Argument for God's existence.

[gaara4158]

sir simply mentioning that mirages exist is not a fact that can be proven. As it relies on subjective eye site. Eyes can see all sorts of hallucinations, and/or innacuracies, so even though it's not proven to exist, it is still common knowledge and gives evidence to my point. So I believe this sufficiently refutes what you said. I am done talking about this with you. Saying ad hominems like: "your all over the place." proves my point that you have nothing intellectual left to defend your weak position, and I can sufficiently say it is effectively refuted.

Now back to your motive for being here. Now that we have established that you are breaking forum rules by being here (seeing that you admitted that mocking christians was acceptable practice in this post: Argument for God's existence.), are you being forthright with your motives and honest about them?

You’re not getting it. For one thing, mirages aren’t hallucinations, they’re a proven phenomenon that happens when atmospheric conditions cause light to be refracted. So your example actually just shows you’re dead wrong about “disproof” being any different from “proof.” The only way to prove or disprove something without facts is when something is a matter of definition, such as proving that a bachelor isn’t married. I know you’re eager to get off this point since you’re uncomfortable being shown errors in your arguments, but if you take this seriously you’ll actually make better arguments in the future. But we can leave it at this if you prefer.

And again, my motivations are irrelevant to the validity of my arguments. I could care less what you think of me.

 

[gaara4158]

Pssst...

Stop talking to him. It’s pointless.

You know he’s wrong. I know he’s wrong. Atheists here know he’s wrong. Christians here know he’s wrong. Everyone I’ve showed his posts to think he’s wrong. 12 year olds think he’s wrong. 70 year olds think he’s wrong.

And it does not matter to him in the slightest...

I’ve tried to stop. It doesn’t stop him. I know it’s horribly indulgent and will have to stop eventually, but I really do enjoy the exercise of puzzling out the mess of logical fallacies and misinformation that constitutes his arguments.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The fact that you feel you need to convince everyone I am wrong, should tell you something.

Nobody needs convincing at all, gradyll. We just gave you the rope and watched you hang yourself with it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I’ve tried to stop. It doesn’t stop him. I know it’s horribly indulgent and will have to stop eventually, but I really do enjoy the exercise of puzzling out the mess of logical fallacies and misinformation that constitutes his arguments.

I think, honestly, the way he keeps coming back from the dead after being demolished constitutes the strongest argument for God's existence in the whole thread.
It's like a superpower.

 

[createdtoworship]

Nobody needs convincing at all, gradyll. We just gave you the rope and watched you hang yourself with it.

thanks, you just proved my point. There was another agnostic saying that every atheist he has dealt with was polite and did not mock or belittle. So you are proving my point. Here you say I hung myself with my own arguments, even without addressing a single comment. That is goading.

 

[createdtoworship]

I’ve tried to stop. It doesn’t stop him. I know it’s horribly indulgent and will have to stop eventually, but I really do enjoy the exercise of puzzling out the mess of logical fallacies and misinformation that constitutes his arguments.

thanks thats exactly how I feel.

 

[createdtoworship]

I think, honestly, the way he keeps coming back from the dead after being demolished constitutes the strongest argument for God's existence in the whole thread.
It's like a superpower.

I think that had a compliment hidden somewhere in there. Thanks.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I think that had a compliment hidden somewhere in there. Thanks.

Allow me to un-hide it.
Virtually every single thing you have said in this thread has been incorrect. Since you have completely failed to recognise this then - logically - either you are in denial of it, or you don't care.

 

[createdtoworship]

You’re not getting it. For one thing, mirages aren’t hallucinations,

this is an unprovable statement

they’re a proven phenomenon that happens when atmospheric conditions cause light to be refracted.

so I am supposed to trust that the site you copied this from is correct?

So your example actually just shows you’re dead wrong about “disproof” being any different from “proof.”

I refuted both statements so I don't really understand.

The only way to prove or disprove something without facts is when something is a matter of definition, such as proving that a bachelor isn’t married.

there are no facts. All you have to deal with is common knowledge. Facts are by definition provable, and you cannot prove 99.99% of facts.

I know you’re eager to get off this point since you’re uncomfortable being shown errors in your arguments,

I am really fine

but if you take this seriously you’ll actually make better arguments in the future. But we can leave it at this if you prefer.

Actually I am totally fine talking about it more.

And again, my motivations are irrelevant to the validity of my arguments. I could care less what you think of me.

I actually like you. I know you don't take some of the things I say in that manner. But I do like you. I can comprehend most of what you say, so that is good. And you don't give up, so it creates long drawn out debates, which I personally like. I am entertained by it. IF I win too fast it's boring.

 

[createdtoworship]

Allow me to un-hide it.
Virtually every single thing you have said in this thread has been incorrect. Since you have completely failed to recognise this then - logically - either you are in denial of it, or you don't care.

thats a huge statement, an unverified one. So I guess you are correct, I don't care about things that are unverified. IF I did care about things that are unverified, I might, like you guys believe the universe spontaneously combusted from nothing, or that an electrocuted mud puddle spawned first life, or that we evolved in other ways from floating rock debris in space. All of that is very very unverified. So if I was in the habit of believing unverified claims, I would start there.

 

[Moral Orel]

yes sir, normally the course of action for the athiest or agnostic, is when they have no logical counter to the argument to belittle and say "no one believes you here" "12 year olds believe you are wrong" (as was said in this very thread a few posts above Argument for God's existence.), or mocking in other ways, subtle jabs, belittling. Whatever they feel like doing at the time. But I noticed you didn't say anything about how this agnostic said that mockery was good and was a form of "tough love."

Argument for God's existence.

but to answer your question, in the last 10 pages, I could probably find half a dozen flames, ad hominems, and other occasions of belittling done by atheists or agnostics toward myself. Would you like me to quote them for you?

I made a list for you:

OneTab shared tabs

That's super. But I already know that people are mean to you. Heck, I am. Now, since you think it's because we filthy unbelievers hate Christianity, how come we aren't rude to other Christians? How come we're polite and friendly to all sorts of other people we disagree with? If it was really because we hate Christianity, then we'd be spewing hatred at all of the Christians, but we aren't. So why do you think that is?

 

[createdtoworship]

That's super. But I already know that people are mean to you. Heck, I am. Now, since you think it's because we filthy unbelievers hate Christianity, how come we aren't rude to other Christians? How come we're polite and friendly to all sorts of other people we disagree with? If it was really because we hate Christianity, then we'd be spewing hatred at all of the Christians, but we aren't. So why do you think that is?

Pick an apologetic thread (or evolution thread) of your choosing, one that I am not involved, and I can scan the last ten pages, and find probably a dozen cases of mocking of christianity, or making fun of faith, or belittling christianity, done by atheists and agnostics. I challenge you.

 

[gaara4158]

this is an unprovable statement

It’s a matter of definition. Hallucinations are visions created entirely by the mind, whereas
mirages are objectively measurable refractions of light due to atmospheric conditions. Honestly, you need to do your research before spouting nonsense like this. You’re wasting everyone’s time.

so I am supposed to trust that the site you copied this from is correct?

Of course not. Look it up yourself. What I’m saying is entirely uncontroversial.

I refuted both statements so I don't really understand.

I know you don’t understand
Again, you tried to argue that facts were not needed to disprove something, and to be fair that’s true when there are logical contradictions inherent to a particular claim, but the example you gave was a disproof that did require facts, which I found very silly. And now you’re resisting the explanation of all this, which I find just as silly.

there are no facts. All you have to deal with is common knowledge. Facts are by definition provable, and you cannot prove 99.99% of facts.

That’s a logical contradiction. If all facts are provable, then you cannot say “you can’t prove x amount of facts.” If all facts are probable, then that means you can prove 100% of all facts. If you wish to say there are no facts, prove it. You just contradicted yourself trying to do so. Have another crack at it.

 

[gaara4158]

I think, honestly, the way he keeps coming back from the dead after being demolished constitutes the strongest argument for God's existence in the whole thread.
It's like a superpower.

If we’re talking fantasy, I’d liken him most to a troll

 

[createdtoworship]

It’s a matter of definition. Hallucinations are visions created entirely by the mind, whereas
mirages are objectively measurable refractions of light due to atmospheric conditions. Honestly, you need to do your research before spouting nonsense like this. You’re wasting everyone’s time.

no you said "mirages are not hallucinations." And I said that is an unprovable statement. Because hallucinations are subjective to the person having them and are unverifiable, so there is no way to know if a mirage is a hallucination or not.

Of course not. Look it up yourself. What I’m saying is entirely uncontroversial.

so again, can you prove the existence of mirages or not? You are asking me to trust external sources, and this is revealing that you yourself cannot prove they exist.

I know you don’t understand
Again, you tried to argue that facts were not needed to disprove something, and to be fair that’s true when there are logical contradictions inherent to a particular claim, but the example you gave was a disproof that did require facts, which I found very silly. And now you’re resisting the explanation of all this, which I find just as silly.

to be fair, you just refuted a former comment of yours.

That’s a logical contradiction. If all facts are provable, then you cannot say “you can’t prove x amount of facts.” If all facts are probable, then that means you can prove 100% of all facts. If you wish to say there are no facts, prove it. You just contradicted yourself trying to do so. Have another crack at it.

you are correct it is a contradiction, facts are by definition provable, yet we cannot prove 99.99% of facts. So what does this contradiction teach us? That there are no facts. Only alleged facts. You are learning.

 

[gaara4158]

no you said "mirages are not hallucinations." And I said that is an unprovable statement. Because hallucinations are subjective to the person having them and are unverifiable, so there is no way to know if a mirage is a hallucination or not.

And I did prove it, logically. Hallucinations and mirages are by definition two entirely separate phenomena, so one is by definition not the other. Why are you struggling with this?

so again, can you prove the existence of mirages or not? You are asking me to trust external sources, and this is revealing that you yourself cannot prove they exist.

The existence of mirages is proven. Are you asking me personally if I can do the demonstration for you? I could, if I were so inclined, but why should it be me? There’s plenty of actual scientists out there who already did the work so I don’t have to. Seriously, just go look it up.

to be fair, you just refuted a former comment of yours.

Way to miss the point. Your whole argument has been that scientists disproved spontaneous generation without facts and without proving anything, and I have shown you that that is not the case. So you need to abandon this notion that scientists don’t use facts or facts don’t exist. It’s bizarre and wrong.

you are correct it is a contradiction, facts are by definition provable, yet we cannot prove 99.99% of facts. So what does this contradiction teach us? That there are no facts. Only alleged facts. You are learning.

It teaches us that you have defined the word “fact” in a way that is entirely useless and entirely peculiar to you alone.

 

[createdtoworship]

And I did prove it, logically. Hallucinations and mirages are by definition two entirely separate phenomena, so one is by definition not the other. Why are you struggling with this?

you gave evidence from external sources, that you have faith in. To prove it. And that is not proof.

The existence of mirages is proven. Are you asking me personally if I can do the demonstration for you? I could, if I were so inclined, but why should it be me? There’s plenty of actual scientists out there who already did the work so I don’t have to. Seriously, just go look it up.

even if mirages were provable, and they are not. (not without external sources), it is impossible to prove that the mirage is not just a hallucination.

Way to miss the point. Your whole argument has been that scientists disproved spontaneous generation without facts and without proving anything, and I have shown you that that is not the case. So you need to abandon this notion that scientists don’t use facts or facts don’t exist. It’s bizarre and wrong.

yes, exactly. You don't need alleged facts to disprove something as you admitted in your last post.

It teaches us that you have defined the word “fact” in a way that is entirely useless and entirely peculiar to you alone.

well think of it this way. If scientists truly realized they cannot prove anything, would it be that honorable of a trade?

 

[ananda]

The universe is subject to time.. meaning there is a starting reference point. In order for there to be a starting point for a universe subject to time there has to be a realm that isn't subject to time to press the start button on our universe.

The "Creator" isn't subject to time. Time exist inside of the Eternity that the "Creator" resides in/is.

How do you know that the universe is subject to time? Why can't we say that "time exists inside of the universe that the universe resides in/is"?

 

[ananda]

That is basically saying the same thing. If a portion of the universe exists outside of time then that is what Eternity is, and the portion that is subject to time.. is what the "physical universe" is.

This is also speculation. We can define the "universe" to include everything that is subject to time and that which supposedly isn't, the so-called "eternity".

 

[Moral Orel]

Pick an apologetic thread (or evolution thread) of your choosing, one that I am not involved, and I can scan the last ten pages, and find probably a dozen cases of mocking of christianity, or making fun of faith, or belittling christianity, done by atheists and agnostics. I challenge you.

Sure thing. Take a look:

Killing the Devil inside of me, with the help of Descartes?

It's really the only other active apologetic thread, and your main interlocutors here, Gaara, Todd, and myself, have all participated.