There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

Indeed, I suspect that you are as deceptive as you appear.

Pray tell me, where in have I been deceptive.

 

[ScuzManiac]

1. Quite an assumption
2. Ah, sarcasm, the lowest form of wit.

1. It's not an assumption. I based it on the lack of frubals you've gotten in 3 years.

2. I'd say the lowest form of wit is having the nerve to speak in a language you don't thoroughly know.

 

[TheGunShoj]

1. It's not an assumption. I based it on the lack of frubals you've gotten in 3 years.

And here this whole time I've been wondering how on earth this man had more than me. Three years, the world makes sense again. :clap2:

 

[ScuzManiac]

And here this whole time I've been wondering how on earth this man had more than me. Three years, the world makes sense again. :clap2:

:yes:

Impressive, huh?

 

[Ouroboros]

You are putting up arguments that are poorly thought through as a direct result of desperately trying to make a spectacle of me. Perhaps if you debated instead of trying to agitate me you would reap the pleasure of constructive debate. Looking for arguments and disagreements is tantamount to troublemaking, do you really want to be tarred with that brush?

Your rudeness is duly noted. I'm now putting you on ignore. You won't see me respond or debate with you at all.

---edit

Basically, what you did is what I call a "discussion roadblock". It blocks the discussion to continue. If you read my earlier post again, you'd see that I wasn't rude to you, didn't make any ad hominen or personal attacks, yet that's how you choose to respond.

 

[McBell]

You are putting up arguments that are poorly thought through as a direct result of desperately trying to make a spectacle of me. Perhaps if you debated instead of trying to agitate me you would reap the pleasure of constructive debate. Looking for arguments and disagreements is tantamount to troublemaking, do you really want to be tarred with that brush?

You seem awfully proud to be holding that brush...

Afraid of competition?

 

[JM2C]

You seem awfully proud to be holding that brush...

Afraid of competition?

Are you?

 

[McBell]

Are you?

Nope.

How about you?

 

[ScuzManiac]

Your rudeness is duly noted. I'm now putting you on ignore. You won't see me respond or debate with you at all.

Don't worry!

All you'll be missing is his poor sentence structure...

 

[McBell]

Don't worry!

All you'll be missing is his poor sentence structure...

You forgot the merry-go-round avoidance of the issues, the repeating of the same old already debunked "evidence", the ignoring of the debunking, the name calling, the ranting on and on about "militant atheists"...

 

[ScuzManiac]

You forgot the merry-go-round avoidance of the issues, the repeating of the same old already debunked "evidence", the ignoring of the debunking, the name calling, the ranting on and on about "militant atheists"...

How silly of me!

I also forgot about all of his "alleged" converting proof he has yet to showcase.

 

[Ouroboros]

Don't worry!

All you'll be missing is his poor sentence structure...

LOL. Yup. It's funny that he's complaining that no one is engaging in debate with him, and when I finally (after weeks of not responding to him) do, he immediately turns to attacking me personally. He's showing his colors.

 

[McBell]

How silly of me!

I also forgot about all of his "alleged" converting proof he has yet to showcase.

The best summary of the OP is

I can prove that god exists to someone who already believes god exists.
​

 

[Serenity7855]

LOL. Yup. It's funny that he's complaining that no one is engaging in debate with him, and when I finally (after weeks of not responding to him) do, he immediately turns to attacking me personally. He's showing his colors.

Here is the post in which you claim a personal attack. Quite why you have done that is beyond me, maybe to entrap me, however, I would like for you to demonstrate the personal attack from the genuine debate and honest observations.

1. The best lies are smothered with truths.

Yes, I would agree with that. God has warned us that Satan will tell a thousand truths just to deceive us with the one lie.

New York exists, and in the city there are werewolves.

The sentence is contrived to meet your point. "There are werewolves in New Your" or "There are no werewolves in New York, would be grammatically correct. That would formerly make the statement a lie, or latterly the truth.

According to you, either the whole sentence is completely false (NY doesn't exist, and there are no werewolves there, or NY exists and there are werewolves).

No, according to me I would ask where the writer had received his education, if he had received any at all. Clearly there is no necessity to inform the reader that New York exists, and how do you define exist. It is alive with people or it is bricks and mortar.

What is very interesting is when you ask the question why? Why have you used poor English to attempt to stupefy me? You do not seem unintelligent so why have you contrived a sentence to make my argument, not only look wrong, but ridiculous. What were you feeling at the time. "Got him", "this will make him look daft", "ah, a chance to belittle a Christian". What motivated you to act so badly. Did you feel that it would progress the debate constructively, perhaps. The point you are dissecting is not even relevant to the OP, it relates to the bigotry and bias of a particular web site. My answer was intellectually and logically sound. People either tell the truth or a lie, and with Web pages, it is not the individual sentence that matters it is the overall picture that is being painted, it is either a lie or the truth.

2. For someone to be biased, it means that they are twisting and spinning the truth and making it closer to a lie than a truth. So, a site can be biased, simply because if they're telling lies, then they're doing so from a biased perspective. So your claim that there are no truly biased sites is completely false (hence everything you say must be a lie, according to yourself above).

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Biased is unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something, whereas twisting is to alter or distort the intended meaning of something. You are being dishonest in your terminology by ascribing the act of twisting to bias. If you were correct, and you are not, twisting can bring one closer to a lie equally as well as it can to a truth. You are purposely choosing the negative because in that choice you are able to stupefy and insult your opponent, me. (hence everything you say must be a lie, according to yourself above) no everything I say, according to you above, is a lie, however, your logic was ill thought through and, therefore, erroneous. If a site is telling lies then it fulfills my original statement that it is either the truth or it is a lie. That the lie gives a biased perspective is irrelevant as it is superceded by the dishonesty of the lie.

3. Information is rarely 100% true even if the author has good intentions. Language is vague. Information is incomplete. We are flawed humans. All compose a situation where what we say and claim to be true rarely are 100% true, and also unfortunately biased on some level or not.

No, that is unacceptable. It may happen but in order to convey an accurate message the message must be without personal bias. For example, I have used the term "could it be a God" on several occasions when I believe it is a God, however, to state my belief is bias so I omit it from my article. Bias is something that we all do but that does not make it right. It is argumentum as populum. Because we all do it does not make it right.

You are putting up arguments that are poorly thought through as a direct result of desperately trying to make a spectacle of me. Perhaps if you debated instead of trying to agitate me you would reap the pleasure of constructive debate. Looking for arguments and disagreements is tantamount to troublemaking, do you really want to be tarred with that brush?

 

[JM2C]

1. It's not an assumption. I based it on the lack of frubals you've gotten in 3 years.

Is Frubal the evidence of knowledge behind any arguments?

 

[Serenity7855]

How silly of me!

Yes

I also forgot about all of his "alleged" converting proof he has yet to showcase.

Converting proof. That has never been my intentions. I know I cannot convert. I leave that to the Holy Ghost. You misrepresent me, yet again.

The truth is a constant. It never changes so it can always be relied upon, regardless. It is always consistent so it is not reliant on memory. By telling it you can always be certain that it will prevail. I tell the truth, which is why you are unable to discredit me. Which is why I am so confident in my claims. It is far more of a booster then frubals are on a forum that has a disproportionate about of Atheists on it.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Is Frubal the evidence of knowledge behind any arguments?

Knowledge isn't what was in question. Whether people would agree with him or not was what was being discussed when frubals were mentioned. Typically if someone greatly likes what you said or strongly agrees with you they will give you a frubal. Seeing as how he has a low number of frubals, it's a safe assumption that people don't often agree with him.

 

[ScuzManiac]

Yes



Converting proof. That has never been my intentions. I know I cannot convert. I leave that to the Holy Ghost. You misrepresent me, yet again.

The truth is a constant. It never changes so it can always be relied upon, regardless. It is always consistent so it is not reliant on memory. By telling it you can always be certain that it will prevail. I tell the truth, which is why you are unable to discredit me. Which is why I am so confident in my claims. It is far more of a booster then frubals are on a forum that has a disproportionate about of Atheists on it.

There are more people that believe on this forum than people that don't.

But you're hanging around the debate section begging for a debate (even though you don't debate)...

So, what do you expect?

And you misrepresented yourself when you said you had all of this evidence but don't present any outside of The Bible?

P.S. Just because you're confident in something, doesn't mean it is right.

Knowledge isn't what was in question. Whether people would agree with him or not was what was being discussed when frubals were mentioned. Typically if someone greatly likes what you said or strongly agrees with you they will give you a frubal. Seeing as how he has a low number of frubals, it's a safe assumption that people don't often agree with him.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

Thanks for taking the time to actually read!

 

[Serenity7855]

There are more people that believe on this forum than people that don't.

There might be more theist members but there are more atheists posting then theists.

But you're hanging around the debate section begging for a debate (even though you don't debate)...

Debating is not converting, or visa versa.

So, what do you expect?

I expect my opinions and beliefs to be critiqued and not me personally, or my grammar.

And you misrepresented yourself when you said you had all of this evidence but don't present any outside of The Bible?

I used the laws of Thermodynamics, the laws on motion, evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, biogenesis, the anthropic principle, quantum physics, and Einstein's laws on relatively. I have only used the bible when it was referred to.

P.S. Just because you're confident in something, doesn't mean it is right.

Is anybody right when debating two different opinions.

 

[Serenity7855]

Knowledge isn't what was in question. Whether people would agree with him or not was what was being discussed when frubals were mentioned. Typically if someone greatly likes what you said or strongly agrees with you they will give you a frubal. Seeing as how he has a low number of frubals, it's a safe assumption that people don't often agree with him.

All that frubals indicate is how many atheists and theists there are willing to use them to elevate themselves.