My Earth2 Challenge

[Bungle_Bear]

Would you see one, if one was there?

No point looking for one when a perfect answer is so obvious.

Let me ask again - where was the challenge? Or are you in a huff now because there are too many holes in your OP?

 

[Kylie]

You're claiming all those have cause-and-effect evidence for their gods, and yet you're still an atheist!?

What gives?

It's the same evidence that you often give for christianity, yet you seem unmoved by their arguments. So don't act all surprised when people don't accept it when you don't either (although you spout identical arguments for your beliefs, in a shocking double standard.)

 

[AV1611VET]

It's the same evidence that you often give for christianity,

No, it isn't.

It's the same type of evidence.

... yet you seem unmoved by their arguments.

I wasn't aware they appeal to cause-and-effect to substantiate their beliefs.

So don't act all surprised when people don't accept it when you don't either ...

I have a Biblical reason for not accepting it: I'm a monotheist.

... (although you spout identical arguments for your beliefs, in a shocking double standard.)

"Identical arguments"?

Who brought up cause-and-effect first, I or they?

It seems to me you are the one claiming "identical arguments," and I've never seen any.

 

[Kylie]

No, it isn't.

It's the same type of evidence.

"The religious holidays celebrated by my religion are evidence that my religion is true!"

Apparently the above statement is, when spoken by you, evidence for your religious beliefs, but when spoken by anyone else, complete nonsense.

Why the double standard, AV?

I wasn't aware they appeal to cause-and-effect to substantiate their beliefs.

How is claiming a Christian holidays counts as evidence that Christianity is true a "cause and effect" thing?

And how can you claim they don't appeal to the same kind of thing when you just said it was the same type of evidence?

If you say your evidence is a cause and effect thing and they use the same type of evidence, then theirs must be cause and effect too.

Or do you think the word "same" can change definitions?

I have a Biblical reason for not accepting it: I'm a monotheist.

Oh, so you're like, "Sorry, other deities, the position of Being for me to pray to has already been filled."

"Identical arguments"?

Who brought up cause-and-effect first, I or they?

It seems to me you are the one claiming "identical arguments," and I've never seen any.

That would be you, in post 16.

I don't know where you get this "cause and effect" thing from.

As I've said already, the arguments are identical, because both you and all the people referenced by Bugeyedcreepy both claim: "The religious holidays celebrated by my religion are evidence that my religion is true!"

 

[AV1611VET]

As I've said already, the arguments are identical, because both you and all the people referenced by Bugeyedcreepy both claim: "The religious holidays celebrated by my religion are evidence that my religion is true!"

Have a good day.

 

[Kylie]

Have a good day.

Ah, once again you run from a point that you don't seem to have an answer to.

I'll take this as you conceding the point, but we both know that you'll eventually trot out the same argument again.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll take this as you conceding the point, but we both know that you'll eventually trot out the same argument again.

You bet I will.

 

[Kylie]

You bet I will.

And yet you seem utterly incapable of defending it right now.

Why do you act in such an intellectually dishonest way, AV? Are flawed arguments really the best you've got?

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet you seem utterly incapable of defending it right now.

You won't see the day I can't defend that properly.

 

[Kylie]

You won't see the day I can't defend that properly.

Dude, that's today.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Tomorrow, God creates another planet ex nihilo that's a mirror image of this one, except without people on it.

Skyscrapers, automobiles, job applications on desks, cell phones showing calls having been made, stop lights turning green-yellow-red, ships at sea with logs stating when they left and where they're going, newspapers reporting the news, etc. and so on.

And, of course, documentation to the effect of: "I created this planet ex nihilo as a mirror image of Earth1 as Earth1 existed yesterday. Don't be fooled by thinking this planet was inhabited."

Deception or no deception?

Note: Yes, the documentation would contradict the documentation found in the Bibles on Earth2; and yes, Earth2 could be considered a modified form of Last Thursday ... but humor me for the sake of understanding the point I'm making.

Where'd the documentation come from?

 

[AV1611VET]

Where'd the documentation come from?

Read the note please.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Read the note please.

I didn't ask where the documentation claimed to have come from, I asked where it came from.

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't ask where the documentation claimed to have come from, I asked where it came from.

Fine.

You don't want to humor me, I don't want to humor you.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Fine.

You don't want to humor me, I don't want to humor you.

and here's where your challenge falls apart... The only evidence of Earth2's authenticity lies with an anonymous say-so... And what's that worth?

 

[AV1611VET]

and here's where your challenge falls apart... The only evidence of Earth2's authenticity lies with an anonymous say-so... And what's that worth?

What's your point?

That you're not obligated to believe the note?

Fine -- don't believe it.

But if you don't ... and you conclude that Earth2 was inhabited at one time ... you would be wrong.

Rightfully wrong.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What's your point?

That you're not obligated to believe the note?

Fine -- don't believe it.

But if you don't ... and you conclude that Earth2 was inhabited at one time ... you would be wrong.

Rightfully wrong.

True... Earth2 was a masterful piece of work... the only documentation on it was unreliable... and rightfully so.

 

[AV1611VET]

... unreliable...

But not deception (which is what I'm asking)?

... and rightfully so.

Despite the fact that it explains the following?

1. The planet was created by a sentient being.
2. The planet was created ex nihilo.
3. The planet was created as a mirror image of another planet (and names the planet).
4. Earth1 looked like this planet yesterday.
5. This planet has never been inhabited.

You consider all that information "unreliable" for some reason?

Would you rather there be no documentation at all?

 

[TLK Valentine]

But not deception (which is what I'm asking)?

No, not deceptive, merely unreliable.

Despite the fact that it explains the following?

1. The planet was created by a sentient being.
2. The planet was created ex nihilo.
3. The planet was created as a mirror image of another planet (and names the planet).
4. Earth1 looked like this planet yesterday.
5. This planet has never been inhabited.

You consider all that information "unreliable" for some reason?

the little boy who cried "wolf" was absolutely correct... the last time.

unfortunately, previous events made him unreliable... And whose fault was that?

Would you rather there be no documentation at all?

It would have made no difference at all one way or the other.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would have made no difference at all one way or the other.

When does school start this year, professor?