of their environment.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 12:19:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 10:09:24 AM, tyler90az wrote:
Couple things to think about:

Humans are way smarter then any animal on earth.

Also think about our conscience.

LOL. Of course we value the traits that we have that we deem useful to our own survival. So what? We're hardly the "dominant" species.

Do you want to know who REALLY is the dominant organism on this planet? One that has held that tital for billions of years?

Bacteria.

We're all just pretenders.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 12:22:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/21/2011 12:19:42 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/20/2011 10:09:24 AM, tyler90az wrote:
Couple things to think about:

Humans are way smarter then any animal on earth.

Also think about our conscience.

LOL. Of course we value the traits that we have that we deem useful to our own survival. So what? We're hardly the "dominant" species.

Do you want to know who REALLY is the dominant organism on this planet? One that has held that tital for billions of years?

Bacteria.

We're all just pretenders.

Wow, that kind of defense is startling.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 12:26:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/21/2011 12:22:02 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 12/21/2011 12:19:42 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/20/2011 10:09:24 AM, tyler90az wrote:
Couple things to think about:

Humans are way smarter then any animal on earth.

Also think about our conscience.

LOL. Of course we value the traits that we have that we deem useful to our own survival. So what? We're hardly the "dominant" species.

Do you want to know who REALLY is the dominant organism on this planet? One that has held that tital for billions of years?

Bacteria.

We're all just pretenders.

Wow, that kind of defense is startling.

Why? Why should we assume that we are dominant? There is no evidence to prove that we are.