Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God and small pox

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 12:09:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 12:15:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 12:09:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.
Comeback and prove small pox is considered a bad thing by 100% of the people in the world. Then you have an actual basis for an argument. Btw, I think small pox is a good thing therefore your argument has no basis. See, I saved you the trouble of getting a universally agreed upon idea of what constitutes good or bad. I helped out....yw
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 12:17:29 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 12:15:23 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/16/2015 12:09:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.
Comeback and prove small pox is considered a bad thing by 100% of the people in the world. Then you have an actual basis for an argument. Btw, I think small pox is a good thing therefore your argument has no basis. See, I saved you the trouble of getting a universally agreed upon idea of what constitutes good or bad. I helped out....yw

LOL okey I will ask, why do you think small pox is a good thing ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 12:30:05 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 12:17:29 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/16/2015 12:15:23 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/16/2015 12:09:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.
Comeback and prove small pox is considered a bad thing by 100% of the people in the world. Then you have an actual basis for an argument. Btw, I think small pox is a good thing therefore your argument has no basis. See, I saved you the trouble of getting a universally agreed upon idea of what constitutes good or bad. I helped out....yw

LOL okey I will ask, why do you think small pox is a good thing ?
Irrelevant. Proving what is good to me is just as irrelevant as proving what is bad to you. That's the whole point. You cannot argue from a standpoint of good or bad without there being a universally agreed upon idea of the 2. Since you now have proof that small pox isn't universally agreed upon as being a bad thing, your argument that it negates the possibility that God is good or great is invalid. Until you possess absolute knowledge as to what constitutes good to God or bad to God or good to people or bad to people, any argument presented from a basis that your personal opinion of what is good or bad is fallacious reasoning when you apply it to God.
You simply can't say if it's bad to some it's bad to God. It goes to the problem of proving what another person truly thinks as opposed to what they say they think, much less what God thinks, which is what your argument attempts or assumes to establish.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 12:53:21 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 12:30:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/16/2015 12:17:29 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/16/2015 12:15:23 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/16/2015 12:09:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.
Comeback and prove small pox is considered a bad thing by 100% of the people in the world. Then you have an actual basis for an argument. Btw, I think small pox is a good thing therefore your argument has no basis. See, I saved you the trouble of getting a universally agreed upon idea of what constitutes good or bad. I helped out....yw

LOL okey I will ask, why do you think small pox is a good thing ?
Irrelevant. Proving what is good to me is just as irrelevant as proving what is bad to you. That's the whole point. You cannot argue from a standpoint of good or bad without there being a universally agreed upon idea of the 2. Since you now have proof that small pox isn't universally agreed upon as being a bad thing, your argument that it negates the possibility that God is good or great is invalid. Until you possess absolute knowledge as to what constitutes good to God or bad to God or good to people or bad to people, any argument presented from a basis that your personal opinion of what is good or bad is fallacious reasoning when you apply it to God.
You simply can't say if it's bad to some it's bad to God. It goes to the problem of proving what another person truly thinks as opposed to what they say they think, much less what God thinks, which is what your argument attempts or assumes to establish.

Its a double standard.

Your not going to try this crap when you hear a child is raped.....................I bet you have very strong views on what constitutes a good or bad there, and the fact that not all people would agree that rape is bad wouldn't mean f*ck.

Yet when it comes to the all knowing powerful God..................

If you have to resort to some sort of double standard to justify God what does that tell you about your God belief ? What does that say about you ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 4:22:41 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 12:09:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.

So what you are saying is what is good for the small pox viruses (or what ever it is), a living thing I suspect, is bad for you so that must mean, there is no God? Or maybe it means God favors the prosperity of the viruses (something He made) over something else that you judge more favorable or valuable (also something He made).
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 4:48:56 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 4:22:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 12/16/2015 12:09:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.

So what you are saying is what is good for the small pox viruses (or what ever it is), a living thing I suspect, is bad for you so that must mean, there is no God? Or maybe it means God favors the prosperity of the viruses (something He made) over something else that you judge more favorable or valuable (also something He made).
The really good thing is that your god saved the small pox virus and yersinia pestis on his famous ark.
Of course if he did then he must have used his MAGIC to make all the humans survive.
Why couldn't he use his magic to make every living thing survive?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 5:25:49 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 12:53:21 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/16/2015 12:30:05 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/16/2015 12:17:29 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/16/2015 12:15:23 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/16/2015 12:09:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.
Comeback and prove small pox is considered a bad thing by 100% of the people in the world. Then you have an actual basis for an argument. Btw, I think small pox is a good thing therefore your argument has no basis. See, I saved you the trouble of getting a universally agreed upon idea of what constitutes good or bad. I helped out....yw

LOL okey I will ask, why do you think small pox is a good thing ?
Irrelevant. Proving what is good to me is just as irrelevant as proving what is bad to you. That's the whole point. You cannot argue from a standpoint of good or bad without there being a universally agreed upon idea of the 2. Since you now have proof that small pox isn't universally agreed upon as being a bad thing, your argument that it negates the possibility that God is good or great is invalid. Until you possess absolute knowledge as to what constitutes good to God or bad to God or good to people or bad to people, any argument presented from a basis that your personal opinion of what is good or bad is fallacious reasoning when you apply it to God.
You simply can't say if it's bad to some it's bad to God. It goes to the problem of proving what another person truly thinks as opposed to what they say they think, much less what God thinks, which is what your argument attempts or assumes to establish.

Its a double standard.
Lol, more subjective pandering an appeal to the emotionally charged ideas of humans.
Your not going to try this crap when you hear a child is raped.....................I bet you have very strong views on what constitutes a good or bad there, and the fact that not all people would agree that rape is bad wouldn't mean f*ck.
Lol, rape is what it is neither bad nor good, just a part of life.
Yet when it comes to the all knowing powerful God..................

If you have to resort to some sort of double standard to justify God what does that tell you about your God belief ? What does that say about you ?
No double standard? You have no basis for what is good or bad, period.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 5:30:39 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 12:09:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.

If such a god exists, then this god simply doesn't concern itself with mortal well-being and suffering. Such a being that resides outside of our perception would have motives that are beyond our deduction, as well. Therefore, we can only falsify propositions. For example:

P1) (Ax)(Px<>Pxg)
God has the ability and knowledge to change anything about the world to suit His purpose. Essentially, something has purpose if, and only if, God has a purpose for it.

P2) (Ax)(Kx>~Px)
If an individual's mortal life is terminated before having any impact on the world, then this mortal life serves no purpose.

P3) (Ax)(Pxg)
God finds purpose in all mortal lives.

P4) (Ex)(Kx)
There exist some prenatal lives or newborns that were killed (i.e. in massive natural disaster), in which all effects of their mortal life are absolutely lost. For example, if a preborn life is lost in an earthquake even before the life is known to exist. I don't believe that this is a deniable occurrence.

P5) Ka [P4, Existential Instantiation]
P6) Ka>~Pa [P2, Universal Instantiation]
P7) ~Pa [P5, P6, Modus Ponens]
P8) Pag [P3, Universal Instantiation]
P9) Pag<>Pa [P1, Universal Instantiation]
P10) (Pa>Pag)&(Pag>Pa) [P9, Material Equivalence]
P11) Pag>Pa [P10, Simplification]
P12) ~Pag [P7, P11, Modus Tollens]
P13) Pag&~Pag [P8, P12, Conjunction] -->contradiction<--

As a result of this contradiction, one of the original four premises must be false. I believe that P3 is the weakest, since P1 is true by definition, and P2 and P4 are essentially observations. I did this quickly, though, so feel free to present contentions or point out errors.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 5:34:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 4:48:56 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/16/2015 4:22:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 12/16/2015 12:09:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.

So what you are saying is what is good for the small pox viruses (or what ever it is), a living thing I suspect, is bad for you so that must mean, there is no God? Or maybe it means God favors the prosperity of the viruses (something He made) over something else that you judge more favorable or valuable (also something He made).
The really good thing is that your god saved the small pox virus and yersinia pestis on his famous ark.
Of course if he did then he must have used his MAGIC to make all the humans survive.
Why couldn't he use his magic to make every living thing survive?
And you think everything surviving is good why? Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 5:37:28 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 5:34:06 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/16/2015 4:48:56 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/16/2015 4:22:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 12/16/2015 12:09:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.

So what you are saying is what is good for the small pox viruses (or what ever it is), a living thing I suspect, is bad for you so that must mean, there is no God? Or maybe it means God favors the prosperity of the viruses (something He made) over something else that you judge more favorable or valuable (also something He made).
The really good thing is that your god saved the small pox virus and yersinia pestis on his famous ark.
Of course if he did then he must have used his MAGIC to make all the humans survive.
Why couldn't he use his magic to make every living thing survive?
And you think everything surviving is good why? Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao.

By this same argument, you can't possibly identify that having your assets taken, body broken and left for dead and loved ones killed in the wake of the theft is "evil" or "bad for you" by extension, as you have set the standard that without omniscience, one cannot know anything.

A disagreement with the above premise indicates a "double" standard, a fallacious position.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 5:49:35 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 12:09:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.

You mad bro? (At God who "doesn't exist?)
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 5:52:38 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 12:09:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.

Ever heard of Jesus. He healed people of their eflictions, some much worse than small pox. Jesus himself suffered with us. This is why one can suffer and continue on in faith. Because Christ suffered as one of us, and promised to heal all ;f our eflictions in the due time.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 5:55:41 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 4:48:56 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/16/2015 4:22:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 12/16/2015 12:09:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.

So what you are saying is what is good for the small pox viruses (or what ever it is), a living thing I suspect, is bad for you so that must mean, there is no God? Or maybe it means God favors the prosperity of the viruses (something He made) over something else that you judge more favorable or valuable (also something He made).
The really good thing is that your god saved the small pox virus and yersinia pestis on his famous ark.

He did? Where did you get that revelation from? I didn"t see it in the text about Noah and the ark that God told Noah to build.

Of course if he did then he must have used his MAGIC to make all the humans survive.
Why couldn't he use his magic to make every living thing survive?

So, nope, He gave Noah instructions that Noah believed and trusted and then Noah carried it out. Hence Noah and his survived with the creatures that came to the ark, which would have been God"s choice to survive. You might need magic, but isn"t that real just misdirection to deceive?

There"s no misdirection to deceive since Noah and his did survived by following the Word of God, which is sufficient for life and living and giving life and living? If God wanted everything to survive then there wouldn"t have been a flood. But you"d have to read it to be aware of that though.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2015 11:11:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 5:37:28 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/16/2015 5:34:06 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/16/2015 4:48:56 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/16/2015 4:22:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 12/16/2015 12:09:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.

So what you are saying is what is good for the small pox viruses (or what ever it is), a living thing I suspect, is bad for you so that must mean, there is no God? Or maybe it means God favors the prosperity of the viruses (something He made) over something else that you judge more favorable or valuable (also something He made).
The really good thing is that your god saved the small pox virus and yersinia pestis on his famous ark.
Of course if he did then he must have used his MAGIC to make all the humans survive.
Why couldn't he use his magic to make every living thing survive?
And you think everything surviving is good why? Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao.

By this same argument, you can't possibly identify that having your assets taken, body broken and left for dead and loved ones killed in the wake of the theft is "evil" or "bad for you" by extension, as you have set the standard that without omniscience, one cannot know anything.
What is it that people don't seem to get. You cannot prove what is good or bad, period. Simple, no fallacious reasoning on my part, but I wouldn't expect you to identify logic if it fell in front of you. And no, nobody said without omniscience you CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING. , but you cannot prove what is good or bad. Do you always imagine people saying things they don't just to act as is you have something to argue against?
A disagreement with the above premise indicates a "double" standard, a fallacious position.
Lmao.....you can't have a double standard if there isn't a standard in the first place, as I have constantly held the position of. There is no universally agreed upon standard as to what is good or bad, therefore I or humanity do not have this so called double standard that you seem to claim "I must have if I disagree with your bullsh@t."
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 12:07:24 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.

So what you are saying is what is good for the small pox viruses (or what ever it is), a living thing I suspect, is bad for you so that must mean, there is no God? Or maybe it means God favors the prosperity of the viruses (something He made) over something else that you judge more favorable or valuable (also something He made).
The really good thing is that your god saved the small pox virus and yersinia pestis on his famous ark.
Of course if he did then he must have used his MAGIC to make all the humans survive.
Why couldn't he use his magic to make every living thing survive?
And you think everything surviving is good why? Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao.

By this same argument, you can't possibly identify that having your assets taken, body broken and left for dead and loved ones killed in the wake of the theft is "evil" or "bad for you" by extension, as you have set the standard that without omniscience, one cannot know anything.

What is it that people don't seem to get. You cannot prove what is good or bad, period.

We can prove what happens, we can prove virtually no one likes it. What we have a problem with is punishing such behavior to be fair. Its identification, I think, isn't an issue.

Simple, no fallacious reasoning on my part, but I wouldn't expect you to identify logic if it fell in front of you.

So then how do you identify when something "bad" happens to you? Lets start there.

And no, nobody said without omniscience you CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING.

" Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao"

I guess this was just a random stream of consciousness for and with no point.

, but you cannot prove what is good or bad. Do you always imagine people saying things they don't just to act as is you have something to argue against?

Well, words mean things, Skips.

A disagreement with the above premise indicates a "double" standard, a fallacious position.

Lmao.....you can't have a double standard if there isn't a standard in the first place,

Given we currently have a justice system...

as I have constantly held the position of. There is no universally agreed upon standard as to what is good or bad, therefore I or humanity do not have this so called double standard that you seem to claim "I must have if I disagree with your bullsh@t."

Again, clearly, you have the capacity to realize when something "bad" befalls you, right Skip?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 12:19:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 12:09:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.

Only sick Biblical literalists (which most Christians aren't) would regard the deeds of the deity, recorded in the not so good book, as laudable! Thank goodness that evil entity is unlikely to exist!
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 12:28:50 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Yersinia Pestis cannot survive outside the human body, Y. Pestis was created by your god since he created everything and did so before this mythical boat the ark was even thought of. In order for Y.Pestis to still exist today it had to have been on the ark, in a human on the ark. In the year or so that those eight people were on that boat Y. Pestis would have infected and killed 70%+ leaving three people alive at best. Did your god use magic to keep these eight mythical characters alive, or don't you understand anything at all about reality.
Say hello to mother goose for me.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 8:29:32 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 12:07:24 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.

So what you are saying is what is good for the small pox viruses (or what ever it is), a living thing I suspect, is bad for you so that must mean, there is no God? Or maybe it means God favors the prosperity of the viruses (something He made) over something else that you judge more favorable or valuable (also something He made).
The really good thing is that your god saved the small pox virus and yersinia pestis on his famous ark.
Of course if he did then he must have used his MAGIC to make all the humans survive.
Why couldn't he use his magic to make every living thing survive?
And you think everything surviving is good why? Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao.

By this same argument, you can't possibly identify that having your assets taken, body broken and left for dead and loved ones killed in the wake of the theft is "evil" or "bad for you" by extension, as you have set the standard that without omniscience, one cannot know anything.


What is it that people don't seem to get. You cannot prove what is good or bad, period.

We can prove what happens, we can prove virtually no one likes it. What we have a problem with is punishing such behavior to be fair. Its identification, I think, isn't an issue.


Simple, no fallacious reasoning on my part, but I wouldn't expect you to identify logic if it fell in front of you.

So then how do you identify when something "bad" happens to you? Lets start there.


And no, nobody said without omniscience you CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING.

" Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao"

I guess this was just a random stream of consciousness for and with no point.

, but you cannot prove what is good or bad. Do you always imagine people saying things they don't just to act as is you have something to argue against?

Well, words mean things, Skips.

A disagreement with the above premise indicates a "double" standard, a fallacious position.

Lmao.....you can't have a double standard if there isn't a standard in the first place,

Given we currently have a justice system...

as I have constantly held the position of. There is no universally agreed upon standard as to what is good or bad, therefore I or humanity do not have this so called double standard that you seem to claim "I must have if I disagree with your bullsh@t."

Again, clearly, you have the capacity to realize when something "bad" befalls you, right Skip?
Wow, there just isn't a logical cell in your brain. Once again, what my OPIONION of good or bad may or may not be is completely useless when arguing what the context of this existence argument is. You people need your subjective b.s. to be validated because you have no sense of how to argue a point. You simply assert your opinion, hope for emotionally charged issues to disengage rationality from the discourse, then argue the personal taste of "ice cream". I will say it again since you're "white knuckling", meaning grasping with desperation, a useless argument without merit whatsoever. You CANNOT prove what is good or bad, period.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2015 10:09:28 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 8:29:32 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/17/2015 12:07:24 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.

So what you are saying is what is good for the small pox viruses (or what ever it is), a living thing I suspect, is bad for you so that must mean, there is no God? Or maybe it means God favors the prosperity of the viruses (something He made) over something else that you judge more favorable or valuable (also something He made).
The really good thing is that your god saved the small pox virus and yersinia pestis on his famous ark.
Of course if he did then he must have used his MAGIC to make all the humans survive.
Why couldn't he use his magic to make every living thing survive?
And you think everything surviving is good why? Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao.

By this same argument, you can't possibly identify that having your assets taken, body broken and left for dead and loved ones killed in the wake of the theft is "evil" or "bad for you" by extension, as you have set the standard that without omniscience, one cannot know anything.


What is it that people don't seem to get. You cannot prove what is good or bad, period.

We can prove what happens, we can prove virtually no one likes it. What we have a problem with is punishing such behavior to be fair. Its identification, I think, isn't an issue.


Simple, no fallacious reasoning on my part, but I wouldn't expect you to identify logic if it fell in front of you.

So then how do you identify when something "bad" happens to you? Lets start there.


And no, nobody said without omniscience you CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING.

" Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao"

I guess this was just a random stream of consciousness for and with no point.

, but you cannot prove what is good or bad. Do you always imagine people saying things they don't just to act as is you have something to argue against?

Well, words mean things, Skips.

A disagreement with the above premise indicates a "double" standard, a fallacious position.

Lmao.....you can't have a double standard if there isn't a standard in the first place,

Given we currently have a justice system...

as I have constantly held the position of. There is no universally agreed upon standard as to what is good or bad, therefore I or humanity do not have this so called double standard that you seem to claim "I must have if I disagree with your bullsh@t."

Again, clearly, you have the capacity to realize when something "bad" befalls you, right Skip?
Wow, there just isn't a logical cell in your brain. Once again, what my OPIONION of good or bad may or may not be is completely useless when arguing what the context of this existence argument is. You people need your subjective b.s. to be validated because you have no sense of how to argue a point. You simply assert your opinion, hope for emotionally charged issues to disengage rationality from the discourse, then argue the personal taste of "ice cream". I will say it again since you're "white knuckling", meaning grasping with desperation, a useless argument without merit whatsoever. You CANNOT prove what is good or bad, period.

Skip, all you had to say was "No I don't know how to identify misfortune in my life." That would have exonerated you with no prejudice from your side of the conversation.

In the mean time, humans being sympathetic creatures can conceivably understand the pain of another, and seek to engage in society which discourages behavior as made example of. One not need to know "good" or "bad" to know they don't want to befall the same circumstance. See where this is going now?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 3:15:56 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 10:09:28 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/17/2015 8:29:32 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/17/2015 12:07:24 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.

So what you are saying is what is good for the small pox viruses (or what ever it is), a living thing I suspect, is bad for you so that must mean, there is no God? Or maybe it means God favors the prosperity of the viruses (something He made) over something else that you judge more favorable or valuable (also something He made).
The really good thing is that your god saved the small pox virus and yersinia pestis on his famous ark.
Of course if he did then he must have used his MAGIC to make all the humans survive.
Why couldn't he use his magic to make every living thing survive?
And you think everything surviving is good why? Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao.

By this same argument, you can't possibly identify that having your assets taken, body broken and left for dead and loved ones killed in the wake of the theft is "evil" or "bad for you" by extension, as you have set the standard that without omniscience, one cannot know anything.


What is it that people don't seem to get. You cannot prove what is good or bad, period.

We can prove what happens, we can prove virtually no one likes it. What we have a problem with is punishing such behavior to be fair. Its identification, I think, isn't an issue.


Simple, no fallacious reasoning on my part, but I wouldn't expect you to identify logic if it fell in front of you.

So then how do you identify when something "bad" happens to you? Lets start there.


And no, nobody said without omniscience you CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING.

" Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao"

I guess this was just a random stream of consciousness for and with no point.

, but you cannot prove what is good or bad. Do you always imagine people saying things they don't just to act as is you have something to argue against?

Well, words mean things, Skips.

A disagreement with the above premise indicates a "double" standard, a fallacious position.

Lmao.....you can't have a double standard if there isn't a standard in the first place,

Given we currently have a justice system...

as I have constantly held the position of. There is no universally agreed upon standard as to what is good or bad, therefore I or humanity do not have this so called double standard that you seem to claim "I must have if I disagree with your bullsh@t."

Again, clearly, you have the capacity to realize when something "bad" befalls you, right Skip?
Wow, there just isn't a logical cell in your brain. Once again, what my OPIONION of good or bad may or may not be is completely useless when arguing what the context of this existence argument is. You people need your subjective b.s. to be validated because you have no sense of how to argue a point. You simply assert your opinion, hope for emotionally charged issues to disengage rationality from the discourse, then argue the personal taste of "ice cream". I will say it again since you're "white knuckling", meaning grasping with desperation, a useless argument without merit whatsoever. You CANNOT prove what is good or bad, period.

Skip, all you had to say was "No I don't know how to identify misfortune in my life." That would have exonerated you with no prejudice from your side of the conversation.

In the mean time, humans being sympathetic creatures can conceivably understand the pain of another, and seek to engage in society which discourages behavior as made example of. One not need to know "good" or "bad" to know they don't want to befall the same circumstance. See where this is going now?
Philosophy and logic is not sentiment, though your undying need to justify your idea of what is good for the rest of the 7 billion people on this planet is admirable although extremely arrogant. "Engage in society" is basically a cowardly way of appealing to popular belief, fallacious reasoning at its basic and most easily understood definition.
When you have something to offer that doesn't address "touchie feely" taste in ice cream get back to me. I know how you people who can't fathom the fact you have no logical argument against how God is defined can be extremely stubborn when it comes to what you have faith in. I.e. The words "perfect" and "loving" and " good" are the only hope you have of attempting to dismiss a God via a supposed contradiction. Sorry, but opinions by nature are subject to contradictions, they achieve nothing when arguing a God. I doubt you'll ever accept this as it is opinion that is your only weapon, not logic or a cohesive argument.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 3:17:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 12:09:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.

Couldn't you come up with any more tangents to go through?
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 12:07:32 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
So what you are saying is what is good for the small pox viruses (or what ever it is), a living thing I suspect, is bad for you so that must mean, there is no God? Or maybe it means God favors the prosperity of the viruses (something He made) over something else that you judge more favorable or valuable (also something He made).
The really good thing is that your god saved the small pox virus and yersinia pestis on his famous ark.
Of course if he did then he must have used his MAGIC to make all the humans survive.
Why couldn't he use his magic to make every living thing survive?
And you think everything surviving is good why? Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao.

By this same argument, you can't possibly identify that having your assets taken, body broken and left for dead and loved ones killed in the wake of the theft is "evil" or "bad for you" by extension, as you have set the standard that without omniscience, one cannot know anything.


What is it that people don't seem to get. You cannot prove what is good or bad, period.

We can prove what happens, we can prove virtually no one likes it. What we have a problem with is punishing such behavior to be fair. Its identification, I think, isn't an issue.


Simple, no fallacious reasoning on my part, but I wouldn't expect you to identify logic if it fell in front of you.

So then how do you identify when something "bad" happens to you? Lets start there.


And no, nobody said without omniscience you CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING.

" Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao"

I guess this was just a random stream of consciousness for and with no point.

, but you cannot prove what is good or bad. Do you always imagine people saying things they don't just to act as is you have something to argue against?

Well, words mean things, Skips.

A disagreement with the above premise indicates a "double" standard, a fallacious position.

Lmao.....you can't have a double standard if there isn't a standard in the first place,

Given we currently have a justice system...

as I have constantly held the position of. There is no universally agreed upon standard as to what is good or bad, therefore I or humanity do not have this so called double standard that you seem to claim "I must have if I disagree with your bullsh@t."

Again, clearly, you have the capacity to realize when something "bad" befalls you, right Skip?
Wow, there just isn't a logical cell in your brain. Once again, what my OPIONION of good or bad may or may not be is completely useless when arguing what the context of this existence argument is. You people need your subjective b.s. to be validated because you have no sense of how to argue a point. You simply assert your opinion, hope for emotionally charged issues to disengage rationality from the discourse, then argue the personal taste of "ice cream". I will say it again since you're "white knuckling", meaning grasping with desperation, a useless argument without merit whatsoever. You CANNOT prove what is good or bad, period.

Skip, all you had to say was "No I don't know how to identify misfortune in my life." That would have exonerated you with no prejudice from your side of the conversation.

In the mean time, humans being sympathetic creatures can conceivably understand the pain of another, and seek to engage in society which discourages behavior as made example of. One not need to know "good" or "bad" to know they don't want to befall the same circumstance. See where this is going now?
Philosophy and logic is not sentiment, though your undying need to justify your idea of what is good for the rest of the 7 billion people on this planet is admirable although extremely arrogant. "Engage in society" is basically a cowardly way of appealing to popular belief, fallacious reasoning at its basic and most easily understood definition.

And yet, here we are, with various functioning societies on the planet that have adopted that concept of empathy/bodily autonomy. As I mentioned previously, the only problem is "punishment", which is admittedly where humanity as a whole has issue.

When you have something to offer that doesn't address "touchie feely" taste in ice cream get back to me. I know how you people who can't fathom the fact you have no logical argument against how God is defined

Considering general consensus on how God is defined is subject to the nature of the theist, I am surprised you considered this avenue as a rebuttal.

can be extremely stubborn when it comes to what you have faith in. I.e. The words "perfect" and "loving" and " good" are the only hope you have of attempting to dismiss a God via a supposed contradiction. Sorry, but opinions by nature are subject to contradictions, they achieve nothing when arguing a God. I doubt you'll ever accept this as it is opinion that is your only weapon, not logic or a cohesive argument.

"God" by nature, much like any other thing that exists shouldn't have to be "defined" into existence, and yet that is what seems to be happening. Even in the case of "touchy feely emotion" some variety of consensus can be taken even if not objectively measured, but with millions of denominations of religion in history, God seems to vary widely from continent to continent to theist to theist. Sure, argument from opinion is something that can't be "proven", but at least people can understand a punch in the face is undesirable vs a stroke on the cheek.

God, on the other hand, is subject to being defined and seen as whatever emotion the subject of inquiry happens to be feeling at the time. VERY consistent...
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 3:50:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 10:09:28 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/17/2015 8:29:32 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/17/2015 12:07:24 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.

So what you are saying is what is good for the small pox viruses (or what ever it is), a living thing I suspect, is bad for you so that must mean, there is no God? Or maybe it means God favors the prosperity of the viruses (something He made) over something else that you judge more favorable or valuable (also something He made).
The really good thing is that your god saved the small pox virus and yersinia pestis on his famous ark.
Of course if he did then he must have used his MAGIC to make all the humans survive.
Why couldn't he use his magic to make every living thing survive?
And you think everything surviving is good why? Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao.

By this same argument, you can't possibly identify that having your assets taken, body broken and left for dead and loved ones killed in the wake of the theft is "evil" or "bad for you" by extension, as you have set the standard that without omniscience, one cannot know anything.


What is it that people don't seem to get. You cannot prove what is good or bad, period.

We can prove what happens, we can prove virtually no one likes it. What we have a problem with is punishing such behavior to be fair. Its identification, I think, isn't an issue.


Simple, no fallacious reasoning on my part, but I wouldn't expect you to identify logic if it fell in front of you.

So then how do you identify when something "bad" happens to you? Lets start there.


And no, nobody said without omniscience you CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING.

" Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao"

I guess this was just a random stream of consciousness for and with no point.

, but you cannot prove what is good or bad. Do you always imagine people saying things they don't just to act as is you have something to argue against?

Well, words mean things, Skips.

A disagreement with the above premise indicates a "double" standard, a fallacious position.

Lmao.....you can't have a double standard if there isn't a standard in the first place,

Given we currently have a justice system...

as I have constantly held the position of. There is no universally agreed upon standard as to what is good or bad, therefore I or humanity do not have this so called double standard that you seem to claim "I must have if I disagree with your bullsh@t."

Again, clearly, you have the capacity to realize when something "bad" befalls you, right Skip?
Wow, there just isn't a logical cell in your brain. Once again, what my OPIONION of good or bad may or may not be is completely useless when arguing what the context of this existence argument is. You people need your subjective b.s. to be validated because you have no sense of how to argue a point. You simply assert your opinion, hope for emotionally charged issues to disengage rationality from the discourse, then argue the personal taste of "ice cream". I will say it again since you're "white knuckling", meaning grasping with desperation, a useless argument without merit whatsoever. You CANNOT prove what is good or bad, period.

Skip, all you had to say was "No I don't know how to identify misfortune in my life." That would have exonerated you with no prejudice from your side of the conversation.
Wow, this is why I don't like debating religious fanatics who try and force their beliefs onto other people like you're doing. Care to layout to me all of the things YOU think I should believe constitute misfortune? You're not getting this at all are you? You haven't a clue what is or isn't misfortune in my opinion. You're just a stereotypical hypocrite. I bet you think people try and force their beliefs on you. Admit it, you say it all the time.
In the mean time, humans being sympathetic creatures can conceivably understand the pain of another, and seek to engage in society which discourages behavior as made example of. One not need to know "good" or "bad" to know they don't want to befall the same circumstance. See where this is going now?
Nothing but constant argumentum ad nauseam......assert what is to you and claim its what is......and what everyone , which you have no proof of, think what is to them.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 4:05:15 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 12:07:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
So what you are saying is what is good for the small pox viruses (or what ever it is), a living thing I suspect, is bad for you so that must mean, there is no God? Or maybe it means God favors the prosperity of the viruses (something He made) over something else that you judge more favorable or valuable (also something He made).
The really good thing is that your god saved the small pox virus and yersinia pestis on his famous ark.
Of course if he did then he must have used his MAGIC to make all the humans survive.
Why couldn't he use his magic to make every living thing survive?
And you think everything surviving is good why? Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao.

By this same argument, you can't possibly identify that having your assets taken, body broken and left for dead and loved ones killed in the wake of the theft is "evil" or "bad for you" by extension, as you have set the standard that without omniscience, one cannot know anything.


What is it that people don't seem to get. You cannot prove what is good or bad, period.

We can prove what happens, we can prove virtually no one likes it. What we have a problem with is punishing such behavior to be fair. Its identification, I think, isn't an issue.


Simple, no fallacious reasoning on my part, but I wouldn't expect you to identify logic if it fell in front of you.

So then how do you identify when something "bad" happens to you? Lets start there.


And no, nobody said without omniscience you CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING.

" Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao"

I guess this was just a random stream of consciousness for and with no point.

, but you cannot prove what is good or bad. Do you always imagine people saying things they don't just to act as is you have something to argue against?

Well, words mean things, Skips.

A disagreement with the above premise indicates a "double" standard, a fallacious position.

Lmao.....you can't have a double standard if there isn't a standard in the first place,

Given we currently have a justice system...

as I have constantly held the position of. There is no universally agreed upon standard as to what is good or bad, therefore I or humanity do not have this so called double standard that you seem to claim "I must have if I disagree with your bullsh@t."

Again, clearly, you have the capacity to realize when something "bad" befalls you, right Skip?
Wow, there just isn't a logical cell in your brain. Once again, what my OPIONION of good or bad may or may not be is completely useless when arguing what the context of this existence argument is. You people need your subjective b.s. to be validated because you have no sense of how to argue a point. You simply assert your opinion, hope for emotionally charged issues to disengage rationality from the discourse, then argue the personal taste of "ice cream". I will say it again since you're "white knuckling", meaning grasping with desperation, a useless argument without merit whatsoever. You CANNOT prove what is good or bad, period.

Skip, all you had to say was "No I don't know how to identify misfortune in my life." That would have exonerated you with no prejudice from your side of the conversation.

In the mean time, humans being sympathetic creatures can conceivably understand the pain of another, and seek to engage in society which discourages behavior as made example of. One not need to know "good" or "bad" to know they don't want to befall the same circumstance. See where this is going now?
Philosophy and logic is not sentiment, though your undying need to justify your idea of what is good for the rest of the 7 billion people on this planet is admirable although extremely arrogant. "Engage in society" is basically a cowardly way of appealing to popular belief, fallacious reasoning at its basic and most easily understood definition.

And yet, here we are, with various functioning societies on the planet that have adopted that concept of empathy/bodily autonomy. As I mentioned previously, the only problem is "punishment", which is admittedly where humanity as a whole has issue.

When you have something to offer that doesn't address "touchie feely" taste in ice cream get back to me. I know how you people who can't fathom the fact you have no logical argument against how God is defined

Considering general consensus on how God is defined is subject to the nature of the theist, I am surprised you considered this avenue as a rebuttal.

can be extremely stubborn when it comes to what you have faith in. I.e. The words "perfect" and "loving" and " good" are the only hope you have of attempting to dismiss a God via a supposed contradiction. Sorry, but opinions by nature are subject to contradictions, they achieve nothing when arguing a God. I doubt you'll ever accept this as it is opinion that is your only weapon, not logic or a cohesive argument.

"God" by nature, much like any other thing that exists shouldn't have to be "defined" into existence, and yet that is what seems to be happening. Even in the case of "touchy feely emotion" some variety of consensus can be taken even if not objectively measured, but with millions of denominations of religion in history, God seems to vary widely from continent to continent to theist to theist. Sure, argument from opinion is something that can't be "proven", but at least people can understand a punch in the face is undesirable vs a stroke on the cheek.
"Defined into existence", great leading the argument by assertion. God isn't defined INTO existence, God is defined because God exists unless you have proof of the contrary it's Like everything else that humans define. . God defined by "millions of denominations", list 10 thousand of them. Over compensating shows weakness and more argumentum ad nauseam.
God, on the other hand, is subject to being defined and seen as whatever emotion the subject of inquiry happens to be feeling at the time. VERY consistent..
"The subject of inquiry", yes exactly, subjective nonsensical argumentation. Consistent illogical assertions of subjectivity by you without a shred of evidence to prove what is good or bad to everyone, much less God.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2015 4:16:13 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
So what you are saying is what is good for the small pox viruses (or what ever it is), a living thing I suspect, is bad for you so that must mean, there is no God? Or maybe it means God favors the prosperity of the viruses (something He made) over something else that you judge more favorable or valuable (also something He made).
The really good thing is that your god saved the small pox virus and yersinia pestis on his famous ark.
Of course if he did then he must have used his MAGIC to make all the humans survive.
Why couldn't he use his magic to make every living thing survive?
And you think everything surviving is good why? Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao.

By this same argument, you can't possibly identify that having your assets taken, body broken and left for dead and loved ones killed in the wake of the theft is "evil" or "bad for you" by extension, as you have set the standard that without omniscience, one cannot know anything.


What is it that people don't seem to get. You cannot prove what is good or bad, period.

We can prove what happens, we can prove virtually no one likes it. What we have a problem with is punishing such behavior to be fair. Its identification, I think, isn't an issue.


Simple, no fallacious reasoning on my part, but I wouldn't expect you to identify logic if it fell in front of you.

So then how do you identify when something "bad" happens to you? Lets start there.


And no, nobody said without omniscience you CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING.

" Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao"

I guess this was just a random stream of consciousness for and with no point.

, but you cannot prove what is good or bad. Do you always imagine people saying things they don't just to act as is you have something to argue against?

Well, words mean things, Skips.

A disagreement with the above premise indicates a "double" standard, a fallacious position.

Lmao.....you can't have a double standard if there isn't a standard in the first place,

Given we currently have a justice system...

as I have constantly held the position of. There is no universally agreed upon standard as to what is good or bad, therefore I or humanity do not have this so called double standard that you seem to claim "I must have if I disagree with your bullsh@t."

Again, clearly, you have the capacity to realize when something "bad" befalls you, right Skip?
Wow, there just isn't a logical cell in your brain. Once again, what my OPIONION of good or bad may or may not be is completely useless when arguing what the context of this existence argument is. You people need your subjective b.s. to be validated because you have no sense of how to argue a point. You simply assert your opinion, hope for emotionally charged issues to disengage rationality from the discourse, then argue the personal taste of "ice cream". I will say it again since you're "white knuckling", meaning grasping with desperation, a useless argument without merit whatsoever. You CANNOT prove what is good or bad, period.

Skip, all you had to say was "No I don't know how to identify misfortune in my life." That would have exonerated you with no prejudice from your side of the conversation.

In the mean time, humans being sympathetic creatures can conceivably understand the pain of another, and seek to engage in society which discourages behavior as made example of. One not need to know "good" or "bad" to know they don't want to befall the same circumstance. See where this is going now?
Philosophy and logic is not sentiment, though your undying need to justify your idea of what is good for the rest of the 7 billion people on this planet is admirable although extremely arrogant. "Engage in society" is basically a cowardly way of appealing to popular belief, fallacious reasoning at its basic and most easily understood definition.

And yet, here we are, with various functioning societies on the planet that have adopted that concept of empathy/bodily autonomy. As I mentioned previously, the only problem is "punishment", which is admittedly where humanity as a whole has issue.

When you have something to offer that doesn't address "touchie feely" taste in ice cream get back to me. I know how you people who can't fathom the fact you have no logical argument against how God is defined

Considering general consensus on how God is defined is subject to the nature of the theist, I am surprised you considered this avenue as a rebuttal.

can be extremely stubborn when it comes to what you have faith in. I.e. The words "perfect" and "loving" and " good" are the only hope you have of attempting to dismiss a God via a supposed contradiction. Sorry, but opinions by nature are subject to contradictions, they achieve nothing when arguing a God. I doubt you'll ever accept this as it is opinion that is your only weapon, not logic or a cohesive argument.

"God" by nature, much like any other thing that exists shouldn't have to be "defined" into existence, and yet that is what seems to be happening. Even in the case of "touchy feely emotion" some variety of consensus can be taken even if not objectively measured, but with millions of denominations of religion in history, God seems to vary widely from continent to continent to theist to theist. Sure, argument from opinion is something that can't be "proven", but at least people can understand a punch in the face is undesirable vs a stroke on the cheek.

"Defined into existence", great leading the argument by assertion. God isn't defined INTO existence, God is defined because God exists unless you have proof of the contrary it's Like everything else that humans define. . God defined by "millions of denominations", list 10 thousand of them. Over compensating shows weakness and more argumentum ad nauseam.

In just Christianity, there are over about 41K. This hasn't touched on Islam, or Buddhism, -at the present time-, nor does it touch upon archaic "non credible" religions from the past, such as worship of Zeus and the like. I feel no reason to separate out those gods from the current ones.

Existence is the easiest way to disprove my argument, without giving God traits of irrationality, please, point to his (their?) existence. A unicorn was defined into existence, as were trolls, leprauchauns, etc. It was a creative expulsion for an explanation, and yet I am sure you don't require proof of unicorns to not exist.

God, on the other hand, is subject to being defined and seen as whatever emotion the subject of inquiry happens to be feeling at the time. VERY consistent..

"The subject of inquiry", yes exactly, subjective nonsensical argumentation. Consistent illogical assertions of subjectivity by you without a shred of evidence to prove what is good or bad to everyone, much less God.

Due you honestly contend that taking a brick to the face is subjective in result to the face?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 6:17:34 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/18/2015 12:07:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
So what you are saying is what is good for the small pox viruses (or what ever it is), a living thing I suspect, is bad for you so that must mean, there is no God? Or maybe it means God favors the prosperity of the viruses (something He made) over something else that you judge more favorable or valuable (also something He made).
The really good thing is that your god saved the small pox virus and yersinia pestis on his famous ark.
Typical appeal to emotion fallacy. Bad emotions are associated with a (pox) and b (yersinia pestis), therefore....etc. non arguments t
Of course if he did then he must have used his MAGIC to make all the humans survive.
Why couldn't he use his magic to make every living thing survive?
And you think everything surviving is good why? Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao.

By this same argument, you can't possibly identify that having your assets taken, body broken and left for dead and loved ones killed in the wake of the theft is "evil" or "bad for you" by extension, as you have set the standard that without omniscience, one cannot know anything.


What is it that people don't seem to get. You cannot prove what is good or bad, period.

We can prove what happens, we can prove virtually no one likes it. What we have a problem with is punishing such behavior to be fair. Its identification, I think, isn't an issue.
I'll assume you started laughing at yourself upon typing "virtually no one likes" because that is an ad populum fallacy and I would have to see the proof you have that "virtually no one" ........

Simple, no fallacious reasoning on my part, but I wouldn't expect you to identify logic if it fell in front of you.

So then how do you identify when something "bad" happens to you? Lets start there.

And no, nobody said without omniscience you CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING.

" Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao"

I guess this was just a random stream of consciousness for and with no point.

, but you cannot prove what is good or bad. Do you always imagine people saying things they don't just to act as is you have something to argue against?

Well, words mean things, Skips.

A disagreement with the above premise indicates a "double" standard, a fallacious position.

Lmao.....you can't have a double standard if there isn't a standard in the first place,

Given we currently have a justice system...
Another ad populum fallacy
as I have constantly held the position of. There is no universally agreed upon standard as to what is good or bad, therefore I or humanity do not have this so called double standard that you seem to claim "I must have if I disagree with your bullsh@t."

Again, clearly, you have the capacity to realize when something "bad" befalls you, right Skip?
Wow, there just isn't a logical cell in your brain. Once again, what my OPIONION of good or bad may or may not be is completely useless when arguing what the context of this existence argument is. You people need your subjective b.s. to be validated because you have no sense of how to argue a point. You simply assert your opinion, hope for emotionally charged issues to disengage rationality from the discourse, then argue the personal taste of "ice cream". I will say it again since you're "white knuckling", meaning grasping with desperation, a useless argument without merit whatsoever. You CANNOT prove what is good or bad, period.

Skip, all you had to say was "No I don't know how to identify misfortune in my life." That would have exonerated you with no prejudice from your side of the conversation.

There hasn't been anything unfortunate that has ever happened to me and there never will be. I don't apply that type of thinking to life's experiences. They are merely something that takes place.
In the mean time, humans being sympathetic creatures can conceivably understand the pain of another, and seek to engage in society which discourages behavior as made example of. One not need to know "good" or "bad" to know they don't want to befall the same circumstance. See where this is going now?
Philosophy and logic is not sentiment, though your undying need to justify your idea of what is good for the rest of the 7 billion people on this planet is admirable although extremely arrogant. "Engage in society" is basically a cowardly way of appealing to popular belief, fallacious reasoning at its basic and most easily understood definition.

And yet, here we are, with various functioning societies on the planet that have adopted that concept of empathy/bodily autonomy. As I mentioned previously, the only problem is "punishment", which is admittedly where humanity as a whole has issue.

Functioning societies? Ummm , functioning is too ambiguous. And when was it proven functioning would suggest proof of anything that we are discussing.
When you have something to offer that doesn't address "touchie feely" taste in ice cream get back to me. I know how you people who can't fathom the fact you have no logical argument against how God is defined

Considering general consensus on how God is defined is subject to the nature of the theist, I am surprised you considered this avenue as a rebuttal.
Nice deflection. It's irrelevant in regards to having a logical argument.
can be extremely stubborn when it comes to what you have faith in. I.e. The words "perfect" and "loving" and " good" are the only hope you have of attempting to dismiss a God via a supposed contradiction. Sorry, but opinions by nature are subject to contradictions, they achieve nothing when arguing a God. I doubt you'll ever accept this as it is opinion that is your only weapon, not logic or a cohesive argument.

"God" by nature, much like any other thing that exists shouldn't have to be "defined" into existence, and yet that is what seems to be happening. Even in the case of "touchy feely emotion" some variety of consensus can be taken even if not objectively measured, but with millions of denominations of religion in history, God seems to vary widely from continent to continent to theist to theist. Sure, argument from opinion is something that can't be "proven", but at least people can understand a punch in the face is undesirable vs a stroke on the cheek.
Defined into existence is , once again, off topic and no one is defining God into existence. Undesirable to who? Besides yourself, you can't prove what everyone thinks is desirable.
God, on the other hand, is subject to being defined and seen as whatever emotion the subject of inquiry happens to be feeling at the time. VERY consistent...
You can only know this about yourself.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 2:53:41 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/17/2015 8:29:32 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/17/2015 12:07:24 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.

So what you are saying is what is good for the small pox viruses (or what ever it is), a living thing I suspect, is bad for you so that must mean, there is no God? Or maybe it means God favors the prosperity of the viruses (something He made) over something else that you judge more favorable or valuable (also something He made).
The really good thing is that your god saved the small pox virus and yersinia pestis on his famous ark.
Of course if he did then he must have used his MAGIC to make all the humans survive.
Why couldn't he use his magic to make every living thing survive?
And you think everything surviving is good why? Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao.

By this same argument, you can't possibly identify that having your assets taken, body broken and left for dead and loved ones killed in the wake of the theft is "evil" or "bad for you" by extension, as you have set the standard that without omniscience, one cannot know anything.


What is it that people don't seem to get. You cannot prove what is good or bad, period.

We can prove what happens, we can prove virtually no one likes it. What we have a problem with is punishing such behavior to be fair. Its identification, I think, isn't an issue.


Simple, no fallacious reasoning on my part, but I wouldn't expect you to identify logic if it fell in front of you.

So then how do you identify when something "bad" happens to you? Lets start there.


And no, nobody said without omniscience you CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING.

" Oh yeah, you're all knowing right? You are in possession of what is absolutely, beyond question, good for the whole of the world and humanity, lmao"

I guess this was just a random stream of consciousness for and with no point.

, but you cannot prove what is good or bad. Do you always imagine people saying things they don't just to act as is you have something to argue against?

Well, words mean things, Skips.

A disagreement with the above premise indicates a "double" standard, a fallacious position.

Lmao.....you can't have a double standard if there isn't a standard in the first place,

Given we currently have a justice system...

as I have constantly held the position of. There is no universally agreed upon standard as to what is good or bad, therefore I or humanity do not have this so called double standard that you seem to claim "I must have if I disagree with your bullsh@t."

Again, clearly, you have the capacity to realize when something "bad" befalls you, right Skip?
Wow, there just isn't a logical cell in your brain. Once again, what my OPIONION of good or bad may or may not be is completely useless when arguing what the context of this existence argument is. You people need your subjective b.s. to be validated because you have no sense of how to argue a point. You simply assert your opinion, hope for emotionally charged issues to disengage rationality from the discourse, then argue the personal taste of "ice cream". I will say it again since you're "white knuckling", meaning grasping with desperation, a useless argument without merit whatsoever. You CANNOT prove what is good or bad, period.

Which is why they desperately want you to assume their position is correct without any critical thought, and debate them as if they have "proven" what is good and bad.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2015 6:42:17 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/16/2015 12:09:58 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So I did a bid of skim reading on small pox, nasty stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

So assuming a God exists who is all powerful and all knowing...........

Who here wants to defend that whole God is great thing ? seriously ?

Who here wants to tell me that without this God who allows such things we just can't have a real basis for morality ?

Who here wants to tell me without any effort at all God could of prevented or at least given humans the vaccination knowledge to stop it but did not, and without such a God we can't have real purpose in our lives.

Who wants to tell me said God is worthy of praise, and we should like constantly make claims about how praise worthy indeed this God is.

Me, I'll tell you,

Firsttly, you are assuming God exists, because you want to direct all this anger at him for not deterring small pox away from the human race.

So there you have it, God exists, and he has much more knowledge than you and knows what he is doing,

We probably caused smallpox through ignorance, and after people die on earth they get to go to heaven.

Bingo.