There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

The best summary of the OP is

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

If that is really what you believe then I would suggest some introspection on your skills of comprehension.

 

[ScuzManiac]

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

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

Maybe in the debate section in a thread started by you that says "There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists." Who did you think that would attract? People that already (in their minds) know God exists or people that (in their minds) know that he doesn't? Use some common sense, man.

And how have I critiqued you personally? Sure, I may critique your grammar.

But I think that's fair. If you have the ability to prove God's existence (no one else has thus far) then you should have the ability to write complete sentences.

If that is really what you believe then I would suggest some introspection on your skills of comprehension.

But that's all that you have given us.

When anyone presents a counter argument, you get defensive.

And before you know it, like many of your other posts/threads...

You...the good Christian....are doing exactly what you bash us for doing.

You know, stuff like name calling, picking fights, etc.

 

[TheGunShoj]

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

To elevate themselves? Isn't the point of a frubal to 'elevate' someone else? I've given plenty of theists frubals on things I've agreed with or points that I think were well made.

 

[outhouse]

If that is really what you believe then I would suggest some introspection on your skills of comprehension.

Ya! You already admitted you want people that fell off a turnip truck, and had blank minds and did not know anything.

 

[outhouse]

Is Frubal the evidence of knowledge behind any arguments?

NOT at all.

No award here is given for expert knowledge.


Its based on popularity on your response. Popularity has never equaled correctness.


Also multipliers are handed out if management feels your open to all religions and play well with others, no matter the quality or correctness.


After all, the biggest problem is not religion in the world, it is lack of EFFECTIVE communication. OP has demonstrated, how not to.

 

[outhouse]

Debating is not converting, or visa versa.


.

Your post indicates your comprehensive issues.


The idea is to learn, that is something no closed minded theist will ever do.


There is a severe problem with people that refuse reason and knowledge and education.


Have my religious ideas changed in the years I have been here? Night and day difference.

I have a feeling yours will not change or be advanced. That is telling.

 

[Gehennaite]

There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

Obviously.

 

[Sapiens]

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.

Actually, you tried to use those things and failed abysmally. What you actually demonstrated is a complete lack of understanding of thermodynamics, Newtonian physics, evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, biogenesis, the anthropic principle, quantum physics, and relatively.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.


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.


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.



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.


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?

Maybe you should give debate a try instead of just constantly whining about how everybody is against you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To elevate themselves? Isn't the point of a frubal to 'elevate' someone else? I've given plenty of theists frubals on things I've agreed with or points that I think were well made.

I'll give anybody a frubal, if I like what they have to say.

 

[Serenity7855]

Actually, you tried to use those things and failed abysmally. What you actually demonstrated is a complete lack of understanding of thermodynamics, Newtonian physics, evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, biogenesis, the anthropic principle, quantum physics, and relatively.

Please educate me and show me exactly where I have failed abysmally. I could say that you do not know a spark plug from an exhaust pipe but unless I qualify it all I have done is insult you with empty words, so, show me how much more intelligent you are then I am.

 

[Sapiens]

Good, let's engage in a dialectic from the beginning, one item at a time. Please save me the trouble and cut and paste each of your arguments in turn back into this thread. Let's start with your thermodynamics argument, OK?

 

[Serenity7855]

Your post indicates your comprehensive issues.

Yeah?

The idea is to learn, that is something no closed minded theist will ever do.

I do not know any close minded theist. I only know close minded and blinkered visioned atheists. I have an open mind to exactly the same as you do, however, my mind is opened to a great deal more then you because I do not exclude the supernatural, in any of its guises, you do, therefore you are more closed minded then I am. How you cannot see that, I just do not know. Atheists exclude and theists include.

There is a severe problem with people that refuse reason and knowledge and education.

I know of no of no theists that refuse reason, knowledge or education. We are completely open and willing to learn. Atheists do refuse reason, knowledge and education because they are not willing to accept the possibility of the supernatural unless it passes the scientific method. That is not open minded or increasing knowledge and education. Some atheists here, even ex-christians are extremely ignorant on theism yet try to debate it. One of those people is you.

Have my religious ideas changed in the years I have been here? Night and day difference.

That does not surprise me in the slightest.

I have a feeling yours will not change or be advanced. That is telling.

Oh, my opinions and beliefs have changed during this thread, but you would not have noticed as you are close minded. If it don't pass the scientific method then ignore it, it doesn't exist, it is not real. That is so sad and such a cop out.

 

[Serenity7855]

Good, let's engage in a dialectic from the beginning, one item at a time. Please save me the trouble and cut and paste each of your arguments in turn back into this thread. Let's start with your thermodynamics argument, OK?

No, you made the accusation that my explanations were abysmally reported, you demonstrate and verify your claim. That is how it works. You bring together evidence of your claim, then you make your claim backed by that evidence. Are you saying that you made that assertion against me without having evidence to back it? Really. You want me to furnish evidence against me for you. I never claimed to be educated in these field, I have made that crystal clear, I am asking you to prove your assertions that I presented scientific knowledge abysmally and now you say that the assertion was baseless. Well then, on what grounds did you make your, now seemingly, erroneous accusation.

A diabectic cannot be used when discussing the super natural as there are no absolute truths in theism. Even in science there is no claim that the hypothesis is true because future discoveries can always change the results. Even gravity has no absolute reason for being so quite why you use this word baffles me, unless you are trying to sound intelligent in which case you have made an abysmal job of it.

 

[Sapiens]

No all I asked, politely, was that we go through your claims one at a time and that you save me the trouble of backtracking through the thread, since I am new here and not very good at navigating yet. If you are unable, or unwilling to do so that is easy to understand.

 

[Serenity7855]

No all I asked, politely, was that we go through your claims one at a time and that you save me the trouble of backtracking through the thread, since I am new here and not very good at navigating yet. If you are unable, or unwilling to do so that is easy to understand.

No, what I am peeved about is that you clearly made a assertion against my abilities to present scientific laws in connection with the supernatural, yet, when I call you on it you do not have a single quote to substantiate your impolite claim. Abysmal is a negative description of my abilities, worse still, you have not ascertained my level of education or knowledge in these fields and you have not disclosed your own in order to present a fair and level playing field. You are looking to exalt yourself, is my guess, which is why you used the word dialectic. I will absolutely not assist you in your attempts to belittle and discredit me, absolutely not. If you want to look at the OP and call me on my opinions on how the big bag could be the result of a God using Sir Isaacs Newton's thirds law of motion then I will answer your inquiry to the best of my ability. You just cannot post Yeah, come on thicko, I know more then you, that makes me a better person then you, so I must be an authority here, so theism is a complete lie. Is that how you were raised, because it is not how I was raised. It is arrogance and narcissistic.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Yeah? I do not know any close minded theist. I only know close minded and blinkered visioned atheists. I have an open mind to exactly the same as you do, however, my mind is opened to a great deal more then you because I do not exclude the supernatural, in any of its guises, you do, therefore you are more closed minded then I am. How you cannot see that, I just do not know. Atheists exclude and theists include.

The majority of atheists do not exclude the supernatural, they simply withhold belief until evidence for such things is presented because, after all, there is no point in believing something that you do not have evidence for. They are open to the idea, there is just no justification to believe in the supernatural at this moment in time.

Theists however, think that they already have the answers to life biggest questions. This halts progress. There is no reason to keep searching for answers or learning about the mysteries of the universe if you think you already have them. And many theists flat out reject well known facts in favor of their personal religious bias.

Which sounds more closed minded to you? A group who simply doesn't believe in things that lack evidence, or a group who thinks they have all the answers but no evidence for it and reject scientific fact in favor of personal bias?

 

[TheGunShoj]

No, what I am peeved about is that you clearly made a assertion against my abilities to present scientific laws in connection with the supernatural, yet, when I call you on it you do not have a single quote to substantiate your impolite claim. Abysmal is a negative description of my abilities, worse still, you have not ascertained my level of education or knowledge in these fields and you have not disclosed your own in order to present a fair and level playing field. You are looking to exalt yourself, is my guess, which is why you used the word dialectic. I will absolutely not assist you in your attempts to belittle and discredit me, absolutely not. If you want to look at the OP and call me on my opinions on how the big bag could be the result of a God using Sir Isaacs Newton's thirds law of motion then I will answer your inquiry to the best of my ability. You just cannot post Yeah, come on thicko, I know more then you, that makes me a better person then you, so I must be an authority here, so theism is a complete lie. Is that how you were raised, because it is not how I was raised. It is arrogance and narcissistic.

It sounds to me like he is completely willing to debate you point for point and you are running away. He's just asking for a discussion and said he completely understands if you don't want to re hash everything that has been said already. Why do you take every post so personally? Jeeze.

Also, I don't think its necessary to ascertain someone's level of education on a subject when what they are saying shows a lack of understanding of basic premises such as when you stated that mankind evolved faster than other species. It doesn't matter if you studied evolution in depth for 20 years straight and graduated yesterday. Since you made that statement, it would be safe to assume that you fell asleep in class a lot.

 

[TheGunShoj]

I'll give anybody a frubal, if I like what they have to say.

Oh I agree. I was just responding to him saying that theists and atheists use frubals to elevate themselves. I was stating that I am an atheist and I've 'elevated' plenty of theists and atheists alike. It's not like I only give frubals to other atheists and I can't give them to myself. Not sure what he was referring to about 'using frubals to elevate themselves'

 

[Sapiens]

No, what I am peeved about is that you clearly made a assertion against my abilities to present scientific laws in connection with the supernatural, yet, when I call you on it you do not have a single quote to substantiate your impolite claim. Abysmal is a negative description of my abilities, worse still, you have not ascertained my level of education or knowledge in these fields and you have not disclosed your own in order to present a fair and level playing field. You are looking to exalt yourself, is my guess, which is why you used the word dialectic. I will absolutely not assist you in your attempts to belittle and discredit me, absolutely not. If you want to look at the OP and call me on my opinions on how the big bag could be the result of a God using Sir Isaacs Newton's thirds law of motion then I will answer your inquiry to the best of my ability. You just cannot post Yeah, come on thicko, I know more then you, that makes me a better person then you, so I must be an authority here, so theism is a complete lie. Is that how you were raised, because it is not how I was raised. It is arrogance and narcissistic.

So ... you prefer name calling to dialect, somehow that does not surprise me. You really don't need my help to belittle and discredit yourself, you're doing just fine, all by yourself. Have fun with your "big bag."