Argument for God's existence.

[createdtoworship]

I'm not going to keep track of your timetable for responding to my posts. I'm just going to continue to correct the errors I see you make in this thread, and you can do with that information as you please. I'm already used to you ignoring my points that you can't refute, so not much will change.

When you do start replying again, remember that I've requested you to explain briefly, in your own words, how scientists disproved Spontaneous Generation.

do you disagree with atheists on here that don't confess agnosticism, how and why?

I was just curious.

Since the topic has been exhausted, and there is no posts right now.

 

[Moral Orel]

do you disagree with atheists on here that don't confess agnosticism, how and why?

I was just curious.

Since the topic has been exhausted, and there is no posts right now.

The topic hasn't been exhausted. I'm waiting for you to give a brief explanation, in your own words, as to how scientists disproved Spontaneous Generation. There are a few other parts of your OP I want to address, but I want to do them all one at a time.

 

[createdtoworship]

The topic hasn't been exhausted. I'm waiting for you to give a brief explanation, in your own words, as to how scientists disproved Spontaneous Generation. There are a few other parts of your OP I want to address, but I want to do them all one at a time.

of course:
it was hypothesized that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh.

that was proven that life could not come from non-life as it cannot be replicated in laboratory or other scientific observations. In this way spontaneous generation was proven as a faulty hypothesis a hundred years ago, approximately. Yet when evolution became popular this revived this long dead theory, chemical evolution, that life can come from a dead pool of preexisting organic material, either electrified, and in the right setting could give life. Even though no laboratory experiment worked regarding this. Miller Urey experiment proves that fully functional proteins and fully functional amino acids cannot arise from non living material, disproving both chemical evolution and abiogenesis.

(just so you know, if I debate with you, I expect all positive statements you make to be backed up with science, not scientists views, but the actual science, if you continue to post that your theories are only possible and not in need of evidence, I will extend your blocking to permanent, as that is not how proper debate is done, and is a waste of time, both for me and the christians reading this thread.

I am not trying to be rude, but I don't have time to engage in debates that are not properly formatted for debate. If you don't know how to debate I suggest reading a book or taking a class on debate. I could teach you the basics, but it's probably better that you research them for yourself, so that you are fully persuaded. But one of the very very basics of debate is that every premise have evidence, and that each premise support the conclusion, so I recommend starting there and working forward.

 

[Moral Orel]

of course:
it was hypothesized that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh.

Okay, there is the hypothesis which is restricted to fully formed organisms. They did not hypothesize that maggots were made of rotten meat though, did they?

that was proven that life could not come from non-life as it cannot be replicated in laboratory or other scientific observations.

This isn't accurate. They hypothesized that maggots poofed into existence inside rotten meat, and then they discovered that flies laid eggs in the rotten meat and that's where maggots came from. They made a discovery, they didn't simply fail to replicate things. Scientists discovered where all these things came that they had hypothesized about.

(just so you know, if I debate with you, I expect all positive statements you make to be backed up with science, not scientists views, but the actual science, if you continue to post that your theories are only possible and not in need of evidence, I will extend your blocking to permanent, as that is not how proper debate is done, and is a waste of time, both for me and the christians reading this thread.

I am not trying to be rude, but I don't have time to engage in debates that are not properly formatted for debate. If you don't know how to debate I suggest reading a book or taking a class on debate. I could teach you the basics, but it's probably better that you research them for yourself, so that you are fully persuaded. But one of the very very basics of debate is that every premise have evidence, and that each premise support the conclusion, so I recommend starting there and working forward.

And I did. I claimed that your points about the multiverse were faulty, that's my positive claim. I explained your points away. So I backed up my positive claim. I never claimed that the universe was created by a multiverse, and I explicitly stated that I wasn't claiming that. You posted an argument, which means you opened yourself up to criticisms of your argument. I do not need to make my own argument for the opposite of your claim to criticize your argument. Refuting your points does not entail making a positive claim about the origins of the universe.

Let's try an analogy. Imagine you told me that you know my shirt is blue, because you know it can't be red or green or black or purple. I explain that no, it is in fact quite possible my shirt is black. I don't need to prove my shirt is in fact black to prove that you haven't made a sound argument for my shirt being blue. I know that it feels unfair that your case is so much harder to prove than mine. But that's why they call it the burden of proof.

This is what you've done. You made an argument that the creator of the universe is God because it can't be eternal, it can't create itself, and it couldn't have been created by a multiverse. I showed that it is quite possible that a multiverse creates universes, including ours, and thus refuted your argument. I don't need to prove that a multiverse did in fact create the universe to refute your point that a multiverse did not in fact create the universe. I made the positive claim that your argument is bad, I did not make the claim that I know the origins of the universe.

 

[createdtoworship]

Okay, there is the hypothesis which is restricted to fully formed organisms. They did not hypothesize that maggots were made of rotten meat though, did they?

I didn't say that.

This isn't accurate. They hypothesized that maggots poofed into existence inside rotten meat, and then they discovered that flies laid eggs in the rotten meat and that's where maggots came from.

yes, they suspected maggots spontaneously generated inside rotten meat, and that was not the case. So spontaneous generation was proven impossible, and was labelled after that bad science. That is until evolution adopted the concept ( in primordial abiogenesis).

And I did. I claimed that your points about the multiverse were faulty, that's my positive claim.

thats a negative claim, not a positive claim. That is what I mean, you need to study debate.
This is my last quote for two more weeks, I fully adressed your concerns and proved them faulty. So again please respect my wishes and don't contact me for two weeks.

 

[Moral Orel]

I didn't say that.

I know, I'm just making sure distinctions are clear. Spontaneous Generation is about fully formed organisms beginning to exist from nothing.

yes, they suspected maggots spontaneously generated inside rotten meat, and that was not the case.

Right, but the how they proved it is important. They discovered where maggots came from to prove where maggots came from. They did not prove that chemical evolution is impossible because that was never part of the hypothesis.

thats a negative claim, not a positive claim.

No, it's not. Whether a claim is positive or negative hinges on the use of the word "not". I didn't claim your argument lacked something. I claimed it was faulty. Let's look at what the claims are themselves.

You: A multiverse could not have created the universe. <-- Negative claim.
Me: A multiverse could have created the universe. <-- Positive claim.

There's nothing wrong with making negative claims, by the way. Some are impossible to prove, some are not. Take a look at this sentence:

"The boy threw the ball."

Here is a negative claim about that sentence: There is no letter 'z' in that sentence. Now you can look at that sentence, see that there is no letter 'z', and then I've proven a negative claim. I saw you tell someone earlier in the thread that proving a negative is a fallacy, that is wrong too.

That is what I mean, you need to study debate.

No, you have that backwards. I'm happy to talk you through these concepts. But if you're going to be condescending about it, I'm going to stop being so polite when I do.

I fully adressed your concerns and proved them faulty.

What do you think that you proved faulty? You had zero refutations to my points about the multiverse. We agree that Spontaneous Generation was never about lifeforms coming about as a result of pre-existing matter reconfiguring itself into those life forms. So what point of mine do you think you proved wrong?

So again please respect my wishes and don't contact me for two weeks.

I do not respect your little "time-outs" that you keep giving me, and I won't because they're incredibly rude. Have a discussion with me, or run away. That's your choice.

 

[createdtoworship]

I know, I'm just making sure distinctions are clear. Spontaneous Generation is about fully formed organisms beginning to exist from nothing.

Right, but the how they proved it is important. They discovered where maggots came from to prove where maggots came from. They did not prove that chemical evolution is impossible because that was never part of the hypothesis.

No, it's not. Whether a claim is positive or negative hinges on the use of the word "not". I didn't claim your argument lacked something. I claimed it was faulty. Let's look at what the claims are themselves.

You: A multiverse could not have created the universe. <-- Negative claim.
Me: A multiverse could have created the universe. <-- Positive claim.

There's nothing wrong with making negative claims, by the way. Some are impossible to prove, some are not. Take a look at this sentence:

"The boy threw the ball."

Here is a negative claim about that sentence: There is no letter 'z' in that sentence. Now you can look at that sentence, see that there is no letter 'z', and then I've proven a negative claim. I saw you tell someone earlier in the thread that proving a negative is a fallacy, that is wrong too.

No, you have that backwards. I'm happy to talk you through these concepts. But if you're going to be condescending about it, I'm going to stop being so polite when I do.


What do you think that you proved faulty? You had zero refutations to my points about the multiverse. We agree that Spontaneous Generation was never about lifeforms coming about as a result of pre-existing matter reconfiguring itself into those life forms. So what point of mine do you think you proved wrong?


I do not respect your little "time-outs" that you keep giving me, and I won't because they're incredibly rude. Have a discussion with me, or run away. That's your choice.

I won't adress your comment for two weeks other than this:

sentiment in statements, are negative when they are critical of something.

 

[Moral Orel]

sentiment in statements, are negative when they are critical of something.

Sort of, but that has nothing to with the definitions of the terms "negative claim" and "positive claim". I demonstrated how you made the negative claim, but I made the positive claim, and yet it was I who criticized your argument.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sort of, but that has nothing to with the definitions of the terms "negative claim" and "positive claim". I demonstrated how you made the negative claim, but I made the positive claim, and yet it was I who criticized your argument.

it does not work that way. In debate a critical statement is always the negative statement. So for example you say their is no God. It contains the word "no" yet it is a positive statement. My statement is "can you prove that there is no God, after-all, He may be living behind some asteroid somewhere where you cannot see?." So my comment would be the negative or critical comment. And so I have mentioned this several times to you. If you don't believe that is ok. I am not here to teach you how to debate. That is something you will have to find out by yourself. But thank you for the debate. I will talk to you later. (P.S. all positive statements, require evidence. You have made positive statements that you tried to reverse the burden of proof on. Namely in the area of what created the universe. So you can go back and reread your posts and see where you did that if you want. But if you do it again you will be blocked permanently. I am not trying to be harsh, but using fallacy is one thing and debating inaccurately is another thing, but not knowing anything about debate at all, I don't have much patience with.)

 

[Tinker Grey]

Failure to understand the rules of the game, pooping on the board, and claiming victory.

 

[createdtoworship]

Failure to understand the rules of the game, pooping on the board, and claiming victory.

sir you need to understand this poster when I asked for evidence of a multiverse, he repeatedly claimed "it was possible." And when I questioned him on it, he replied numerous times that he only needs to prove that it's possible. That is not how debate is done. When making a positive statement according to rules of debate, you follow through with your logic and evidence. Green leprechauns creating us is possible, but that does not give any information.

Argument for God's existence.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Sir, you need to understand that you neither understand logic, debate, and sometimes not even English.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sir, you need to understand that you neither understand logic, debate, and sometimes not even English.

you are funny, sir.

wrong, but funny.

see, logic may be a foreign language to some on here, but we need to learn how to debate nonetheless

 

[createdtoworship]

Hmm, I guess if your goal on the forum is to convert people away from Christianity he's an invaluable asset. It's a shame what these threads do to the level of discourse here, though.

I don't know I have been watching where the atheists have been posting, since they stopped posting here and two of them haven't posted since early this week, while posting every day before that. If my posting discourages atheism here on a christian forum, then is't that considered a win?

 

[gaara4158]

I don't know I have been watching where the atheists have been posting, since they stopped posting here and two of them haven't posted since early this week, while posting every day before that. If my posting discourages atheism here on a christian forum, then is't that considered a win?

Not in an apologetics section. There should be a healthy exchange of ideas between all sides, not just people desperately trying to outsmart each other. Though if the latter kind of people are being chased off, that’s all the better.

 

[createdtoworship]

Not in an apologetics section. There should be a healthy exchange of ideas between all sides, not just people desperately trying to outsmart each other. Though if the latter kind of people are being chased off, that’s all the better.

I just thought I would mention that. It seems that whatever I said has scared some of them off. And from my perspective wouldn't that be a win? See, the healthy exchange, would mean, not being rude, not belittling, and not flaming. Which if we took that away from the atheists, there would be very few posts. The christians at least, that I have seen have been somewhat cordial and polite, and they are being slammed and belittled by atheists that should not even really be on a christian forum to begin with. But yes you are correct, if an atheist is open to christianity and is polite, I think it's a great idea for them to be here.

 

[gaara4158]

I just thought I would mention that. It seems that whatever I said has scared some of them off. And from my perspective wouldn't that be a win? See, the healthy exchange, would mean, not being rude, not belittling, and not flaming. Which if we took that away from the atheists, there would be very few posts. The christians at least, that I have seen have been somewhat cordial and polite, and they are being slammed and belittled by atheists that should not even really be on a christian forum to begin with. But yes you are correct, if an atheist is open to christianity and is polite, I think it's a great idea for them to be here.

A “win” would be where both parties walk away more enlightened for their exchange. It’s rarer than it would be if we didn’t all have egos to protect, but I don’t think anyone who isn’t willing to entertain the opposite position should be here.

 

[createdtoworship]

A “win” would be where both parties walk away more enlightened for their exchange. It’s rarer than it would be if we didn’t all have egos to protect, but I don’t think anyone who isn’t willing to entertain the opposite position should be here.

both parties walk away more enlightened? If one party is correct the other is dead wrong. So I fail to see how both parties can walk away enlightened and happy at least. But we can at least be courteous, and avoid belittling. Which from my experience the atheists have a hard time doing.

 

[gaara4158]

both parties walk away more enlightened? If one party is correct the other is dead wrong. So I fail to see how both parties can walk away enlightened and happy at least. But we can at least be courteous, and avoid belittling. Which from my experience the atheists have a hard time doing.

Sounds like you have the wrong attitude. Even if you’re sure you’re right, you can still learn and study how others have come to different conclusions. You never know when you might discover a perspective you’d never considered before. Presumably that’s how you’re hoping your interlocutor who’s “dead wrong” is approaching the conversation if you expect them to see you’re right, so why shouldn’t you enter with the same attitude? No one goes into a conversation thinking they’re the one that’s dead wrong.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sounds like you have the wrong attitude. Even if you’re sure you’re right, you can still learn and study how others have come to different conclusions. You never know when you might discover a perspective you’d never considered before. Presumably that’s how you’re hoping your interlocutor who’s “dead wrong” is approaching the conversation if you expect them to see you’re right, so why shouldn’t you enter with the same attitude? No one goes into a conversation thinking they’re the one that’s dead wrong.

this coming from someone who just said this yesterday about my posts:

....He's truly showing himself to be some kind of "lawful evil" character on here. My advice to all is to disengage him. He hasn't given an inch in the entire time he's been here and he's been fractally wrong about most of the subjects he brings up. This forum is a worse place when he is given attention.

and yet you have replied to several posts, and I have more atheists replying to my posts in the case for morality thread than ever. I had three brand new atheists engage me today.