The God Debate v3

[MrExtrodinaryMr]

Atheists, You cannot prove to anyone that Evolution happened. You cannot prove that a God didn't create the Universe.

There's plenty of evidence to support the existence of evolution. One small example is that we share approximately 96% of our genes with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with mice, and etc. This doesn't mean that we evolved from cats or cows but it means that we shared a common ancestor a long long time ago, and from that period of time up until this point we've evolved differently to where we are now. (If there's any mistakes in that point which I've made feel free to correct me as that's as far as my knowledge about evolution goes).

Here's a picture to demonstrate what I was saying.

You can not prove that a god created the universe other than pointing to your holy book, which isn't a very reliable source to look for in the first place.

While your alive.
You can believe in God, and have faith.
Or you cannot.
Ironically enough, Atheists state that they don't want to believe in something they cannot see.
But they didn't see the creation of the Universe either.
They didn't see the start of life on Earth..

Your choice.

First off your chances of believing in the right god are lower than 1% if there is a god in the first place, because there are so many religions in our planet that it could be the Hindu gods, the Greek or the Roman gods and so on.

Here's a perfect video about that:

Also, atheists don't say that they don't believe in something that they cannot see, that would be silly to state that. What we say is that we don't believe in something that has zero evidence to support it such as your christian god.

Once again, it's the same as a crime scene. You haven't seen the crime take place, but with the evidence that was left there you can figure out how it has happened and who has done it. That's the same idea with the creation of the universe, with the evidence that we have like the fact that the universe is expanding and etc, we can form an idea of how the universe has been created even if we weren't there to witness it. Same with your next sentence.

I really wonder sometimes.
Why do Atheists tend to mainly defend themselves and state the Christians are always wrong?

Yeah what's the problem with people trying to defend their points, just should just give up and agree with what the other person is saying to make their lives easier smh.

But seriously, if you can not give any factual evidence or anything else to support your claim about god without your holy book, what you will say will have zero meaning.

Is it because they feel threatened by Christians?
Is it because they know we have the stronger point, as they are the hypocrites stating they don't want to believe in something they cannot see?
Is it because they know we are right, an don't want to admit it?

Hmm...

Dude when the only point that you have is your faith that I think that it's kinda obvious who has the upper hand in the argument.
The fact that you are trying to make random claims about us just shows that you failing to prove that your god exists. Case closed.

 

[Tenebrous]

oh, gosh... XD

let's see if i can make one-sentence answers/responses/remarks/comments, just for the heck of it - don't expect any grandiose answers and fantastic reasoning/evidence.

I feel like these two are linked in some ways: We are given free will, partially by the "apple" that Adam/Eve ate (whether literally or metaphorically), and partially by the way that we were created.


Don't know what that second one is, but morality is the sense of what is right and wrong. Christians (generally) argue that it was put in place, just like previous mentioned, by the way that we were created and also by the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. (is that the proper name? can't remember)


don't know what it is, but i'll take a quick google search
oh
well, it also makes the world a better place by most modern-day standards I think we can all agree, to some extent, on that one.


From what I remember being taught within the past year at a theological convention for high school students (it's a miracle i stayed awake for even a quarter of the classes and yet remember half of the material taught), "Hell" as we know it was originally created as a final place for the fallen angels/demons, and oh-so-conveniently (which is to say, not at all conveniently for us) fits the "bad people", to put it lightly.


Well, here's an interesting story...

Last weekend, I went snowboarding for the first time in 6 years. Naturally, I fell a few times here and there, but I was surprisingly better than a dude my same age who snowboards more frequently than I do.
At the bottom of a hill, where various snowboard/ski runs "merged", the snow was considerably more packed than in other areas - I let myself take a fall, but because the snow was so packed, it was nearly as bad as landing on concrete. I landed on my rear-end and the palms of my hands, and I sprained my wrist something awful. I kept on snowboarding, but even the slightest motion in my (right) wrist would agitate it and cause pain. Luckily, I've always had a high pain tolerance.

Later that day, because I was at the ski resort for a church Youth Retreat (a friend invited me), we were having a group prayer. In my own prayers, being a Christian myself, I included my wrist. I anticipated a prayer, and so I experimented with my wrist before the prayer, and I found that my wrist was still in very noticeable amounts of pain from moving it, even if it was a normal movement. The prayer lasted a solid 7-10 minutes, because we went around in the circle of 17 people, and during the prayer I didn't allow myself to touch or move my wrist beyond normal readjustments for comfort. Immediately once the prayer ended, I rotated my wrist fully and even pressed in various parts of it, and there was absolutely no pain, in less than a 10-minute gap.

That was last weekend, on Saturday night - it's now Thursday night, and my wrist is still totally fine. No pain, no agitation, nothing.

Sorry, but that's a bit hard to explain normally I'd be fascinated to hear an explanation that you might be able to come up with - it's quite possible that I overlooked/missed some entirely logical explanation.


I'm not totally sure where I would start with the historicity, but the reliability of the NT is something that I'd have to be much more advanced in my learning to discuss to a degree that is deserving of that topic. I clearly recall hearing several strong arguments, and thinking something along the lines of "This is logical and makes sense," but I can't remember what those exact arguments are. I'm a bad student


I remember having several moments where I was thinking about this, and I recall that I had one particular explanation that was slightly different from the more common ones, but made more sense and fit quite snugly with much of the scientific evidence that we have that is taught in schools.

Sadly, I can't remember it at the moment. It had something to do with interpreting the diction in the book of Genesis in a way other than literally, which is something that so many people are hesitant to do.


I still have homework to do, sadly, so I don't think I should spend more time going over the rest of the list. Sorry! D:


read my super-long testimony, above.


not quite, actually

sarcasm is called the lowest form of wit, but it's still good for chuckles once in a while.

sadly, this wasn't.


mm, depends on how you define "knows" and "solid proof"

Technicalities, brev, technicalities. They're a tuffie.


that was a bad usage of the word cute..

Keep that to yourself, tbh. If you want to be rude about it, don't go and be rude to people who can't defend themselves. (sorry roygator, but i'm not sure if you're ready for this thread yet. but thanks for trying!! <3 ur a cool kat [or gator])

like, go to a trump rally or something LMAO i'm sure you'd find plenty of sympathizers

please re-read the rules
http://www.mcgamer.net/threads/mcgamer-updated-rules-version-3-0.12254/
it really feels like your brain forgot them - i won't make any personal remarks about the capacity of your brain, but I strongly recommend surgery (when that becomes a realistic possibility) to improve it's functions.


honestly i would like that too, if they were as childhood stories lead us to believe.

if they went around on blind rampages (like some people on the forums these days....), then I don't think I would like that as much. Unless I was leading them in a rebellion. that'd be hella fun.

Thanks for your response. Here is my rebuttal / clarification.
In order to not strawman your position I will clarify and pose new questions.

I feel like these two are linked in some ways: We are given free will, partially by the "apple" that Adam/Eve ate (whether literally or metaphorically), and partially by the way that we were created.
To specify, these were the questions I was posing.

- Why does an omnibenevolent God allow evil in the world?
I posit that they are mutually exclusive concepts.

- Does Free Will exist? If so, why? What evidence do you have to support your claim?
I do not believe Free Will has been defined coherently and thus does not exist.

Don't know what that second one is, but morality is the sense of what is right and wrong. Christians (generally) argue that it was put in place, just like previous mentioned, by the way that we were created and also by the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. (is that the proper name? can't remember)
To specify, these were the questions I was posing.

- Objective vs Subjective Morality
I believe that morality is subjective.

- See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
I believe that this is an issue if you believe morality comes from a deity.

From what I remember being taught within the past year at a theological convention for high school students (it's a miracle i stayed awake for even a quarter of the classes and yet remember half of the material taught), "Hell" as we know it was originally created as a final place for the fallen angels/demons, and oh-so-conveniently (which is to say, not at all conveniently for us) fits the "bad people", to put it lightly.
To specify, these were the questions I was posing.

-Why does an omnibenevolent God allow hell to exist?
Once again, I believe that this is impossible.

Last weekend, I went snowboarding for the first time in 6 years. Naturally, I fell a few times here and there, but I was surprisingly better than a dude my same age who snowboards more frequently than I do.
At the bottom of a hill, where various snowboard/ski runs "merged", the snow was considerably more packed than in other areas - I let myself take a fall, but because the snow was so packed, it was nearly as bad as landing on concrete. I landed on my rear-end and the palms of my hands, and I sprained my wrist something awful. I kept on snowboarding, but even the slightest motion in my (right) wrist would agitate it and cause pain. Luckily, I've always had a high pain tolerance.

Later that day, because I was at the ski resort for a church Youth Retreat (a friend invited me), we were having a group prayer. In my own prayers, being a Christian myself, I included my wrist. I anticipated a prayer, and so I experimented with my wrist before the prayer, and I found that my wrist was still in very noticeable amounts of pain from moving it, even if it was a normal movement. The prayer lasted a solid 7-10 minutes, because we went around in the circle of 17 people, and during the prayer I didn't allow myself to touch or move my wrist beyond normal readjustments for comfort. Immediately once the prayer ended, I rotated my wrist fully and even pressed in various parts of it, and there was absolutely no pain, in less than a 10-minute gap.

That was last weekend, on Saturday night - it's now Thursday night, and my wrist is still totally fine. No pain, no agitation, nothing.

Sorry, but that's a bit hard to explain normally I'd be fascinated to hear an explanation that you might be able to come up with - it's quite possible that I overlooked/missed some entirely logical explanation.

Argument entirely from personal experience. This is faulty on several levels. First of all, you are already psychologically biased to attribute coincidences to God. Secondly, there's a stark difference between a subjective, personal story, and what proof is. Proof is an objective, repeatable result. There have been several Prayer studies done and none show a positive correlation between Prayer and changing something that is external in the world. By external I mean it couldn't have been influenced by your mind. For example: I concede that Praying may improve mental health. However, until I see your prayer literally heal the leg of amputee's repeatedly it will not count as a proof. Moreover, Prayer itself is a self contradictory concept. I won't get into that though... yet. Lastly, this is the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The only way to avoid this fallacy is to scientifically repeat it.

I'm not totally sure where I would start with the historicity, but the reliability of the NT is something that I'd have to be much more advanced in my learning to discuss to a degree that is deserving of that topic. I clearly recall hearing several strong arguments, and thinking something along the lines of "This is logical and makes sense," but I can't remember what those exact arguments are. I'm a bad student.

Quick Explanation of the Positions (Just wondering what you believe because I do not want to strawman your position).

-Jesus was God and did all the miracles described within the NT; the NT is infallible.
-Jesus was God but didn't do all of the miracles described within the NT
-Jesus was just a man and his story was embellished with myth
-Jesus did not exist

I'm adhering to the last one or second to last one.

Thanks and I'm looking forward to your responses.

 

[Giggums]

Thread moved to appropriate section; Off Topic Discussion. This is where the previous two existed, so this one should be there as well.

Also, please remember to keep this thread as flame free as possible. It is great to see such indepth discussions such as this on our forums, so in order to keep it that way it is important to respect each other as well as their opinions/beliefs/ideals.

 

[Mooclan]

Dude when the only point that you have is your faith that I think that it's kinda obvious who has the upper hand in the argument.
The fact that you are trying to make random claims about us just shows that you failing to prove that your god exists. Case closed.

i feel like it's a bit too easy to respond to Roygator's posts.

Argument entirely from personal experience. This is faulty on several levels. First of all, you are already psychologically biased to attribute coincidences to God. Secondly, there's a stark difference between a subjective, personal story, and what proof is. Proof is an objective, repeatable result. There have been several Prayer studies done and none show a positive correlation between Prayer and changing something that is external in the world. By external I mean it couldn't have been influenced by your mind. For example: I concede that Praying may improve mental health. However, until I see your prayer literally heal the leg of amputee's repeatedly it will not count as a proof. Moreover, Prayer itself is a self contradictory concept. I won't get into that though... yet. Lastly, this is the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The only way to avoid this fallacy is to scientifically repeat it.

mm, however complex your argument is (and I must say, it's quite detailed), it seems like the recurring issue that prevents us from coming to an agreement (which I'm not expecting in the first place - I'm not trying to convert you or anything) is that you're asking for the religion, Christianity, to do something that the religion doesn't do. Christians don't pray and immediately have it healed.

Even a young, simple-minded (I say this in a non-offensive way) child who attends church will understand that God (in this case, assuming that He is real) does not heal all the time, instantly. In fact, cases of things like healing that take place within such a short time-span are incredibly infrequent - I'm shocked to have experienced that, myself.

I concede that Praying may improve mental health.

A quick reminder: In this case, my singular "statistic" is that praying affected/improved physical health.

However, until I see your prayer literally heal the leg of amputee's repeatedly it will not count as a proof.

are you asking to be physically present as we chop off a person's leg and "heal" it back on?
well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, although you did sort of imply that.

Within Christianity, there's a belief that God does not (ordinarily) work "miracles" for those who do not have faith. An enormous part of the reason that "prayer studies" haven't typically shown results is because they're done from a perspective of unbelief, for a purpose that does not align with "God's Will" (a biblical concept).

Like, if I were to make a small incision in my arm and then pray for 48 hours non-stop, for the purposes of scientific research, it (most likely) wouldn't heal any faster than normal.
However, if I were to accidentally receive an incision the same size and then pray for 10 minutes with an earnest heart, then the Christian faith teaches that God (might) exhibit compassion and provide healing, such as in the form of a sped-up process of mending the incision.

^ That's pretty much what happened to me. Due to the visual aspect being a wonky factor, it's less frequently heard of that a visual injury is immediately healed. In my case, it was an injury that was beneath the skin (in my wrist), and it was healed within 10 minutes.

Jesus was God

yes - there is a very complicated explanation that takes a few hours for a trained preacher to fully explain, but basically:

"God" is an everlasting entity, spanning beyond the capacity of imagination and logic. This entity is not bound by the restrictions of time or space (thus the "a second is like a million years, and vice versa" concept), but can choose to make actions that progress within the scope of our timeline.

"Jesus" is a manifestation of God, who intentionally "split off" and allowed Himself to be temporarily constrained by time and space for our sake's - to be more understandable, basically.

did all the miracles described within the NT

yes
I'm sure researching can give you a much better explanation of this than I can - however, it's absolutely crucial to be researching from a neutral point of view. Perhaps try all three perspectives - against, neutral, and for. It seems like quite a few of your sources in the past were "against", and that can sometimes make for a weaker argument. (unless that side of the argument has been proven to be correct/true without any doubt.)

the NT is infallible.

see, the thing that's tough to explain is the multiple variations of the Bible.
we'd have to define "infallible", but the issue is that the bible doesn't follow a specified (singular OR specific multiple) set of interpretations and meanings.

basically, here's how it goes:

1. person A interpret's a specific passage of the Bible literally
2. someone else, person B, goes, "oh, so you mean the ENTIRE world was created in 144 hours?" (6x24)
3. person A either explains that he/she was talking about only that one passage, or explains the new issue that was raised, or tries to do both.
   
4. person B asks about a new issue that doesn't quite follow either line of logic, because it was written in a different context or something
5. person A explains that new part
6. person B says, "well then why do people say that ___ was the case, when you just said that this verse talks about _(other)_ subject?"
7. person A has to explain that the passage was talking about BOTH FREAKIN' THINGS (whoops, almost wrote a swear word. wrong website.)
8. person B points out that it doesn't make sense
9. person A has to help person B understand what the "Living Word" is
10. five minutes later, person B forgets about the "Living Word" concept again.

this was basically how our previous argument with, from what I remember LOL


gotta go do stuff, i'm not sure if i really want to get into this again. ty for the writing exercise though.

 

[Tenebrous]

Ceroria Can we move this back to the community corner because this section is dead

 

[Tenebrous]

i feel like it's a bit too easy to respond to Roygator's posts.


mm, however complex your argument is (and I must say, it's quite detailed), it seems like the recurring issue that prevents us from coming to an agreement (which I'm not expecting in the first place - I'm not trying to convert you or anything) is that you're asking for the religion, Christianity, to do something that the religion doesn't do. Christians don't pray and immediately have it healed.

Even a young, simple-minded (I say this in a non-offensive way) child who attends church will understand that God (in this case, assuming that He is real) does not heal all the time, instantly. In fact, cases of things like healing that take place within such a short time-span are incredibly infrequent - I'm shocked to have experienced that, myself.


A quick reminder: In this case, my singular "statistic" is that praying affected/improved physical health.


are you asking to be physically present as we chop off a person's leg and "heal" it back on?
well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, although you did sort of imply that.

Within Christianity, there's a belief that God does not (ordinarily) work "miracles" for those who do not have faith. An enormous part of the reason that "prayer studies" haven't typically shown results is because they're done from a perspective of unbelief, for a purpose that does not align with "God's Will" (a biblical concept).

Like, if I were to make a small incision in my arm and then pray for 48 hours non-stop, for the purposes of scientific research, it (most likely) wouldn't heal any faster than normal.
However, if I were to accidentally receive an incision the same size and then pray for 10 minutes with an earnest heart, then the Christian faith teaches that God (might) exhibit compassion and provide healing, such as in the form of a sped-up process of mending the incision.

^ That's pretty much what happened to me. Due to the visual aspect being a wonky factor, it's less frequently heard of that a visual injury is immediately healed. In my case, it was an injury that was beneath the skin (in my wrist), and it was healed within 10 minutes.


yes - there is a very complicated explanation that takes a few hours for a trained preacher to fully explain, but basically:

"God" is an everlasting entity, spanning beyond the capacity of imagination and logic. This entity is not bound by the restrictions of time or space (thus the "a second is like a million years, and vice versa" concept), but can choose to make actions that progress within the scope of our timeline.

"Jesus" is a manifestation of God, who intentionally "split off" and allowed Himself to be temporarily constrained by time and space for our sake's - to be more understandable, basically.


yes
I'm sure researching can give you a much better explanation of this than I can - however, it's absolutely crucial to be researching from a neutral point of view. Perhaps try all three perspectives - against, neutral, and for. It seems like quite a few of your sources in the past were "against", and that can sometimes make for a weaker argument. (unless that side of the argument has been proven to be correct/true without any doubt.)


see, the thing that's tough to explain is the multiple variations of the Bible.
we'd have to define "infallible", but the issue is that the bible doesn't follow a specified (singular OR specific multiple) set of interpretations and meanings.

basically, here's how it goes:

1. person A interpret's a specific passage of the Bible literally
2. someone else, person B, goes, "oh, so you mean the ENTIRE world was created in 144 hours?" (6x24)
3. person A either explains that he/she was talking about only that one passage, or explains the new issue that was raised, or tries to do both.
   
4. person B asks about a new issue that doesn't quite follow either line of logic, because it was written in a different context or something
5. person A explains that new part
6. person B says, "well then why do people say that ___ was the case, when you just said that this verse talks about _(other)_ subject?"
7. person A has to explain that the passage was talking about BOTH FREAKIN' THINGS (whoops, almost wrote a swear word. wrong website.)
8. person B points out that it doesn't make sense
9. person A has to help person B understand what the "Living Word" is
10. five minutes later, person B forgets about the "Living Word" concept again.

this was basically how our previous argument with, from what I remember LOL


gotta go do stuff, i'm not sure if i really want to get into this again. ty for the writing exercise though.

Even a young, simple-minded (I say this in a non-offensive way) child who attends church will understand that God (in this case, assuming that He is real) does not heal all the time, instantly. In fact, cases of things like healing that take place within such a short time-span are incredibly infrequent - I'm shocked to have experienced that, myself.
You're now proposing something that is indistinguishable from chance. What you just proposed is a system that would work as easily well with Vishnu, Zeus, or any other god other than Yahweh. Actually, it would still work with ANYTHING. Unless you can statistically show that your god provides a more reliable "prayer to effect" ratio than the others it's literally no different than blind luck. In case your fire back with a personal experience, people who are Muslisms (who believe in Allah) have personal experiences, and so did ancient Greeks (who believed in Zeus). All groups believe their prayer works equally well, yet we don't have a shred of objective evidence to sway us in one way or another.

A quick reminder: In this case, my singular "statistic" is that praying affected/improved physical health.
Once again, even if it did "heal" you. It wouldn't be more statistically likely to be healed from praying to a milk carton than to a god. This is because A. There is no mechanism by which "praying" would effect those things. Seriously, how does a god do that? B. What about contradictory prayers? What if someone prays for one thing and someone else prays for the opposite? How does god decide? and C. If there is no objective way to statistically tell the difference between the results of praying to a milk carton or to god, then there is NO difference between them. I know you will make an excuse for this later on though.

Within Christianity, there's a belief that God does not (ordinarily) work "miracles" for those who do not have faith. An enormous part of the reason that "prayer studies" haven't typically shown results is because they're done from a perspective of unbelief, for a purpose that does not align with "God's Will" (a biblical concept).
Nope. Actually they use believers. To better address my point and to avoid writing out long paragraphs; have fun with this.

However, if I were to accidentally receive an incision the same size and then pray for 10 minutes with an earnest heart, then the Christian faith teaches that God (might) exhibit compassion and provide healing, such as in the form of a sped-up process of mending the incision.
See the above video on how you're literally psychologically shielding yourself from being wrong.

"God" is an everlasting entity, spanning beyond the capacity of imagination and logic.
What the f*** does that mean? Everlasting? What? Spanning beyond the capacity of imagination and logic? What? So it's beyond logic? So it's illogical? LOL what. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what it even means to say that such a thing exists...

This entity is not bound by the restrictions of time or space
How is a spaceless and timeless entity any different from an entity that doesn't exist at all? A unicorn is technically spaceless and timeless too.

(thus the "a second is like a million years, and vice versa" concept), but can choose to make actions that progress within the scope of our timeline.
??? What are you even talking about dude? So god DOES exist in time and space? But not bound by the usual external restrictions we find ourselves with?

"Jesus" is a manifestation of God, who intentionally "split off" and allowed Himself to be temporarily constrained by time and space for our sake's - to be more understandable, basically.
The trinity violates the law of identity. (I assume you believe in that)
Excerpt taken from rationalwiki.org

1. "The Father is God"
2. "The Son is God"
3. "The Holy Spirit is God"
4. "God is the Father"
5. "God is the Son"
6. "God is the Holy Spirit"
7. "The Father is not the Son"
8. "The Son is not the Father"
9. "The Father is not the Holy Spirit"
10. "The Holy Spirit is not the Father"
11. "The Son is not the Holy Spirit"
12. "The Holy Spirit is not the Son"

Since

, the statements 1-6 can be restated as follows:

God = Father
God = Son
God = Holy Spirit
while the statements 7-12 can be restated as:
Father ≠ Son
Father ≠ Holy Spirit
Son ≠ Holy Spirit

Conventional logic says that equality is transitive:

. Let's start from one of the "is not" relations.

Father ≠ Son
Now let's substitute the left side with the statement "God = Father":
God ≠ Son
and then substitute the right side with "God = Son":
God ≠ God

Further application of transitivity leads to the following statements:

Son ≠ Son
Father ≠ Father
Holy Spirit ≠ Holy Spirit

We conclude that God is not God, and so the doctrine of the Trinity implies that God as well as all three persons of the Trinity violate the law of identity. One of the fundamental assumptions of conventional logic is that objects that violate the law of identity do not exist: there is no entity that is not itself. This means several things:

• If Trinity is true, then God does not exist, and neither do any of his three persons.
• If God exists, then by the law of noncontradiction Trinity is a false doctrine.
• If God exists and Trinity is true, it can mean two things:
  • Logic is meaningless, because it is possible to prove anything, including the existence and the non-existence of God.
  • Trinity means something else than its Christian definition.

I'm sure researching can give you a much better explanation of this than I can - however, it's absolutely crucial to be researching from a neutral point of view. Perhaps try all three perspectives - against, neutral, and for. It seems like quite a few of your sources in the past were "against", and that can sometimes make for a weaker argument. (unless that side of the argument has been proven to be correct/true without any doubt.)
I don't know what your issue with my "sources" are, but obviously if you can't provide a defense against them they are correct by default. There is nothing you can do about it. Here is a fundamental issue with proving the whole concept and it IS on the neutral side. Basically, it's other religions. Other religons claimed to have the word of god and their prophets preform miracles.

Your options are

1. They are telling the truth. Or
2. They are not.

If they are, Christianity cannot be true.
If they aren't, then you just admitted that sometimes, gee whiz, people can, for any reason, actually write things down on paper that didn't really happen in real life... which further contradicts your faith.

1. person A interpret's a specific passage of the Bible literally
2. someone else, person B, goes, "oh, so you mean the ENTIRE world was created in 144 hours?" (6x24)
3. person A either explains that he/she was talking about only that one passage, or explains the new issue that was raised, or tries to do both.
4. person B asks about a new issue that doesn't quite follow either line of logic, because it was written in a different context or something
5. person A explains that new part
6. person B says, "well then why do people say that ___ was the case, when you just said that this verse talks about _(other)_ subject?"
7. person A has to explain that the passage was talking about BOTH FREAKIN' THINGS (whoops, almost wrote a swear word. wrong website.)
8. person B points out that it doesn't make sense
9. person A has to help person B understand what the "Living Word" is
10. five minutes later, person B forgets about the "Living Word" concept again.

You keep ranting about this "living word" concept. Honestly I don't know what the f*** that means. Please tell me what it is, then tell me how can this be used to make predictions in objective reality? Moreover, why are you only interpreting Genesis as metaphor AFTER science has proved it wrong?


TLDR? I'm honestly disappointed. Most of what you said is nonsensical gibberish and I expected much better from you. Thanks for the quick debate though.

 

[NotCanziano]

I believe in science.

 

[MrExtrodinaryMr]

I believe in science.

 

[Mooclan]

TLDR? I'm honestly disappointed. Most of what you said is nonsensical gibberish and I expected much better from you. Thanks for the quick debate though.

oh you were expecting detailed responses? bro i was giving brief summaries...

I'm not arguing for either of these sides at the moment

Some conversation starters if you are in the mood for this

let's see if i can make one-sentence answers/responses/remarks/comments, just for the heck of it - don't expect any grandiose answers and fantastic reasoning/evidence.

I was trying to imply that I'm too lazy to give a $#17 about arguing with you, but you always go and make it personal...

You're now proposing something that is indistinguishable from chance.
...
Unless you can statistically show that your god provides a more reliable "prayer to effect" ratio than the others it's literally no different than blind luck.
...
All groups believe their prayer works equally well, yet we don't have a shred of objective evidence to sway us in one way or another.

Haven't I explained sufficiently that you're looking at the wrong aspect of things?

You're trying to enter into a debate that is NOT about science that the other person NEEDS to use science in order to be "correct" or "accurate" or whatever you're looking for in a conclusive end.

Once again, even if it did "heal" you. It wouldn't be more statistically likely to be healed from praying to a milk carton than to a god. This is because A. There is no mechanism by which "praying" would effect those things. Seriously, how does a god do that? B. What about contradictory prayers? What if someone prays for one thing and someone else prays for the opposite? How does god decide? and C. If there is no objective way to statistically tell the difference between the results of praying to a milk carton or to god, then there is NO difference between them. I know you will make an excuse for this later on though.

Although the word "excuse" is often somewhat synonymous with "reason" and "explanation," in this case they have different meanings.

When it comes to religion, it's about faith. If you're going to fairly debate about miracles, spirituality, and the likes, then you need to have what's called an "open mind". As polite as it would be of me to say "fortunately for us, you do have an open mind", I simply can't say that without lying to myself - Seriously, dude, do you play football or any other contact sport? I get the impression that you might have had a few too many concussions.




oh whoa i'm actually getting a headache from reading through your post
that takes impressive amounts of absurdity.

I believe in science.

yeah so do i, but we all know that science is incomplete and not advanced enough to definitively explain the creation of the universe, nor the existence of everything that is in the universe.

The trinity violates the law of identity. (I assume you believe in that)
Excerpt taken from rationalwiki.org

1. "The Father is God"
2. "The Son is God"
3. "The Holy Spirit is God"
4. "God is the Father"
5. "God is the Son"
6. "God is the Holy Spirit"
7. "The Father is not the Son"
8. "The Son is not the Father"
9. "The Father is not the Holy Spirit"
10. "The Holy Spirit is not the Father"
11. "The Son is not the Holy Spirit"
12. "The Holy Spirit is not the Son"

Since

, the statements 1-6 can be restated as follows:

God = Father
God = Son
God = Holy Spirit
while the statements 7-12 can be restated as:
Father ≠ Son
Father ≠ Holy Spirit
Son ≠ Holy Spirit

Conventional logic says that equality is transitive:

. Let's start from one of the "is not" relations.

Father ≠ Son
Now let's substitute the left side with the statement "God = Father":
God ≠ Son
and then substitute the right side with "God = Son":
God ≠ God

Further application of transitivity leads to the following statements:

Son ≠ Son
Father ≠ Father
Holy Spirit ≠ Holy Spirit

We conclude that God is not God, and so the doctrine of the Trinity implies that God as well as all three persons of the Trinity violate the law of identity. One of the fundamental assumptions of conventional logic is that objects that violate the law of identity do not exist: there is no entity that is not itself. This means several things:

• If Trinity is true, then God does not exist, and neither do any of his three persons.
• If God exists, then by the law of noncontradiction Trinity is a false doctrine.
• If God exists and Trinity is true, it can mean two things:
  • Logic is meaningless, because it is possible to prove anything, including the existence and the non-existence of God.
  • Trinity means something else than its Christian definition.

yeah..no..



trinity is wrong. LMAO.
almost everyone except the catholics know that..
i've met plenty of people who were catholic and totally awesome - heck, i've flirted with catholic girls. my best friend in grade 4-7 was catholic. the nicest butt i've ever seen belonged to a catholic girl. (too far?)
but that doesn't change the fact that the Pope is sometimes hypocritical, is definitely imperfect, and that certain catholic practices directly violate the Bible and it's contents.

please don't use trinity.
i'm going to veto/invalidate the entire above quote... without reading it. because seriously dude, you're trying waaaay too hard. and it's still irrelevant (not in an offensive way - it's just not applicable).

Nope. Actually they use believers.

okay, so I went through about half the video, and then I glanced at what you said again..

"They use believers"
wtf?

getting someone who believes in God to pray =/= making a prayer that is:
from a perspective of belief (i feel like that's a grammatically incorrect way of describing it, but w/e)
for a purpose that does align with "God's Will" (a biblical concept)

that's just flawed logic, tene

What the f*** does that mean? Everlasting? What? Spanning beyond the capacity of imagination and logic? What? So it's beyond logic? So it's illogical? LOL what. I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what it even means to say that such a thing exists...

my dearest tene....

we're not supposed to freakin' understand it.
-_-
???
even if we were to put a less extreme physical comparison on the scale, it still wouldn't line up:
Ant V.S. Human. Let's see who wins!

ant: follow pheromones or whatever and stab whatever moves
human: hmm let's flick this tiny ant before it gets into my coffee, and then i can continue the other 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 55 seconds of my day.

When dealing with the topic of whether or not a god exists, logic gets thrown out the window, because it simply isn't capable of handling that subject.

like, can you think of a new color?
probably not lmao
if you can, then i think we might have reached a new step in human evolution. LOL.
(oh, and by the way, i do personally partially believe in evolution, but not quite in the usual sense.)

??? What are you even talking about dude? So god DOES exist in time and space? But not bound by the usual external restrictions we find ourselves with?

it's a concept that attempts to come somewhat close to explaining how God "moves".
it's not supposed to be absolute or 100% accurate.

I don't know what your issue with my "sources" are, but obviously if you can't provide a defense against them they are correct by default. There is nothing you can do about it.

I was referring to the sources that you provided in our last debate, which I did prove to be false.


¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If they aren't, then you just admitted that sometimes, gee whiz, people can, for any reason, actually write things down on paper that didn't really happen in real life...

- does the word "fiction" ring a bell?
- public deception, influence, and distraction. "Bread and circuses"
- flat-out mistaken and incorrect, which does happen.
you'd have to go case-by-case

You keep ranting

not ranting, reminding.

Honestly I don't know what the f*** that means.

like I said a month ago: READ ABOUT IT BEFORE YOU COME TO ME. IT'S NOT MY JOB, YOU WERE THE ONE THAT STARTED THIS ENTIRE $#17SHOW, BRO.


┻━┻︵ \(°□°)/ ︵ ┻━┻

"Living Word":
Ever heard of "situational interpretations"?
Well, basically, you can come to one passage and read it and go "okay, so I learned ___ this lesson."
The next day, you can run into an annoying person/stressful situation, and then you can go back to that same passage, and re-read it, and go "okay, so now I learned another lesson from this passage."
Same passage, but it can be interpreted differently.
The way that people read it changes based on what's happening in their lives - thus, "living word". It's something that happens throughout the entire Bible, whereas other advanced-level books have difficulty achieving that effect in more than a single paragraph.
It's one of the reasons that the Bible is so critically acclaimed and widely-studied.

And, of course, it goes deeper than that - remember, I'm barely 17 years old. I FALL ASLEEP in church every time. A well-read theologian could easily cover this topic better than I can.

Moreover, why are you only interpreting Genesis as metaphor AFTER science has proved it wrong?

hold up, why are you trying to imply that I've been the one personally arguing pro-Christianity for hundreds/thousands of years? it wasn't me bro, go blame the other people.

I expected much better from you.

thanks for the high expectations, but I never planned on taking this too seriously. You were the one that sought out a debate - like I said at the beginning of this post, I was originally here just to do some casual/light writing.



dude just stop trying to pick fights with me, it's annoying af. i don't know what you're trying to do. your writing style is also exceptionally arrogant, which is somewhat acceptable on a non-personal topic, but on a subject like religion, it would get you locked up in some countries.

this was not how i planned on spending half an hour of my 3-day weekend..

bless yo' soul for some comedic relief.

 

[namespace]

oh you were expecting detailed responses? bro i was giving brief summaries...







I was trying to imply that I'm too lazy to give a $#17 about arguing with you, but you always go and make it personal...


Haven't I explained sufficiently that you're looking at the wrong aspect of things?

You're trying to enter into a debate that is NOT about science that the other person NEEDS to use science in order to be "correct" or "accurate" or whatever you're looking for in a conclusive end.


Although the word "excuse" is often somewhat synonymous with "reason" and "explanation," in this case they have different meanings.

When it comes to religion, it's about faith. If you're going to fairly debate about miracles, spirituality, and the likes, then you need to have what's called an "open mind". As polite as it would be of me to say "fortunately for us, you do have an open mind", I simply can't say that without lying to myself - Seriously, dude, do you play football or any other contact sport? I get the impression that you might have had a few too many concussions.




oh whoa i'm actually getting a headache from reading through your post
that takes impressive amounts of absurdity.


yeah so do i, but we all know that science is incomplete and not advanced enough to definitively explain the creation of the universe, nor the existence of everything that is in the universe.


yeah..no..



trinity is wrong. LMAO.
almost everyone except the catholics know that..
i've met plenty of people who were catholic and totally awesome - heck, i've flirted with catholic girls. my best friend in grade 4-7 was catholic. the nicest butt i've ever seen belonged to a catholic girl. (too far?)
but that doesn't change the fact that the Pope is sometimes hypocritical, is definitely imperfect, and that certain catholic practices directly violate the Bible and it's contents.

please don't use trinity.
i'm going to veto/invalidate the entire above quote... without reading it. because seriously dude, you're trying waaaay too hard. and it's still irrelevant (not in an offensive way - it's just not applicable).


okay, so I went through about half the video, and then I glanced at what you said again..

"They use believers"
wtf?

getting someone who believes in God to pray =/= making a prayer that is:
from a perspective of belief (i feel like that's a grammatically incorrect way of describing it, but w/e)
for a purpose that does align with "God's Will" (a biblical concept)

that's just flawed logic, tene



my dearest tene....

we're not supposed to freakin' understand it.
-_-
???
even if we were to put a less extreme physical comparison on the scale, it still wouldn't line up:
Ant V.S. Human. Let's see who wins!

ant: follow pheromones or whatever and stab whatever moves
human: hmm let's flick this tiny ant before it gets into my coffee, and then i can continue the other 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 55 seconds of my day.

When dealing with the topic of whether or not a god exists, logic gets thrown out the window, because it simply isn't capable of handling that subject.

like, can you think of a new color?
probably not lmao
if you can, then i think we might have reached a new step in human evolution. LOL.
(oh, and by the way, i do personally partially believe in evolution, but not quite in the usual sense.)


it's a concept that attempts to come somewhat close to explaining how God "moves".
it's not supposed to be absolute or 100% accurate.


I was referring to the sources that you provided in our last debate, which I did prove to be false.


¯\_(ツ)_/¯


- does the word "fiction" ring a bell?
- public deception, influence, and distraction. "Bread and circuses"
- flat-out mistaken and incorrect, which does happen.
you'd have to go case-by-case


not ranting, reminding.


like I said a month ago: READ ABOUT IT BEFORE YOU COME TO ME. IT'S NOT MY JOB, YOU WERE THE ONE THAT STARTED THIS ENTIRE $#17SHOW, BRO.


┻━┻︵ \(°□°)/ ︵ ┻━┻

"Living Word":
Ever heard of "situational interpretations"?
Well, basically, you can come to one passage and read it and go "okay, so I learned ___ this lesson."
The next day, you can run into an annoying person/stressful situation, and then you can go back to that same passage, and re-read it, and go "okay, so now I learned another lesson from this passage."
Same passage, but it can be interpreted differently.
The way that people read it changes based on what's happening in their lives - thus, "living word". It's something that happens throughout the entire Bible, whereas other advanced-level books have difficulty achieving that effect in more than a single paragraph.
It's one of the reasons that the Bible is so critically acclaimed and widely-studied.

And, of course, it goes deeper than that - remember, I'm barely 17 years old. I FALL ASLEEP in church every time. A well-read theologian could easily cover this topic better than I can.



hold up, why are you trying to imply that I've been the one personally arguing pro-Christianity for hundreds/thousands of years? it wasn't me bro, go blame the other people.


thanks for the high expectations, but I never planned on taking this too seriously. You were the one that sought out a debate - like I said at the beginning of this post, I was originally here just to do some casual/light writing.



dude just stop trying to pick fights with me, it's annoying af. i don't know what you're trying to do. your writing style is also exceptionally arrogant, which is somewhat acceptable on a non-personal topic, but on a subject like religion, it would get you locked up in some countries.

this was not how i planned on spending half an hour of my 3-day weekend..


bless yo' soul for some comedic relief.

Why do you keep responding and then complaining about the effort it takes for you to write out your posts?

I don't even see what you're trying to achieve; are you trying to defend religion or impose it onto others? Either way it's a pointless effort; irreligious people aren't going to suddenly start believing in some deity. It's not going to 'click' and make sense because there's nothing to make sense of.

 

[Tenebrous]

Why do you keep responding and then complaining about the effort it takes for you to write out your posts?

I don't even see what you're trying to achieve; are you trying to defend religion or impose it onto others? Either way it's a pointless effort; irreligious people aren't going to suddenly start believing in some deity. It's not going to suddenly 'click' and make sense because there's nothing to make sense of.

Response incoming. dw.

 

[MrExtrodinaryMr]

Response incoming. dw.

this post is arrogant. /s