Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

What I don't get

debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 2:05:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The argument for God is an argument for ignorance. There's no evidence for an omnipotent deity, and also none for any particular one. Where do we see omnipotence, and how do we know something is indicative of omnipotence? The presence of a particular amount of energy, matter or space is only indicative by itself of a force strong enough to create that amount- and not by any means an infinite one. Omnipotence and omniscience both require scientific evidence.

Unicorns have the same amount of evidence (none) currently. Why do theists single out a particular thing that has no evidence for it? Why not believe in all things that don't have evidence for them?
You can call me Mark if you like.
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 2:08:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/14/2015 2:05:41 PM, debate_power wrote:
The argument for God is an argument for ignorance. There's no evidence for an omnipotent deity, and also none for any particular one. Where do we see omnipotence, and how do we know something is indicative of omnipotence? The presence of a particular amount of energy, matter or space is only indicative by itself of a force strong enough to create that amount- and not by any means an infinite one. Omnipotence and omniscience both require scientific evidence.

Unicorns have the same amount of evidence (none) currently. Why do theists single out a particular thing that has no evidence for it? Why not believe in all things that don't have evidence for them?

Some theists may argue that a unicorn isn't a logical explanation for the creation of the world.

I have had personal experiences that have proved to me that there is a god. Without those, I would probably be an atheist.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 2:22:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/14/2015 2:08:09 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/14/2015 2:05:41 PM, debate_power wrote:
The argument for God is an argument for ignorance. There's no evidence for an omnipotent deity, and also none for any particular one. Where do we see omnipotence, and how do we know something is indicative of omnipotence? The presence of a particular amount of energy, matter or space is only indicative by itself of a force strong enough to create that amount- and not by any means an infinite one. Omnipotence and omniscience both require scientific evidence.

Unicorns have the same amount of evidence (none) currently. Why do theists single out a particular thing that has no evidence for it? Why not believe in all things that don't have evidence for them?

Some theists may argue that a unicorn isn't a logical explanation for the creation of the world.

So? Do you have to believe that unicorns created the world to believe in unicorns?

I have had personal experiences that have proved to me that there is a god. Without those, I would probably be an atheist.

And how do you determine, with reason, that your experiences were a result of the existence of a god? Couldn't aliens (unsupported by existing evidence) be messing with your brain?
You can call me Mark if you like.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 2:28:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/14/2015 2:05:41 PM, debate_power wrote:
The argument for God is an argument for ignorance. There's no evidence for an omnipotent deity, and also none for any particular one. Where do we see omnipotence, and how do we know something is indicative of omnipotence? The presence of a particular amount of energy, matter or space is only indicative by itself of a force strong enough to create that amount- and not by any means an infinite one. Omnipotence and omniscience both require scientific evidence.

Unicorns have the same amount of evidence (none) currently. Why do theists single out a particular thing that has no evidence for it? Why not believe in all things that don't have evidence for them?

Christians rarely have a [valid] reason to believe in God. They just do. But don't expect any logical argument.

Also:

"Faith is defined as confidence or trust in a being, object, living organism, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. Faith may also refer to a hope or belief, rational or irrational, in a certain outcome. Faith is used to refer to a belief that is not based on proof or evidence.[1]"
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 2:42:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/14/2015 2:22:11 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 2/14/2015 2:08:09 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/14/2015 2:05:41 PM, debate_power wrote:
The argument for God is an argument for ignorance. There's no evidence for an omnipotent deity, and also none for any particular one. Where do we see omnipotence, and how do we know something is indicative of omnipotence? The presence of a particular amount of energy, matter or space is only indicative by itself of a force strong enough to create that amount- and not by any means an infinite one. Omnipotence and omniscience both require scientific evidence.

Unicorns have the same amount of evidence (none) currently. Why do theists single out a particular thing that has no evidence for it? Why not believe in all things that don't have evidence for them?

Some theists may argue that a unicorn isn't a logical explanation for the creation of the world.

So? Do you have to believe that unicorns created the world to believe in unicorns?

I'd say it is more plausible to believe that a deity or supernatural essence created the universe than a unicorn. There is nothing in the definition of unicorns that confers existence upon them. Anselm defines God as "that than which no greater can be thought" and states that if that God by that definition can exist in the mind, then it must also exist in reality. Unicorns do not fit the criteria for this.

I have had personal experiences that have proved to me that there is a god. Without those, I would probably be an atheist.

And how do you determine, with reason, that your experiences were a result of the existence of a god? Couldn't aliens (unsupported by existing evidence) be messing with your brain?

Because I have said hundreds of prayers over the course of my life and have had them all answered. So if God doesn't exist, then there have certainly been a lot of coincidences occurring in my life.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 3:51:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/14/2015 2:05:41 PM, debate_power wrote:
The argument for God is an argument for ignorance. There's no evidence for an omnipotent deity, and also none for any particular one. Where do we see omnipotence, and how do we know something is indicative of omnipotence? The presence of a particular amount of energy, matter or space is only indicative by itself of a force strong enough to create that amount- and not by any means an infinite one. Omnipotence and omniscience both require scientific evidence.

The argument from science that there is no physical evidence for God is an argument from ignorance, because the spirit is not dependent on physical evidence.

Unicorns have the same amount of evidence (none) currently. Why do theists single out a particular thing that has no evidence for it? Why not believe in all things that don't have evidence for them?

If you want to believe in unicorns that is your choice, it has no relevance here.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,846
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 4:05:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/14/2015 2:05:41 PM, debate_power wrote:
The argument for God is an argument for ignorance. There's no evidence for an omnipotent deity, and also none for any particular one. Where do we see omnipotence, and how do we know something is indicative of omnipotence? The presence of a particular amount of energy, matter or space is only indicative by itself of a force strong enough to create that amount- and not by any means an infinite one. Omnipotence and omniscience both require scientific evidence.

Unicorns have the same amount of evidence (none) currently. Why do theists single out a particular thing that has no evidence for it? Why not believe in all things that don't have evidence for them?

There's also no conclusive evidence that a god doesn't exist. Affirming the existence of god is impossible right now, and claiming that your view is completely correct is not provable, no matter how arrogant you are.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 4:41:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/14/2015 4:05:25 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 2/14/2015 2:05:41 PM, debate_power wrote:
The argument for God is an argument for ignorance. There's no evidence for an omnipotent deity, and also none for any particular one. Where do we see omnipotence, and how do we know something is indicative of omnipotence? The presence of a particular amount of energy, matter or space is only indicative by itself of a force strong enough to create that amount- and not by any means an infinite one. Omnipotence and omniscience both require scientific evidence.

Unicorns have the same amount of evidence (none) currently. Why do theists single out a particular thing that has no evidence for it? Why not believe in all things that don't have evidence for them?

There's also no conclusive evidence that a god doesn't exist. Affirming the existence of god is impossible right now, and claiming that your view is completely correct is not provable, no matter how arrogant you are.

Did I miss the part where he asserted that there is no God?