The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
The Contender
philboi
Con (against)

Why is it that christians do not present anything new that atheists haven't debunked countless times

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
backwardseden has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2021 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 901 times Debate No: 127575
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (35)
Votes (0)

 

backwardseden

Pro

Indeed, A very good question. "Why is it that christians do not present anything new that atheists haven't debunked countless times? "

A word of humble caution: There's gonna be a lot of sarcasm within this dee-bate. So if that's not your cup of tea, Then do not drink on!
However, The ideas are plumb and as sure as daylight sound.
* Pascal's Wager = Zzzzz. That you should wager for god. Really? Poker chips. A good bluff. Yeah, People bet with their lives if this whatever untamed she=rew of a god exists or not. And if it doesn't, Then you will have lost nothing and the concept remains invalid. If this god exists (in which case there's no possible way it can ever prove that it exists), How could have Pascal thought it up? AND what a tepid morbid god to breed his flock this way. So either way, It's a no-go to bite into this dreamboat. BELIEVE IN YOURSELF! There! Not so hard!
* The Ontological argument = boring. Greater than the mind can POOF explode. Shebang Pow. A new pow wow?
* The Argument from "personal" Experience which is the same as nothingness because this revolts back to why doesn't this meaningless meandering unproven god lookout for suffering children rather than a runt like you who has had a "personal experience" whoop tee doo.
* Faith = Only in the greatest flop of the bible would faith be such an iconic presence and used as a superior weapon.
"It's called faith because it's not knowledge. " Christopher Hitchens
"Why would a god rely on faith instead of evidence? " Matt Dillahunty
"Faith is the reason people give when they don't have evidence. " Matt Dillahunty

* The Kalam Cosmological Argument = 1. First off you have to look at the idiot that William dimwitted dullard noosed sow snot meat is. And how easily it as a so-called doggie dung is torn apart from limb to limb. Would you like some vidies on it? Y____? N____? 2. Cause.
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=QLRN8er7w8I - Facile Questions for Atheists
As proposed correctly by TMM "If god exists, Why does he exists, Instead of not existing? If he can just exist by necessity without needing a cause, Why can't the universe exist by necessity without a cause? "
Now classe' doesn't that remind you of the dopey "Duh George which way did he go? "
What christians BELIEVE is that there MUST be something outside of that individual item - "from beyond" Oooo danger danger.
Well great! Then they'd have to prove it, In which case they can't.
Supposed christians would also have to prove their unproven storybook character fabled fantasy undefined whatever supposed "god" OF PRINT ONLY from a BOOK, Namely their bible that no idiot true genuine god would ever use text/ the written word as a form of communication, Advertisement, Correspondence to get its messages from itself to man, That nobody in the entire existence of the human race has ever been able to prove even exists in the first place in which case their whatever god cannot prove itself to anyone ever anyway.

Oh yeah, There's plenty more arguments that so-called christians come across that are so very easily debunked and will continue into further RD's, That atheists like myself and millions of others simply get tired of explaining time after time after time again and again and again and again especially to those who think they know it all and are not willing to listen. We as atheists who do things like this, Do you really as a reader and you are a supposed christian, Do you not know that we are 5 steps ahead of you and we "probably" though it's not a guarantee already know what you are going to say long before you are going to say it? However, You do not know what we as atheists think, Or believe. Why? You probably don't even know what an atheist is.
We function as individuals. We are not tightly wound up on a bundle of big black siphoned books that you base your lives on. We as atheists think, Reason, Rationalize, Use common sense, Use logic completely differently. The only thing as a whole that we have in common is that we believe that there is no god(s). That's it. And yet you as supposed christians have trouble with the first page of your book and getting a consensus on that. It's something to think about.
philboi

Con

The question as asked, Assumes that the arguments presented by theists have been debunked, Which I am going to contest that point.
For my opening statement, I shall defend a few arguments for theism, In an attempt to show the statement that atheists have debunked them, Is incorrect.

The arguments.
No doubt anyone who is on this forum, Will have heard of these arguments, And knows his/her own responses to them. So I will present the following arguments (in order from least complex, To most complex. ), The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, The Argument From Fine Tuning, And the ontological argument from Anselm.

The First argument to present is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, Its syllogism, Is as follows:
P. 1) That which begins to exist has a cause
P. 2) The Universe began to exist
P. 3) The Universe has a cause.
Now to defend the premises.
Premise 1 is self evident, And any objections about quantum mechanics, Is just plain silly, And not a good understanding of quantum events.
Premise two is where the most arguing is done. So I need to defend this premise the most.

Mathematical Support.
The idea of an actual infinite existing, Is very troublesome to mathematicians, Modern mathematicians debate the implications of set theory, And whether infinite sets can exist, And whether or not they are actual or potential infinites.
So that leads us to the argument from the impossibility of an actual infinite.
Premise 1. ) An actual infinite cannot exist
Premise 2. ) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite
premise 3. ) Therefore an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
Justification for premise 1
For starters a quote from Hilbert, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality"
The famous David Hilbert, Hilbert's hotel can assist us in showing the absurdities that would follow from the existence of an actual infinite in reality, Hilbert's Hotel Goes as follows, Think for a moment of a hotel with infinite rooms, And each room has an occupant, Now imagine person A, Comes to the hotel desk, And asks the proprietor for a room, And he says " why of course" and he moves the person in room 1, To room 2, And 2 to 3, Etc. Now room one is empty, But all the other rooms occupied, So he enters room one, But all the other rooms were previously occupied, Now ask yourself, How many people are now in the hotel? Surprisingly its the same amount of people, No more, And no less. Even though there is an added person, The same amount of occupants are in the hotel. This is mind boggling, How can this be? Thus you can see the absurdities that result in an actual infinite existing, And many other thought experiments can be used to support premise one. But you see the idea, If an actual infinite exists, Then a lot of absurd things are possible, Like adding to a hotels occupant count, Only for the total number of occupants to be the same. So then the argument goes on to the eternal events of the past being an actual infinite. This is obviously true, That if the total number of past events, Is infinite, Then the infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. Thus the conclusion to be made, Is an actual temporal regress of events cannot exist.

There are of course more mathematical arguments to support the second premise, But for sake of space, I shall not post them here, Unless deemed necessary.

Scientific support of premise two.
The standard hot Big Bang model basically shows the universe had a space time beginning. There are two lines of evidence to support this, The first is the Hawking Penrose singularity theorems, Which show even if the universe isn't homogenous, And isotropic, It still has a beginning. There are models that evade this theorem, And if need be I will discuss them later.
The second line of evidence, Is the Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem, That shows any universe, That is on average expanding must have a space time beginning. This should support premise two of the argument.
This is all the space I hope to dedicate to this premise, And ill deal with anything else accordingly.
The causes Properties
Firstly note what is meant by universe, Is all space, Time, And matter, So the cause must be outside of these things, Space less, Timeless, Immaterial, And personal cause of the universe. For more details, Read William lane Craig's paper in the Blackwell companion to natural theology.

Now I will not have time to go into some of the arguments previously mentioned, So I shall try to do three more arguments.
Fine Tuning.
Premise 1. ) Given the Fine tuning evidence, A life permitting universe, Is epistemically unlikely under the naturalistic single universe,
P. 2) LPU (life permitting universe) is not unlikely under theism.
P. 3) Theism has additional arguments that were advocated prior to the fine tuning evidence.
P. 4) By the likelihood principle, LPU, Strongly supports theism over naturalism.
Support on fine tuning.
To start with fine tuning, I shall only discuss the constants of physics to save space.

Gravity. Gravity is a very important constant, In that it governs the relations of large bodies, And the interactions of things on the molecular level. So it is a very important constant to have correct, Or things go a little haywire. So, What is this value? Well we know that if the current value of gravity, Were increased or decreased by one part in 10^60, The universe would not exist. Meaning no life permitting universe. So strange that it should be in just the right range for life to exist. Particularly it is odd for the naturalist who must say its either physically necessary, Or due to some form of chance.

Likelihood, As I previously stated, Under naturalism, The universe would be very unlikely to permit life, By that i mean the naturalistic single universe idea.
To support premise two, I shall list some reasons why under theism, It is not unlikely that LPU exists. Firstly, LPU is a very good thing, As Richard Swinburne has argued, Life is one of the best things possible, And a dormant universe with no life, Is indeed a terrible place. However a universe with too much life is also a terrible place, So under theism, God would arrange the laws as such, To permit life in a universe.

Thus by the likelihood principle, The evidence of fine tuning supports theism far better than naturalism.
For a much better defense of this argument, See Robin Collins article in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.
Now i shall defend the much hated on Ontological Argument.
Premises are as follows.
P. 1)By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
P. 2)Thus, By definition, If God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, Then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
P. 3)But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
P. 4)Thus, If God exists in the mind as an idea, Then God necessarily exists in reality.
God exists in the mind as an idea.
P. 5)Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
Since this argument is really an exercise in modal logic, The premises are all true, And the argument is logically sound. I expect some contention by my opponent, But as of now all he has to offer on this compex argument is "The Ontological argument = boring. Greater than the mind can POOF explode. Shebang Pow. A new pow wow? " So I don't really have anything else to offer in my opening statement, There are some way better theistic arguments out there, But these were the easiest to defend. So in short I don't think Atheists have offered sound refutations of the above arguments, And we shall see how this debate goes from this point onward.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

I only have 1/2 hour before the time limit expires. So here's a few vidies you can look at to show how incorrect you are.
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=DXiGll5Umjg&t=3s - Why god does not exist. (watch the WHOLE video do NOT cop out and watch just a teeny tiny little bit, K? )
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=cpC8WtufJbo&t=48s - The Arguments for God's Existence Tier List
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=nKSn32QmurQ&t=183s - The Kalam Cosmological Argument isn't about God
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=oD06eEbrzjs - The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=yeGCIxyAKuU&t=122s - Kalam Cosmological Argument | Josh (Theist) - Dallas TX | Atheist Experience 20. 49
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=SBAAdSw2AXI - The Kalam Cosmological Argument for God Explained & Refuted (William Lane Craig)
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=l6esL6yz52Q&t=153s - Atheist Debates - Argument from Contingency

Mathematical support does not support a god. You cannot prove a god with math. If you can't detect it, How can you rationally believe that it exists?
"Premise 1. ) An actual infinite cannot exist"
Yet you claim this of your unproven storybook character fabled fantasy undefined whatever supposed "god" OF PRINT ONLY from a BOOK, Namely your bible, That nobody in the entire existence of the human race has ever been able to prove even exists.
Talk about a supermassive hypocritical contradiction if there ever was one.
Hilbert is who exactly?
Doesn't prove a god n which case you cannot prove or define. There is no definition for a god because no human has ever been in the company of a god and been able to prove it. You cannot test, Show the characteristics, Nor can you demonstrate a god. It is impossible because you cannot define a god because none has been defined by anyone in the history of the human race because no god has ever been seen, Defined, Told to anyone through talking about/ oratory, Written about from a god's point of view as far as to how it can be tested, Demonstrated and thus defined and the characteristics of a god proven. So you as a believer have no evidence to back up any claim to thus prove that any god from any religion exists.
"If you cannot give a definition for what you believe, Then you really don"t believe in anything. " Tracie Harris
She's right.

Science? Really? OK then you take your scientific whatever evidence to ---any--- scientific community from around the world of merit. They will not even allow you beyond their front gates. Take one lucky guess why?

Btw, Which god? And why only one god? Why not thousands, Millions, Quadrillions of gods? Or the very best bet is why not any gods since you have no evidence to back up any claims that any god(s) exists?

There's an amazing vidie on this subject that I do not have the time to find at this point, But ah well, I will with the next RD.
philboi

Con

Firstly the host of videos you posted each bring up the worst possible objections to the kalam, And contingency arguments I have ever seen. For starters the atheist debates one on the contingency argument, Matt asks why couldn't the NESCESSARY being couldn't create the universe and cease to exist. That's pure nonsense as the beings necessity implies it can't cease to exist.
And multiple people have debunked these palpably awful objections raised in the video.
You only objected to the first premise of the arguments in support of the second premise of the kalam, Firstly you write "Mathematical support does not support a god. You cannot prove a god with math. If you can't detect it, How can you rationally believe that it exists? " Forgetting the obvious hint of scientism here, The argument wasn't meant to mathematically show that God exists, Only to lend mathematical support of the second premise.
"Premise 1. ) An actual infinite cannot exist"
Yet you claim this of your unproven storybook character fabled fantasy undefined whatever supposed "god" OF PRINT ONLY from a BOOK, Namely your bible, That nobody in the entire existence of the human race has ever been able to prove even exists. " I should have been more clear on my delivery of this premise, So I do thank you for calling me out. I should point out that I'm talking about quantitative infinites here, Not qualitative.
You then go on to say "Doesn't prove a god n which case you cannot prove or define. There is no definition for a god because no human has ever been in the company of a god and been able to prove it. You cannot test, Show the characteristics, Nor can you demonstrate a god. It is impossible because you cannot define a god because none has been defined by anyone in the history of the human race because no god has ever been seen, Defined, Told to anyone through talking about/ oratory, Written about from a god's point of view as far as to how it can be tested, Demonstrated and thus defined and the characteristics of a god proven. So you as a believer have no evidence to back up any claim to thus prove that any god from any religion exists. " Which again I have to point out, That the argument was never meant to prove a God, Only lend support to the kalam. As far as not detecting a God meaning we can't define one, Have you ever studied mathematical axioms? Or read anything in the realm of metaphysics? We humans constantly define things we can't scientifically detect. I did give more than just the kalam, Which you didn't bother to touch aside from a few atheist experience calls, And then probably Stephen Woodfords idiotic nonsense on the kalam. You post a Tracie quote from the atheist experience, And then make this odd and out of place comment. "Science? Really? OK then you take your scientific whatever evidence to ---any--- scientific community from around the world of merit. They will not even allow you beyond their front gates. Take one lucky guess why? " I have no clue why you are even making this statement, It has absolutely no bearing on any of the arguments I presented.

I leave it up to you to try and debunk the arguments I presented, And not to post nonsensical matt dilahunty videos.
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

"Firstly the host of videos you posted each bring up the worst possible objections to the kalam, And contingency arguments I have ever seen. "
They're more experienced with your s--t of an unproven storybook character fabled fantasy undefined whatever supposed "god" OF PRINT ONLY from a BOOK, Namely your bible, That nobody in the entire existence of the human race has ever been able to prove even exists, As they were all at one point in their lives for numerous years christians, In which case there's no such thing as a christian, Than you could ever hope to be, And frankly so am I a lot more experienced with your bible, Your unproven god in which case once again can never prove itself to you or to anyone and you don't even know why, And your cheapened coffin cow religion, Than 100, 000 of your tepid sheepish boorish lifetimes. No, You didn't get the upper hand. You tried. You failed. We're done. Bye. Toodles.
philboi

Con

"They're more experienced with your s--t of an unproven storybook character fabled fantasy undefined whatever supposed "god" OF PRINT ONLY from a BOOK, Namely your bible, That nobody in the entire existence of the human race has ever been able to prove even exists, As they were all at one point in their lives for numerous years Christians, In which case there's no such thing as a Christian, Than you could ever hope to be, And frankly so am I a lot more experienced with your bible, Your unproven god in which case once again can never prove itself to you or to anyone and you don't even know why, And your cheapened coffin cow religion, Than 100, 000 of your tepid sheepish boorish lifetimes. No, You didn't get the upper hand. You tried. You failed. We're done. Bye. Toodles"
So firstly I don't remember stating my religious view, And I don't think insulting ones beliefs and getting emotional over what I've stated. Its apparent to any honest viewer that you haven't even touched any of the arguments I presented. It seems that all you like to do is toss out insults and one liners from stupid internet college kids, And you haven't done any research on anything related to this topic. That's not meant to be satire, It is merely a drop of the truth.
You say some things about the atheist experience hosts being Christians for many years. I don't care if they were, Their reasons for being so don't follow, And their reply to the kalam, The weakest theistic argument, Their reply is stuff like the kalam. Half their hosts deny the existence of Jesus. Elephant philosophy has destroyed Dilahunty, Paulogia, And Steven Woodfords idiotic reply to the kalam.
It seems to me that you expected some idiotic and unread Christian to come here, And you thought you would destroy them, When that didn't happen, You ran to some stupid videos to try and make it like you knew what you were talking about. All you have offered is mere rhetoric, And satire. Zero argumentation has been done by my opposition. Until that happens, We cannot progress.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by backwardseden 2 weeks ago
backwardseden
You look at "youtube videos" as MTV emptiness rather than something of quality.

Yeah morality should be taught in schools. All schools that is. However, There's nothing moral about religion in worshiping a "god", Any god that is bankrupt and immoral. The mere act of "worship" is completely bankrupt and immoral. Kids should not be taught this stuff, This crap coming from A BOOK, The terrorism that is the supposed christian as well as the very same god of the quran in which case nobody can even prove it exists.

Once again, No idiot god if true and genuine would ever use text/ the written word to get its messages to man, The worst way possible for a god. Since you believe that your god would use text/ the written word, Then you have proven 100% that your unproven whatever god is a complete moron and an idiot.

"Both the Torah and Quran where given to Moses"
So? Prove that Moses existed.
"and Muhammed (pbuh) orally and then was written down. "
So? And then it was translated again and again and again and again and copied again and again and again and again. What is wrong with you? IT STILL DOES NOT PROVE A GOD.

Yep, There you go once again about Islam. Who cares? IT DOESN'T PROVE A GOD!

Oh and btw, The reason why I've only won 4 debates here on DDO is that there's one, And only one person who would always give the thumbs down for one reason - conduct. He hasn't been here for about 8 months or so. Btw, Conduct, Who cares? You obviously haven't seen a live debate of any kind. This is peanuts. Btw, I don't care about winning. I care about what is right and what is wrong, What is just and what is unjust. Yeah, YOU CARE ABOUT WINNING. Sheesh. Pathetic.

Oh and btw, There's no possible way that your unproven god can prove its existence to you or to anyone. Take one lucky guess why?

When you can test, Demonstrate, Assert, And then declare a god and you'd be the first in history to do as such, Then come on back. But not until then. Bye.
Posted by backwardseden 2 weeks ago
backwardseden
Your unproven undefined storybook fabled fantasy god of print only can never prove it's existence. Let's see if you can figure out the "why" to this?

"Also for the Kalam Cosmological argument instead of disproving it you send youtube videos with weak rebuttals"
Typical 15 year old response with absolutely no outs so he invents a truly lame excuse. OK you want some strong ones. Here's some good ones. Btw, Scratch William Lane Craig if this nice and gentle conversation is to continue. He's worthless. You with your shotgun messiah without any resources to back you up AT ALL didn't look into AT ALL to the pitiful true s--t of a person AND his ideas are. That is point blank obvious. If you mention that thing again, There's no possible way that I will ever respond to you again. I probably already said that and I don't remember if I did. No duh he didn't invent the Kalam. But wow he certainly does a horrid job in defending it with horrible arguments that are proven to be completely inept.
Btw, I don't care what you think, Reason, Rationalize, Use common sense, Use logic because you don't have that ability for them and to use them properly, Not yet. Your brain hasn't even begun to grow and isn't full-grown until about the age of 25. The truth hurts.
Ready?
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=TZxf6NwFIKo - If you don't know the answer, That proves god
by Viced Rhino who 100% knows better than you! You can start at the 4:00 mark and listen for a couple of minutes.
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=1u9ZIQ33a8c - Atheist Destroys The "Kalam Cosmological Argument"
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=nKSn32QmurQ - The Kalam Cosmological Argument isn't about God
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=cpC8WtufJbo&t=106s - The Arguments for God's Existence Tier List (there's a lot more that goes on here. Regardless, This starts at roughly the 5 minute mark)

Btw, Calling "youtube videos" really hurts your credibility and integrity to absolute 0. Why? They're not youtube videos.
Posted by backwardseden 2 weeks ago
backwardseden
@jibs23 - Yea. Who cares what Thomas Aquinas says? He's a theologian. ALL theologians, No exceptions, None, Are completely worthless and cannot be accepted for anything that is valid, Honest, And truthful. 1. He can't (granted he died in 1274 but that doesn't matter though he probably could back then, But now? Nope. ) get a paper together and submit it to ---any--- scientific community from around the world and get a passing grade. Let's see if you know why? 2. Again (he could probably back then) go around to 20 different churches within a 20 mile radius and get a consensus. Today, 1 billion to 1 he would not be able to. Why do you think there's over 33, 830 denominations of christianity? Better yet, Why don't you yourself take his ideas and shop them around to one, Just one scientific community from around the world of merit. They will not even allow you in their front gates. Again, Let's see if you know why? Also shop his ideas around to 20 different churches within a 20 mile radius and you get a consensus. 1 billion to1 you won't. Care to make a wager on that? That is if you are honest? Here's the biggie. . . You get those ideas and from him and then you put your unproven storybook character fabled fantasy undefined whatever supposed "god" OF PRINT ONLY from a BOOK, Namely your bible, That nobody in the entire existence of the human race has ever been able to prove even exists on trial again. You---will---lose. Take one lucky guess why?
Now do you REALLY believe that I or anyone should take Thomas Aquinas seriously FOR ANYTHING? Damn right Tracy Harris and Matt Dillahunty speak truth. Sure they stumble like everyone else here and there because they are not perfect as no one is. But it's not all---the---time like theologians do, No exceptions, None. Once again, If they are unwilling to put their product on trial, Their unproven god, Then they have nothing honest and truthful to offer state or say.

I've learned one helluva lot in the past few months.
Posted by backwardseden 2 weeks ago
backwardseden
@Challenger420 - Um no. I'm biased against ---anyone--- that comes on into MY debates and does not show intelligence nor and education and cannot under any circumstance back up their claims with any evidence. And because you don't know any better what you do is twiddle your peeled lice on the top of your tater tots and thus pretend that you know something when in fact you know nothing by pretending that you know something by inventing excuses for it which is a very bad idea. Gee!
Posted by jibs23 2 weeks ago
jibs23
You quote Tracie Harris and Matt Dillahunty in your arguments but the problem is that when I presented Thomas Aquinas 5 ways argument you replied "Who cares what Thomas Aquinas says? ". I only presented 1 of his 5 ways which I don't know why I did but I did. You say he can't prove a god when I just presented his argument and instead of refuting it that is what you said.

Also for the Kalam Cosmological argument instead of disproving it you send youtube videos with weak rebuttals, And attack William Lane Craig who by the way did not create the argument just updated and defended it. It was originally Al-Ghazali a Persian Muslim scholars' argument.

You think morality should be taught in schools yet you use ad hominems https://www. Debate. Org/debates/Morality-should-be-taught-in-schools/1/

Well as I said in that debate, In Islam we have 99 names defining and describing gods traits.
https://99namesofallah. Name/

Both the Torah and Quran where given to Moses (pbuh) and Muhammed (pbuh) orally and then was written down. For gods sake Quran literally means the recitation.

During the debate we had I was not the most qualified to debate although since then I started to learn more on debating other religions and atheists. On the other hand you continue to debate using youtube videos with a weak rebuttal backed up by ad hominems, Ignorance, And hypocrisy. If I only won 4 out of 265 debates I would maybe start studying the topic and stop pretending that I know about the topic.
Posted by Challenger420 3 weeks ago
Challenger420
Backwardsen has proved himself to be entirely biased against Christians and those who follow god. Trying to show us as stupid or bad people. Backwardsen I ask you this, Do you have any way to prove god isn't real? No, No you don't. So I ask you leave your opinion out of debates.
Posted by philboi 3 weeks ago
philboi
backwardseden, When are you gonna "pulverize" me? As of yet all youve done is post shitty YouTube videos.
Posted by philboi 3 weeks ago
philboi
also about the debate amongst scholars, I made that comment to show that your statement isnt as absolute as you made it out to be. But of course how would you know about relevant scholarship? Guess my hopes were to high. Also if you being older than me and your education was supposed to be better than mine, Then I guess you were at the bottom of your class.
Posted by philboi 3 weeks ago
philboi
"Now you bring up the translation argument, Well every single work of history has the same issue"
WRONG teeny bopper especially when something is fixed on stone. Yours? Buried on paper and transfixed nobody knows how many times. There's NOTHING on stone. Oh and yeah you completely inept new happy hooker harlo Hitler, Math is a work of history. Yet there's nothing mathematical in your gummy bear stickum bible that even remotely resembles math of any kind to prove your unproven god. Oh and yeah, I found the vidie I said I had.
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=72nXbHDQypM&t=92s - Why Math isn't Evidence of god

Firstly ill name a few works of history that we don't have the originals of, And they have been translated multiple times. Tacitus annals of Rome, Josephus Antiquities, And the Jewish war, Plutarch's lives, Arians Life of Alexander to name a few.
Secondly as vie previously said, The math argument was meant to support a premise in an argument, I didn't use the argument from math, Dumbass. Also the thing about me being uneducated is false, As your entire source is Dillahunty, And his idiotic replies to theistic arguments. I've read some of the best atheist thinkers in the world, That's why I said his replies are the worst I've seen. In short I've cited professional philosophers, And historians, You've cited bloggers, And YouTube kids. And then the idiotic talk show host, Who constantly talks over callers, , And talks down to them as if he is some massive intellect, I mean seriously the guy thinks the kalam argument isn't for God. Failing to realize that one can deduce from the argument what the cause of the universes properties must be.
Posted by philboi 3 weeks ago
philboi
Well since you clearly are pissed off about something, Ill make you more pissed, Firstly your citing Richard carrier, The unemployed blogger, Who didn't believe in the Big Bang until 2002. You say my statements regarding Dillahunt's objections being the worst Ive ever seen show my ignorance. But that actually shows yours. You don't even know your sides best defenders. How pitiful. You make statements about Jesus and how the word of God being perfect would mean Jesus can't change it. Firstly Jesus didn't change it, He fulfilled the law and the prophets. He even makes a statement about this. I don't see why God can't work on the sabbath, If your going to bring up Genesis one, That was only the first week, Who says that carried on for eternity?

I don't think you have ever read any theology at all, If you did you wouldn't make the infinitely statement,
8. "Where did this unproven jesus get permission from your unproven god to do this? "
Christian theology clearly teaches that Jesus is God. And that He being God came down on earth to forgive us, To redeem us.

You tried to insult me regarding my use of the NT to use it as a source for jesus, You compare it to many common mythologies and such. You again must not be aware of Biblical historians like at all. You thought you had a good argument there but didn't. Lets take a moment to look at the "professionals"
Aron Ra, No degree in a relevant field,
Richard Carrier, The unemployed blogger who spends his days getting destroyed time and time again by philosophers and Biblical scholars. He's also dishonest.
And Christopher Hitchens. Who Again has no relevant degree at all.
Let me cite some actual professionals.
https://youtu. Be/SB6EZzJ7m1c Did Jesus exist Bart ehrman.
There, An actual scholar, Who represents 99% of other scholars opinion on this issue.
You still haven't even touched my opening statement, And your " pulverize" was a complete rant, With a few very bad arguments.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.