Can you make a case for a God...

[Paralogic]

[...]

It's a vague-concept to me . . . maybe I just believe in smarter aliens with sexy muscles?

The worst offense religious people commit, and the direct insult their behavior is to the detriment of human society, is that they think that if they say "I believe..." the next part of that statement should be taken seriously and be of any importance to the rest of society.

We already know all religions are false. We already know whoever claims any religious belief is true has to be either dismissed or ignored, or, if they have a lot of political power, treated with the expectation that they can cause a lot of damage, death and destruction on a large social scale.

 

[Paralogic]

You saying it's the truth doesn't make it so.

It's not the truth because I say it is.

It's the truth because 2,000 years of logic and reason that human intelligence is capable of using, has proved it to be true. No gods exist.

 

[Surtr]

Still your opinion.

 

[Paralogic]

Still your opinion.

Facts are not anyone's opinion.

No gods exist. That's a fact.

Read a book. It does a mind good.

 

[Surtr]

Facts are not anyone's opinion.

No gods exist. That's a fact.

Read a book. It does a mind good.

You aren't presenting anything except your opinion, which I couldn't give two ****s about. You have given me absolutely nothing to work with, except your own assertion that your opinion is correct.

 

[Pinkie]

What has happened to the grace note that a belief in God is founded on faith, as it can never be proved by scientific means?

I myself believe that God exists, but I freely acknowledge I choose this belief and that it is satisfying to me, emotionally. I don't foist it on others or deny the validity of their own belief.

Seems to me, only someone very insecure in having to spend time on Planet Earth with nonbelievers would be motivated to look for proof for the unprovable.

 

[Paralogic]

You aren't presenting anything except your opinion... [...]

It's not an opinion that no volcano gods exist.

It's not an opinion that no tree spirits exist.

It's not an opinion that no gods exist.

The fact is that no gods exist, and that fact is independent of the human existence.

Read a book. It does a mind good.

 

[Surtr]

It's not an opinion that no volcano gods exist.

It's not an opinion that no tree spirits exist.

It's not an opinion that no gods exist.

The fact is that no gods exist, and that fact is independent of the human existence.

Read a book. It does a mind good.

You should read a book on how to debate. One does not simply repetitively assert that they are correct and expect to be taken seriously. Demonstrate why you think you're correct, or piss off.

 

[Kal'Stang]

My belief in God is simple. I look around the world and the cosmos (what we can see of it) and the perfection of the system that governs this universe and I simply cannot believe that it wasn't planned and made. That to me is more than enough evidence of God.

 

[Cephus]

My belief in God is simple. I look around the world and the cosmos (what we can see of it) and the perfection of the system that governs this universe and I simply cannot believe that it wasn't planned and made. That to me is more than enough evidence of God.

Then you know painfully little about the universe because it's anything but perfect. A goat could have done it better.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Then you know painfully little about the universe because it's anything but perfect. A goat could have done it better.

How is it not perfect?

 

[Cephus]

How is it not perfect?

Seriously, pick one thing that you think is absolutely perfect and we'll examine it. It's a little difficult to take on the entire universe.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Seriously, pick one thing that you think is absolutely perfect and we'll examine it. It's a little difficult to take on the entire universe.

If you look at just one little thing you will of course see only flaws. Look at the whole picture and it is entirely different.

 

[Cephus]

If you look at just one little thing you will of course see only flaws. Look at the whole picture and it is entirely different.

If it's perfect, there can be no flaws. Therefore, you are admitting it isn't perfect.

 

[FluffyNinja]

It's not an opinion that no volcano gods exist.

It's not an opinion that no tree spirits exist.

It's not an opinion that no gods exist.

The fact is that no gods exist, and that fact is independent of the human existence.

Read a book. It does a mind good.

Until scientific fact/experimentation/analysis can be used to prove/disprove an unrestricted negative.......your argument will NEVER hold water.

Therefore, this simply means that all of your assertions regarding the non-existece of God, gods, spirits, etc is indeed, little more than conjecture. :shrug:

I make this post under the assumption that you DO understand the nature of unrestricteded negatives.............I realize that this may not be a safe assumption to make at all, however. :shrug:

 

[Kal'Stang]

If it's perfect, there can be no flaws. Therefore, you are admitting it isn't perfect.

Actually nope I'm not admitting that. Because what most people consider flaws really are not flaws in the long run and in the big picture. Like I said, "Look at the whole picture and it is entirely different."

 

[Cephus]

Actually nope I'm not admitting that. Because what most people consider flaws really are not flaws in the long run and in the big picture. Like I said, "Look at the whole picture and it is entirely different."

Just admit defeat, this is just embarrassing.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Just admit defeat, this is just embarrassing.

Defeat from what? You have yet to put up even a token fight for anything to be declared.

 

[Cephus]

Defeat from what? You have yet to put up even a token fight for anything to be declared.

You've failed to back up your claim in any way and when it's been requested of you, you've run away with your tail between your legs. A perfect whole cannot be made of imperfect parts. You claim the whole is perfect, thus by definition, the parts must be perfect. If I can find flaws in the parts, things that are clearly inferior, then the whole cannot, by definition, be perfect.

Logically faulty claims are not valid and as it seems that you're placing your faith on such a claim, your faith must therefore be flawed. All the shucking and jiving, dancing and dodging in the world won't change that.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You've failed to back up your claim in any way and when it's been requested of you, you've run away with your tail between your legs. A perfect whole cannot be made of imperfect parts. You claim the whole is perfect, thus by definition, the parts must be perfect. If I can find flaws in the parts, things that are clearly inferior, then the whole cannot, by definition, be perfect.

Logically faulty claims are not valid and as it seems that you're placing your faith on such a claim, your faith must therefore be flawed. All the shucking and jiving, dancing and dodging in the world won't change that.

Name one flaw and we'll start looking at the bigger picture.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Name one flaw and we'll start looking at the bigger picture.

Tada! :mrgreen:

 

[Kal'Stang]

Tada! :mrgreen:

Not sure what Google Docs is suppose to show....

 

[FluffyNinja]

Tada! :mrgreen:

Still doesn't solve the problem of the "unrestricted negative." I'll just maintain faith until someone can disprove what I believe in. :shrug:

 

[Cephus]

Name one flaw and we'll start looking at the bigger picture.

That's why I asked you to pick a specific example for us to examine and you refused to do so! What do you want me to name a flaw for?

 

[Kal'Stang]

That's why I asked you to pick a specific example for us to examine and you refused to do so! What do you want me to name a flaw for?

Since we are looking at the bigger picture then I cannot give you any flaws. Because there are none. You're the one that claimed that there were flaws so you should be the one to bring one up.