• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Looking for a formal debate with a theist.

Discussion in 'Formal Debate -archives' started by NullHypothesis, Dec 23, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NullHypothesis

    NullHypothesis New Member

    43
    +5
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    I have read your comment several times and i don't really know what you are asking.
    Yeah, the argument stating that you use circular reasoning when you use the bible to prove the bible. That's using the premise to prove the conclusion which is a flaw in logic and considered a fallacy. It applies perfectly to what we were talking about. How can i give a more convincing argument for circular reasoning? Give me an example of acceptable circular reasoning.

    I am struggling to even know what that sentence means. So for my example of circular reasoning to be valid i have to demonstrate that the bible is NOT the word of god? Idk if i am getting that right or not. But that would be a shifting of the burden of proof. It's like saying "you can use that circular reasoning argument, but first you have to disprove all of christianity." that's nonsense.

    Are you trolling me? lol. I said:
    "What's in the bible has no bearing on whether it is the word of god or not."
    You said:

    I explained why what is in the bible has no bearing on whether it's the word of god (because it's circular reasoning). That argument i put forth to you directly addressed your comment and i elaborated on it even further by giving a thought exmple of "i am god, how do you know, blah blah."

    How can you possibly say my arguments were random directed at nothing? If you disagree with my assesment then respond with couterpoints, don't just say "you're rambling about nothing." That's very frustrting because i am putting time and a great deal of thought into my responses, and if you are just going to dismiss them out of hand as "random statements" then i will stop wasting my time trying to reason with you. I'm not saying that to be mean, i just don't want to waste time debating someone who doesn't/won't acknowledge my points.
     
  2. Tom Farebrother

    Tom Farebrother Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +8,037
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    You misunderstand what is meant by circular reasoning. You are taking a concept that applies in a situation where a circular argument is being made and using it to dismiss something much more complicated, without even trying to engage with it. What’s the point? I could say to you how do you know [insert anything you have read and accepted as true] is true? You say, because I read it in this or that book - that isn’t a circular argument. It’s saying there is some information in the book you read that lead you to understand something. Do you understand the difference? You’re applying the wrong concept.
    Aside from that, you asked me what is different between several books, that you haven’t read through, and why would I choose one over the other. I explained that, and you went off on a different tangent, as if you hadn’t asked the question in the first place. I don’t think you understand the concept of a debate. If you just come back with some other random comment I’m not going to bother replying.
     
  3. NullHypothesis

    NullHypothesis New Member

    43
    +5
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    I don't need to engage with it, it's fallacious. Engaging with fallacies get you nowhere as they are a lapse in logic and reason. That's why when someone uses a fallacy i point it out immediately so they can correct it.

    You're correct, if you ask me why i believe "X" and i say i read it in this book. You could follow up by asking if that is my only evidence. For example, i believe the earth orbits the sun, yes i read that in a book, but it is based on actual evidence outside of the book. However if i read a book that said the earth orbits the sun, and then used the book as my only evidence to prove that claim true, i would not be justified in believing it. There are experiments outside of the book, like space travel, pictures, mathematics, and even observable evidence of looking at the sky that corroberate what is in the book. There is no evidence other than the bible to prove the bible is true. And using the premise to prove the conclusion is fallacious. You're essentially saying the bible is true because the bible is true. You have to present evidence outside of the book that corroberates what the book says. The book claims there is a god, point to any other evidence in the universe that can corroberate that claim.

    The reason i stopped talking about the other religious texts is because i cannot sit here and discuss the nuances between books when i disagree with the entire premises of those books to begin with. It's like asking you to discuss why aliens break in at night and steal my socks. I assume you don't agree with that premise, so what would be the point in discussing it? If i demonstrated however that they were in fact breaking in, THEN we could discuss the how and why. So demonstrate the bible is the word of god, and then we can start discussing what is in the book.

    I didn't ask why you believe one over the other, I asked how you determined yours was correct and the others were incorrect. My point was to get you to admit that you are using what is in the books to determine their validity. Then i could use the circular reasoning argument to prove why that's a fallacious way to go about it. It's a cornering tactic in debating, It might seem disingenuous to corner someone, but if your position is defensible and true then i shouldn't be able to corner you.

    You can't claim that i don't understand debating simply because your positions aren't defensible.

    We can start over. How did you determine that the bible is the word of god? If your answer points to anything within the bible as proof, that's a fallacy.
     
  4. Tom Farebrother

    Tom Farebrother Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +8,037
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    I’m sorry but this is just daft. Your reasoning is: why do you believe what is written in the Bible is untrue? Answer: because I haven’t read it. That is the essential problem here that you can’t see, you are attempting to debate something without even the most basic understanding of what it is. Why are you bothering?
     
  5. NullHypothesis

    NullHypothesis New Member

    43
    +5
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    Firstly, i have read the bible twice all the way through and have done bible studies for 3 years with friends and even my brother who is a minister. Please stop assuming that because i don't agree with you that i must not understand.

    Incorrect. If someone says the bible is the word of god, you don't start by asking how we determine this is not true. You start by aking how we determine it is true. The neutral position of any claim is "i don't know" I am not claiming to know. Look back through our conversation, please copy and paste a time when i said i know for a fact god isn't real, and that the bible isn't the word of god. But if you claim, as you are, that is in fact the word of god, my position is that i am not convinced your claim is true, until such a time as you can prove that it's true.

    You have a claim right? Is your claim that god is real?
     
  6. Tom Farebrother

    Tom Farebrother Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +8,037
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    I find it hard to believe from your previous statements that you have actually read the Bible, but I’ll have to take your word for it. If that is the case, you’ll have some idea although you seemed thrown by my question about the book of Luke. That’s what I’d be interested in having a debate about, as in one of my first comments, not some meaningless piffle.
     
  7. NullHypothesis

    NullHypothesis New Member

    43
    +5
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    I read back, the only thing i saw about luke was when you said "Thinking about it one particular topic I would be interested in is the dating of the book of Luke, reason being I haven’t found a reason for dating it later than around 60BC that I didn’t think was based in some dubious assumptions or selective arguments."
    The dating of the book doesn't really have any bearing on what i am talking about. My interest is not so much in the hostory of the bible, but rather the supernatural claim that it's gods word, or that some god exists. Let's assume that everything in the bible is 100% accurate as far as who wrote it, when they wrote it and where they wrote it. What does that have to do with me asking how you determined the bible is the word of god.

    Also, that's 3 times you've dodge the question. My question was that you have a claim correct? That claim is that some god exists, correct?
     
  8. Tom Farebrother

    Tom Farebrother Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +8,037
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    As I said at the beginning, I’m not interested in some unending debate. Philosophical arguments about God are interesting, but the idea that anyone can prove or disprove the existence of God by winning an argument is just foolish by definition. If you have anything a lot more specific and no-one else replies I might be interested.
     
  9. NullHypothesis

    NullHypothesis New Member

    43
    +5
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    I don't think you can prove or disprove god. I do however beleive that i can demonstrate that it is not rational or reasonable to believe in a god with the assumption that you care if what you believe is true.

    When i posted this i was looking to debate the existence of a god. If you want to discuss certain books of the bible whose premise i'm not even convinced of, then i'm not interested in that. Like my example before, i am not interested in debating how or why the alien stole my socks when i am not even convinced that the alien is real. There is another thread i started that has nothing to do with debating gods existence. It's about morality in the bible. Perhaps there will be something over there that interests you more.
     
  10. Tom Farebrother

    Tom Farebrother Optimistic sceptic Supporter

    +8,037
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    Thanks, I’ll take a look
     
  11. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +9,478
    Anabaptist
    Even the APOSTLES and PROPHETS mostly, did not "prove" YHWH CREATED all things - but their whole lives completely and utterly depended on HIM and relied on HIM, and HE never once disappointed anyone who trusted HIM.

    YHWH Himself 'can' prove Himself if He chooses to - oh, wait, HE ALREADY DID, and does EVERY DAY.

    So, Trust Him and obey Him for Eternal Life, or not. That's the choice everyone makes.
     
  12. NullHypothesis

    NullHypothesis New Member

    43
    +5
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    Can you not throw belligerant assertions around. It's not productive. Did you want to debate the existence of god?
     
  13. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +9,478
    Anabaptist
    Skeptical, aren't you ? And not aware of what belligerant means, NOR what an assertion is. Nor what productive is.

    What good could you ever be in a debate without knowing those simple things !?
     
  14. NullHypothesis

    NullHypothesis New Member

    43
    +5
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    This in't a thread that debates semantics. It's a thread to debate the existence of god. I'll give you one more chance to offer a position we can debate respectfully.
     
  15. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +9,478
    Anabaptist
    I'll take a rain-check for now. I find that the more a poster with wrong ideas posts, the more / easier/ it is to show this. So I'll just wait. THANKS !
     
  16. Truthfrees

    Truthfrees Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,900
    Word of Faith
    imo there is scientific evidence that God exists but no one but God can prove beyond a doubt that He exists

    science is always shifting and increasingly proving some Biblical statement

    imo quantum physics is the newest science that proves that what you say/think/believe is created

    the multistrata fossils imo prove a global flood - because a whale can't stand on his tail for millions of years waiting to be fossilized - neither can a tree

    God's commands to not touch dead bodies and to wash in running water is information that wasn't proven until the 1600's

    commands to not eat certain foods and only eat other foods is only in this century being proven to be biological wisdom

    these are just a few of many scientific issues that helped me know that the bible is true and reliable - at least in the original languages - translations do mistranslate several things

    as far as proving God exists - i asked God to do that and in a certain time span He did do that so effectively that i am rock solid in my belief that God exists - the scienctific evidence is just additional evidence for me - but not my immovable foundation

    God bless you my friend
     
  17. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +9,478
    Anabaptist
    In many countries this was proven hundreds of years ago and recorded.

    In the United States, a lot was known and proven, but the big money obliterated the truth (greedy corporations/ medical/ political/ religious)
    on purpose since around 1902 (and earlier probably).
     
  18. NullHypothesis

    NullHypothesis New Member

    43
    +5
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    Which part specifically in quantum mechanics is evidence for a god?

    Our understanding of science is always changing. That's how we learn. If i think that 2+2=5 and then i later find out it actually equals 4, it's not math that is shifting, it's my understanding of math. And i am not being inconsitent because i learned something new. A reasonable person should reserve the right to change their mind when presented with new information that alters their perspective. But i have never once heard of a biblical proclomation about the natural world that was proven to be correct. Even the ones you are listing here aren't correct.

    I have never heard of "multistrata fossils" so i went ahead and did quick google. What came up was not multistata fossils, but instead "polystrate fossils." What concerned me first was that literally every single page on google i saw was a creationist website. It's almost like this is something that only cretionists believe and is not accepted by scientists. So i did some research on it. Turns out a guy named Dawson completely debunked this hypothesis in the late 1800s, and it is not even remotely accepted in geology today as an explaination of anything. So... yeah..


    I am not surprised that people back then had some concept of touching dead bodies and cleanliness. You can have an idea about something without know how it works. For instance if god said don't jump off mountains lest you die. That's a pretty common sense thing to say, Now if the bible said "don't jump off of mountains because gravity is acting on your mass and you will fall at 9.8m/s squared." Then that would be compelling evidence that the information came from something not of this world. Telling people to not touch dead bodies is similar. When you touch a rotten corpse you can transfer bacteria which can make you sick or die. They don't have to know how that works in order to see the correlation between touching dead flesh and an increase of disease and sickness. Societies that do not believe in christianity also have this knowledge about disease and death. That's not extraordinary to know.

    Which foods are those?



    How did god prove to you that he is real?
     
  19. mark kennedy

    mark kennedy Natura non facit saltum Supporter

    +7,250
    Calvinist
    Single
    US-Democrat
    I'd be interested, I can only assume your interested in debating the existence of God. If you would like to specify the topic and what each round would address I would be happy to engage on the subject. Apparently the thread has gone four pages and so far no formal debate. If, for whatever reason, I don't get the alert should you respond feel free to PM me. Tentatively I would suggest this:

    1. God Defined: Eternal nature and divine attributes.
    2. God in the World: Evidential reasons for and against God's existence.
    3. God and philosophy: The conflict of worldviews, the atheist and the theist in rational dialogue.

    Three rounds, each one on the subjects listed. To include the two introductory posts and two conclusions. Extra rounds as needed can be included, based on mutual agreement and at the discretion of the moderator.

    Grace and peace,
    Mark
     
  20. NullHypothesis

    NullHypothesis New Member

    43
    +5
    United States
    Skeptic
    Single
    Perhaps i put this in the wrong forum. If it is expected that i will give a proposition, you will give a proposition, i will respond, you will respond, then we will have a cross examination. That's not what i mean when i say i want a debate. So perhaps that is my fault for not understanding the guidlines of this specific forum. I despise formal debates because it makes it impossible to address everything another person says. I prefer to just skip to the cross examination part of the debate where we can have a free and open exchange, one message at a time in an orderly fashion. So instead of saying i want a debate, perhaps what i should say is that i want a free echange of ideas.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...