Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How atheists "reason"!?!?!

ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 1:45:12 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
And you continue:

Christian: No, it is not an ad hominem because you made yourself the source of truth and attacking the credibility of the source is perfectly legitimate. And the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim, not me to disprove it.

Atheist: Well, you are a poopyhead too.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 1:46:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.

In which book of atheist philosophy did you read these premises, Stegs?
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 2:07:44 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.
Theist: Gods exist.
Atheist: got any evidence?
Theist: NO
Atheist: You idiot.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,595
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 5:59:50 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I still can't get over the fact he used the word 'Poopyhead'.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 6:11:16 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.

In reality, atheists do not assume that everything they say is true. Here is the actual logic:

Major premise: If there is no evidence for God's existence, then He does not exist.
Minor premise: There is no evidnece for God's existence.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

The logic above seems sound, and the only premise up for debate is the minor premise. Your portrayal of atheists as stupid, ignorant, and empty-minded apes only makes it harder for Christians to argue against the validity of the minor premise, going against your stated goals; therefore, I have the feeling that you're not actually trying to contribute to this discussion.
:) nac
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 6:20:17 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 6:11:16 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.

In reality, atheists do not assume that everything they say is true. Here is the actual logic:

Major premise: If there is no evidence for God's existence, then He does not exist.
Minor premise: There is no evidnece for God's existence.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

The logic above seems sound, and the only premise up for debate is the minor premise. Your portrayal of atheists as stupid, ignorant, and empty-minded apes only makes it harder for Christians to argue against the validity of the minor premise, going against your stated goals; therefore, I have the feeling that you're not actually trying to contribute to this discussion.

You mean like how you just said what atheists do not do and your feeling as to my motives is based on nothing more than your say so? ROFL

And prove your major and minor premises. Good luck.

And atheists, were they consistent, would admit to be stupid, ignorant and empty minded apes.
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 6:21:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 6:20:17 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
At 3/20/2016 6:11:16 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.

In reality, atheists do not assume that everything they say is true. Here is the actual logic:

Major premise: If there is no evidence for God's existence, then He does not exist.
Minor premise: There is no evidnece for God's existence.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

The logic above seems sound, and the only premise up for debate is the minor premise. Your portrayal of atheists as stupid, ignorant, and empty-minded apes only makes it harder for Christians to argue against the validity of the minor premise, going against your stated goals; therefore, I have the feeling that you're not actually trying to contribute to this discussion.

You mean like how you just said what atheists do not do and your feeling as to my motives is based on nothing more than your say so? ROFL

If what I posted was "only based on my say-so", then your post would be the same.


And prove your major and minor premises. Good luck.

And atheists, were they consistent, would admit to be stupid, ignorant and empty minded apes.
:) nac
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 8:24:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 6:11:16 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.

In reality, atheists do not assume that everything they say is true. Here is the actual logic:

Major premise: If there is no evidence for God's existence, then He does not exist.
Minor premise: There is no evidnece for God's existence.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

The logic above seems sound, and the only premise up for debate is the minor premise. Your portrayal of atheists as stupid, ignorant, and empty-minded apes only makes it harder for Christians to argue against the validity of the minor premise, going against your stated goals; therefore, I have the feeling that you're not actually trying to contribute to this discussion.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.

minor premise is bias. The existence of biological life, Spiritual Experiences, ect.. can all be considered evidence of God. Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.

The logic is unsound
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 10:03:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.

Neither Atheists nor Christians are mentally ill :)
Meh!
ViceRegent
Posts: 604
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 10:16:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 8:24:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/20/2016 6:11:16 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.

In reality, atheists do not assume that everything they say is true. Here is the actual logic:

Major premise: If there is no evidence for God's existence, then He does not exist.
Minor premise: There is no evidnece for God's existence.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

The logic above seems sound, and the only premise up for debate is the minor premise. Your portrayal of atheists as stupid, ignorant, and empty-minded apes only makes it harder for Christians to argue against the validity of the minor premise, going against your stated goals; therefore, I have the feeling that you're not actually trying to contribute to this discussion.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.

minor premise is bias. The existence of biological life, Spiritual Experiences, ect.. can all be considered evidence of God. Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.

The logic is unsound

You do not understand. Because this fool speaks it, it is factual and logical. Reality is irrelevant.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 10:22:26 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.
Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.
Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.
VR, since for a change you are claiming the strawman explicitly rather than implicitly by interrogation, please could you show:

1) An authenticated exchange to confirm that your claim true for some atheist; and
2) The methodology by which you have verified it's true for most atheists.

Else, if you cannot, please could you define your understanding of the term 'trollish toolbag', and explain whether you believe that description should apply to the author of this thread?
WhineyMagiciann5
Posts: 107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2016 11:53:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.

You have the roles wrong vice. Your the one who believes whatever he says is false. It is literally all you do. Evidence is everything you have done on this site.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 12:17:24 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 8:24:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/20/2016 6:11:16 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.

In reality, atheists do not assume that everything they say is true. Here is the actual logic:

Major premise: If there is no evidence for God's existence, then He does not exist.
Minor premise: There is no evidnece for God's existence.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

The logic above seems sound, and the only premise up for debate is the minor premise. Your portrayal of atheists as stupid, ignorant, and empty-minded apes only makes it harder for Christians to argue against the validity of the minor premise, going against your stated goals; therefore, I have the feeling that you're not actually trying to contribute to this discussion.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.

minor premise is bias. The existence of biological life, Spiritual Experiences, ect.. can all be considered evidence of God. Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.

The logic is unsound

The existence of biological life being evidence of God stems from the desire to believe an omnicreator created it. Secondly, if there is no evidence for something to exist, then there is no reason to believe in its existence. That is not "unsound".
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 12:38:56 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 12:17:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/20/2016 8:24:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/20/2016 6:11:16 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.

In reality, atheists do not assume that everything they say is true. Here is the actual logic:

Major premise: If there is no evidence for God's existence, then He does not exist.
Minor premise: There is no evidnece for God's existence.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

The logic above seems sound, and the only premise up for debate is the minor premise. Your portrayal of atheists as stupid, ignorant, and empty-minded apes only makes it harder for Christians to argue against the validity of the minor premise, going against your stated goals; therefore, I have the feeling that you're not actually trying to contribute to this discussion.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.

minor premise is bias. The existence of biological life, Spiritual Experiences, ect.. can all be considered evidence of God. Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.

The logic is unsound

The existence of biological life being evidence of God stems from the desire to believe an omnicreator created it. Secondly, if there is no evidence for something to exist, then there is no reason to believe in its existence. That is not "unsound".

If what you know in your little box is insufficient to explain an observation it is more pragmatic and progressive to accept something not in your little box.

The absence of evidence in and of itself is not supportive of a claim. The absence of evidence must always be seen in light of the inquiry.

Such ss saying there is no biological life except on earth, anywhere in the universe. Clearly the lack of evidence to support there is life on another planet is more indicative of an incomplete search than it is for the nonexistence of life.

It's not possible to have a rational discussion about God's existence if one side is adamant about passing athiest cliches off as logical. When clearly they are illogical standards only applied in cases of God and not arguments in favor of abiogenesis, alien life, ect

Such a double standard implies that Athiest denial of God is more emotional than as a Rational conclusion
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 12:47:23 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Straw man at its finest. Please quote and link to one atheist that has said that.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.

Again, never heard this argument in my life.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 12:50:17 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 8:24:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/20/2016 6:11:16 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.

In reality, atheists do not assume that everything they say is true. Here is the actual logic:

Major premise: If there is no evidence for God's existence, then He does not exist.
Minor premise: There is no evidnece for God's existence.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

The logic above seems sound, and the only premise up for debate is the minor premise. Your portrayal of atheists as stupid, ignorant, and empty-minded apes only makes it harder for Christians to argue against the validity of the minor premise, going against your stated goals; therefore, I have the feeling that you're not actually trying to contribute to this discussion.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.

minor premise is bias. The existence of biological life, Spiritual Experiences, ect.. can all be considered evidence of God. Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.

The logic is unsound

Agreed
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 1:06:31 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 12:38:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/21/2016 12:17:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/20/2016 8:24:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/20/2016 6:11:16 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.

In reality, atheists do not assume that everything they say is true. Here is the actual logic:

Major premise: If there is no evidence for God's existence, then He does not exist.
Minor premise: There is no evidnece for God's existence.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

The logic above seems sound, and the only premise up for debate is the minor premise. Your portrayal of atheists as stupid, ignorant, and empty-minded apes only makes it harder for Christians to argue against the validity of the minor premise, going against your stated goals; therefore, I have the feeling that you're not actually trying to contribute to this discussion.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.

minor premise is bias. The existence of biological life, Spiritual Experiences, ect.. can all be considered evidence of God. Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.

The logic is unsound

The existence of biological life being evidence of God stems from the desire to believe an omnicreator created it. Secondly, if there is no evidence for something to exist, then there is no reason to believe in its existence. That is not "unsound".

If what you know in your little box is insufficient to explain an observation it is more pragmatic and progressive to accept something not in your little box.

Yes, however ascribing theory willy nilly to what might solve the equation does nothing to actually get closer to a rational conclusion. I can make up any host of entity of dubious ability to create the universe, and then immediately task the existence of the universe to their obvious existence. That isn't "progressive".

The absence of evidence in and of itself is not supportive of a claim. The absence of evidence must always be seen in light of the inquiry.

Peachy. So, lets see some demons, lets see some angels, lets see some 4 day old dead dudes coming out of crypts, lets see some flying horses into the heavens.

Oh.

Such ss saying there is no biological life except on earth, anywhere in the universe. Clearly the lack of evidence to support there is life on another planet is more indicative of an incomplete search than it is for the nonexistence of life.

However there is immediately an evidence to go off of. God, however, must have His traits defined to Him rather than flowing from what is already present.


It's not possible to have a rational discussion about God's existence if one side is adamant about passing athiest cliches off as logical. When clearly they are illogical standards only applied in cases of God and not arguments in favor of abiogenesis, alien life, ect

You mean like claiming He is omnipotent? Omniscient? Created heaven and hell just as well? From whence to these claims originate?

Such a double standard implies that Athiest denial of God is more emotional than as a Rational conclusion.

Sure. Absent holy text, then, for what evidence or reason do you we talk of God?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Stronn
Posts: 316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 1:10:18 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 6:11:16 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.

In reality, atheists do not assume that everything they say is true. Here is the actual logic:

Major premise: If there is no evidence for God's existence, then He does not exist.
Minor premise: There is no evidnece for God's existence.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

The logic above seems sound, and the only premise up for debate is the minor premise. Your portrayal of atheists as stupid, ignorant, and empty-minded apes only makes it harder for Christians to argue against the validity of the minor premise, going against your stated goals; therefore, I have the feeling that you're not actually trying to contribute to this discussion.

Actually, as a previous poster pointed out, the major premise commits the argument from ignorance fallacy. I would change the argument to.

Major premise: One should not believe claims without sufficient evidence.
Minor premise: There is insufficient evidence that God exists.
Conclusion: One should not believe that God exists.

The argument is valid, of course. Most thinking theists will refute the minor premise, although it is surprising how often they disagree with the major premise. Sometimes both premises are refuted in the same argument, essentially saying, "I don't need evidence, I have faith. And besides, there is plenty of evidence."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 1:44:57 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 1:06:31 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/21/2016 12:38:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/21/2016 12:17:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/20/2016 8:24:30 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/20/2016 6:11:16 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.

In reality, atheists do not assume that everything they say is true. Here is the actual logic:

Major premise: If there is no evidence for God's existence, then He does not exist.
Minor premise: There is no evidnece for God's existence.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

The logic above seems sound, and the only premise up for debate is the minor premise. Your portrayal of atheists as stupid, ignorant, and empty-minded apes only makes it harder for Christians to argue against the validity of the minor premise, going against your stated goals; therefore, I have the feeling that you're not actually trying to contribute to this discussion.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.

minor premise is bias. The existence of biological life, Spiritual Experiences, ect.. can all be considered evidence of God. Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.

The logic is unsound

The existence of biological life being evidence of God stems from the desire to believe an omnicreator created it. Secondly, if there is no evidence for something to exist, then there is no reason to believe in its existence. That is not "unsound".

If what you know in your little box is insufficient to explain an observation it is more pragmatic and progressive to accept something not in your little box.

Yes, however ascribing theory willy nilly to what might solve the equation does nothing to actually get closer to a rational conclusion. I can make up any host of entity of dubious ability to create the universe, and then immediately task the existence of the universe to their obvious existence. That isn't "progressive".

You could come up with any number of names, but the attributes an entity would have to have to create the universe would be the same. In which case a rose by any name is still a rose. Your argument would be indistinguishable from a Deist God of the kalam argument and therefore identical.


The absence of evidence in and of itself is not supportive of a claim. The absence of evidence must always be seen in light of the inquiry.

Peachy. So, lets see some demons, lets see some angels, lets see some 4 day old dead dudes coming out of crypts, lets see some flying horses into the heavens.

Are you willing to accept the testimonies of possession victims and exorcist priests as evidence for demons?

Are you willing to accept the eye witness testimony of people who said they saw angels saving them during life threatening situations?

What's the point of trying to show you such things if you will close your eyes.


Oh.

Such ss saying there is no biological life except on earth, anywhere in the universe. Clearly the lack of evidence to support there is life on another planet is more indicative of an incomplete search than it is for the nonexistence of life.

However there is immediately an evidence to go off of. God, however, must have His traits defined to Him rather than flowing from what is already present.

Obviously the traits defined to any entity is from what the evidence supports. This is rather epistemology evident. You can't suggest what adjectives define "biological life" unless you compare it with things that are not "biological life". "God" is only different to the irrational Atheist.




It's not possible to have a rational discussion about God's existence if one side is adamant about passing athiest cliches off as logical. When clearly they are illogical standards only applied in cases of God and not arguments in favor of abiogenesis, alien life, ect

You mean like claiming He is omnipotent? Omniscient? Created heaven and hell just as well? From whence to these claims originate?

You already know these arguments. You already know the observations and evidence premised in such arguments. If your answer is to be dismissive and hide in "I don't know how the universe was made" "I don't know how Life was made" "I don't know why we feel heart ache".

"I don't know" is not a sufficient counter hypothesis.

Such a double standard implies that Athiest denial of God is more emotional than as a Rational conclusion.

Sure. Absent holy text, then, for what evidence or reason do you we talk of God?

And yet all over the world there is some form of holy text. "God" has been the thoughtful conclusion for thinkers through out history.

But you make another over generalization. Arguments such as the kalam argument, Intelligent Design, Argument from desire, ect.. don't reference holy text as premises.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 1:59:36 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.

In reality, atheists do not assume that everything they say is true. Here is the actual logic:

Major premise: If there is no evidence for God's existence, then He does not exist.
Minor premise: There is no evidnece for God's existence.
Conclusion: God doesn't exist.

The logic above seems sound, and the only premise up for debate is the minor premise. Your portrayal of atheists as stupid, ignorant, and empty-minded apes only makes it harder for Christians to argue against the validity of the minor premise, going against your stated goals; therefore, I have the feeling that you're not actually trying to contribute to this discussion.

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.

minor premise is bias. The existence of biological life, Spiritual Experiences, ect.. can all be considered evidence of God. Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.

The logic is unsound

The existence of biological life being evidence of God stems from the desire to believe an omnicreator created it. Secondly, if there is no evidence for something to exist, then there is no reason to believe in its existence. That is not "unsound".

If what you know in your little box is insufficient to explain an observation it is more pragmatic and progressive to accept something not in your little box.

Yes, however ascribing theory willy nilly to what might solve the equation does nothing to actually get closer to a rational conclusion. I can make up any host of entity of dubious ability to create the universe, and then immediately task the existence of the universe to their obvious existence. That isn't "progressive".

You could come up with any number of names, but the attributes an entity would have to have to create the universe would be the same. In which case a rose by any name is still a rose. Your argument would be indistinguishable from a Deist God of the kalam argument and therefore identical.

Unless of course it was three Gods, or I simply give whatever trait you want to call to God to the "universe" in general. What would the problem in that be? The universe is eternal, the universe routinely alters matter and energy ast it perpetuates itself. No agency needed. More over, whom is to say that God is omnipotent, and that His power was instead not exhausted in creating the universe? No, sir, its not identical.


The absence of evidence in and of itself is not supportive of a claim. The absence of evidence must always be seen in light of the inquiry.

Peachy. So, lets see some demons, lets see some angels, lets see some 4 day old dead dudes coming out of crypts, lets see some flying horses into the heavens.

Are you willing to accept the testimonies of possession victims and exorcist priests as evidence for demons?

No, I am willing to accept actual demons as evidence of demons. Are you willing to call people drunk or high to also be victims of demon possession? (rhetorical). I have noticed the number of possessions seems to have drastically dropped off as accurate recording and evaluation methods increased in this world.

Are you willing to accept the eye witness testimony of people who said they saw angels saving them during life threatening situations?

Sure, if they can demonstrate their situation. Was such an occurrence seen by more than one person?

What's the point of trying to show you such things if you will close your eyes.

Because one person's testimony is subject to personal bias. I can dredge up countless "evidence" in which some one swears the hand of God was afoot, only to find out through an objective lens later that a series of fortunate but mundane events occurred.


Oh.

Such ss saying there is no biological life except on earth, anywhere in the universe. Clearly the lack of evidence to support there is life on another planet is more indicative of an incomplete search than it is for the nonexistence of life.

However there is immediately an evidence to go off of. God, however, must have His traits defined to Him rather than flowing from what is already present.

Obviously the traits defined to any entity is from what the evidence supports.

So then I can invent any entity or entities to support an event. Earthquakes are caused by three Four intangible earth spirits, each one shaking the world on a whim in each of the hemispheres.

This is rather epistemology evident. You can't suggest what adjectives define "biological life" unless you compare it with things that are not "biological life". "God" is only different to the irrational Atheist.

your disagreement with me is caused by a disgruntled mind spirit. The more I post arguments, the more you are inclined to disagree. Clearly, such a spirit exists, as you are posting in opposition to me.

Problem? This is what is being done with God, btw.


It's not possible to have a rational discussion about God's existence if one side is adamant about passing athiest cliches off as logical. When clearly they are illogical standards only applied in cases of God and not arguments in favor of abiogenesis, alien life, ect

You mean like claiming He is omnipotent? Omniscient? Created heaven and hell just as well? From whence to these claims originate?

You already know these arguments. You already know the observations and evidence premised in such arguments. If your answer is to be dismissive and hide in "I don't know how the universe was made" "I don't know how Life was made" "I don't know why we feel heart ache".

The last part I do know.

"I don't know" is not a sufficient counter hypothesis.

The suggestion was not sufficient in of itself. Unless you really do want to argue about a mind spirit compelling you to argue with me.

Such a double standard implies that Athiest denial of God is more emotional than as a Rational conclusion.

Sure. Absent holy text, then, for what evidence or reason do you we talk of God?

And yet all over the world there is some form of holy text. "God" has been the thoughtful conclusion for thinkers through out history.

That didn't answer the question.

But you make another over generalization. Arguments such as the kalam argument, Intelligent Design, Argument from desire, ect.. don't reference holy text as premises.

I beg to differ, they are religious arguments attempting to shoe horn themselves into philosophy and then science, but that falls outside the scope of the question.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 2:02:12 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 12:47:23 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Straw man at its finest. Please quote and link to one atheist that has said that.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.

Again, never heard this argument in my life.

He is referring to this thread: http://www.debate.org...

Of course, nowhere did I state that "Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it". This is just blatant dishonesty on his part. I suspect he couldn't lie straight in bed.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 2:37:21 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 1:59:36 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

You could come up with any number of names, but the attributes an entity would have to have to create the universe would be the same. In which case a rose by any name is still a rose. Your argument would be indistinguishable from a Deist God of the kalam argument and therefore identical.

Unless of course it was three Gods, or I simply give whatever trait you want to call to God to the "universe" in general. What would the problem in that be? The universe is eternal, the universe routinely alters matter and energy ast it perpetuates itself. No agency needed. More over, whom is to say that God is omnipotent, and that His power was instead not exhausted in creating the universe? No, sir, its not identical.

You can argue the universe is eternal. The evidence or cosmological observations don't support so. As for three Gods you could suggest so, but Occams razor suggest not multiplying entities above what is necessary. In which case one God is sufficient for creating the universe. However you could distinguish these God's by manifested attributes. Like the Hindus do, or like the Christian trinity.

As for being omnipotent it depends on how you define that. Certainly what the Cosmological Argument concludes to is an entity with sufficient power. And that power exceeds all the power in the universe. Considering the universe is all things in existence, it is appropriate to consider all- powerful being omnipotent.



The absence of evidence in and of itself is not supportive of a claim. The absence of evidence must always be seen in light of the inquiry.

Peachy. So, lets see some demons, lets see some angels, lets see some 4 day old dead dudes coming out of crypts, lets see some flying horses into the heavens.

Are you willing to accept the testimonies of possession victims and exorcist priests as evidence for demons?

No, I am willing to accept actual demons as evidence of demons. Are you willing to call people drunk or high to also be victims of demon possession? (rhetorical). I have noticed the number of possessions seems to have drastically dropped off as accurate recording and evaluation methods increased in this world.

Do you have a link for such a statistic, I'm interesting in seeing the methodology used.


Are you willing to accept the eye witness testimony of people who said they saw angels saving them during life threatening situations?

Sure, if they can demonstrate their situation. Was such an occurrence seen by more than one person?

Why does more than one person make an entity any more real? But are you saying you would accept an eyewitness account of 2 or more?

What about the testimonies recorded in history?


What's the point of trying to show you such things if you will close your eyes.

Because one person's testimony is subject to personal bias. I can dredge up countless "evidence" in which some one swears the hand of God was afoot, only to find out through an objective lens later that a series of fortunate but mundane events occurred.

And such a mundane explanation is sufficient in how many cases? 50%.. 90%. If not 100% then there is evidence for spirit, for God.



Oh.

Such ss saying there is no biological life except on earth, anywhere in the universe. Clearly the lack of evidence to support there is life on another planet is more indicative of an incomplete search than it is for the nonexistence of life.

However there is immediately an evidence to go off of. God, however, must have His traits defined to Him rather than flowing from what is already present.

Obviously the traits defined to any entity is from what the evidence supports.


So then I can invent any entity or entities to support an event. Earthquakes are caused by three Four intangible earth spirits, each one shaking the world on a whim in each of the hemispheres.

This would mean each one co shares their hemisphere with 2 other spirits. how are these hemispheres divided? along what lines of demarcation?

I would think if the hemisphere is being shaken that resulting vibration would be more horizontally elastic than radial as the reading of earth quakes we have. So earth quakes erupt from points. And they are not wholly random.

But why should we waste time arguing for hypothesis you don't actually support, and are not sufficient. I suggest if you come up with such a mythology that it meats explaining the observations, you will find that it is strong enough to be a competitive hypothesis.


This is rather epistemology evident. You can't suggest what adjectives define "biological life" unless you compare it with things that are not "biological life". "God" is only different to the irrational Atheist.

your disagreement with me is caused by a disgruntled mind spirit. The more I post arguments, the more you are inclined to disagree. Clearly, such a spirit exists, as you are posting in opposition to me.

or the chemical reactions in my robot brain are being activated by the photons coming from the computer screen. And the interesting sensation of symbols we call "writing" are deterministically causing a release of chemicals and hormones that make me feel what we normally ascribe as "pity".


Problem? This is what is being done with God, btw.

No I don't have a problem with different explanations or views. I'm not a bigot.



It's not possible to have a rational discussion about God's existence if one side is adamant about passing athiest cliches off as logical. When clearly they are illogical standards only applied in cases of God and not arguments in favor of abiogenesis, alien life, ect

You mean like claiming He is omnipotent? Omniscient? Created heaven and hell just as well? From whence to these claims originate?

You already know these arguments. You already know the observations and evidence premised in such arguments. If your answer is to be dismissive and hide in "I don't know how the universe was made" "I don't know how Life was made" "I don't know why we feel heart ache".

The last part I do know.

"I don't know" is not a sufficient counter hypothesis.

The suggestion was not sufficient in of itself. Unless you really do want to argue about a mind spirit compelling you to argue with me.

Why would I argue for the entity you presented. This is a common Atheist tactic. You propose an entity straw man and then demand the theist support it. NO Sir. I won't argue for Santa, Goblins, Mermaids, or your mind spirit. I will argue for God's existence.

You are certainly allowed to argue that the presented arguments are insufficient. but I don't think you are suing it correctly. You seem to imply the Cosmological Argument is insufficient because it is not 100% certain. But that is not what sufficient means.

Take for example this illustration. You are walking home and see a large 3 meter across log on the bottom of a hill. And you see young 4 year old kids playing around it. The next day you see the log on top of the hill. Suggesting the kids moved the log is an example of an insufficient hypothesis. The children are physically unable to move the log uphill.

So if you want to argue that an entity as powerful as all the energy in the universe existent outside of this space and time (maybe in an encapsulating space-time) is insufficient that would have to be your argument. But "I don't know" and "that's not 100% proven" is not equivalent to "insufficient". Doubt is inherent in human knowledge.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 2:41:53 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 1:59:36 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Such a double standard implies that Athiest denial of God is more emotional than as a Rational conclusion.

Sure. Absent holy text, then, for what evidence or reason do you we talk of God?

And yet all over the world there is some form of holy text. "God" has been the thoughtful conclusion for thinkers through out history.

That didn't answer the question.

But you make another over generalization. Arguments such as the kalam argument, Intelligent Design, Argument from desire, ect.. don't reference holy text as premises.

I beg to differ, they are religious arguments attempting to shoe horn themselves into philosophy and then science, but that falls outside the scope of the question.

As I said the premises of the arguments are not holy text citations. If the premises are true and the logic sound then the conclusion follows naturally true.

And truthful statements may be written in holy text as well.

So a citation of holy text as being untrue, only illustrates your confirmation bias. The very bias I spoke about in my original reply.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 3:07:32 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
You... and therefore identical.

Unless of... not identical.

You can argue the universe is eternal. The evidence or cosmological observations don't support so.

Those being...?

As for three Gods you could suggest so, but Occams razor suggest not multiplying entities above what is necessary.

An eternal universe means God is not necessary.

In which case one God is sufficient for creating the universe. However you could distinguish these God's by manifested attributes. Like the Hindus do, or like the Christian trinity.

As for being omnipotent it depends on how you define that. Certainly what the Cosmological Argument concludes to is an entity with sufficient power. And that power exceeds all the power in the universe. Considering the universe is all things in existence, it is appropriate to consider all- powerful being omnipotent.

"sufficient" becomes "all", according to the KCA?



The absence of evidence in and of itself is not supportive of a claim. The absence of evidence must always be seen in light of the inquiry.

Peachy. So, lets see some demons, lets see some angels, lets see some 4 day old dead dudes coming out of crypts, lets see some flying horses into the heavens.

Are you willing to accept the testimonies of possession victims and exorcist priests as evidence for demons?

No, I am willing to accept actual demons as evidence of demons. Are you willing to call people drunk or high to also be victims of demon possession? (rhetorical). I have noticed the number of possessions seems to have drastically dropped off as accurate recording and evaluation methods increased in this world.

Do you have a link for such a statistic, I'm interesting in seeing the methodology used.

... much as I am interested in the methodology of claiming something is demonic possession in the first place. The point was that before accurate knowledge of strange phenomenon was made, "The Devil did it!" was vague enough to fit the bill.


Are you willing to accept the eye witness testimony of people who said they saw angels saving them during life threatening situations?

Sure, if they can demonstrate their situation. Was such an occurrence seen by more than one person?

Why does more than one person make an entity any more real? But are you saying you would accept an eyewitness account of 2 or more?

Lends to credibility, sure. I saw an angel die in my backyard.

You believe me, right?

What about the testimonies recorded in history?

Specifically referring to what?


What's the point of trying to show you such things if you will close your eyes.

Because one person's testimony is subject to personal bias. I can dredge up countless "evidence" in which some one swears the hand of God was afoot, only to find out through an objective lens later that a series of fortunate but mundane events occurred.

And such a mundane explanation is sufficient in how many cases? 50%.. 90%. If not 100% then there is evidence for spirit, for God.

... so the absence of an immediate practical observation is evidence for something else? Is that your benchmark?



Oh.

Such ss saying there is no biological life except on earth, anywhere in the universe. Clearly the lack of evidence to support there is life on another planet is more indicative of an incomplete search than it is for the nonexistence of life.

However there is immediately an evidence to go off of. God, however, must have His traits defined to Him rather than flowing from what is already present.

Obviously the traits defined to any entity is from what the evidence supports.


So then I can invent any entity or entities to support an event. Earthquakes are caused by three Four intangible earth spirits, each one shaking the world on a whim in each of the hemispheres.

This would mean each one co shares their hemisphere with 2 other spirits. how are these hemispheres divided? along what lines of demarcation?

Why, the equator and Prime Meridian, of course. They (said spirits) inspired man to formulate them.

I would think if the hemisphere is being shaken that resulting vibration would be more horizontally elastic than radial as the reading of earth quakes we have. So earth quakes erupt from points. And they are not wholly random. But why should we waste time arguing for hypothesis you don't actually support, and are not sufficient. I suggest if you come up with such a mythology that it meats explaining the observations, you will find that it is strong enough to be a competitive hypothesis.

Even though I know I just made it up? I am tailoring the narrative I want to the evidence, not letting the evidence point to a conclusion.



This is rather epistemology evident. You can't suggest what adjectives define "biological life" unless you compare it with things that are not "biological life". "God" is only different to the irrational Atheist.

your .... to me.

or the chemical reactions in my robot brain are being activated by the photons coming from the computer screen. And the interesting sensation of symbols we call "writing" are deterministically causing a release of chemicals and hormones that make me feel what we normally ascribe as "pity".

They move in mysterious ways.

It's ... life, ect

You mean like claiming He is omnipotent? Omniscient? Created heaven and hell just as well? From whence to these claims originate?

You ....ache".

The last part I do know.

"I don't know" is not a sufficient counter hypothesis.

The suggestion was not sufficient in of itself. Unless you really do want to argue about a mind spirit compelling you to argue with me.

Why would I argue for the entity you presented. This is a common Atheist tactic. You propose an entity straw man and then demand the theist support it. NO Sir. I won't argue for Santa, Goblins, Mermaids, or your mind spirit. I will argue for God's existence.

Even though the "evidence" is just as sound for mermaids and goblins. Please forgive me if I feel "Well it had to come from SOME where!" is not an argument.

You are certainly allowed to argue that the presented arguments are insufficient. but I don't think you are suing it correctly. You seem to imply the Cosmological Argument is insufficient because it is not 100% certain. But that is not what sufficient means.

An eternal universe is just as sufficient, and much more in line with that dude's razor.

Take for example this illustration. You are walking home and see a large 3 meter across log on the bottom of a hill. And you see young 4 year old kids playing around it. The next day you see the log on top of the hill. Suggesting the kids moved the log is an example of an insufficient hypothesis. The children are physically unable to move the log uphill.

So if you want to argue that an entity as powerful as all the energy in the universe existent outside of this space and time (maybe in an encapsulating space-time) is insufficient that would have to be your argument. But "I don't know" and "that's not 100% proven" is not equivalent to "insufficient". Doubt is inherent in human knowledge.

So I give those traits to the universe as a whole. Its eternal. Its power changes as it ages. What is the problem with that? It rely on no "spiritual", it rely on no agency that exists beforehand, and more over, its self contained. Nothing more need be added to it.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 3:36:04 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 3:07:32 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

You can argue the universe is eternal. The evidence or cosmological observations don't support so.

Those being...?

Okay I'll restate that. you claim the universe is eternal. Please challenge me to a debate where you have the BoP to such a resolution.


As for being omnipotent it depends on how you define that. Certainly what the Cosmological Argument concludes to is an entity with sufficient power. And that power exceeds all the power in the universe. Considering the universe is all things in existence, it is appropriate to consider all- powerful being omnipotent.

"sufficient" becomes "all", according to the KCA?

The KCA argues a God is sufficient to create the universe.


Do you have a link for such a statistic, I'm interesting in seeing the methodology used.

... much as I am interested in the methodology of claiming something is demonic possession in the first place. The point was that before accurate knowledge of strange phenomenon was made, "The Devil did it!" was vague enough to fit the bill.

So you stated that claimed possessions have decreased in the modern age. And you can't cite any such survey or evidence. noted.

So I ask again would you accept eye witness accounts from exorcist and possession victims as evidence for demon existence?



Are you willing to accept the eye witness testimony of people who said they saw angels saving them during life threatening situations?

Sure, if they can demonstrate their situation. Was such an occurrence seen by more than one person?

Why does more than one person make an entity any more real? But are you saying you would accept an eyewitness account of 2 or more?

Lends to credibility, sure. I saw an angel die in my backyard.

Okay for the sake of credibility some stipulations should be made. How many accounts of 2 or more would you accept as evidence? How do you calculate what is a sufficient number for a confident conclusion?


You believe me, right?

A dying angel is exceptional to many testimonies. I believe it is possible you saw something. And further discussion would be needed to discern what I am or am not willing to accept at face value from your testimony. And certainly one testimony alone as you cited earlier for credibility is too small a sample to extrapolate a universal truth from.


What about the testimonies recorded in history?

Specifically referring to what?

Would you accept the testimonies recorded in Holy Scriptures? here's an easier question. Do you accept that people through out the world through out history have testimonies with similarities. Some of these similarities being a recurring motif of angelic or demonic beings.

Now, do you think there is an explanation for these observations and recurring accounts? If a partial amount of these accounts are absent evidence of mental illness, drug induced, ect.. would you consider these accounts accurate descriptions that lend credence to the existence of entities we commonly identify as angelic or demonic?
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 4:17:42 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/20/2016 1:36:53 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
Atheist: Major premise: Everything I say is true for the sole reason that I say it.
Minor premise: I say God is a poopyhead.
Conclusion: It is true God is a poopyhead.

Christian: Your major premise is not only false, but it demonstrates you are mentally ill.

Atheist: Will you stop with the ad hominems [sic]. And prove me wrong.

My response to your post is that these are only arguments of trolls and the ill informed on this forum, and I suspect you might be one of them.

Probably the premises of atheism are as follows:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
If claims lack evidence but has not been disproved e.g. unicorns or fairies then you should lack belief in their existence and live your life as if they didn't exist.
Religion lacks extraordinary evidence so one should not believe in it.
Scientific advanced especially in evolution have shown that the argument from the design is wrong.
Many things in nature now have naturalistic explanation.
Just because we can't explain something now does not mean mythology is the default explanation.
Many of the actions of the biblical God are illogical and immoral by modern standards.
Claims of miracles have never been independently confirmed and are on the same level of believably of bigfoot, UFO, and psychic claims.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 4:19:17 AM
Posted: 8 months ago

You can argue the universe is eternal. The evidence or cosmological observations don't support so.

Those being...?

Okay I'll restate that. you claim the universe is eternal. Please challenge me to a debate where you have the BoP to such a resolution.


As for being omnipotent it depends on how you define that. Certainly what the Cosmological Argument concludes to is an entity with sufficient power. And that power exceeds all the power in the universe. Considering the universe is all things in existence, it is appropriate to consider all- powerful being omnipotent.

"sufficient" becomes "all", according to the KCA?

The KCA argues a God is sufficient to create the universe.


Do you have a link for such a statistic, I'm interesting in seeing the methodology used.

... much as I am interested in the methodology of claiming something is demonic possession in the first place. The point was that before accurate knowledge of strange phenomenon was made, "The Devil did it!" was vague enough to fit the bill.

So you stated that claimed possessions have decreased in the modern age. And you can't cite any such survey or evidence. noted.

And I have asked you for demons. you provided none. Just as equally noted.

So I ask again would you accept eye witness accounts from exorcist and possession victims as evidence for demon existence?

Why need it be "possession" and not an actual demon?



Are you willing to accept the eye witness testimony of people who said they saw angels saving them during life threatening situations?

Sure, if they can demonstrate their situation. Was such an occurrence seen by more than one person?

Why does more than one person make an entity any more real? But are you saying you would accept an eyewitness account of 2 or more?

Lends to credibility, sure. I saw an angel die in my backyard.

Okay for the sake of credibility some stipulations should be made. How many accounts of 2 or more would you accept as evidence? How do you calculate what is a sufficient number for a confident conclusion?

I would like three, preferably of dissimilar background or reason for presence at the event.


You believe me, right?

A dying angel is exceptional to many testimonies.

You don't think "God" as explained is exceptional?

I believe it is possible you saw something. And further discussion would be needed to discern what I am or am not willing to accept at face value from your testimony. And certainly one testimony alone as you cited earlier for credibility is too small a sample to extrapolate a universal truth from.


What about the testimonies recorded in history?

Specifically referring to what?

Would you accept the testimonies recorded in Holy Scriptures? here's an easier question.

Sure, but the problem is they aren't concurrent. The Egytpians kept pretty decent records, you would thinking a Frog Rain might have come up, or the Nile turning to blood.

Now, do you think there is an explanation for these observations and recurring accounts? If a partial amount of these accounts are absent evidence of mental illness, drug induced, ect.. would you consider these accounts accurate descriptions that lend credence to the existence of entities we commonly identify as angelic or demonic?

Well, lets review them and see.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2016 4:20:44 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/21/2016 3:07:32 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
What's the point of trying to show you such things if you will close your eyes.

Because one person's testimony is subject to personal bias. I can dredge up countless "evidence" in which some one swears the hand of God was afoot, only to find out through an objective lens later that a series of fortunate but mundane events occurred.

And such a mundane explanation is sufficient in how many cases? 50%.. 90%. If not 100% then there is evidence for spirit, for God.

... so the absence of an immediate practical observation is evidence for something else? Is that your benchmark?

I should clarify then. Eye-witness accounts spanning history and regions all over the world I don't dismissively, biasly, and categorically label as non practical observation.

Actually I find the distinction between observation and eye-witness to be no distinction at all. And to state so is evident of fallacious thinking on your part.




Oh.

Such ss saying there is no biological life except on earth, anywhere in the universe. Clearly the lack of evidence to support there is life on another planet is more indicative of an incomplete search than it is for the nonexistence of life.

However there is immediately an evidence to go off of. God, however, must have His traits defined to Him rather than flowing from what is already present.

Obviously the traits defined to any entity is from what the evidence supports.


So then I can invent any entity or entities to support an event. Earthquakes are caused by three Four intangible earth spirits, each one shaking the world on a whim in each of the hemispheres.

This would mean each one co shares their hemisphere with 2 other spirits. how are these hemispheres divided? along what lines of demarcation?

Why, the equator and Prime Meridian, of course. They (said spirits) inspired man to formulate them.

Okay if you want to continue, could you explain how shaking the hemispheres as a unit would produce shock waves that don't match the radial shockwaves recorded? And that the best explanation for the radial and semi-consistent eruption of quakes is best explained by plate tectonics.


I would think if the hemisphere is being shaken that resulting vibration would be more horizontally elastic than radial as the reading of earth quakes we have. So earth quakes erupt from points. And they are not wholly random. But why should we waste time arguing for hypothesis you don't actually support, and are not sufficient. I suggest if you come up with such a mythology that it meats explaining the observations, you will find that it is strong enough to be a competitive hypothesis.

Even though I know I just made it up? I am tailoring the narrative I want to the evidence, not letting the evidence point to a conclusion.

Every explanation is drawn from the evidence. It takes a thinking person to draw a conclusion from the evidence. And while you seem to imply matching an narrative to the evidence is erroneous, perhaps you are unaware that theory precedes experiment.

Einsteins theory of relativity was the theory, it was an explanation in an attempt to explain the variation present in Mercuries orbit. The majority of Scientist working with what they already knew of conjectured there was a planet opposite Mercury's orbit called Vulcan. ((An explanation or narrative created to match the observed evidence))((An explanation that used the addition of a previously conceived entity or interaction)). Then new experiments were created to distinguish 2 competing hypothesis. New evidence, new observations lent credence to one of them.

But we don't have the technology to test everything. We don't have the power to even know what the extent of a domain might be. For centuries no one knew of Ultraviolet light or infrared. Sure there were Calorific Rays discovered in 1800's. I'm not suggesting the narratives of theist are 100% accurate. I am saying the dismissal of evidence by Atheist is not based on logic but stubborn emotional refusal.

that the claim "no evidence" is an unqualified statement. lacking any logical support. Even lacking any empirical support.




This is rather epistemology evident. You can't suggest what adjectives define "biological life" unless you compare it with things that are not "biological life". "God" is only different to the irrational Atheist.

your .... to me.

or the chemical reactions in my robot brain are being activated by the photons coming from the computer screen. And the interesting sensation of symbols we call "writing" are deterministically causing a release of chemicals and hormones that make me feel what we normally ascribe as "pity".

They move in mysterious ways.

Sure there may be means we are unaware of. But do you have any evidence that would justify suspending doubt and believe so?

I however point to consistent history of witness accounts, cosmological finitude, and can cite other observations that nearly every human being admits is experienced or observed.


The suggestion was not sufficient in of itself. Unless you really do want to argue about a mind spirit compelling you to argue with me.

Why would I argue for the entity you presented. This is a common Atheist tactic. You propose an entity straw man and then demand the theist support it. NO Sir. I won't argue for Santa, Goblins, Mermaids, or your mind spirit. I will argue for God's existence.

Even though the "evidence" is just as sound for mermaids and goblins. Please forgive me if I feel "Well it had to come from SOME where!" is not an argument.

Okay so you aren't interested in intellectual conversation. You would rather erupt 20 different arguments about spirits and goblins instead of the claims you have made. Everyone on this forum is too familiar with this Atheist tactic. You already even encouraged that I support your disgruntled mental spirit entity exists, a conjecture you proposed not me.

Evidence is what supports a statement as being in accordance to reality. This statement is either a premise or a conclusion of an argument. 2 different opposing conclusions may rely on the same evidence. To discern which is a correct interpretation or not requires the addition of new evidence, new observations.

That's how rational people conceptualize reality. "I don't want the explanation to be God or possibly lead to God, so I am going to say there is no evidence"



An eternal universe is just as sufficient, and much more in line with that dude's razor.

okay, what evidence do you have of an eternal universe. Cosmological observations that have lead to the acceptance of the Big Bang theory in addition to astronomical observations of an inflating universe proposes a regression of the universe to a state that is finite and a set amount of time into the past. If we attempt an analogy of the singularity to bose-einstein condensates we know that quantum fluctuations are absorbed back into the whole. The energy exerted by the mass can only put so much into the fluctuation. For something to change drastically it needs to lose energy or gain energy. In case of such a singularity there would be a stable entity incapable of turning into the universe without some release or gain of energy. A closed universe if eternal would be infinitely stable. It is acceptable to reason a creative event took place.