In what religion is god flawed?

[agent_smith]

Rather presumptuous to give me my answers, don't you think?
Is there anything else you would like to dictate to me?
My beliefs perhaps?

Are you telling me your answer would have been "yes"?

So basically, what you are saying is that because you do not believe it happened, it could not happen?

Lack of evidence. Burden of proof. But you theists don't seem to understand that, do you?

One,
I never said a thing about your brain size, so you are barking up the wrong tree here...........

Was not directed at you. Sorry for any confusion.

Oh my.
that clinches it then.

Glad you agree

And the really sad part is that you have presented nothing to support your accusation that it never happened.
Are you actually going to present something other than your beliefs, or would you rather continue with your tantrum?

Burden of proof. Again.

 

[agent_smith]

My mistake but the websites I found that listed logical fallacies never mentioned this one. Either way it's still a false accusation for I never said that any of your arguments or conclusions were "wrong". I pointed out where you had committed logical fallacies and said that those arguments which had logical fallacies were "INVALID". There is a difference.

If I said a perfectly logical argument, followed by "I hate you", does that make what I said illogical/invalid? The argument we are discussing here was not even one of logic, it was me saying something along the lines of "statues don't drink milk" - so how does anything else I say take away the truth of that statement?

You misunderstand: an ad hominem has nothing to do with whether or not your right and he's wrong or vice versa. You called penguino a liar, this is an attack on penguino rather than his argument especially when really your only support for this statement is "because he was". You have no way of knowing what penguino saw and know way of evidencing that he's a liar. You could evidence that he misunderstood and/or misinterpreted what he saw by explaining why it is unlikely that statues don't drink milk and by offering an alternative explanation for what he saw. This would be attacking penguino's argument and thus would not be an ad hominem.

Burden of proof. What if Penguino is lying; wouldn't that make the entire argument pointless? What kind of logical explanation IS there other than "the statues did drink milk" or "he is lying"? I don't see any realistic alternatives, therefore I know the truth.

I was not trying to make such an implication. My intent from what I said(recall that I talked about both sides) was to show that the idea of statues drinking milk, whether true or false, has no bearing on the current debate. If the statues were able to drink milk one day of the year it could provide EVIDENCE for something supernatural but not proof. This is because the idea of the supernatural being responsible could be refuted if alternative, plausible, explanations were offered. It also depends on how one defines supernatural. Even if it could be considered proof of something supernatural it doesn't proof or even provide evidence of God nor does it have any bearing on what such a God would be like and/or want. since this debate is about whether or not any religion has a flawed concept of God because the issue of statues drinking milk has no bearing on God.

The statues drink milk? - Burden of proof.
Can you give an "alternative, plausible explanation" for this scenario other than either "It actually happened" or "He lied"? I can't think of one. Can you?

 

[McBell]

Are you telling me your answer would have been "yes"?

Nope.
i am telly you that you should not try to answer for other people simply because you like the answer you give them better.

Lack of evidence. Burden of proof. But you theists don't seem to understand that, do you?

Lack of evidence is not proof.
It is merely lack of evidence.
And I would appreciate it if you would stop attempting to apply labels.
Thus far you have proven you are not any good at it.

Was not directed at you. Sorry for any confusion.

My apologies for jumping the gun.

Glad you agree

Interesting that a self proclaimed genius such as yourself would wallow so in such a shallow victory.

Burden of proof. Again.

Since you disagree with his presented evidence, it just simply could not have happened?

If this technique does not work for creationists, why should it work for you?

 

[McBell]

Burden of proof. What if Penguino is lying; wouldn't that make the entire argument pointless? What kind of logical explanation IS there other than "the statues did drink milk" or "he is lying"?

Yet you stated he is lying and then continued with the argument.
What does that say about the situation?

I don't see any realistic alternatives, therefore I know the truth.

i was completely unaware of your omniscience.

 

[agent_smith]

Nope.
i am telly you that you should not try to answer for other people simply because you like the answer you give them better.

If my assumption was wrong, I'd expect you to complain. If I was right then you are avoiding the original point and complaining unnecessarily.

Lack of evidence is not proof.
It is merely lack of evidence.

If you make a positive claim, YOU must supply the evidence, not the person denying it. Without evidence, the original claim is not disproven, but it is meaningless.

And I would appreciate it if you would stop attempting to apply labels.
Thus far you have proven you are not any good at it.

If there is no such thing as God, life after death, Chi, etc, every theist throughout history has failed to satisfy their burden of proof.
Hopefully we all agree that there have been many false Gods thought up over time.
What evidence have you provided to show the existence of your God that they did not provide for their God? A good example of this is the FSM - can you give one logical reason to disprove its existence?

Interesting that a self proclaimed genius such as yourself would wallow so in such a shallow victory.

Haha! We're not seriously going to get into an argument over a :sarcastic, are we?!

Since you disagree with his presented evidence, it just simply could not have happened?

It could have happened, I suppose. But it didn't. So why debate it?

 

[agent_smith]

Yet you stated he is lying and then continued with the argument.
What does that say about the situation?

It shows I'm not an idiot who discusses the possibility of impossible things happening.

i was completely unaware of your omniscience.

I'm not omniscient, I'm just not an idiot.

Look, at the end of the say, did it happen? NO! So why the heck are we talking about it?!

 

[McBell]

If my assumption was wrong, I'd expect you to complain. If I was right then you are avoiding the original point and complaining unnecessarily.

You just can't stop dictating, can you?

If you make a positive claim, YOU must supply the evidence, not the person denying it. Without evidence, the original claim is not disproven, but it is meaningless.

Yet you made the positive claim.
You claimed he was lying.
Where is your proof?
Or is your claim meaningless?

If there is no such thing as God, life after death, Chi, etc, every theist throughout history has failed to satisfy their burden of proof.
Hopefully we all agree that there have been many false Gods thought up over time.
What evidence have you provided to show the existence of your God that they did not provide for their God? A good example of this is the FSM - can you give one logical reason to disprove its existence?

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.
The topic is how you know that it did not happen.

Haha! We're not seriously going to get into an argument over a :sarcastic, are we?!

I don't know...
Are you going to spend as much time avoiding that topic as you are the one about knowing it did not happen?

It could have happened, I suppose. But it didn't.

And once again, how do you know this?
How do you KNOW it did not happen?
Simply because you dislike/disagree with the evidence how can you be so sure that it did not happen.
So sure in fact, that you flat out call someone else a liar?

So why debate it?

Don't know why you are still debating it.
Though it is rather interesting that you keep making comments about not debating it whilst debating it.

 

[McBell]

It shows I'm not an idiot who discusses the possibility of impossible things happening.

Yet here you are....

I'm not omniscient, I'm just not an idiot.

Now you contradict yourself.

Look, at the end of the say, did it happen? NO! So why the heck are we talking about it?!

You keep saying it did not happen.
Who are you trying to convince, me or yourself?

 

[agent_smith]

Ok, I give up on you. You're either an idiot, or someone pretending to be an idiot. You choose.

 

[McBell]

Ok, I give up on you. You're either an idiot, or someone pretending to be an idiot. You choose.

And now you resort to more ad hominem.

Not that it is any surprise.
You have gone to great lengths to avoid the topics.


However,
just for the record,
it is not I claiming to be the genius.

 

[agent_smith]

For ****s sake, you don't get it, do you??!!

Your ENTIRE argument is "What if?...", "You have no PROOF", "ANYTHING is possible!"


Pastafarianism. Read about it. Then PROVE to me it's a man-made religion.

You wonder why I said theists don't understand the burden of proof? You're living proof of my statement.

 

[McBell]

For ****s sake, you don't get it, do you??!!

Don't get what?

Your ENTIRE argument is "What if?...", "You have no PROOF", "ANYTHING is possible!"

Please point out where I used these arguments.

Pastafarianism. Read about it. Then PROVE to me it's a man-made religion.

Again you are running around in left field ignoring the topic.

You wonder why I said theists don't understand the burden of proof? You're living proof of my statement.

You really should stop with the ad hominem.
If you cannot or will not stick the topic at hand, which is how you know it did not happen, the only thing I can assume is that you have nothing to support your claim that you know it did not happen.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

I'm not omniscient, I'm just not an idiot.

Look, at the end of the say, did it happen? NO! So why the heck are we talking about it?!

So now im an idiot, great start to becoming an established forum member :sarcastic

 

[Jistyr]

For ****s sake, you don't get it, do you??!!

Your ENTIRE argument is "What if?...", "You have no PROOF", "ANYTHING is possible!"


Pastafarianism. Read about it. Then PROVE to me it's a man-made religion.

You wonder why I said theists don't understand the burden of proof? You're living proof of my statement.

You put too much emphasis on what you think you know.

You cannot be correct in saying that penguino is a liar, or that the hindu milk miracle never happened.

You can say that the miracle is unlikely at best, though.

And as for penguino lying, chances are that he is not deliberately lying, but that he is sincerely and honestly professing what he believes.

For example, if you ask me for directions to Walmart, and the directions I give to you send you to K Mart, simply because I confused the two, I am not lying.

Lying requires a deliberate intention to decieve.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

If anyone believes me to be a real liar, then tell me so.

 

[agent_smith]

I believe you to be a real liar. Either that or completely delusional and in need of medical help.

 

[mr.guy]

Either that or completely delusional and in need of medical help.

What sort of prognosis do you anticipate from the medical authorities?

Do you suppose that penguino is a danger to himself or others?

Alternately, would you simply prefer to admit to the use of an ad hominem?

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Dont mind him. Like dogs bark, he talks.

 

[mr.guy]

Dont mind him. Like dogs bark, he talks.

Okay, now you're both boring the hell out of me. I only respect *****y if it's interesting.

 

[Jistyr]

I believe you to be a real liar. Either that or completely delusional and in need of medical help.

If he is delusional in thinking that a statue drank milk, you must surely include every other theist who believes anything with some sort miracle, which would include billions of people.

He could possibly be misguided, but 'delusional' does not fit the category, unless you want to question the mental capacity of at least half the world.