Argument for God's existence.

[Moral Orel]

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.

You have that exactly backwards. "There is no God" is a negative claim, "There is a God" is a positive claim. You should read a logic book because it seems like you're just making this up as you go along. Here's an article about proving negative claims. It explains what a negative claim is, which is the pertinent part. Feel free to post your own scholarly article that supports your idea of what a negative claim is.

BloomU.edu

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.)

No, you show me where I made a claim I need to show evidence for to refute your points, and then refused to show evidence for that claim. I already reminded you of exactly what my claim was, and I quoted my post to prove it. You are unhappy that I didn't make the claim you want me to, or that you think I should, but if you think I ever claimed that the universe was created by a multiverse, prove it.


I never shifted the burden of proof either. We each made a claim.

You: The universe could not have been created by a multiverse.
Me: The universe could have been created by a multiverse.

I did state that you need to prove the multiverse is impossible, because you made that claim. But I supported my claim by showing a multiverse to be logically possible. I did not shrug off my responsibility to prove my claim on to you just because I reminded you of your claim.

And just as a reminder, I explained away your problems with a multiverse in post 822, and those points you couldn't come up with a response to. And as far as Spontaneous Generation is concerned, we agree that Spontaneous Generation refers to organisms beginning to exist from nothing, and it does not refer to inorganic matter becoming organic matter.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

Showing that the multiverse is possible is a refutation of your claim that it is not possible. It leaves us at "I don't know" and that isn't super satisfying. But it is what it is. That's what you don't get. I'm refuting one of your premises, and that is it. No one needs to do anything more than that to show your argument for God's existence fails.

 

[gaara4158]

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




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.

Yes, I don’t think you’re the kind of user who comes here willing to learn. It’s not a conclusion I’ve come to lightly. As you’ve said, I’ve responded to many of your threads. They’ve all ended up the same: many of us trying to point out your errors, you denying it, then you doubling down and accusing everyone else of being mean and emotional. This pattern paired with some very anti-lgbt, anti-science, pro-torture content and a declared goal of pushing people away from what you believe is the path to Heaven paints you in a very villainous light.

You obviously measure success differently than I do, and that’s ok. It’s an open forum. But you’ll get a lot more out of this place if you stop viewing everyone who disagrees with you as some lost fool.

 

[createdtoworship]

Showing that the multiverse is possible is a refutation of your claim that it is not possible. It leaves us at "I don't know" and that isn't super satisfying. But it is what it is. That's what you don't get. I'm refuting one of your premises, and that is it. No one needs to do anything more than that to show your argument for God's existence fails.

I won't address your other post as this will address both of them. When I provide a possible situation that is logical, and you provide a possible situation that is illogical, it boils down to evidence at that point. You can't say because a multiverse is possible, that it is therefore more logical to believe said scenario, especially when I bring up the illogicality of it. So you have it all backwards. But I am not sure I have the patience required to debate with you on this, so I will probably ignore some of your posts, not all of them, just some of them. I hope you don't take it personally, it's my fault for not being patient enough (something I need to work on). So if I don't read or acknowledge your posts, that is why. I tried to reason with you the best I can about the basics of debate and logic, but I am at a crossroads here, to waste time with someone who doesn't know the basics, or to reply to someone who does.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, I don’t think you’re the kind of user who comes here willing to learn. It’s not a conclusion I’ve come to lightly.

sir it's a christian forum. And as far as christianity, I have studied at the best schools, and been involved with the very best churches. I don't tell other believers that, in a proud way but so that they too can be involved with more active churches as well. So if I am not here to learn, it's that I was trained correctly the first time. (now I am talking basics, theism, hell, fundamental doctrines are not that hard to comprehend correctly). You however are definitely not here to learn, so you are projecting a bit here. In fact I believe you get a kick out of trying to deconvert christians, and that is why as an atheist you are here. You are not here to learn about God, you are already convinced He does not exist, and therefore are bent on declaring that unbelief to people who never invited you to do so.

As you’ve said, I’ve responded to many of your threads. They’ve all ended up the same: many of us trying to point out your errors,

being outnumbered by atheists does not mean that the minority was in the wrong. This is a band wagon fallacy again.

you denying it, then you doubling down and accusing everyone else of being mean and emotional.

you have gotten frustrated many times, to the boiling point of you ignoring my posts. Thats fine, but you have to at least be willing to admit you lost your cool.

This pattern paired with some very anti-lgbt, anti-science, pro-torture content and a declared goal of pushing people away from what you believe is the path to Heaven paints you in a very villainous light.

it's all part of God's Holy word. You reply to the weaknesses of Christianity only, if you were active in other threads you would hear more about grace, love forgiveness, overcomming sin etc. It's your own choice.

You obviously measure success differently than I do, and that’s ok. It’s an open forum. But you’ll get a lot more out of this place if you stop viewing everyone who disagrees with you as some lost fool.

well like I said, you have changed not a single viewpoint and we have talked about dozens of ideas, so you are just as close minded. So again you are projecting here.

 

[Moral Orel]

You can't say because a multiverse is possible, that it is therefore more logical to believe said scenario, especially when I bring up the illogicality of it.

I didn't ever say it was more logical to believe one scenario over another. You claimed it was illogical, I explained why your imagined problems with the logicality of it are not actual problems, but only in your imagination. Feel free to go back to post 822 and try to refute my points, but until you do, I've already won that argument. Your premise fails, which makes your argument fail because it is no longer sound.

As for Spontaneous Generation, we've settled that scientists have proved that organisms don't pop into existence because they discovered a natural explanation. You agreed in post 885. So any of this conflating Spontaneous Generation with abiogenesis can now safely be dismissed. If you think abiogenesis is impossible, you'll need to find another way to support that claim.

I think it's possible. Non living matter can become living matter. Remember all those NDEs you were posting earlier in the thread? Some of those folks died, and their bodies were non-living matter. And for some of those folks, someone used a defibrillator on them and their bodies became living matter. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Sometimes at least, if matter happens to be reconfigured into the shape of an organism, a jolt of energy, in this case electricity, can bring it to life.

I don't care if you ignore most of that last post. If you're incapable of labelling a claim as positive or negative correctly, it doesn't really matter. I gave you the information, you can choose to ignore it. If you're going to keep talking down to me as if I'm the one who is failing to understand these basic terms, I'm going to stop being polite. I don't care if you ignore me. I'm happy to correct your posts without you being able to see them to attempt to refute them. If you want to keep accusing me of things I haven't done, you need to prove those claims, or be quiet. Use the quote feature.

 

[gaara4158]

sir it's a christian forum. And as far as christianity, I have studied at the best schools, and been involved with the very best churches. I don't tell other believers that, in a proud way but so that they too can be involved with more active churches as well. So if I am not here to learn, it's that I was trained correctly the first time. (now I am talking basics, theism, hell, fundamental doctrines are not that hard to comprehend correctly). You however are definitely not here to learn, so you are projecting a bit here. In fact I believe you get a kick out of trying to deconvert christians, and that is why as an atheist you are here. You are not here to learn about God, you are already convinced He does not exist, and therefore are bent on declaring that unbelief to people who never invited you to do so.

See, that’s the attitude I’m talking about. You literally think you already know all that’s worth knowing. That’s not really a healthy attitude for anyone to have. I’m not interested in your credentials or your guesses at my motivations. Right now I’m critiquing your attitude, which is the main reason I don’t think you’re worth engaging on subjects related to apologetics. You lack the virtue of humility, which is essential for an honest examination of each other’s views. You’re more concerned about who’s giving you enough respect than who might have a point.

If you can muster a level of regard for atheists here that’s greater than your current superficial veneer of politeness masking a deep disdain for anyone who dares think differently than you, we can discuss your apologetic arguments. Until then, you’re just going to find yourself surrounded by annoyed, rude atheists.

 

[createdtoworship]

I didn't ever say it was more logical to believe one scenario over another. You claimed it was illogical, I explained why your imagined problems with the logicality of it are not actual problems, but only in your imagination. Feel free to go back to post 822 and try to refute my points, but until you do, I've already won that argument. Your premise fails, which makes your argument fail because it is no longer sound.

As for Spontaneous Generation, we've settled that scientists have proved that organisms don't pop into existence because they discovered a natural explanation. You agreed in post 885. So any of this conflating Spontaneous Generation with abiogenesis can now safely be dismissed. If you think abiogenesis is impossible, you'll need to find another way to support that claim.

I think it's possible. Non living matter can become living matter. Remember all those NDEs you were posting earlier in the thread? Some of those folks died, and their bodies were non-living matter. And for some of those folks, someone used a defibrillator on them and their bodies became living matter. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Sometimes at least, if matter happens to be reconfigured into the shape of an organism, a jolt of energy, in this case electricity, can bring it to life.

I don't care if you ignore most of that last post. If you're incapable of labelling a claim as positive or negative correctly, it doesn't really matter. I gave you the information, you can choose to ignore it. If you're going to keep talking down to me as if I'm the one who is failing to understand these basic terms, I'm going to stop being polite. I don't care if you ignore me. I'm happy to correct your posts without you being able to see them to attempt to refute them. If you want to keep accusing me of things I haven't done, you need to prove those claims, or be quiet. Use the quote feature.

maybe some one else can answer your questions. I apologize, like I said I can't teach people how to debate here, there has to be some common form of rationality. Logic is the foundation of all we think and do, and if someone refuses to be logical, I just don't know what to do with that. Take care.

 

[createdtoworship]

See, that’s the attitude I’m talking about. You literally think you already know all that’s worth knowing. That’s not really a healthy attitude for anyone to have. I’m not interested in your credentials or your guesses at my motivations. Right now I’m critiquing your attitude, which is the main reason I don’t think you’re worth engaging on subjects related to apologetics. You lack the virtue of humility, which is essential for an honest examination of each other’s views. You’re more concerned about who’s giving you enough respect than who might have a point.

If you can muster a level of regard for atheists here that’s greater than your current superficial veneer of politeness masking a deep disdain for anyone who dares think differently than you, we can discuss your apologetic arguments. Until then, you’re just going to find yourself surrounded by annoyed, rude atheists.

so you think it's okay to go to a christian forum and try to dissuade them out of christianity? And I am the one who lacks humility? Your projecting again. It's very ok to go to a christian forum, not debate and simply listen, and if you have questions that are sincere, to ask them. But to try to deconvert people who did not invite you to do so, is somewhat immoral. Or to get kicks out of correcting christians over at CF.com, is also immoral. It should not be a recreational passtime for atheists to get laughs out of christians over here. It is these reasons and so many more that I take this very seriously, and my lack of humility comes directly from my serious tone.

 

[Moral Orel]

maybe some one else can answer your questions. I apologize, like I said I can't teach people how to debate here, there has to be some common form of rationality. Logic is the foundation of all we think and do, and if someone refuses to be logical, I just don't know what to do with that. Take care.

lol I demonstrated that you don't understand the difference between a positive and negative claim by posting a scholarly article with the definitions in it, so you ignored it because you couldn't refute it. Now you're telling me that I don't understand logic or how to debate. Absolutely hilarious, bro. You haven't shown anything that I've said is illogical. You've made plenty of dishonest claims about what I have said, though. It's clear I've beaten you, badly. You're running because you've lost so soundly you know any further discussion will only lead to your further embarrassment. You don't have answers to my questions because they're points you can't refute, just like all the others. Your argument is not sound, your thread has lost. You don't understand that because you don't understand the basics of rationality.

So go ahead, run from my points. I'll keep making them, your arguments will continue to be invalidated. You won't recognize it, but I don't rightly care whether you learn something or not. All that matters is that I had fun doing it.

So let's count 'em up. I refuted your points about the multiverse (#882). I refuted your points about Spontaneous Generation which you agreed to (#885). You put your dishonesty on display throughout our conversation by repeatedly claiming I stated things that I did not, to which I demonstrated I had explicitly stated the opposite already. So all of your personal testimony can be discarded as well because it does not come from a trustworthy source. Did your TV start working because God fixed it, or was it simply an electrical fluke? Neither, we have good reason to disbelieve your TV was ever broken. And just for fun, you tried to prove homosexuality is a mental illness by posting a link to resources from a pro LGBTQ association! Absolutely laughable!

I'm sure you'll think my change in tone is a result of me being angry. But that's projection talking. This is sport for me, and I'm having a great day.

 

[Moral Orel]

so you think it's okay to go to a christian forum and try to dissuade them out of christianity? And I am the one who lacks humility? Your projecting again. It's very ok to go to a christian forum, not debate and simply listen, and if you have questions that are sincere, to ask them. But to try to deconvert people who did not invite you to do so, is somewhat immoral. Or to get kicks out of correcting christians over at CF.com, is also immoral. It should not be a recreational passtime for atheists to get laughs out of christians over here. It is these reasons and so many more that I take this very seriously, and my lack of humility comes directly from my serious tone.

This subforum is an invitation from ChristianForums for atheists to come to here and challenge Christian beliefs. If the evidence for your beliefs is so weak that it cannot withstand scrutiny, perhaps you shouldn't hold them. If you can't keep from being emotional in a debate about the merits of Christianity, perhaps the Apologetics Forum is too much for you.

 

[gaara4158]

so you think it's okay to go to a christian forum and try to dissuade them out of christianity?

That’s your stated mission, not mine. Did you or did you not state that you have taken it upon yourself to make Christianity look unappealing and unconvincing to some people?

It's very ok to go to a christian forum, not debate and simply listen, and if you have questions that are sincere, to ask them. But to try to deconvert people who did not invite you to do so, is somewhat immoral. Or to get kicks out of correcting christians over at CF.com, is also immoral. It should not be a recreational passtime for atheists to get laughs out of christians over here. It is these reasons and so many more that I take this very seriously, and my lack of humility comes directly from my serious tone.

No, your lack of humility is reflected in your absolute dismissal of any points that challenge your position. I agree that it’s not kind to visit a forum of religious folks just to extract amusing statements from them, and that’s part of the reason I’m abstaining from engaging your “apologetics” further. It’s too hard not to just laugh at them, and that would be unkind. I’m here to learn, and I’m here to teach. I’m not here to be predatory.

The apologetics section is set up specifically for those outside the Christian faith to challenge it. This means you’re going to run into atheists who don’t find arguments for God’s existence very convincing. If you can’t handle that, perhaps you don’t belong here.

 

[createdtoworship]

That’s your stated mission, not mine. Did you or did you not state that you have taken it upon yourself to make Christianity look unappealing and unconvincing to some people?


No, your lack of humility is reflected in your absolute dismissal of any points that challenge your position. I agree that it’s not kind to visit a forum of religious folks just to extract amusing statements from them, and that’s part of the reason I’m abstaining from engaging your “apologetics” further. It’s too hard not to just laugh at them, and that would be unkind. I’m here to learn, and I’m here to teach. I’m not here to be predatory.

The apologetics section is set up specifically for those outside the Christian faith to challenge it. This means you’re going to run into atheists who don’t find arguments for God’s existence very convincing. If you can’t handle that, perhaps you don’t belong here.

I don't think the apologetics forum is a place where atheists can repeatedly mock faith and christianity, I don't think that is in the rules. It's for witnessing purposes.

If I went to an atheist's forum and mocked them I would be instantly banned. I have been banned before, while being perfectly polite. I realized that I was not invited and stopped proselytizing on atheist forums, which was the nice thing to do. But yet atheists try all the time to deconvert christians, todd not todd was quoting my posts then using them to try to deconvert others, He admitted that.

Just so you know, being correct and thinking your better than any one else is two different things. You can have confidence and still have humility. There's only one person that I think I am better than, and that's the old me before Christ.

 

[gaara4158]

I don't think the apologetics forum is a place where atheists can repeatedly mock faith and christianity, I don't think that is in the rules. It's for witnessing purposes.

If I went to an atheist's forum and mocked them I would be instantly banned. I have been banned before, while being perfectly polite. I realized that I was not invited and stopped proselytizing on atheist forums, which was the nice thing to do. But yet atheists try all the time to deconvert christians, todd not todd was quoting my posts then using them to try to deconvert others, He admitted that.

Just so you know, being correct and thinking your better than any one else is two different things. You can have confidence and still have humility. There's only one person that I think I am better than, and that's the old me before Christ.

Well, if you see someone mocking faith, feel free to report them. I don’t think it’s mere confidence that causes you to dismiss opposing views without considering or even reading them. I think it’s hubris.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, if you see someone mocking faith, feel free to report them. I don’t think it’s mere confidence that causes you to dismiss opposing views without considering or even reading them. I think it’s hubris.

I think it's interesting that you won't admit mocking christianity here. Mocking is not flaming per say, it's just rude to do here.

 

[gaara4158]

I think it's interesting that you won't admit mocking christianity here. Mocking is not flaming per say, it's just rude to do here.

Eh, I may have done it at some point in the past. I might even have mocked you personally. I’m not perfect, but I always strive to improve. Not that I believe it’s always wrong to mock Christianity or other people, I just think it’s important to respect the rules of the forum.

 

[createdtoworship]

duplicate

 

[createdtoworship]

Eh, I may have done it at some point in the past. I might even have mocked you personally. I’m not perfect, but I always strive to improve.

there you have, honesty. and that makes me respect you.

Not that I believe it’s always wrong to mock Christianity or other people, I just think it’s important to respect the rules of the forum.

well that part is not respectable, but what you said initially is. Yeah, you should not ever mock people. Most of the time people mock what they don't understand, so it's a sign of superiority, and pride. You know, the same thing you accuse me of doing. But thank you for at least admitting that you participate in this. I am sure I have been frustrated and said things that I didn't mean as well, and for that I am sorry. I usually delete it before it gets fully responded to, but sometimes I miss it. But I have never had an atheist admit to it, it usually just gets real silent when I bring it up. But it is good to be honest, as that brings mutual respect and trust.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

Okay, so "There is no God" is a positive claim. Do you agree with that?

that sir is a fallacy of proving a negative. It is impossible for anyone to prove the absence of anything. It's a fallacy of proving a negative. Rather the burden lies on you to prove a single alternative, and you can't.

No, you do not agree with yourself. Here you call "There is no God" a negative claim, and then say it's a logical fallacy. You should read that link I gave you. It explains what a negative claim is, and it also dispels the myth that you can never disprove a negative.

See, the most basic rule of logic is the law of non-contradiction. X can't be true and false at the same time. "There is no God" cannot be a positive and a negative claim at the same time. But that's what you've said. And while you're making an obviously contradictory claim that violates the basics of logic, you're chastising me for not knowing what I'm talking about.

 

[gaara4158]

there you have, honesty. and that makes me respect you. well that part is not respectable, but what you said initially is. Yeah, you should not ever mock people. Most of the time people mock what they don't understand, so it's a sign of superiority, and pride. You know, the same thing you accuse me of doing. But thank you for at least admitting that you participate in this. I am sure I have been frustrated and said things that I didn't mean as well, and for that I am sorry. I usually delete it before it gets fully responded to, but sometimes I miss it. But I have never had an atheist admit to it, it usually just gets real silent when I bring it up. But it is good to be honest, as that brings mutual respect and trust.

View attachment 257122

Well, I believe mockery has its place. It can be a form of tough love. It’s a sign that what you’ve said is so terribly misguided that it doesn’t even deserve to be heard out. You don’t agree that there are some ideas so egregiously backwards that they should be mocked?