Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Challenge to Believers

ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 1:30:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

Check out this debate, where I show Gid to both be logically valid and logically sound.

It's called the modal ontological argument and nobody has ever proved it not to be logically valid or sound.
http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 2:52:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 1:30:11 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

Check out this debate, where I show Gid to both be logically valid and logically sound.

It's called the modal ontological argument and nobody has ever proved it not to be logically valid or sound.
http://www.debate.org...

Didn't you admit in the debate that the argument wasn't sound?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 3:23:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 2:52:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/20/2014 1:30:11 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

Check out this debate, where I show Gid to both be logically valid and logically sound.

It's called the modal ontological argument and nobody has ever proved it not to be logically valid or sound.
http://www.debate.org...

Didn't you admit in the debate that the argument wasn't sound?

No, the creator aspect was in question and I didn't rebut it early enough.

It's completely logically sound and valid. It doesn't make it true, but anyone who uses logic to arrive at the truth, should accept it. At least that form of logic anyway.

The main reason the argument isn't convincing, to atheists such as myself. Is because it lacks empirical evidence, among other thing's.

The fact that it's not convincing doesn't change the fact that it is both logically sound and logically valid.
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 8:12:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 3:23:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:52:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/20/2014 1:30:11 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

Check out this debate, where I show Gid to both be logically valid and logically sound.

It's called the modal ontological argument and nobody has ever proved it not to be logically valid or sound.
http://www.debate.org...

Didn't you admit in the debate that the argument wasn't sound?

No, the creator aspect was in question and I didn't rebut it early enough.

It's completely logically sound and valid. It doesn't make it true, but anyone who uses logic to arrive at the truth, should accept it. At least that form of logic anyway.

The main reason the argument isn't convincing, to atheists such as myself. Is because it lacks empirical evidence, among other thing's.

The fact that it's not convincing doesn't change the fact that it is both logically sound and logically valid.

Are double r and wylted the same person? Your argument is just semantic game playing and of no value because you can't transfer your logic to physical reality. The Gospel of Humanity shows how the Logic of History backs up logical expectation of Physical prediction accuracy that logically points to the creation of God or Us with identical powers of God, i.e, the ability to create Creation, our Universe, or as much of it as we know of at this point in time and space. The Gospel of Humanity gives the Identity of God as well as explaining God's Plan and Humanity's role in it. Gospel of Humanity at: http://biomystic.org...
Mediterranean
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 8:12:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

I don't think people believe because they have a proof God exists but because they have a deep feeling inside that it can only be the truth; which has nothing to do with "facts".
There is a whole different world right before our eyes, yet we fail to see it.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 9:27:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 3:23:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:52:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/20/2014 1:30:11 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

Check out this debate, where I show Gid to both be logically valid and logically sound.

It's called the modal ontological argument and nobody has ever proved it not to be logically valid or sound.
http://www.debate.org...

Didn't you admit in the debate that the argument wasn't sound?

No, the creator aspect was in question and I didn't rebut it early enough.

It's completely logically sound and valid. It doesn't make it true, but anyone who uses logic to arrive at the truth, should accept it. At least that form of logic anyway.

The main reason the argument isn't convincing, to atheists such as myself. Is because it lacks empirical evidence, among other thing's.

The fact that it's not convincing doesn't change the fact that it is both logically sound and logically valid.

Trans-Universal identity/necessity is far from proven modally.

The MOA can be equally used to prove God's non-existence.

I reject the possibility of a being which must definitionally exist in every universe, since a universe can be logically conceived in which he does not exist, and so therefore he cannot exist in any universe (the reverse formulation). The premise which states God is possible is playing a game with the possible-worlds framework--you can't say there's a possible world where a MGB exists until you've demonstrated that he exists in all possible world, since by definition he exists in all possible worlds, or none.

The MOA leads to the complete support for two utterly contradictory conclusions.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 10:11:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

I suggest reading this article. http://www.reasonablefaith.org....
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 10:37:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 3:23:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:52:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/20/2014 1:30:11 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

Check out this debate, where I show Gid to both be logically valid and logically sound.

It's called the modal ontological argument and nobody has ever proved it not to be logically valid or sound.
http://www.debate.org...

Didn't you admit in the debate that the argument wasn't sound?

No, the creator aspect was in question and I didn't rebut it early enough.

It's completely logically sound and valid. It doesn't make it true, but anyone who uses logic to arrive at the truth, should accept it. At least that form of logic anyway.

The main reason the argument isn't convincing, to atheists such as myself. Is because it lacks empirical evidence, among other thing's.

The fact that it's not convincing doesn't change the fact that it is both logically sound and logically valid.

A sound argument is an argument in which all of the premises are true and the logic connecting the premise to the conclusion is valid. A sound argument is by definition, necessarily true.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 11:09:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 10:37:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/20/2014 3:23:21 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2014 2:52:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/20/2014 1:30:11 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

Check out this debate, where I show Gid to both be logically valid and logically sound.

It's called the modal ontological argument and nobody has ever proved it not to be logically valid or sound.
http://www.debate.org...

Didn't you admit in the debate that the argument wasn't sound?

No, the creator aspect was in question and I didn't rebut it early enough.

It's completely logically sound and valid. It doesn't make it true, but anyone who uses logic to arrive at the truth, should accept it. At least that form of logic anyway.

The main reason the argument isn't convincing, to atheists such as myself. Is because it lacks empirical evidence, among other thing's.

The fact that it's not convincing doesn't change the fact that it is both logically sound and logically valid.

A sound argument is an argument in which all of the premises are true and the logic connecting the premise to the conclusion is valid. A sound argument is by definition, necessarily true.

All the premises seem true. I know the guy that created the modal version of the ontological argument, thought it was logically valid and sound and yet was an atheist. It's one of the reasons his argument wasn't published when he was alive. He didn't want people to get the wrong impression about him.

I'm going to dive deeper into it when I get a chance, but right now I can't see any flaws in the argument. I would love for somebody to show me one.

I know the reverse MOA keeps getting brought up, but it seems the reverse MOA as sound and as common sense like as it appears lacks being logically valid. If the reverse MOA were found to be valid and sound, than it would only prove that Modal Logic is flawed.

Also, I'd ignore Biomystic. He's just some jerk trying to start his own religion by clothing pantheism with Christian symbolism.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 11:45:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 11:09:28 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2014 10:37:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
A sound argument is an argument in which all of the premises are true and the logic connecting the premise to the conclusion is valid. A sound argument is by definition, necessarily true.

All the premises seem true.

Then the argument seems sound. I don't think "seems" was the claim you were making regarding its soundness.

I'm going to dive deeper into it when I get a chance, but right now I can't see any flaws in the argument. I would love for somebody to show me one.

The flaw is that the premises can't be demonstrated to be true. Without that you have an argument that is at best, internally consistent. No one cares about an internally consistent argument if it can't be proven true. Expect conspiracy theorists, they love coming up with them.
AnsweringAtheism
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2014 11:54:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

I would recommend reading the following:
1) http://www.aish.com...
2) http://www.simpletoremember.com...
3) http://www.simpletoremember.com...

Especially the last one.

"And I will establish My covenant between Me and you, and your descendants after you, throughout the generations. An eternal covenant to be your God, and the God of your descendants after you" (Genesis 17-7).

"God will then scatter you among the nations, and only a small number will remain among the nations where God shall lead you" (Deuteronomy 4:27).

Just how does a nation that has been few in number, exiled and deported for thousands of years, make its way back to its original homeland while connecting to its religion without the intervention of Hashem?
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 12:10:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

I doubt this is a serious request. If you really wanted to find out if there's a God, or satisfy your desire to believe in God, you wouldn't come to a forum like this and try to get people to persuade you. You'd go to the library or book store or Amazon and read the best material you could get your hands on.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 12:22:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 12:10:32 AM, philochristos wrote:
I doubt this is a serious request. If you really wanted to find out if there's a God, or satisfy your desire to believe in God, you wouldn't come to a forum like this and try to get people to persuade you. You'd go to the library or book store or Amazon and read the best material you could get your hands on.
And who is the best qualified group / individual to suggest what these ' best material ' are & why them?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 1:18:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 11:45:27 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/20/2014 11:09:28 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/20/2014 10:37:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
A sound argument is an argument in which all of the premises are true and the logic connecting the premise to the conclusion is valid. A sound argument is by definition, necessarily true.

All the premises seem true.

Then the argument seems sound. I don't think "seems" was the claim you were making regarding its soundness.

I'm going to dive deeper into it when I get a chance, but right now I can't see any flaws in the argument. I would love for somebody to show me one.

The flaw is that the premises can't be demonstrated to be true. Without that you have an argument that is at best, internally consistent. No one cares about an internally consistent argument if it can't be proven true. Expect conspiracy theorists, they love coming up with them.

I can agree with that. However, I don't think the rules of modal logic require the premises to be "demonstrated" as true. So, I think what you're saying is the "demonstration" part is what is flawed about modal logic.

In which case, I agree.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 7:51:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

The simplest answer is that there are so many things for which there is no other reasonable answer.

For instance, even if the, now suspect, Big Bang theory is true, where did the material come from that "exploded".

There simply has to be a first cause, and that first cause must have been intelligent for things to have ended up as they are, all so integrated and well designed.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 11:16:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 7:51:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

The simplest answer is that there are so many things for which there is no other reasonable answer.

For instance, even if the, now suspect, Big Bang theory is true, where did the material come from that "exploded".

Argument from Ignorance.

There simply has to be a first cause, and that first cause must have been intelligent for things to have ended up as they are, all so integrated and well designed.

Sharpshooter fallacy.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 11:46:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 11:16:55 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/21/2014 7:51:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

The simplest answer is that there are so many things for which there is no other reasonable answer.

For instance, even if the, now suspect, Big Bang theory is true, where did the material come from that "exploded".

Argument from Ignorance.

From ignorasncve? Yes of course, from the ingorance of mankind that cannot work out where it all came from even though the answer is obvious to those of us who aren't scared to admit it.


There simply has to be a first cause, and that first cause must have been intelligent for things to have ended up as they are, all so integrated and well designed.

Sharpshooter fallacy.

No fallacy. Everything except the God who created it has a beginning, including time itself.

If you think I am wrong then maybe you ought to try proving it, except of course you can't.

Still, you are welcome to try.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 12:04:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 11:46:05 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/21/2014 11:16:55 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/21/2014 7:51:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

The simplest answer is that there are so many things for which there is no other reasonable answer.

For instance, even if the, now suspect, Big Bang theory is true, where did the material come from that "exploded".

Argument from Ignorance.

From ignorasncve? Yes of course, from the ingorance of mankind that cannot work out where it all came from even though the answer is obvious to those of us who aren't scared to admit it.

When one makes a claim which can not be rationally justified, "it's just obvious" is always the response.

If mankind cannot work out where it all came from then we don't know. Saying "God did it" = "I do know". You can not use "I don't know" as your argument for "I do know". That's called an argument from ignorance.

There simply has to be a first cause, and that first cause must have been intelligent for things to have ended up as they are, all so integrated and well designed.

Sharpshooter fallacy.

No fallacy. Everything except the God who created it has a beginning, including time itself.

I could not have chosen a more perfect example of special pleading, which BTW, is a fallacy.

If you think I am wrong then maybe you ought to try proving it, except of course you can't.

I make no claim as to whether you are right or wrong. My claim is that your arguments are insufficient to support your claims, which I am proving by showing all of your arguments to be based on fallacies.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 1:24:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 12:04:18 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/21/2014 11:46:05 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/21/2014 11:16:55 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/21/2014 7:51:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

The simplest answer is that there are so many things for which there is no other reasonable answer.

For instance, even if the, now suspect, Big Bang theory is true, where did the material come from that "exploded".

Argument from Ignorance.

From ignorasncve? Yes of course, from the ingorance of mankind that cannot work out where it all came from even though the answer is obvious to those of us who aren't scared to admit it.

When one makes a claim which can not be rationally justified, "it's just obvious" is always the response.

Every claim I make can be more rationally justified than denied.

If it was't the most rational answer, in fact in the case of the existence of God the only rational answer, since to deny his existence is about as irrational as you can get.


If mankind cannot work out where it all came from then we don't know. Saying "God did it" = "I do know". You can not use "I don't know" as your argument for "I do know". That's called an argument from ignorance.

There simply has to be a first cause, and that first cause must have been intelligent for things to have ended up as they are, all so integrated and well designed.

Sharpshooter fallacy.

No fallacy. Everything except the God who created it has a beginning, including time itself.

I could not have chosen a more perfect example of special pleading, which BTW, is a fallacy.

I do not see how that is special pleading, it is pure logic.

All science can do is keep moving the goal posts back.


If you think I am wrong then maybe you ought to try proving it, except of course you can't.

I make no claim as to whether you are right or wrong. My claim is that your arguments are insufficient to support your claims, which I am proving by showing all of your arguments to be based on fallacies.

You don't even know what my arguments are, in detail anyway, so how can you make such a comment?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 2:33:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 1:24:50 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/21/2014 12:04:18 PM, Double_R wrote:
When one makes a claim which can not be rationally justified, "it's just obvious" is always the response.

Every claim I make can be more rationally justified than denied.

If it was't the most rational answer, in fact in the case of the existence of God the only rational answer, since to deny his existence is about as irrational as you can get.

Still waiting on that rational justification. So far all you have said is "I am right because to deny my position is wrong".

No fallacy. Everything except the God who created it has a beginning, including time itself.

I could not have chosen a more perfect example of special pleading, which BTW, is a fallacy.

I do not see how that is special pleading, it is pure logic.

Then you do not know what special pleading is. You asserted a rule which applies to every other answer except yours. That is as classical an example as you can get.

I make no claim as to whether you are right or wrong. My claim is that your arguments are insufficient to support your claims, which I am proving by showing all of your arguments to be based on fallacies.

You don't even know what my arguments are, in detail anyway, so how can you make such a comment?

I don't need to know the details. You have provided more than enough. If I am wrong then show me where.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 4:17:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 2:33:01 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/21/2014 1:24:50 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/21/2014 12:04:18 PM, Double_R wrote:
When one makes a claim which can not be rationally justified, "it's just obvious" is always the response.

Every claim I make can be more rationally justified than denied.

If it was't the most rational answer, in fact in the case of the existence of God the only rational answer, since to deny his existence is about as irrational as you can get.

Still waiting on that rational justification. So far all you have said is "I am right because to deny my position is wrong".

That is true, the problem being that there is so much which can only be rationally explained by a creator being the "first cause".

The absolute precision of the universe is just one. the universe is like an absolutely accurate timepiece, which is why NASA are able to understand years in advance exactly when the relative positions their "target" and their launch site. will be in the optimum positions for launch.

That is also why centuries before Christ the Babylonians were able to work out a formula which could be used for predicting eclipses and similar centuries in advance, and centuries later the Greeks were able to build a mechanical computer to do the same mechanically :

https://www.youtube.com...

http://www.antikythera-mechanism.gr...

or you could also take your pick from:

https://www.google.co.uk...

or even:

https://www.youtube.com...

I watched a very interesting TV program about that mechanism a few days ago. There is no more chance of that intricate mechanical device coming about by accident than there is of the universe having done so.


No fallacy. Everything except the God who created it has a beginning, including time itself.

I could not have chosen a more perfect example of special pleading, which BTW, is a fallacy.

I do not see how that is special pleading, it is pure logic.

Then you do not know what special pleading is. You asserted a rule which applies to every other answer except yours. That is as classical an example as you can get.

I don't see how that applies to every other answer and not mine. the same rules of logical and reason apply to all, it is just that mine, or rather the Bible's, is the only one that passes them all.

Which should not be surprising since the creator made all the natural laws.

It could also explain why a number of Scientists are becoming Jehovah's Witnesses, especially it seems from the natural sciences.

Science and the Bible really are not at all incompatible, as some would like you to think, and this explains it far better than I can.

Actually I think I'll just give you the link to the list and let you choose for yourself, there are plenty of options.

http://wol.jw.org...


I make no claim as to whether you are right or wrong. My claim is that your arguments are insufficient to support your claims, which I am proving by showing all of your arguments to be based on fallacies.

You don't even know what my arguments are, in detail anyway, so how can you make such a comment?

I don't need to know the details. You have provided more than enough. If I am wrong then show me where.

If u are going to claim my arguments are insufficient, then you do need to know the details of them, or you cannot judge except n ignorance.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 5:25:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

I don't have to convince any unbelievers that there is a God because our Creator chose these unbelievers like yourself to not believe the testimonies of His saints. You believe that the things of this world are real but God's saints know that everything in this universe are only illusions that are formed by invisible vibrations that are processed through each created "being". Invisible vibrations contain wavelengths, which are bits of information that our Creator spoke into existence. These wavelengths of energy is the real us and everything we see, smell, taste, touch and feel emotionally are only illusions that aren't real.

So if you believe in the things of this world, then you're deceived of who you really are in the mind of our Creator. This is why I don't have to believe in anything now. I know that everything is an illusion so I look at them as God's artwork. He's an awesome Creator, isn't He?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 6:11:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 5:25:31 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

I don't have to convince any unbelievers that there is a God because our Creator chose these unbelievers like yourself to not believe the testimonies of His saints. You believe that the things of this world are real but God's saints know that everything in this universe are only illusions that are formed by invisible vibrations that are processed through each created "being". Invisible vibrations contain wavelengths, which are bits of information that our Creator spoke into existence. These wavelengths of energy is the real us and everything we see, smell, taste, touch and feel emotionally are only illusions that aren't real.

So if you believe in the things of this world, then you're deceived of who you really are in the mind of our Creator. This is why I don't have to believe in anything now. I know that everything is an illusion so I look at them as God's artwork. He's an awesome Creator, isn't He?

What a pathetic viewpoint and such an insult to God also.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 6:46:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 6:11:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/21/2014 5:25:31 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

I don't have to convince any unbelievers that there is a God because our Creator chose these unbelievers like yourself to not believe the testimonies of His saints. You believe that the things of this world are real but God's saints know that everything in this universe are only illusions that are formed by invisible vibrations that are processed through each created "being". Invisible vibrations contain wavelengths, which are bits of information that our Creator spoke into existence. These wavelengths of energy is the real us and everything we see, smell, taste, touch and feel emotionally are only illusions that aren't real.

So if you believe in the things of this world, then you're deceived of who you really are in the mind of our Creator. This is why I don't have to believe in anything now. I know that everything is an illusion so I look at them as God's artwork. He's an awesome Creator, isn't He?

What a pathetic viewpoint and such an insult to God also.

Unbelievers like you have no authority to play god so stop judging God's work.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 7:07:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 6:46:20 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/21/2014 6:11:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/21/2014 5:25:31 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

I don't have to convince any unbelievers that there is a God because our Creator chose these unbelievers like yourself to not believe the testimonies of His saints. You believe that the things of this world are real but God's saints know that everything in this universe are only illusions that are formed by invisible vibrations that are processed through each created "being". Invisible vibrations contain wavelengths, which are bits of information that our Creator spoke into existence. These wavelengths of energy is the real us and everything we see, smell, taste, touch and feel emotionally are only illusions that aren't real.

So if you believe in the things of this world, then you're deceived of who you really are in the mind of our Creator. This is why I don't have to believe in anything now. I know that everything is an illusion so I look at them as God's artwork. He's an awesome Creator, isn't He?

What a pathetic viewpoint and such an insult to God also.

Unbelievers like you have no authority to play god so stop judging God's work.

I am neither playing God nor judging God's work, I am doing God's work as his servant. You are the one who is playing God, and not doing a very good job of it.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2014 10:46:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 7:07:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/21/2014 6:46:20 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/21/2014 6:11:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/21/2014 5:25:31 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

I don't have to convince any unbelievers that there is a God because our Creator chose these unbelievers like yourself to not believe the testimonies of His saints. You believe that the things of this world are real but God's saints know that everything in this universe are only illusions that are formed by invisible vibrations that are processed through each created "being". Invisible vibrations contain wavelengths, which are bits of information that our Creator spoke into existence. These wavelengths of energy is the real us and everything we see, smell, taste, touch and feel emotionally are only illusions that aren't real.

So if you believe in the things of this world, then you're deceived of who you really are in the mind of our Creator. This is why I don't have to believe in anything now. I know that everything is an illusion so I look at them as God's artwork. He's an awesome Creator, isn't He?

What a pathetic viewpoint and such an insult to God also.

Unbelievers like you have no authority to play god so stop judging God's work.

I am neither playing God nor judging God's work, I am doing God's work as his servant. You are the one who is playing God, and not doing a very good job of it.

You are NOT a servant of God. You don't become a servant by reading a book called a Bible. God's created servant is invisible and comes in the form of prophets and saints who testify to their created invisible existence as the voice of God, also known as the Word of God.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 2:55:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/21/2014 10:46:26 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/21/2014 7:07:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/21/2014 6:46:20 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/21/2014 6:11:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/21/2014 5:25:31 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

I don't have to convince any unbelievers that there is a God because our Creator chose these unbelievers like yourself to not believe the testimonies of His saints. You believe that the things of this world are real but God's saints know that everything in this universe are only illusions that are formed by invisible vibrations that are processed through each created "being". Invisible vibrations contain wavelengths, which are bits of information that our Creator spoke into existence. These wavelengths of energy is the real us and everything we see, smell, taste, touch and feel emotionally are only illusions that aren't real.

So if you believe in the things of this world, then you're deceived of who you really are in the mind of our Creator. This is why I don't have to believe in anything now. I know that everything is an illusion so I look at them as God's artwork. He's an awesome Creator, isn't He?

What a pathetic viewpoint and such an insult to God also.

Unbelievers like you have no authority to play god so stop judging God's work.

I am neither playing God nor judging God's work, I am doing God's work as his servant. You are the one who is playing God, and not doing a very good job of it.

You are NOT a servant of God. You don't become a servant by reading a book called a Bible. God's created servant is invisible and comes in the form of prophets and saints who testify to their created invisible existence as the voice of God, also known as the Word of God.

Maybe you don;t become a servant of God by reading the book, but it is his instruction manual about ho to get there.

However I know you don;t want to believe I am a servant of God, but that doesn't change the fact that I am, and a willing and happy one.

Why dot come off your cloud of delusion and face the reality of what serving God really means,
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 2:38:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 2:55:11 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/21/2014 10:46:26 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/21/2014 7:07:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/21/2014 6:46:20 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/21/2014 6:11:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/21/2014 5:25:31 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/20/2014 12:56:55 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
I want to believe, but I have difficulty doing so.

So, the floor is yours. Convince me that there is a God -- an easier task, might I add, than proving religion -- without using circular logic or committing a logical fallacy.

I don't have to convince any unbelievers that there is a God because our Creator chose these unbelievers like yourself to not believe the testimonies of His saints. You believe that the things of this world are real but God's saints know that everything in this universe are only illusions that are formed by invisible vibrations that are processed through each created "being". Invisible vibrations contain wavelengths, which are bits of information that our Creator spoke into existence. These wavelengths of energy is the real us and everything we see, smell, taste, touch and feel emotionally are only illusions that aren't real.

So if you believe in the things of this world, then you're deceived of who you really are in the mind of our Creator. This is why I don't have to believe in anything now. I know that everything is an illusion so I look at them as God's artwork. He's an awesome Creator, isn't He?

What a pathetic viewpoint and such an insult to God also.

Unbelievers like you have no authority to play god so stop judging God's work.

I am neither playing God nor judging God's work, I am doing God's work as his servant. You are the one who is playing God, and not doing a very good job of it.

You are NOT a servant of God. You don't become a servant by reading a book called a Bible. God's created servant is invisible and comes in the form of prophets and saints who testify to their created invisible existence as the voice of God, also known as the Word of God.

Maybe you don;t become a servant of God by reading the book, but it is his instruction manual about ho to get there.

However I know you don;t want to believe I am a servant of God, but that doesn't change the fact that I am, and a willing and happy one.

Why dot come off your cloud of delusion and face the reality of what serving God really means,

Do you think Christians serve our invisible Creator or their false deity called Jesus?