Total Posts:171|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Best Arguments for the Existence of God!

Bluepaintcan123
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 9:57:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I have a paper where I discuss my beliefs and I need information for my counter-argument. I'd like some of the most convincing arguments for god that you have.
Thanks.
-Blue
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 11:41:12 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 9:57:18 PM, Bluepaintcan123 wrote:
I have a paper where I discuss my beliefs and I need information for my counter-argument. I'd like some of the most convincing arguments for god that you have.
Thanks.

The only way we know anything is by experience.
I will concede that much of this is second hand experience - someone else developed the information that we then review, and accept, or not, based on our own history.
Still, it is our experience that convinces us to accept or reject a belief.
For each person, it is their experience that will convince them of the existence of God, or not.
Now my experience will have little effect at convincing others, but that really does not matter.
I need to know Truth for myself. In this regard, others are not my concern.
Willows
Posts: 2,076
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 1:23:27 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 9:57:18 PM, Bluepaintcan123 wrote:
I have a paper where I discuss my beliefs and I need information for my counter-argument. I'd like some of the most convincing arguments for god that you have.
Thanks.

Be comforted by the fact that there is not, nor has there ever been, a convincing argument for God. The "most" convincing argument would have to be so incredulous as to be laughable.
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 3:04:46 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 9:57:18 PM, Bluepaintcan123 wrote:
I have a paper where I discuss my beliefs and I need information for my counter-argument. I'd like some of the most convincing arguments for god that you have.
Thanks.
The best argument is the fear of death, not death itself, just the fear of it.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 3:36:28 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 9:57:18 PM, Bluepaintcan123 wrote:
I have a paper where I discuss my beliefs and I need information for my counter-argument. I'd like some of the most convincing arguments for god that you have.
Thanks.

http://www.debate.org...
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

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

"Wow"
-Doge

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

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Dujec
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 4:36:41 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 9:57:18 PM, Bluepaintcan123 wrote:
I have a paper where I discuss my beliefs and I need information for my counter-argument. I'd like some of the most convincing arguments for god that you have.
Thanks.

The most confusing seem to hook the most people. Most of these have been around for a forever. Click for summaries of the pop modern versions and responses:

http://websites.milonic.com...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 6:21:14 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 9:57:18 PM, Bluepaintcan123 wrote:
I have a paper where I discuss my beliefs and I need information for my counter-argument. I'd like some of the most convincing arguments for god that you have.
Thanks.

Response:

Hypothesis: A repeating pattern can only originate from choice.

Test subject:
You.

Experiment
: Draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so (Non-choice).

Conclusion
: You failed.

Thus you have firsthand evidence that a repeating pattern cannot originate from non-choice, but choice. As such the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originated from choice, proving God's existence.

Common atheist/agnostic rebuttal:


Atheists/Agnostics say: We do have evidence of non-choice creating repeating patterns. Crystals, snowflakes, etc..

Response: If stating that non-choice can produce a repeating pattern because you have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, etc., then stating that non-choice CANNOT produce a repeating pattern is also true because we have an example of it not working (your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice). As such, the argument for non-choice fails since it contradicts. Leaving the option of choice as the answer. Therefore, the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself proves originates from choice, proving God exist.

For it is not that the examples work and do not work, what makes it a contradiction is that THEY OPPOSE each other. Meaning the reasoning you use to favor your argument, also goes against it. You are claiming something is true, and THE REASON is because you have examples. Yet one can say that your argument is untrue. Why? Because we have examples. Notice, the very argument you are using goes against you. THAT IS WHY IT IS A CONTRADICTION. So non-choice fails as evidence, because the reason you use to favor it (because you have examples) also goes against you (there are examples). Thus the evidence is clear that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice, proving that the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originate from choice. Proving the existence of God.

Furthermore, you claim that your proof that non-choice created the pattern is because you did not see choice. Yet if you found an IPhone in the sand or on the street, and we ask was this IPhone created by choice or without choice, you would all say "someone chose to make it, despite not seeing choice. A blatant contradiction. Showing once again that non-choice is false since it is based on a contradiction, leaving choice as the option and proving God exist.
Skeptical1
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 6:45:43 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 6:21:14 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/29/2016 9:57:18 PM, Bluepaintcan123 wrote:
I have a paper where I discuss my beliefs and I need information for my counter-argument. I'd like some of the most convincing arguments for god that you have.
Thanks.

Response:

Hypothesis: A repeating pattern can only originate from choice.

Test subject:
You.

Experiment
: Draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so (Non-choice).

Conclusion
: You failed.

Thus you have firsthand evidence that a repeating pattern cannot originate from non-choice, but choice. As such the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originated from choice, proving God's existence.

Common atheist/agnostic rebuttal:


Atheists/Agnostics say: We do have evidence of non-choice creating repeating patterns. Crystals, snowflakes, etc..

Response: If stating that non-choice can produce a repeating pattern because you have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, etc., then stating that non-choice CANNOT produce a repeating pattern is also true because we have an example of it not working (your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice). As such, the argument for non-choice fails since it contradicts. Leaving the option of choice as the answer. Therefore, the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself proves originates from choice, proving God exist.

For it is not that the examples work and do not work, what makes it a contradiction is that THEY OPPOSE each other. Meaning the reasoning you use to favor your argument, also goes against it. You are claiming something is true, and THE REASON is because you have examples. Yet one can say that your argument is untrue. Why? Because we have examples. Notice, the very argument you are using goes against you. THAT IS WHY IT IS A CONTRADICTION. So non-choice fails as evidence, because the reason you use to favor it (because you have examples) also goes against you (there are examples). Thus the evidence is clear that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice, proving that the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originate from choice. Proving the existence of God.

Furthermore, you claim that your proof that non-choice created the pattern is because you did not see choice. Yet if you found an IPhone in the sand or on the street, and we ask was this IPhone created by choice or without choice, you would all say "someone chose to make it, despite not seeing choice. A blatant contradiction. Showing once again that non-choice is false since it is based on a contradiction, leaving choice as the option and proving God exist.

The OP explicitly asked for convincing arguments.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 6:54:28 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 6:45:43 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:

The OP explicitly asked for convincing arguments.

Response: Your response convincingly confirmed it as such.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 6:55:23 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 6:21:14 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/29/2016 9:57:18 PM, Bluepaintcan123 wrote:
I have a paper where I discuss my beliefs and I need information for my counter-argument. I'd like some of the most convincing arguments for god that you have.
Thanks.

Response:

Hypothesis: A repeating pattern can only originate from choice.

Test subject:
You.

Experiment
: Draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so (Non-choice).

Conclusion
: You failed.

Thus you have firsthand evidence that a repeating pattern cannot originate from non-choice, but choice. As such the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originated from choice, proving God's existence.

Common atheist/agnostic rebuttal:


Atheists/Agnostics say: We do have evidence of non-choice creating repeating patterns. Crystals, snowflakes, etc..

Response: If stating that non-choice can produce a repeating pattern because you have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, etc., then stating that non-choice CANNOT produce a repeating pattern is also true because we have an example of it not working (your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice). As such, the argument for non-choice fails since it contradicts. Leaving the option of choice as the answer. Therefore, the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself proves originates from choice, proving God exist.

For it is not that the examples work and do not work, what makes it a contradiction is that THEY OPPOSE each other. Meaning the reasoning you use to favor your argument, also goes against it. You are claiming something is true, and THE REASON is because you have examples. Yet one can say that your argument is untrue. Why? Because we have examples. Notice, the very argument you are using goes against you. THAT IS WHY IT IS A CONTRADICTION. So non-choice fails as evidence, because the reason you use to favor it (because you have examples) also goes against you (there are examples). Thus the evidence is clear that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice, proving that the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originate from choice. Proving the existence of God.

Furthermore, you claim that your proof that non-choice created the pattern is because you did not see choice. Yet if you found an IPhone in the sand or on the street, and we ask was this IPhone created by choice or without choice, you would all say "someone chose to make it, despite not seeing choice. A blatant contradiction. Showing once again that non-choice is false since it is based on a contradiction, leaving choice as the option and proving God exist.

I see you are still stuck on stupid. Doesnt it hurt?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 6:59:52 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 6:55:23 AM, janesix wrote:

I see you are still stuck on stupid. Doesnt it hurt?

Response: Not when what you call stupid is 10 times more logical than your most intellectual stance.
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 7:18:57 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 6:59:52 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:55:23 AM, janesix wrote:

I see you are still stuck on stupid. Doesnt it hurt?

Response: Not when what you call stupid is 10 times more logical than your most intellectual stance.
Another quran comedic special.
2:23 And if ye are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our slave (Muhammad), then produce a surah of the like thereof, and call your witness beside Allah if ye are truthful.
An example of a surah
2:17 Their likeness is as the likeness of one who kindleth fire, and when it sheddeth its light around him Allah taketh away their light and leaveth them in darkness, where they cannot see,
An example of a better surah.

Hickory, dickory, dock.
The mouse ran up the clock.
The clock struck one,
The mouse ran down,
Hickory, dickory, dock.

Thus proving the quran is juat crap.
Skeptical1
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 9:06:02 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 6:54:28 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:45:43 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:

The OP explicitly asked for convincing arguments.

Response: Your response convincingly confirmed it as such.

To be convincing, your arguments would need to be logically sound. To put your arguments into English, and remove the nonsensical way you've used the term "cannot", you have stated:

1. Non-choice may lead to a pattern (snowflake).
2. Choice may lead to a pattern (checkerboard).

You've then claimed this to be a contradiction, which, of course is rubbish, as a similar example will show:

1. Smoking may lead to cancer.
2. UV exposure may lead to cancer.

Is this a contradiction? It is not, any more than your obscurely worded example is.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 10:02:54 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 9:06:02 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:

To be convincing, your arguments would need to be logically sound. To put your arguments into English, and remove the nonsensical way you've used the term "cannot", you have stated:

1. Non-choice may lead to a pattern (snowflake).
2. Choice may lead to a pattern (checkerboard).

You've then claimed this to be a contradiction, which, of course is rubbish, as a similar example will show:

1. Smoking may lead to cancer.
2. UV exposure may lead to cancer.

Is this a contradiction? It is not, any more than your obscurely worded example is.

Response: For your rebuttal to be convincing and refute the logic of my argument, it requires you to address my actual argument, which is non-choice "cannot' originate a repeating pattern. Instead you addressed your own strawman, non-choice may lead to a pattern. Debunked.

Any more impotent atheist logic you want to present and see refuted by the evidence that God exist?
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 10:39:47 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 6:21:14 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/29/2016 9:57:18 PM, Bluepaintcan123 wrote:
I have a paper where I discuss my beliefs and I need information for my counter-argument. I'd like some of the most convincing arguments for god that you have.
Thanks.

Response:

Hypothesis: A repeating pattern can only originate from choice.

Test subject:
You.

Experiment
: Draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so (Non-choice).

Conclusion
: You failed.

Thus you have firsthand evidence that a repeating pattern cannot originate from non-choice, but choice. As such the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originated from choice, proving God's existence.

Common atheist/agnostic rebuttal:


Atheists/Agnostics say: We do have evidence of non-choice creating repeating patterns. Crystals, snowflakes, etc..

Response: If stating that non-choice can produce a repeating pattern because you have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, etc., then stating that non-choice CANNOT produce a repeating pattern is also true because we have an example of it not working (your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice). As such, the argument for non-choice fails since it contradicts. Leaving the option of choice as the answer. Therefore, the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself proves originates from choice, proving God exist.

For it is not that the examples work and do not work, what makes it a contradiction is that THEY OPPOSE each other. Meaning the reasoning you use to favor your argument, also goes against it. You are claiming something is true, and THE REASON is because you have examples. Yet one can say that your argument is untrue. Why? Because we have examples. Notice, the very argument you are using goes against you. THAT IS WHY IT IS A CONTRADICTION. So non-choice fails as evidence, because the reason you use to favor it (because you have examples) also goes against you (there are examples). Thus the evidence is clear that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice, proving that the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originate from choice. Proving the existence of God.

Furthermore, you claim that your proof that non-choice created the pattern is because you did not see choice. Yet if you found an IPhone in the sand or on the street, and we ask was this IPhone created by choice or without choice, you would all say "someone chose to make it, despite not seeing choice. A blatant contradiction. Showing once again that non-choice is false since it is based on a contradiction, leaving choice as the option and proving God exist.

It worries me that you're still too f*cking stupid to see how hilariously bad that argument is. Literally the dumbest one I've ever seen. If that's what passes for philosophy in Islam, no wonder Islamic nations are all rapey wastelands full of people so tired of living they'd rather explode.
Skeptical1
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 12:59:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 10:02:54 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:06:02 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:

To be convincing, your arguments would need to be logically sound. To put your arguments into English, and remove the nonsensical way you've used the term "cannot", you have stated:

1. Non-choice may lead to a pattern (snowflake).
2. Choice may lead to a pattern (checkerboard).

You've then claimed this to be a contradiction, which, of course is rubbish, as a similar example will show:

1. Smoking may lead to cancer.
2. UV exposure may lead to cancer.

Is this a contradiction? It is not, any more than your obscurely worded example is.

Response: For your rebuttal to be convincing and refute the logic of my argument, it requires you to address my actual argument, which is non-choice "cannot' originate a repeating pattern. Instead you addressed your own strawman, non-choice may lead to a pattern. Debunked.

Any more impotent atheist logic you want to present and see refuted by the evidence that God exist?

I didn't need to disprove anything. You've already proven that your assertion is false, and you provided the examples - snowflakes and crystals. Did I inadvertently assign you too much credit by assuming that you merely expressed a non-sequitur in the most clumsy fashion possible, when in actual fact you kindly provided the denial of your own false assertion? Clearly I understimated your talent for stuffing up.

If you can actually put your argument (whatever that may be) into a set of logically valid propositions, maybe there will be something to discuss. Otherwise, only your imaginary friend will be impressed by your claim of "debunked".

Oh, and this is for free...

"Fatihah cannot express himself clearly" means "it is impossible for Fatihah to express himself clearly". It does not mean "sometimes Fatihah expresses himself clearly, and other times not".
KwLm
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 2:17:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 10:02:54 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/30/2016 9:06:02 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:

To be convincing, your arguments would need to be logically sound. To put your arguments into English, and remove the nonsensical way you've used the term "cannot", you have stated:

1. Non-choice may lead to a pattern (snowflake).
2. Choice may lead to a pattern (checkerboard).

You've then claimed this to be a contradiction, which, of course is rubbish, as a similar example will show:

1. Smoking may lead to cancer.
2. UV exposure may lead to cancer.

Is this a contradiction? It is not, any more than your obscurely worded example is.

Response: For your rebuttal to be convincing and refute the logic of my argument, it requires you to address my actual argument, which is non-choice "cannot' originate a repeating pattern. Instead you addressed your own strawman, non-choice may lead to a pattern. Debunked.

Any more impotent atheist logic you want to present and see refuted by the evidence that God exist?

I've already debunked you're idiotic logic with the bees and pollination of the flowers
Fatihah
Posts: 7,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 2:35:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 10:39:47 AM, Graincruncher wrote:

It worries me that you're still too f*cking stupid to see how hilariously bad that argument is. Literally the dumbest one I've ever seen. If that's what passes for philosophy in Islam, no wonder Islamic nations are all rapey wastelands full of people so tired of living they'd rather explode.

Response: What you should be worried about is your retarded responses to the argument presented. No different than the same impotent rebuttals made by all deluded atheists, which only serves as another prime example of not only how stupid your pathetic logic continues to be, but it's so deluded that you redundantly repeat it without realizing that you continue to expose and embarrass yourself. Not Islam.

No wonder people continue to run and embrace Islam even within the society you reside in. DUMB atheist.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 2:38:51 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 9:57:18 PM, Bluepaintcan123 wrote:
I have a paper where I discuss my beliefs and I need information for my counter-argument. I'd like some of the most convincing arguments for god that you have.
Thanks.

Best explanation for...

Moral argument

Natural telos

Origin of the universe

Fine-tuning of the universe

Origin of specified-complex information in the first DNA molecule

There's more but it gets more philosophical (reality having a fundamentally mental nature etc.).
Fatihah
Posts: 7,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 2:40:20 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 12:59:04 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:

I didn't need to disprove anything. You've already proven that your assertion is false, and you provided the examples - snowflakes and crystals. Did I inadvertently assign you too much credit by assuming that you merely expressed a non-sequitur in the most clumsy fashion possible, when in actual fact you kindly provided the denial of your own false assertion? Clearly I understimated your talent for stuffing up.

If you can actually put your argument (whatever that may be) into a set of logically valid propositions, maybe there will be something to discuss. Otherwise, only your imaginary friend will be impressed by your claim of "debunked".

Oh, and this is for free...

"Fatihah cannot express himself clearly" means "it is impossible for Fatihah to express himself clearly". It does not mean "sometimes Fatihah expresses himself clearly, and other times not".

Response: To the contrary, your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choice supports the fact that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice, including snowflakes and crystals. Proving God exist. Debunked as usual.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 2:42:55 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 2:17:49 PM, KwLm wrote:

I've already debunked you're idiotic logic with the bees and pollination of the flowers

Response: You actually proved my argument and refuted your own idiotic rebuttal about bees and flowers by failing firsthand to create a simple checkerboard pattern without choice, thereby proving repeating patterns can only originate from choice. Proving God exist.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 2:47:35 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 2:40:20 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/30/2016 12:59:04 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:

I didn't need to disprove anything. You've already proven that your assertion is false, and you provided the examples - snowflakes and crystals. Did I inadvertently assign you too much credit by assuming that you merely expressed a non-sequitur in the most clumsy fashion possible, when in actual fact you kindly provided the denial of your own false assertion? Clearly I understimated your talent for stuffing up.

If you can actually put your argument (whatever that may be) into a set of logically valid propositions, maybe there will be something to discuss. Otherwise, only your imaginary friend will be impressed by your claim of "debunked".

Oh, and this is for free...

"Fatihah cannot express himself clearly" means "it is impossible for Fatihah to express himself clearly". It does not mean "sometimes Fatihah expresses himself clearly, and other times not".

Response: To the contrary, your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choice supports the fact that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice, including snowflakes and crystals. Proving God exist. Debunked as usual.

It depends on whether it's an independent and functional pattern. A dependent pattern is when there's a pattern that originates by energy following its lowest energy gradient (snowflakes, vortex, etc.). An independent pattern, caused by wind and erosion, won't have enough information-richness to be functional. An independent and functional pattern originates from specified and complex information and that kind of information we only know comes from intelligent agency.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 2:51:15 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 2:35:21 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/30/2016 10:39:47 AM, Graincruncher wrote:

It worries me that you're still too f*cking stupid to see how hilariously bad that argument is. Literally the dumbest one I've ever seen. If that's what passes for philosophy in Islam, no wonder Islamic nations are all rapey wastelands full of people so tired of living they'd rather explode.

Response: What you should be worried about is your retarded responses to the argument presented. No different than the same impotent rebuttals made by all deluded atheists, which only serves as another prime example of not only how stupid your pathetic logic continues to be, but it's so deluded that you redundantly repeat it without realizing that you continue to expose and embarrass yourself. Not Islam.

No wonder people continue to run and embrace Islam even within the society you reside in. DUMB atheist.

Nope; Muslims come here then leave Islam. There is no rush to embrace by the natives and anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar. Just as ever which imbecile taught you 'rhetoric' is a fraud. If you can't see the flaw in your own argument then you're in no position to call others retarded.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 3:00:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 2:47:35 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

It depends on whether it's an independent and functional pattern. A dependent pattern is when there's a pattern that originates by energy following its lowest energy gradient (snowflakes, vortex, etc.). An independent pattern, caused by wind and erosion, won't have enough information-richness to be functional. An independent and functional pattern originates from specified and complex information and that kind of information we only know comes from intelligent agency.

Response: Not at all. No repeating pattern can originate from non-choice, supported by your own firsthand failure to draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choice.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 3:02:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 2:51:15 PM, Graincruncher wrote:

Nope; Muslims come here then leave Islam. There is no rush to embrace by the natives and anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar. Just as ever which imbecile taught you 'rhetoric' is a fraud. If you can't see the flaw in your own argument then you're in no position to call others retarded.

Response: Nope. Dumb atheists embrace Islam once they desire what is actually true and not retardation, such as atheism.
rnjs
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 3:22:46 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 9:57:18 PM, Bluepaintcan123 wrote:
I have a paper where I discuss my beliefs and I need information for my counter-argument. I'd like some of the most convincing arguments for god that you have.
Thanks.

The problem is that people don't see things the same way, so that what is a convincing argument for some is nonsense to another. Fossils and dinosaur bones don't come with birth certificates so one has to interpret what they see. Since the scientific method cannot apply to anything that can't be tested and repeated in a lab it then becomes detective work.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 3:24:19 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 9:57:18 PM, Bluepaintcan123 wrote:
I have a paper where I discuss my beliefs and I need information for my counter-argument. I'd like some of the most convincing arguments for god that you have.
Thanks.

There are many and they're not hard to find on the web, but the argument from contingency is a good one, listen here:

https://www.youtube.com...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 3:59:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 3:02:25 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/30/2016 2:51:15 PM, Graincruncher wrote:

Nope; Muslims come here then leave Islam. There is no rush to embrace by the natives and anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar. Just as ever which imbecile taught you 'rhetoric' is a fraud. If you can't see the flaw in your own argument then you're in no position to call others retarded.

Response: Nope. Dumb atheists embrace Islam once they desire what is actually true and not retardation, such as atheism.

Not sure I would agree with that, I think an atheist would have to be stark raving bonkers to embrace Islam, not just dumb.
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
Fatihah
Posts: 7,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 4:02:26 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 3:59:38 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Not sure I would agree with that, I think an atheist would have to be stark raving bonkers to embrace Islam, not just dumb.

Response: And even more bonkers and retarded to remain an atheist.
PGA
Posts: 4,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 4:05:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 6:55:23 AM, janesix wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:21:14 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 10/29/2016 9:57:18 PM, Bluepaintcan123 wrote:
I have a paper where I discuss my beliefs and I need information for my counter-argument. I'd like some of the most convincing arguments for god that you have.
Thanks.

Response:

Hypothesis: A repeating pattern can only originate from choice.

Test subject:
You.

Experiment
: Draw a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so (Non-choice).

Conclusion
: You failed.

Thus you have firsthand evidence that a repeating pattern cannot originate from non-choice, but choice. As such the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originated from choice, proving God's existence.

Common atheist/agnostic rebuttal:


Atheists/Agnostics say: We do have evidence of non-choice creating repeating patterns. Crystals, snowflakes, etc..

Response: If stating that non-choice can produce a repeating pattern because you have examples such as crystals, snowflakes, etc., then stating that non-choice CANNOT produce a repeating pattern is also true because we have an example of it not working (your own failure to draw a simple checkerboard without choice). As such, the argument for non-choice fails since it contradicts. Leaving the option of choice as the answer. Therefore, the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself proves originates from choice, proving God exist.

For it is not that the examples work and do not work, what makes it a contradiction is that THEY OPPOSE each other. Meaning the reasoning you use to favor your argument, also goes against it. You are claiming something is true, and THE REASON is because you have examples. Yet one can say that your argument is untrue. Why? Because we have examples. Notice, the very argument you are using goes against you. THAT IS WHY IT IS A CONTRADICTION. So non-choice fails as evidence, because the reason you use to favor it (because you have examples) also goes against you (there are examples). Thus the evidence is clear that a repeating pattern can only originate from choice, proving that the repeating patterns in the universe and life itself originate from choice. Proving the existence of God.

Furthermore, you claim that your proof that non-choice created the pattern is because you did not see choice. Yet if you found an IPhone in the sand or on the street, and we ask was this IPhone created by choice or without choice, you would all say "someone chose to make it, despite not seeing choice. A blatant contradiction. Showing once again that non-choice is false since it is based on a contradiction, leaving choice as the option and proving God exist.

I see you are still stuck on stupid. Doesnt it hurt?

You tell me!

I loved the computer analogies someone presented years ago that show how patterns can appear without choice, by randomness! The only thing forgotten is that they were inputted and generated by a thinking being and are analyzed by thinking beings.

Peter