Trying to round up an Atheist for Formal Debate on I.D.

Loudmouth · Apr 1, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
You failed to provide the quote and my exposition on it together. Instead you split them apart. Why not include them together?

Why not own up to what you said?

Either we were created or we were'nt. There is no third option. This is not debatable.

Duh. Either something is blue or it isn't. Either something is a liquid or it isn't. This really isn't moving the discussion forward.

When you use the term evolution, you need to use a qualifier or specifier. "Evolution" can mean a number of things. What you should say is "Neo-Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection" or the "unguided, blind, purposeless, matter creating mind out of chaos view of evolution." Being specific is much more conducive to fruitful discussion.

It is only creationists that try to blur what evolution is. We are talking about biology, and there is only one theory used by biologists when it comes to change over time. There really isn't a mystery here.

I am not concerned with the infinite number of logically possible explanations for the cosmos, or hypothetical "natural mechanisms" which by their definition, could never be explanations for the universe anyway. Only the ones that scientists, metaphysicians, physcists, cosmologists, and astronomers posit as being worthy of being included in the live pool of explanations are explanations that I am concerned with. One of those explanations is the traditional western conceptualization of God i.e. The Greatest Conceivable Being.

So you exclude the other thousands of creator gods right from the get go? Why do you do that?

Scientists need to be honest and speak truthfully. That is all I desire of them. When they are presented with clear evidence that the best explanation for a set of given data is a supernatural one, then I expect them to suspend their methodological naturalistic presuppositions and follow the evidence where it leads. Unfortunately, some are unable to do this for personal reasons.

And this evidence is . . .?

That is not my job. There are scientists that are doing just that as we speak.

So what are these experiments? Where can we read about this research?

Ironic coming from someone whose beliefs are not based on science but rather an elaborate, unfalsifiable extrapolation constructed upon tidbits of truth.

Projection much?

Which of my beliefs are unfalsifiable? Name them.

I do not make it a habit of presenting evidence to someone in order to persuade them of something if they have already determined before hand that said evidence does not and cannot even exist. You are asking me to do something you do not even believe is possible. So why ask?

IOW, you have no evidence. You claimed to lead horses to water, but now you claim that you don't. Go figure.

Loudmouth · Apr 1, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
Why are you asking me for something you do not even believe is possible for me to produce?

So show me that it is possible. Prove me wrong.

Where is your evidence that God has any substantial effect on nature?

What evidence would lead us to concludue that God has any effect on anything in nature?

That would be like me asking you to supply evidence that demonstrates the universe caused itself to come into existence.

Why would I try to evidence a claim that I don't hold? What next? Try to prove that lightning causes itself ot come into existence?

Where is your evidence that God caused the universe to come into existence?

You repeatedly have demonstrated your belief that all that is is natural and must have a natural explanation. So why ask for evidence of the supernatural?

I keep coming to the conclusion that there is no supernatural because no one can supply evidence for the supernatural. I guess I can add you to list of people who can not produce evidence for what you claim.

Elioenai26 · Apr 1, 2013

Loudmouth said:
So show me that it is possible. Prove me wrong.

Where is your evidence that God has any substantial effect on nature?

What evidence would lead us to concludue that God has any effect on anything in nature?

Why would I try to evidence a claim that I don't hold? What next? Try to prove that lightning causes itself ot come into existence?

Where is your evidence that God caused the universe to come into existence?

I keep coming to the conclusion that there is no supernatural because no one can supply evidence for the supernatural. I guess I can add you to list of people who can not produce evidence for what you claim.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

HitchSlap · Apr 1, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

pjnlsn · Apr 1, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Again, "In the most general sense possible, that the concept is too insubstantial for one to even know what a proof of it would look like, to definitively contradict it, to find evidence which is specifically in support, tangibly, comparing the likelihood of all alternatives."

Interestingly, at least from your point of view (well, maybe), it also applies to the 'superintellect' you referenced. At least, the belief in it (or perhaps just the preference) that you referenced.

And, in addendum: That is to say, if it is truth we are talking about. And what exists, apart from the minds of a few (or even a great many).

Loudmouth · Apr 1, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

There are none so deluded as those who believe in non-existent evidence.

Elioenai26 · Apr 1, 2013

Loudmouth said:
There are none so deluded as those who believe in non-existent evidence.

Time will tell will it not?

quilbilly · Apr 1, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
Time will tell will it not?

Its been over a month and over 150 posts. Are we going to see any evidence on ID here? I,for one,would like to see some

Davian · Apr 1, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
Time will tell will it not?

Has it not already? How many 'end of days' claims over the past two thousand years have come and gone without this god of yours appearing?

Do you think you can do better than Mr. Camping?

Loudmouth · Apr 2, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
Time will tell will it not?

Still waiting for that evidence.

HitchSlap · Apr 2, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
Time will tell will it not?

That time has come and gone.

Elioenai26 · Apr 2, 2013

HitchSlap said:
That time has come and gone.

That is not possible, for you still are alive.

mandyangel · Apr 2, 2013

TheyCallMeDave said:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7732146/ . This is the link to the Debate Proposal. Im trying to find an Atheist to debate with, but, if the Atheist doesnt believe my scientific examples of Intelligent Design implying a personal Designer , are credible, then it would be encumbant upon the Atheist to explain , cogently, why it doesnt require an intelligent source (and resorting to 'Evolution did it' im afraid would not be an acceptable refutation) .

Thanks.

I'd like to debate an atheist, but only if its a fair debate where personal attacks are off limits.

Davian · Apr 2, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
That is not possible, for you still are alive.

It is possible, seeing that you have yet to establish that the deity in question is anything more than a character in a book.

pjnlsn · Apr 2, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
That is not possible, for you still are alive.

And this too, is unproven the same the way that the claim of a god is unproven.

HitchSlap · Apr 2, 2013

mandyangel said:
I'd like to debate an atheist, but only if its a fair debate where personal attacks are off limits.

What would you like to debate?

pjnlsn · Apr 2, 2013

TheyCallMeDave said:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7732146/ . This is the link to the Debate Proposal. Im trying to find an Atheist to debate with, but, if the Atheist doesnt believe my scientific examples of Intelligent Design implying a personal Designer , are credible, then it would be encumbant upon the Atheist to explain , cogently, why it doesnt require an intelligent source (and resorting to 'Evolution did it' im afraid would not be an acceptable refutation) .

Thanks.

And as a note, something can be unrequired to explain something (and, indeed, can itself not explain anything, or nearly so), without the answer, to whatever standard of accuracy or completion, being known.

Loudmouth · Apr 3, 2013

Elioenai26 said:
That is not possible, for you still are alive.

So we have to die before you will present evidence to back your claims?

Davian · Apr 3, 2013

Loudmouth said:
So we have to die before you will present evidence to back your claims?

At this rate, it would appear so.

Elioenai26 · Apr 3, 2013

Loudmouth said:
So we have to die before you will present evidence to back your claims?

No. But some will only believe after they have died, and this quite unfortunately for them is the only means by which they will believe the words of God.

Trying to round up an Atheist for Formal Debate on I.D.

Contributor

Contributor

Elioenai26

Guest

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Newbie

Contributor

Elioenai26

Guest

Newbie

fallible

Contributor

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Elioenai26

Guest

Regular Member

fallible

Newbie

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Newbie

Contributor

fallible

Elioenai26

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency