#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Atheism and Theism have equal chances of being true
True
Side Score: 155
|
 |
False
Side Score: 140
|
|
5
points
1
point
1
point
A wise man once said: "On the day that science found God, he wont be a religion. But just another equation to be laid on the table" There is no chance that Science will be able to prove God but neighter will they be able to disprove him either. All it can do is explain how he did it Side: True
2
points
I disagree. Its all about likelyhood. Is it more likely that everything we know about the natural world and the laws of physics will get thrown out the window in favor of bronze age myths and an unfalsifiable space wizard? Or that the beginning of the universe is just as natural as everything else weve come to discover so that it aligns with everything else perfectly? I vote the later. Occams Razor Side: False
I am an Atheist, but one can easily say that God has set this all up and we are simply exploring the many universes he may have created. Universes where laws are different amd we cannot imagine them since we have no measurememt to equate it with. People can create any theory they wish. If one say the Higgs Field gives mass to all things one can say God made that field to keep everything in tact. God can make a singularity and have it travel on its own and can edit what he wishes while following or breaking the laws of that universe. Probability is irrelevant. It is still 50/50. You say all this is natural, what is the starting point? A singularity? Could Gid have made that? Possibly. Then we bring in the Cyclic Model and say why can't God make a universe that goes through these cycles? Is that impossible for a being capable of practically all things? Of course not. Therefore the ratio will always be 1:1. 50:50. No matter what theory one proposes a person can play the role of God could have done this and as a typical non-believer would say "Thats bullshit". They can't really say thay since nobody can prove or disprove it. Side: True
1
point
Sure you can always resort back to "god did that" but ultimately that's still far more unlikely than a natural explaination so no it is not 50/50. It's more like 99/1. Just because you can stick god in a slot doesn't mean it makes it just as good an answer as a natural one. It absolutely does not. Side: False
See? You pulled the typical Atheist argument out. Thats bullshit right? It's actually not. Someone can say science just finds information on God's creation. It will always be 50:50 if the possibilities are available. If those slots can be filled with God made a singularity what can you say? That is improbable? How so? Have you tested to prove that everything comes naturally? Can you show me a singularity? Show me a singularity now. Show me how everything always was. A natural explaination only explains God's creation and cannot logically turn the table and thus leaves the ratio at 50:50. 99:1 is dispicable, ignorant, bullshit. Just break all the fundamentals of logical reasoning? Logically if you can find a Higgs Boson that is great. You are simply finding more about God's creation. You can create a wormhole. You are finding new things in God's creation. Don't give me that Atheist bullshit. I have my reasons and I realized that many Atheists do not. Side: True
2
points
See? You pulled the typical Atheist argument out. Thats bullshit right? By atheist bullshit you mean not accepting an unproven, unsupported and generally absurd claim as a equal possibility to real science? Ok Someone can say science just finds information on God's creation Until they've proven this god exists and that he created everything that claim can't be used. It's empty and bullshit and should be dismissed. If those slots can be filled with God made a singularity what can you say? That is improbable? How so? Have you tested to prove that everything comes naturally? A god hasn't been proven to exist at all so that claim shouldn't even be taken seriously. And no we haven't tested everything in the universe that is impossible but we HAVE tested a fuckton and that is including every single physical law that governs our universe. So we know a ton and yet have ZERO indication of anything supernatural existing or needing to exist. It's all natural. So when we make theories and hypothesis on what happened at the birth of the universe using Occam's razor we should consider the explainations requiring the least assumptions and speculations and strays from reality. So it's either a natural explaination that is supported by evidence and the fact that everything we know is natural and there's no indication of supernatural anywhere, or we completely forgo all the laws of physics and everything we know to make a giant assumption about what is completely outside of space and time dipped into our reality and caused something natural to occur. One makes giant unsupported assumptions based on myth. One is based in reality and evidence. It is not 50/50. We don't know for 100% certain yet but for fucks sake it isn't an even toss up not even close. The rest is senseless babbling about a bullshit argument from ignorance. You can't claim that anything is part of a gods creation until that god is proven to exist. Well tough shit because it is t anywhere close to proven and has NOTHING to support it at all. You can't say, "oh I don't know and you don't know so ahaha were both stupid" no. Sorry. Side: False
By atheist bullshit you mean not accepting an unproven, unsupported and generally absurd claim as a equal possibility to real science? Ok Unproven? Of course. It has never been proven or disproven. 50:50. Next? Unsupported......now that is just ignorance. Unsupported by what? Science? Lol. That is a no brainer. If a Theist theory holds true then what is Science doing? Explaining God's creation. We are still at 50:50. Next? Generally absurd? Opinion. Can't dispute that. What is fake science? Science: systematic knowledge, esp. of the physical world, gained through observation and experimentation If you can only obtain information based on what you can observe and God is an infinitly maximal being how will you logically comprehend or understand him? You can't. What observation would you make? Study what God put before you and watch it. That's it. A concept you seem to fail at grasping. Typical Atheist. Until they've proven this god exists and that he created everything that claim can't be used. It's empty and bullshit and should be dismissed. How will you prove or disprove it? God is a maximally infinite being. How wilk a human comprehend or understand his works? Mind explaining that logically? Dismissal? Sure. Just shows ignorance. A god hasn't been proven to exist at all so that claim shouldn't even be taken seriously. That isn't my point. Here we go again. I told you it's 50:50. A God hasn't been disproven. The claim can be taken seriously. Don't start bullshitting me again. And no we haven't tested everything in the universe that is impossible but we HAVE tested a fuckton and that is including every single physical law that governs our universe. Oh so testing everything is impossible? So how can you claim everything is natural if all hasn't been tested and how does that logically disprove that God just didn't make that? I understand our laws. They govern fine. So we know a ton and yet have ZERO indication of anything supernatural existing or needing to exist. Where did those laws come from? Hmmm? Again, you are being a typical Atheist. If God can start from a singularity and not touch anything, everything would go naturally on it's own. That is the possibility I am trying to get through to you. Therefore anything you study is just a creation. It's all natural. Where did it start? So when we make theories and hypothesis on what happened at the birth of the universe using Occam's razor we should consider the explainations requiring the least assumptions and speculations and strays from reality. The fewest assumptions should be selected. 1) God did it..... 2) Thats it. That is just one assumption. Do you fully underatand the Razor? So it's either a natural explaination that is supported by evidence and the fact that everything we know is natural and there's no indication of supernatural anywhere, or we completely forgo all the laws of physics and everything we know to make a giant assumption about what is completely outside of space and time dipped into our reality and caused something natural to occur. Why drop the laws of physics? Why drop any of it? You are being ignorant now. You just assume that if a God started it all that all laws a just broken? That is illogical. The laws would still govern. They would be a creation froma higher order. They would created new things natural from themselves with a natural root to God. Normal logic. One makes giant unsupported assumptions based on myth. One is based in reality and evidence. It is not 50/50. We don't know for 100% certain yet but for fucks sake it isn't an even toss up not even close. Now I know you missed the point. If God made a singularity and just let it go what will you be able to describe? The natural qualities of the universe right? That stemmed from what? Ignorance is not a bliss for you as of now. Myth? Sure. Possibility? Yep. You can't claim that anything is part of a gods creation until that god is proven to exist Illogical. If I say a God did it it is a logical assumption. You will never understand a maximally infinite being nor its creation. It is ignorant to believe you can especially since we are limited. For example. Can God make a four sided triangle? First if that exists in the realm of physics show me. Otherwise its nonsense. However, a triangle is a shape ordained by man. A polygon is a shape ordained by man. The mindset of a limited individual. Can God make a married bachelor? Can God make a Eukaryotic Prokaryote? No, no, and no. Why? First show me they exist. Then if you cannot show me I declare that nonsese and cannot be equated to a maximal being. If he is omnipotent he cannot do something that makes him non-omnipotent for he is omnipotent. Same argument. Same logic. I can say something that cannot be proven or disproven. It can be dismissed but it cannot be false or true. Therefore you cannot say I can't say it. Logically I can. Well tough shit because it is t anywhere close to proven and has NOTHING to support it at all. You truly missed the notion of my argument. References are above for you. It "ain't" anywher close to being disproven so that tough shit for you. My shit is smooth since I am making the claim. It is tough on you because I can logically continue to say it. It cannot be proven true or false. You can dismiss it and I can continue it. That is how it works. You can't say, "oh I don't know and you don't know so ahaha were both stupid" no. Sorry. What? I don't know what? What is the point of posting this if you lack specifications as to what we don't know? Side: True
1
point
God hasnt been proven to be real, therfore any hypothesis of any kind making assumptions including him are null until he is demonstrated. This leaves only the natural explainations. End of discussion. I wont cater to bullshit about unproven deities and giant assumptions that mock our reality and that mock good science. Side: False
You are still being a typical Atheist. God has not be proven or disproven. Therefore possibility remains in tact. therfore any hypothesis of any kind making assumptions including him are null until he is demonstrated They remain a possibility. They are not null. Do you even understand this? This leaves only the natural explainations Okay, you clearly can't understand the notion I am giving. . I wont cater to bullshit about unproven deities and giant assumptions that mock our reality and that mock good science. There you go, again, the typical Atheist. A deity does not mock anything. Science finds explainations. Science cannot explain all things. Science can go far. Science cannot touch infinity. A deity can make a singularity and let it go. Therefore anything Science explains is what is naturally occuring within their realm. The deity still mocks nothing. If this is your last resort I am disappointed. I am an Atheist. I understand a mass majority of Atheist arguments. My college professor showed me how ignorant I was. I used your argument. Many times it has worked. Until my professor explained it to me. We must decode the master image behind our realm. Can we do that? Who knows? Side: True
1
point
You are still being a typical Atheist. God has not be proven or disproven. Therefore possibility remains in tact. I never said there wasnt a possibility. Of course a god could exist. But compared to real scientific theory, its a VERY low possibility. They remain a possibility. They are not null. Do you even understand this? Yes they are possible but they are based on an unproved and unsupported premise making them pathetically insignificant compared to current scientific theory. Okay, you clearly can't understand the notion I am giving. No i dont think YOU understand. When you take a natural explaination and tack god onto it it is no longer natural. it becomes supernatural. My college professor showed me how ignorant I was. I used your argument. Many times it has worked. Until my professor explained it to me. We must decode the master image behind our realm. Can we do that? Who knows? I dont give a shit what your professor said. We have no reason to even think there IS any grand master behind anything. Just because one COULD be there doesnt make it true or even likely. Until you demonstrate that there is good reason to believe there is something behind the universes creation then i dont have to cater to this bullshit. Side: False
But compared to real scientific theory, its a VERY low possibility. You still dont understand. If a deity made a singularity what science will prove he exists? Nothing. You are with the singularity. Science explains our surroundings. It does not go past that. You are acting as if it does. Yes they are possible but they are based on an unproved and unsupported premise making them pathetically insignificant compared to current scientific theory Unproven? You mean it hasn't been proven or disproven. Just making that clear. Again, a scientific theory only explains what we can understand about our surroundings. You act as if science goes beyond that. No i dont think YOU understand. When you take a natural explaination and tack god onto it it is no longer natural. it becomes supernatural. This proves that you missed my notion. I won't even repeat myself. I dont give a shit what your professor said Funny. I would imagine that he understand more than you do. I would imagine that he has studied this longer than you have. Science is just explanation for occurences. Something cannot be explained because humans are limited. Science cannot even touch the surface of infinity. We have no reason to even think there IS any grand master behind anything. YOU don't have a reason. Someone might. If it is a bad reason so what? It is still a reason. So if there is nothing to prove or disprove it stop giving them shit and shut the fuck up and mind your damn business. Otherwise give me a good theory that shows me how we have reduced the possibility of a God. . Just because one COULD be there doesnt make it true or even likely*5 It doesn't make it impossible or improbable either. Don't leave out those words. Until you demonstrate that there is good reason to believe there is something behind the universes creation then i dont have to cater to this bullshit. Sir, I am done. You simply don't understand what I am telling you. You are just the typical Atheist who thinks science can go to infinity and beyond. Science cannot do that. Humans cannot do that. Maybe you will realize that one day. Side: True
1
point
You still dont understand. If a deity made a singularity what science will prove he exists? Nothing. You are with the singularity. Science explains our surroundings. It does not go past that. You are acting as if it does. All he is pointing out here is the notion of a god is very poorly supported. This doesn't mean he thinks that using science we will discover everything. Unproven? You mean it hasn't been proven or disproven. Just making that clear. Again, a scientific theory only explains what we can understand about our surroundings. You act as if science goes beyond that. Refer to point above. Funny. I would imagine that he understand more than you do. I would imagine that he has studied this longer than you have. Science is just explanation for occurences. Something cannot be explained because humans are limited. Science cannot even touch the surface of infinity. I think he was merely pointing out that, expecting what your professor to have said to be contributive is like an argument from authority. I have to agree, nobody is perfect, being a professor doesn't necessarily mean you are right about anything in particular. Your professor may have convinced you, so what? What should that mean to him? He doesn't even know your professor. YOU don't have a reason. Someone might. If it is a bad reason so what? It is still a reason. So if there is nothing to prove or disprove it stop giving them shit and shut the fuck up and mind your damn business. Otherwise give me a good theory that shows me how we have reduced the possibility of a God. You are acting like theists are being discriminated against because people disagree with them. I will admit that I've seen many atheists being uncivil and down right demeaning towards theists, at the same time though, those of us who are perfectly civil, and are merely expressing disagreement are being treated like we are trying to discriminate against them. We're on a debate site, if you can't take people disagreeing with you or even finding your stance on something ridiculous, get the fuck over it, or get off. I'm sick of this crybaby attitude whenever an atheists expresses skepticism. Ridicule my stance on God all you want, I'll defend it, but I will never act like I'm being victimized. Give me a Fucking break will you? It doesn't make it impossible or improbable either. Don't leave out those words. He has admitted MANY times its possible, as far as improbable, any random claim is automatically improbable unless it assumes nothing. God assumes conciousness and sentience, take that away and you go from the statement "God created the universe" to "something created the universe" which results in common sense. Everyone would agree to that. Hell that's been proven with the big bang. Oh I'm guessing you are now going to say that the big bang needed an origin, its 50% God or 50% everything else because obviously God is as likely as anything else within and beyond our imagination right? Wait if the big bang needs a origin, why doesn't God? Oh because he exists outside our universe right? Beyond logic? Wait if the origin of our universe has to be from the outside of it beyond logic, why couldn't the universe exist in a void that logically allows it to create itself? Or maybe it was simply created by SOMETHING (not necessarily God) which is outside logic. See how ridiculous this gets? I agree that science will never be able to understand everything, everything as a whole is incrompehensible, as Albert Einstein said "the universe is incomprehensibly comprehensible". That is another reason I find the notion of God silly, it assumes that we can comprehend infinity... We can't. Side: False
1
point
but ultimately that's still far more unlikely than a natural explaination so no it is not 50/50. Would you mind explaining how? Just because you can stick god in a slot doesn't mean it makes it just as good an answer as a natural one And I suppose that you are saying that as long as you can explain the process, God isnt there? Side: True
Would you mind explaining how? Is the existence of unicorns 50/50? Is the existence of leprechauns 50/50? Is the existence of mermaids 50/50? And I suppose that you are saying that as long as you can explain the process, God isnt there? YES! You are adding an extra layer of difficulty. Side: False
1
point
Is the existence of unicorns 50/50? Is the existence of leprechauns 50/50? Is the existence of mermaids 50/50? I ask you for an explanation of how it is unlikely. And forgive me but I fail to see the point of your question YES! You are adding an extra layer of difficulty. Prove it then. Side: True
I ask you for an explanation of how it is unlikely. And forgive me but I fail to see the point of your question The only way you can think that God is 50/50 is to also believe those are 50/50. Well, do you believe that? Prove it then. Good job dummy. You asked him if his belief was that providing an explanation means no God, not if that belief is true. Well, his response has shown me to be correct. BOOM, proven. Side: False
1
point
The only way you can think that God is 50/50 is to also believe those are 50/50. Well, do you believe that? Under this logic, I ask, what exactly is the formula to decrease/increase the chances of them existing? You asked him if his belief was that providing an explanation means no God, not if that belief is true. Well, his response has shown me to be correct. BOOM, proven. I ask, did you read my response to him? Side: True
Under this logic, I ask, what exactly is the formula to decrease/increase the chances of them existing? Ok, so you do believe in unicorns, mermaids, leprechauns, etc. Why don't you just say that? If you believe all those other things, I can see why you also believe in God. I ask, did you read my response to him? I ask did you read my response to you? I proved I was right, what more do you want? You asked me to prove my statement, and it was proven. Do you want me to double prove it? I guess this is the reason why God can't be proven to not exist because even if we did prove it, you would question it. Side: False
1
point
Ok, so you do believe in unicorns, mermaids, leprechauns, etc. Why don't you just say that? If you believe all those other things, I can see why you also believe in God. Do not take it as an insult, but perhaps you have misunderstand. It is merely a play of logic wherein I can prove that everything that cannot be disproven has a chance of being true. This is the same logic that created Russels Tea Pot and the Flying Spagetti Monster and practically every single conspiracy theory on Earth. Ridiculous, but very entertaining I ask did you read my response to you? I proved I was right, what more do you want? sigh I asked you to prove that God will stop existing if you can explain the process. But you replied by saying that evesatanas statement proves yours. I hope you know that ongoing debates is not a good source of facts Side: True
Do not take it as an insult, but perhaps you have misunderstand. It is merely a play of logic wherein I can prove that everything that cannot be disproven has a chance of being true. This is the same logic that created Russels Tea Pot and the Flying Spagetti Monster and practically every single conspiracy theory on Earth. Ridiculous, but very entertaining You are the one who believes it not me. Why do you believe in unicorns? I asked you to prove that God will stop existing if you can explain the process. But you replied by saying that evesatanas statement proves yours. No dumbass, that is not what you asked me. You ask avesatanas if he believes that to be true. I responded that YES he believes that. You then asked me to prove that statement. But you were asking me to prove that I was right when I said he believed that statement. When he came back to confirm that he did believe that statement, it proved that I was right. Side: False
1
point
You are the one who believes it not me. Why do you believe in unicorns? Sigh I never said that I believe in one. But I do said that if they cannot be disproven, they can be proven. that is not what you asked me. You ask avesatanas if he believes that to be true. I responded that YES he believes that.You then asked me to prove that statement. But you were asking me to prove that I was right when I said he believed that statement. When he came back to confirm that he did believe that statement, it proved that I was right. Correction: I asked to prove your statement that God can be disproven if you can explain the process. But you replied by using Avesatanas. Pardon me, but I fail to see the point of this argument. Will it be rude if I request to just skip this one? Side: True
Sigh I never said that I believe in one. But I do said that if they cannot be disproven, they can be proven. So, you don't believe in God either? You just think it is equally likely for Him to exist and not exist. Correction: I asked to prove your statement that God can be disproven if you can explain the process. But you replied by using Avesatanas. No, you wish you had, but that is not what you asked. You simply asked if he believed that. All I did was tell you that he does believe that stuff, not that what he believes is true. Pardon me, but I fail to see the point of this argument. I have explained it to you 3 times at least. Will it be rude if I request to just skip this one? Yes, if you don't admit you made a mistake. Side: True
1
point
So, you don't believe in God either? You just think it is equally likely for Him to exist and not exist. No my friend, I was merely sharing the logic of how the truthfulness and ridiculousness of a claim works. Simple as that Yes, if you don't admit you made a mistake. In exchange for a peaceful argument? Then sure, whatever Side: True
No my friend, I was merely sharing the logic of how the truthfulness and ridiculousness of a claim works. Simple as that Do you believe God exists, or do you believe God has an equal likelihood of both existing and not existing? In exchange for a peaceful argument? Then sure, whatever Fuck you you whore. I want a real fucking apology. You asked a fucking question and someone answered it. Side: True
1
point
That's impossible. If you believe that God exists, that means you believe that there is at least 51% of a chance of Him existing. If you lean to one side or the other, you clearly favor that side. If you actually that it was equal you could not say that you believe in God or not. Side: False
1
point
1
point
(Is the existence of unicorns 50/50? Is the existence of leprechauns 50/50? Is the existence of mermaids 50/50?) Your argument is inaccurate unicorns have been proven to not exist as well as leprechauns and mermaids. God or gods (depending on what you believe in) have not been disproven. Side: True
1
point
1
point
1. Ok, so you agree God doesn't exist. 2. Actually the point of my argument is that Atheism and Theism don't have an equal chance of being true. If you disagree than you are saying that unicorns do have a 50/50 chance of existing. Since you agree that they don't, you are saying that I am right and Atheism and Theism don't have an equal chance of being true. Side: False
1
point
1. Sorry, my bad. You said unicorns exist. I made the jump that you believe God doesn't exist. We will get there, don't worry. 2. I say that not everything that someone says exists has a 50/50 chance of existing. That's what you guys are saying. You are trying to say that a non existent God has a possibility of existing simply because you say it is possible for Him to exist. By rejecting the idea of unicorns you are saying that the idea of God can be rejected just as easily as well. You don't quite understand that though. Either way, we are only discussing whether there is a 50/50 possibility of God. I say that God does not have a 50/50 chance of existing because I don't think He exists. But, you can think the same thing. You don't think that God is 50/50 either, but this is because you believe God actually exists. Either way, we both agree that God is not 50/50. Side: True
1
point
1
point
1
point
I am saying that if God has a possibility of existing that unicorns must have a possibility of existing by the same logic. Since you say that unicorns don't exist, you are saying that God doesn't exist. See, I told you we would get here. ;) I was trying to use unicorns to point out the silliness of the claim in God. I am arguing that unicorns exist if God exists. I only argued it because of your claim that God exists. Does that make sense? Side: False
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
One makes a giant assumption using a god that hasnt even been demonstrated to be true and defies all laws of physics and pretty much everything else we know about our reality. The other goes along perfectly with everything we know and makes zero assumptions...it isnt rocket science. Saying "god did it" will NEVER be just as good as a real scientific theory. And I suppose that you are saying that as long as you can explain the process, God isnt there? Until he is proven to be real no he fucking isnt. You do realize science doesnt have to cater to your idiotic beliefs right? Sorry to be harsh but explaining this for what seems like the hundreth time is pissing me off. Yes, as long as we can explain the process perfectly and within it theres no need for a supernatural catalyst of any kind then yeah god isnt there. And even if there WAS a need for some kind of supernatural catalyst until you PROVE that it was any given god that caused it, it STILL wouldnt be taken seriously. Side: False
1
point
One makes a giant assumption using a god that hasnt even been demonstrated to be true and defies all laws of physics and pretty much everything else we know about our reality. I gave you the research about the Guadalupe. You never replied back. You know what that means, right? Saying "god did it" will NEVER be just as good as a real scientific theory. The Chruch and the State was divided for a reason. And so goes for Science and Religion.It is not a good idea to use it on other territories Until he is proven to be real no he fucking isnt. i can easily return it back as "Until you confirmed that there is nothing after death, God exists" Sorry to be harsh but explaining this for what seems like the hundreth time is pissing me off. Consider me as a student who thirst for wisdom. I desire you to enlighten me Yes, as long as we can explain the process perfectly and within it theres no need for a supernatural catalyst of any kind then yeah god isnt there. Under this logic, I question your definition of "Supernatural". Can you prove that it is a natural and normal thing for living creatures to exist from nonliving things that was created out of nothing? And at the same time, I ask again, what makes you think that the existance of a divine being is dependent on his ability to defy physics Side: True
1
point
I gave you the research about the Guadalupe. You never replied back. You know what that means, right? It means i am very busy and didnt have time to get to something ive already looked at? Or that since then your response has been pushed down and off my list of recent arguments and i can no longer locate it? Just a few thoughts. Ill say the same thing i said then: so what? What is the relevance of a surprisingly resiliant piece of cloth (that they dont allow any real scientists to test in a lab)? That isnt proof of god. The Chruch and the State was divided for a reason. And so goes for Science and Religion.It is not a good idea to use it on other territories So why do you keep arguing that religious ideas are 50/50 with scientific ones? i can easily return it back as "Until you confirmed that there is nothing after death, God exists" No you actually cant because you havent proven that god to exist. Youre the one with the positive claim that a god exists. It isnt our job to then prove that theres nothing after death , its your job to prove there is something. The accurate sentance should read as such, "Until you prove that god exists, and an afterlife exists, then it will stand that nothing happens after death" (Not mentioning the fact that every single brain function that maintains one's thoughts, memories, and personality cease at the moment of death so theres no reason to think that anything else happens). Consider me as a student who thirst for wisdom. I desire you to enlighten me Then take what i say to heart instead of throwing the same responses back at me. Under this logic, I question your definition of "Supernatural" 1) there is only 1 logic. Not this logic or that, or yours or mine. only logic 2): Webster Meriam dictionary.com: Supernatural- 1. of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil 2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature The most accurate definition in the context of this debate would probably be the second, but one applies when were talking about the supernatural being a God. Can you prove that it is a natural and normal thing for living creatures to exist from nonliving things that was created out of nothing Abiogenesis theory is what youre looking for. Science cant declare fact, but we have good evidence for it. And even if we didnt it would still be accepted before the supernatural assumptions and hypothesis of religion. And at the same time, I ask again, what makes you think that the existance of a divine being is dependent on his ability to defy physics Because thats what makes him supernatural. He is commonly defined as being outside of space and time. That isnt natural. so it must be supernatural. if he isnt supernatural then theres no reason to call him god. Thats like a pantheistic outlook. So if we discover something natural behind the big bang or if we find out that something else caused the expansion of the universe then your argument is that it should be called god? well you can call it whatever you want i guess but if its natural it isnt a god Side: False
1
point
What is the relevance of a surprisingly resiliant piece of cloth (that they dont allow any real scientists to test in a lab)? That isnt proof of god. You read the article, you should know that they tested it in a lab, by NASA themselves. Only to find more things that defies physics. (You can do more research if you want) I fail to see how that doesn't prove God So why do you keep arguing that religious ideas are 50/50 with scientific ones? It is a friendly correction. Do not take it seriously No you actually cant because you havent proven that god to exist. Youre the one with the positive claim that a god exists. It isnt our job to then prove that theres nothing after death , its your job to prove there is something. I am open for arguments. Feel free to give it The most accurate definition in the context of this debate would probably be the second, but one applies when were talking about the supernatural being a God.Abiogenesis theory is what youre looking for. Science cant declare fact, but we have good evidence for it. And even if we didnt it would still be accepted before the supernatural assumptions and hypothesis of religion. I still fail to see anyway that the concept of life out of nothingness does not belong to the supernatural phenomenon Because thats what makes him supernatural. He is commonly defined as being outside of space and time. Correction: It is the existence of an afterlife that confirms his existence. Or at least, thats how Deists defines their belief Side: True
1
point
I fail to see how that doesn't prove God Heres the root of the problem. Your standard of evidence is WAY lower than mine and the rest of normal people. Wierd tapestry with strange qualities = THERE MUST BE AN ALL KNOWING TIMELESS IMATERIAL SPACE WIZARD WHO MADE THE UNIVERSE. Its a non-sequitur. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ http://www.youtube.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLtSfU3u_A I still fail to see anyway that the concept of life out of nothingness does not belong to the supernatural phenomenon ....what? Correction: It is the existence of an afterlife that confirms his existence. Or at least, thats how Deists defines their belief but an afterlife isnt confirmed or even supported by anything. so by this definition he cant ever be confirmed. So since he cant ever be proven then saying god did it is the equivalent of a wild guess. Finally were on the same page Side: False
1
point
Your standard of evidence is WAY lower than mine and the rest of normal people. If you cannot disprove a small evidence, what makes you think you needed more? Nice links you gave. But im afraid they are off topic and none of them disproved the Guadalupe. I dont mind arguing them with you though, if thats what you want. ....what? I was saying, if life can exist out of nothing, how come it does not belong in the definition of Supernatural? but an afterlife isnt confirmed or even supported by anything. i gave you the links. But it appears like you just skipped it. I hope you know what that means Side: True
1
point
1
point
1
point
I will accept that as reasonable enough to repeat our argument then I disagree. Its all about likelyhood. Is it more likely that everything we know about the natural world and the laws of physics will get thrown out the window in favor of bronze age myths... Religion is not dependent on the concept of magic but by the existance of an afterlife. It is possible for God to exist without any need for divine intervention. But...I guess those exists Side: True
1
point
Religion is not dependent on the concept of magic but by the existance of an afterlife. Wrong. Religions are dependent on some form of supernatural beliefs, not necessarily an afterlife. IE: religions that teach reincarnation It is possible for God to exist without any need for divine intervention True but then what use is that god? And were not arguing for a do nothing god, were arguing about THE god who created everything. Btw your link said page couldnt be found. Side: False
1
point
Wrong. Religions are dependent on some form of supernatural beliefs, not necessarily an afterlife. IE: religions that teach reincarnation I see no difference.Magic is still unnecessary for the maintanance of a religion. As long as mankind does not know what exists after death, religion will always exist True but then what use is that god? And were not arguing for a do nothing god, were arguing about THE god who created everything. Its called "Deism". Its a belief in the existance of a divine being that created the world but does not intervene in its growth. It is a belief in a god but denies existance of miracles Btw your link said page couldnt be found. Its a download link for a pdf file provided by NASA about Guadalupe (which I gave you before). But heres an article that might amuse you.You may do more research if you wish though Side: True
Its a download link for a pdf file provided by NASA about Guadalupe (which I gave you before). But heres an article that might amuse you.You may do more research if you wish though I love how you cling to hope that your God exists. You actually believe that God has no time to help all of the starving people, but does have the time to create Guadalupe's eyes. I am really glad that your great being is doing lots with His power. Side: False
1
point
I love how you cling to hope that your God exists. Dont you think its about time to stop the denials and face the facts? You actually believe that God has no time to help all of the starving people, Indeed. Christianity are a fool for thinking that God is a good person Side: True
Dont you think its about time to stop the denials and face the facts? I have evidence on my side, you have a strange painting. So, I have faced the facts, when will you. Indeed. Christianity are a fool for thinking that God is a good person Ok, so believing that your God is not feeding starving kids in Africa means you think He is good? Well, I haven't fed a single African kid, worship me. Side: True
1
point
I have evidence on my side, Mind if you can share it? Ok, so believing that your God is not feeding starving kids in Africa means you think He is good? Well, I haven't fed a single African kid, worship me. Call me again once you managed to create life out of dust and call a flood to genocide civilization Side: True
Mind if you can share it? We have explained the previous workings of God so well as humans that it no longer requires evidence, it is accepted fact. Open a science book. You will find all the evidence you need. Almost everything in a science book used to be explained by God. Call me again once you managed to create life out of dust and call a flood to genocide civilization So, I guess genocide is ok if you created everything. I like how you love a genocidal maniac. You are actually trying to convince me that their is an equal chance that the world came about by random chance and a genocidal lunatic is responsible for it. Awesome. Side: False
1
point
We have explained the previous workings of God so well as humans that it no longer requires evidence, it is accepted fact. I gave you the link for the Guadalupe, and Eben Alexander, can I hear the explanations behind it? So, I guess genocide is ok if you created everything. I believe in a God, but i do not deny his cruel ways. Is there a problem? Side: True
I gave you the link for the Guadalupe, and Eben Alexander, can I hear the explanations behind it? Your only accomplishment for God is Guadalupe, a worthless achievement that does not better mankind at all. And Eben made up everything after his brain started functioning again, he has no memories of it. I believe in a God, but i do not deny his cruel ways. Is there a problem? Why should I be forced to admit that it is possible that the entire universe was basically created by a genocidal maniac? Why would you want to believe that there exists a great being that is also a genocidal maniac? I can't understand why anyone would want to believe that the were created by the whim of a mad man. Side: False
1
point
Your only accomplishment for God is Guadalupe, a worthless achievement that does not better mankind at all. When was the last time God benefited mankind anyway? The only thing that matters is for me to prove his existence, his holy name on the other hand, is something that does not exist. Why should I be forced to admit that it is possible that the entire universe was basically created by a genocidal maniac? Why would you want to believe that there exists a great being that is also a genocidal maniac? I can't understand why anyone would want to believe that the were created by the whim of a mad man. I never desire him to exist, it is just fairly obvious that he isnt a good person. I have no intention of denying the truth. Is there a problem with it? Side: True
When was the last time God benefited mankind anyway? Never, why call Him God then? The only thing that matters is for me to prove his existence, his holy name on the other hand, is something that does not exist. But, you haven't. You have proven that a supernatural knitter exists that can make Guadalupe, not really a God to anyone else. I never desire him to exist, it is just fairly obvious that he isnt a good person. I have no intention of denying the truth. Is there a problem with it? I don't feel that this has been your actual attitude, other than that, no. Side: False
1
point
Never, why call Him God then? Because he created everything. Blame the English dictionary for the lack of appropriate nouns But, you haven't. You have proven that a supernatural knitter exists that can make Guadalupe, not really a God to anyone else. So...can you explain how it does not proves God? I don't feel that this has been your actual attitude, other than that, no. Are you gonna deny God's cruelty? Side: True
Because he created everything. Blame the English dictionary for the lack of appropriate nouns No, in this scenario we have decided that he did not create everything. We know that nature created everything and God is just standing around knitting. So...can you explain how it does not proves God? Because you only call something God if it created everything and this is by no means proof that the thing that created Guadalupe also created the universe. Are you gonna deny God's cruelty? Sort of, yes. He doesn't exist so He can't be cruel. Side: False
1
point
No, in this scenario we have decided that he did not create everything. We know that nature created everything and God is just standing around knitting. Oh, then may I hear your explanation for how everything came from nothing? Because you only call something God if it created everything and this is by no means proof that the thing that created Guadalupe also created the universe. sigh The Guadalupe isnt God, it is a miracle feat that defies the laws of Physics. It is an evidence that the paranormal exist and stunned scientists who questioned it. Now unless you have something that can prove its nothing out of the ordinary, then I am all ears Side: True
Oh, then may I hear your explanation for how everything came from nothing? It didn't, something was always there, just like your God. The Guadalupe isnt God, it is a miracle feat that defies the laws of Physics. It is an evidence that the paranormal exist and stunned scientists who questioned it. You are awesome with your sighs, and inability to read. I am not sure how you came to think that I said Guadalupe was God. You finally got something right though. Guadalupe only shows the paranormal exists, not God. Side: False
1
point
It didn't, something was always there, just like your God. That defies the scientific process, now does it? I am not sure how you came to think that I said Guadalupe was God. You finally got something right though. Guadalupe only shows the paranormal exists, not God Arent the existence of the paranormal dependent on the existence of a divine being? I fail to see how you cant prove God with it Side: True
That defies the scientific process, now does it? Nope. Science leads us to believe that there was a lot of energy, then a Big Bang, then the energy was able to change to matter. It can still always be there, there isn't a problem. Arent the existence of the paranormal dependent on the existence of a divine being? Well, no, it doesn't have to be divine, just "weird". I fail to see how you cant prove God with it Your definition of God is the creator of the universe. How can you say that whatever created Guadalupe must also be the creator of the universe. That's like jumping off a cliff of logic. Side: False
1
point
1
point
Nope. Science leads us to believe that there was a lot of energy, then a Big Bang, then the energy was able to change to matter. It can still always be there, there isn't a problem. That still defies the laws of physics. Well, no, it doesn't have to be divine, just "weird". In what way is that not divine? Your definition of God is the creator of the universe. How can you say that whatever created Guadalupe must also be the creator of the universe. That's like jumping off a cliff of logic. Simple, it has a back story and the image leans in favor of religion Side: True
That still defies the laws of physics. Wrong, sorry. Nothing is violated by what I said. In what way is that not divine? Are you out of your mind? There is no reason to think it is divine at all. You only claim it to be paranormal. That's like me saying hey we explained one thing that God previously did as natural, therefore no God. You have one worthless example that we don't really know how it exists, and you are claiming to know how it exists, it is awesome. Simple, it has a back story and the image leans in favor of religion It does not favor religion at all. No religion mentions that God created Guadalupe, and that is your only evidence of His existence. Side: True
1
point
Wrong, sorry. Nothing is violated by what I said. In science, everything has its origins. So I ask, where did that energy came from? Are you out of your mind? There is no reason to think it is divine at all. You only claim it to be paranormal. You simply says that being weird isnt a proof of God. I still cannot see how the Guadalupe isnt a proof of his existence It does not favor religion at all. No religion mentions that God created Guadalupe, and that is your only evidence of His existence. Just search for "History of Our Lady of Guadalupe" you will find plenty. Side: True
In science, everything has its origins. So I ask, where did that energy came from? I disagree with your assertion. At time 0 there was a certain situation. Nobody asks what came before the beginning of anything except this. That is very strange to me. Science says that everything can be traced back to that point, which it does, so nothing is violated. I guess your idea is better because when you have the same exact problem you can wave your hands and say supernatural. Congratulations. You simply says that being weird isnt a proof of God. I still cannot see how the Guadalupe isnt a proof of his existence Then you are dumb. Please explain how you can prove that the creator of Guadalupe is also the creator of the universe. Just search for "History of Our Lady of Guadalupe" you will find plenty. Thanks, that's what I was saying. Some random guy claimed that he was told God created Guadalupe, that is not part of the religion. Was that what you were expecting me to find? Side: True
1
point
I disagree with your assertion. At time 0 there was a certain situation. Nobody asks what came before the beginning of anything except this. sigh I like your diligent attitude but if you keep on making up your own scientific logic, then I will lose my respect for you. Your statement reach nothing more than to be labeled as "pseudo-science" (no offense intended). Please allow me to strengthen your reasons by a small lecture of how the universe really came from absolute nothing. "The world consists of positive and negative energy. In a mathematical equation, this energies will cancel each other out until it became a neutral 0. Every single matter consists of +energy, while gravity on the other hand consists of -energy. Astrologists and Astrophysicists believe that if you add up all the energies in the universe, you will gain a solid 0. And under that logic, they create the theory of "Inflation". Wherein nothingness expanded by creating +matter that always carries a counter -matter. And this process has been going on for billions of years. In conclusion, something and nothing maybe just the same thing" . Please use this information as a weapon against me. Like ask me why I still believe in a God despite my knowledge. Then use it again to disprove my reasons Please dont disappoint me :) Then you are dumb. Please explain how you can prove that the creator of Guadalupe is also the creator of the universe. Simple, because Physics can only be defile by the person who created it. Your not gonna say that the Guadalupe is explainable, now will you? Thanks, that's what I was saying. Some random guy claimed that he was told God created Guadalupe, that is not part of the religion. Was that what you were expecting me to find? You never researched about it did you? Please stop making guesses and read this It was not a random mantel given by a random bible thumper. It is the result of constant doubt by the people including the priest and bishop themselves. Side: True
sigh I like your diligent attitude but if you keep on making up your own scientific logic, then I will lose my respect for you. Your statement reach nothing more than to be labeled as "pseudo-science" (no offense intended). Please allow me to strengthen your reasons by a small lecture of how the universe really came from absolute nothing. M-Theory for newbies: "The world consists of positive and negative energy. In a mathematical equation, this energies will cancel each other out until it became a neutral 0. Every single matter consists of +energy, while gravity on the other hand consists of -energy. Astrologists and Astrophysicists believe that if you add up all the energies in the universe, you will gain a solid 0. And under that logic, they create the theory of "Inflation". Wherein nothingness expanded by creating +matter that always carries a counter -matter. And this process has been going on for billions of years. In conclusion, something and nothing maybe just the same thing" . Please use this information as a weapon against me. Like ask me why I still believe in a God despite my knowledge. Then use it again to disprove my reasons Please dont disappoint me :) I don't really follow M Theory. But, from that small explanation it shows that you are a complete idiot when you say that Atheists are dumb for thinking something came from nothing. M Theory is saying that there is a positive and negative to everything. So, everything equates to nothing no matter what. So, if it came from nothing that isn't anything special. Besides, YOU STILL HAVE A MASSIVE HOLE IN YOUR ARGUMENT BECAUSE YOU THINK GOD CAME FROM NOTHING. Simple, because Physics can only be defile by the person who created it. Your not gonna say that the Guadalupe is explainable, now will you? You have no proof of this. Sorry. You have established paranormal activity, for now. You don't actually have a real explanation either. You are making a massive blunder by saying that you feel that Guadalupe must be from God because you have no other explanation. This is the same thing I have been talking about. Throughout history the unexplained was God, now it is natural. Maybe in a few years Guadalupe will be natural and you will have to find something else to cling to. You never researched about it did you? Please stop making guesses and read this It was not a random mantel given by a random bible thumper. It is the result of constant doubt by the people including the priest and bishop themselves. I read enough to know that it is just random people who have decided this was from God. Quote it or shut up. Do your own damn research. Did Paul mention Guadalupe? How about John? Any books in the Bible mention it? Side: True
1
point
I don't really follow M Theory. I can see that. You just kept on making your own pseudo-science. But, from that small explanation it shows that you are a complete idiot when you say that Atheists are dumb for thinking something came from nothing. Are you gonna say im wrong? M Theory is saying that there is a positive and negative to everything. So, everything equates to nothing no matter what. So, if it came from nothing that isn't anything special. The M-theory is the origin of the universe and the greatest weapon any atheist can weild in a religious debate. It was also the exact reason why Stephen Hawkings is still an atheist despite his fading life. I am dissapointed at how you insist on your scientific fallacy instead of accepting what was proven If you insists that it is nothing special, then I suggest you read the full wikipedia page. Maybe then, you can have something good to use against me You have no proof of this. Sorry.Maybe in a few years Guadalupe will be natural and you will have to find something else to cling to. Its the argument: "Doesnt mean we dont know, doesnt mean we cant", Isnt it? Under that logic, I ask "What makes you think everything can be explained the way you wanted to?" I read enough to know that it is just random people who have decided this was from God. Quote it or shut up. Again, you did not read it, have you? But since you asked, then sure. 1st Apparition: At dawn on December 9, 1531, Juan Diego, an Indian convert, was going to Tlatelolco to attend catechism class and hear the Mass. As he was passing Tepeyac Hill, he saw a brilliant light on the summit and heard the strains of celestial music. Filled with wonder, he stopped. Then he heard a feminine voice asking him to ascend. When he reached the top he saw the Blessed Virgin Mary standing in the midst of a glorious light, in heavenly splendor. The beauty of her youthful countenance and her look of loving kindness filled Juan Diego with unspeakable happiness as he listened to the words which she spoke to him in his native language. She told him she was the perfect and eternal Virgin Mary, Mother of the true God, and made known to him her desire that a shrine be built there where she could demonstrate her love, her compassion and her protection. "For I am your merciful Mother", she said, "to you and to all mankind who love me and trust in me and invoke my help. Therefore, go to the dwelling of the Bishop in Mexico City and say that the Virgin Mary sent you to make known to him her great desire." 2nd Apparition: The Bishop was reluctant to believe Juan Diego's story. Juan returned to Tepeyac Hill where he found the Blessed Virgin waiting for him, and told her of his failure. She bade him return to the Bishop the next day and repeat her wishes. 3rd Apparition: The Bishop then requested that the Lady give him a sign. Juan reported that evening and she promised to grant his petition on the following morning. But Juan was prevented from coming because of a sudden and severe illness of his uncle, Juan Bernardino. 4th Apparition: Two days later, on December 12, as he was going to the Church at Tlatelolco in order to bring a priest to his dying uncle, Juan Diego was stopped by the Lady, who had come down from Tepeyac Hill to meet him in the road. She listened quietly to Juan's excuse for not having kept his appointment with her the day before. When he had finished speaking she said, "It is well, littlest and dearest of my sons, but now listen to me. Do not let anything afflict you and be not afraid of illness or pain. Am I not here who am your Mother? Are you not under my shadow and protection? Are you not in the crossing of my arms? Is there anything else you need? Do not fear for your uncle for he is not going to die. Be assured... he is already well." Having heard these words, Juan Diego rejoiced and asked for the sign he was to take to the Bishop. He was told to climb to the top of the hill where she had spoken to him on three previous occasions. She said he would find many flowers blooming there which he was to cut and bring to her. Juan Diego did as he was told though he knew no flowers had ever bloomed before on the stony summit. He discovered a marvelous garden of dew-fresh blossoms which he cut as she had asked. Placing them in his rough cloak, or tilma, he brought the flowers to the Lady who rearranged them and told him to take them to the Bishop; that this was the sign to persuade him to carry out her wishes. When Juan Diego, radiantly happy, stood before Bishop Fray Juan de Zumarraga and told him of the fourth encounter with the Lady, he opened his tilma to show the Bishop the sign; the flowers cascaded to the floor - but to the astonishment of the Bishop and Juan Diego, there appeared upon the coarse fabric of the Indian's mantle a marvelously wrought, exquisitely colored portrait of the Blessed Virgin, just as Juan Diego had previously described her. 5th Apparition: Earlier that same day, December 12, she had also appeared to Juan's uncle, Juan Bernardino, and restored him to health as she had told Juan Diego. Juan Diego was at that time fifty-seven years old; his uncle was sixty-eight. Both had been among the first of the natives to be baptized into the true faith several years before. The Name of Guadalupe Juan Bernardino told his nephew the Blessed Virgin had ordered him to relate to the Bishop in what miraculous manne she had cured him. She also told Juan Bernardino her image was to be known as "Santa Maria de Guadalupe" and thus she has been venerated by this title for nearly five centuries. The Mantle of Juan Diego The mantle or tilma on which the Sacred Image of the Blessed Virgin is imprinted is handwoven from the fibers of the Maguey cactus, a fabric which has a life span of little more than thirty years. It is six-and-a-half feet long by forty-two inches wide and has a seam running down the middle. . Please stop making a fool of yourself and learn how to do research. Your words of denials hurts me more than you think Side: True
I can see that. You just kept on making your own pseudo-science. You are way better. Hey look, something unexplained, therefore a God created the universe. I don't think you should judge anyone. The M-theory is the origin of the universe and the greatest weapon any atheist can weild in a religious debate. It was also the exact reason why Stephen Hawkings is still an atheist despite his fading life. I am dissapointed at how you insist on your scientific fallacy instead of accepting what was proven This doesn't make sense. M Theory leads people to Atheism. You admitted yourself that you have no reason to believe God has anything to do with M Theory. I don't understand the point of you showing there is no God in response to me saying there is no God. Fine, you win. I agree with you that God doesn't exist. 1st Apparition:... Oh look, a random guy, Indian convert. Exactly what I said. Copying and pasting the entire article makes you look like an idiot. It clearly says that an Indian convert is responsible for making up this whole story. That shows it has nothing to do with Christianity. 2nd Apparition Ooh, a bishop is involved, whoop dee doo. 3rd Apparition and on I fail to see the point of this. Please stop making a fool of yourself and learn how to do research. Your words of denials hurts me more than you think Your nonsense is amusing to me, haha. You found a website that is garbage and think you have done research. All you do is keep pointing to it. It's great. I can't wait for the next bit of rubbish I hear from you. It will be such a great laugh. Side: True
1
point
You are way better. Hey look, something unexplained, therefore a God created the universe. I don't think you should judge anyone. You all say that if it can be explained, God does not exist. Now that your in the face of something unexplainable, you still say the same thing Under this logic I ask, what can you accept as a proof of God? This doesn't make sense. M Theory leads people to Atheism. You admitted yourself that you have no reason to believe God has anything to do with M Theory. I don't understand the point of you showing there is no God in response to me saying there is no God. Fine, you win. I agree with you that God doesn't exist. I simply debunked your failed scientific guess of how the universe came to be and provided you with REAL informations. I did it because I was hoping you can give me a good argument. Its a shame you cannot understand it, let alone use it against me. But I guess wisdom chooses its own master. Oh look, a random guy, Indian convert. Exactly what I said. Copying and pasting the entire article makes you look like an idiot. It clearly says that an Indian convert is responsible for making up this whole story. That shows it has nothing to do with Christianity.Ooh, a bishop is involved, whoop dee doo.I fail to see the point of this. sigh First off, you were the one who asked for me to qoute the whole article. Which makes you "stupider", I guess Second, why do you have to force an insult when you can just admit that you did not read it? Your nonsense is amusing to me, haha. You found a website that is garbage and think you have done research. All you do is keep pointing to it. It's great. I can't wait for the next bit of rubbish I hear from you. It will be such a great laugh. Flamewars do not amuse me. But if you dont mind, I would like to press on the fact that despite how you lost 3/5 arguments already, you chose the way of the fool. Denials and Aggression is a psychological defense and you have my pity. :) Side: True
You all say that if it can be explained, God does not exist. Now that your in the face of something unexplainable, you still say the same thing Under this logic I ask, what can you accept as a proof of God? First off, you have something unexplained. Throughout history we have had tons of stuff that was once unexplained and now is not. Could be the same for this case. Second off, you have no actual idea of what is really responsible. You just say it is unexplained, therefore it must be supernatural. The problem with this is you actually don't have any idea if it is supernatural, paranormal, aliens. You have only ruled out explained. Lastly, you want to say that if Guadalupe exists that means there is a God that created the universe. It is completely ridiculous to make that assertion. I simply debunked your failed scientific guess of how the universe came to be and provided you with REAL informations. I did it because I was hoping you can give me a good argument. No you didn't, you said you believe in a theory that says God does not exist. Its a shame you cannot understand it, let alone use it against me. But I guess wisdom chooses its own master. You don't understand science. You can't just say that because scientific knowledge is updated that God exists. The idea of God doesn't ever change and we see more and more that idea is wrong. Maybe you guys should jump on the updating bandwagon. First off, you were the one who asked for me to qoute the whole article. Which makes you "stupider", I guess Geez, you are retarded if that's what you got from that. Second, why do you have to force an insult when you can just admit that you did not read it? Why do you have to sigh instead of admitting that you don't know how it applies to the argument. Flamewars do not amuse me. But if you dont mind, I would like to press on the fact that despite how you lost 3/5 arguments already, you chose the way of the fool. You can't count. You have won 0 arguments. In fact your own arguments are proof that your other arguments are wrong. Denials and Aggression is a psychological defense and you have my pity. :) You don't believe in science you psycho. That's the ultimate denial. Man, you are hilarious. Side: False
1
point
First off, you have something unexplained. Throughout history we have had tons of stuff that was once unexplained and now is not. Could be the same for this case. Aye, but we have little unexplained things that relates itself in favor of a certain belief. Second off, you have no actual idea of what is really responsible. You just say it is unexplained, therefore it must be supernatural. The problem with this is you actually don't have any idea if it is supernatural, paranormal, aliens. You have only ruled out explained. Oh, so are you saying that the Guadalupe was made by aliens? Lastly, you want to say that if Guadalupe exists that means there is a God that created the universe. It is completely ridiculous to make that assertion. Can you prove im wrong? No you didn't, you said you believe in a theory that says God does not exist.You don't understand science. You can't just say that because scientific knowledge is updated that God exists. The idea of God doesn't ever change and we see more and more that idea is wrong. Maybe you guys should jump on the updating bandwagon. Wise always doubt, the fool is always sure Please dont call your theories as science when you cannot provide any findings that supports it. Much less disputes mine Geez, you are retarded if that's what you got from that. You said: "Quote it or shut up" And I beat you in your own game. Please be a sport Why do you have to sigh instead of admitting that you don't know how it applies to the argument. Sighing is a nonverbal communication used mostly in a feminine way You can't count. You have won 0 arguments. In fact your own arguments are proof that your other arguments are wrong.You don't believe in science you psycho. That's the ultimate denial. Man, you are hilarious. Oh dear did I hit a nerve? Dont worry though, I wont stoop down to your level Side: True
Aye, but we have little unexplained things that relates itself in favor of a certain belief. You are exactly right. There are so few unexplained things that it lends itself to a certain belief. Oh, so are you saying that the Guadalupe was made by aliens? Can you prove me wrong? ;) Can you prove im wrong? Sure. Your only reason for thinking it is God is that you say it is God..So, I say it is not and I have just as much proof as you. Wise always doubt, the fool is always sure Hehe. You are the one who is sure that God created the universe and Guadalupe. I am voicing my doubt. You are so hilarious. Please dont call your theories as science when you cannot provide any findings that supports it. Much less disputes mine You provided the evidence that your own idea is wrong. I didn't do anything. You claim to think that God exists and also claim that M Theory is right and that God doesn't exist. You said: "Quote it or shut up" And I beat you in your own game. Please be a sport That's funny. I didn't realize that you were dumb enough to equate quoting and completely copying the whole thing. And, you still don't think you did anything wrong. I am telling you that what you posted shows that you are wrong. I read it. Which part of it shows you are right? Sighing is a nonverbal communication used mostly in a feminine way Doesn't mean that you should be doing it instead of providing evidence. Oh dear did I hit a nerve? Dont worry though, I wont stoop down to your level It is funny how I am losing yet you have not provided one bit of argument to combat my statements. If we were on a level playing field I would not have lost once. But you live in the Twilight zone where you think that if you don't understand the response that means that your argument is valid and you don't have to provide anything to counter the other persons argument. Side: False
1
point
Can you prove me wrong? The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Sure. Your only reason for thinking it is God is that you say it is God..So, I say it is not and I have just as much proof as you. Nope, because my articles are backed by scientific findings made by real scientist. Hehe. You are the one who is sure that God created the universe and Guadalupe. I am voicing my doubt. You are so hilarious. The voice of doubt isnt an evidence. You provided the evidence that your own idea is wrong. I didn't do anything. You claim to think that God exists and also claim that M Theory is right and that God doesn't exist. I repeat, I simply tried to strengthen your reasons. Shame that you failed. But I guess ignorance is a choice That's funny. I didn't realize that you were dumb enough to equate quoting and completely copying the whole thing. sigh I gave what you asked. You reap what you sow. It is funny how I am losing yet you have not provided one bit of argument to combat my statements. If we were on a level playing field I would not have lost once. But you live in the Twilight zone where you think that if you don't understand the response that means that your argument is valid and you don't have to provide anything to counter the other persons argument. We are not in a flamewar. The fact that you admitted defeat is the only thing that matters. Thankyou for the time. Side: True
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You are absolutely out of your mind. I quoted you word for word. This is what you keep telling me over and over again and that is your only response. It is great. Nope, because my articles are backed by scientific findings made by real scientist. Hehe, You have no idea how science works. Science tells you that it can't explain Guadalupe. It does not provide any evidence that God exists. The voice of doubt isnt an evidence. Your voice of non doubt is not evidence either. Plus, you just got through saying how the wise have doubts. Now you are insulting my doubts. Hehe. I repeat, I simply tried to strengthen your reasons. Shame that you failed. But I guess ignorance is a choice I am trying to weaken your arguments. And you have 0 strength. In fact you are saying you don't even believe your own beliefs. Why do I need to do any more work? You are already on my side. I gave what you asked. You reap what you sow. I already demonstrated that what you "quoted" was not supporting what you said. I was trying to explain to you that if your source doesn't support your argument you need to point to the exact part that does support you. When I read that article it says that Guadalupe is attributable to a random Indian guy. Therefore, not really part of the religion. The fact that you admitted defeat is the only thing that matters. True. Since I never admitted defeat and you constantly point out how you are wrong, I have won. Thanks. Side: False
1
point
You are absolutely out of your mind. I quoted you word for word. Can you qoute it again? You have no idea how science works. Science tells you that it can't explain Guadalupe. It does not provide any evidence that God exists. Science and History says otherwise Your voice of non doubt is not evidence either. Plus, you just got through saying how the wise have doubts. Now you are insulting my doubts. Nope, you do not doubt. You deny. I am trying to weaken your arguments. And you have 0 strength. In fact you are saying you don't even believe your own beliefs. Dont hang a bait. Just admit your faults and let go. Its easy I already demonstrated that what you "quoted" was not supporting what you said. In what way? When I read that article it says that Guadalupe is attributable to a random Indian guy. Therefore, not really part of the religion. Why do you have to pretend that you read it? True. Since I never admitted defeat and you constantly point out how you are wrong, I have won. Thanks. "It is funny how I am losing" -Cartman Side: True
Can you qoute it again? Sorry, I wrote "Can you prove me wrong?" and you wrote "can you prove im wrong". You are right I didn't quote you word for word because you wrote something that wasn't a word. Science and History says otherwise Nope. Science says they don't currently have an explanation for Guadalupe. You are claiming that science says Guadalupe was created by God. Clearly science agrees with me and not you. History probably isn't on your side either. Nope, you do not doubt. You deny. Only around psychos like you who claim they believe in 50/50, but are lying. It is actually doubt. Dont hang a bait. Just admit your faults and let go. Its easy I will admit my faults: I have not studied on M Theory, so that you actually have a shot at presenting something. I stick with a outdated model that shows you are wrong instead of updating my methods to something that shows you are completely wrong. That was easy. In what way? I repeated it for you. All the article says is that random individuals were involved and it is not actually part of the religion. Why do you have to pretend that you read it? Seeing as I have shown that I at least read one sentence, why do you keep pretending that you read it? "It is funny how I am losing" -Cartman What I actually said : It is funny how I am losing yet you have not provided one bit of argument to combat my statements. That was after you claimed I lost. So, yeah, still didn't admit I was losing. How do you feel about cheaters, are they winners? Side: False
1
point
Sorry, I wrote "Can you prove me wrong?" and you wrote "can you prove im wrong". You are right I didn't quote you word for word because you wrote something that wasn't a word. Those are questions that you left unanswered. Can you answer them now? Science says they don't currently have an explanation for Guadalupe. Exactly how it supports it History probably isn't on your side either. Only around psychos like you who claim they believe in 50/50, but are lying. It is actually doubt. Oh the irony I will admit my faults: I have not studied on M Theory, Thankyou. I repeated it for you. All the article says is that random individuals were involved and it is not actually part of the religion. You still havent read the article. Please stop fooling yourself Seeing as I have shown that I at least read one sentence, why do you keep pretending that you read it? "I at least read one sentence" LOL What I actually said : It is funny how I am losing yet you have not provided one bit of argument to combat my statements. It made no difference. You still accepted the fall. . Friendly Tip: Please stop embarrassing yourself. Side: True
Those are questions that you left unanswered. Can you answer them now? No, one of those, the one with proper English, is a question I left for you. The one that you wrote with bad English is left unanswered because like you admitted, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. It is completely outrageous that you can play both those cards. You actually want to make unsupported claims and have people prove you wrong, and you want to be able to tell people that if they make an unsupported claim that they must prove it to you. And, you claim that I am not open to learning. Exactly how it supports it No, I will speak slowly so you can understand. You. Say. God. Created. Guadalupe... Science. Says. It. Does. Not. Have. An. Explanation. Yet... Those. Are. Different... Therefore. You. Are. Wrong. Done That "history" article says you are wrong just like I have told you 3 times. You have failed to show how it makes you right because all you do is reference the entire thing and don't counter my argument. Since I have actually read it and claim that it says something that supports me and you have not countered it at all, it clearly does not support you. Oh the irony I don't think you actually understand what the word irony means. You still havent read the article. Please stop fooling yourself The fact that I was able to tell you that it is an article about random people, and you fail to demonstrate that you have any knowledge on it means that I have read it and you have not. "I at least read one sentence" LOL My point is that since you have shown no knowledge at all of what the article says, me reading one sentence means I read 1 more sentence than you did. I actually did read more than that, I just like to give the minimum required to beat you. It made no difference. You still accepted the fall. You don't understand the written language, and you accuse me of not reading something. That's awesome. Friendly Tip: Please stop embarrassing yourself. Friendly Tip: Don't let anyone you know read your posts in this argument, they will lock you up because you are crazy. Side: False
1
point
No, one of those, the one with proper English, is a question I left for you. sigh If you cant answer them, then just say so. No, I will speak slowly so you can understand. You. Say. God. Created. Guadalupe... Science. Says. It. Does. Not. Have. An. Explanation. Yet... Those. Are. Different... Therefore. You. Are. Wrong. Which brings us back to the question: "What makes you think everything can be explained the way you wanted to?" That "history" article says you are wrong just like I have told you 3 times. It cast real historical people, in exact timelines, with physical evidences of their existence. What are you saying again? The fact that I was able to tell you that it is an article about random people, and you fail to demonstrate that you have any knowledge on it means that I have read it and you have not.My point is that since you have shown no knowledge at all of what the article says, me reading one sentence means I read 1 more sentence than you did. I actually did read more than that, I just like to give the minimum required to beat you.You don't understand the written language, and you accuse me of not reading something. That's awesome. sigh Please dont hang a bait. If you wont read it, then just let go. Side: True
If you cant answer them, then just say so. It doesn't matter if I can or can't you said it was ok that I don't have to. I asked you the same question. Can you answer my open question? Which brings us back to the question: "What makes you think everything can be explained the way you wanted to?" No, you claimed that science supports you, and it doesn't. Therefore you are wrong and should admit it. Only then can we discuss whether it can be explained. It cast real historical people, in exact timelines, with physical evidences of their existence. What are you saying again? It talks about random people hallucinating, what is so great about that? Please dont hang a bait. If you wont read it, then just let go. Even now that you have finally posted something about the article, it is still meaningless. I still can't tell if you read anything. Side: False
1
point
It doesn't matter if I can or can't you said it was ok that I don't have to. I asked you the same question. Can you answer my open question? You cant answer a question with another question. No, you claimed that science supports you, and it doesn't. Therefore you are wrong and should admit it. Only then can we discuss whether it can be explained. It supported me, because its inexplainable. Just as what you wish to have as a proof of God. Problem with that? It talks about random people hallucinating, what is so great about that? sigh Its called hallucination when it is seen by one. But what do you call it when there has been a crowd who saw the same thing? Give up, your excuse wont sell Even now that you have finally posted something about the article, it is still meaningless. I still can't tell if you read anything. Whatever Side: True
You cant answer a question with another question. I didn't. I told you that you said it was ok for me to not answer. Then I asked you a question to move the conversation along. It supported me, because its inexplainable. In the loosest possible way I guess. Its called hallucination when it is seen by one. But what do you call it when there has been a crowd who saw the same thing? Give up, your excuse wont sell They probably didn't see the same thing. Doesn't the article say they saw different things? Side: False
1
point
I just realized that I am very disappointed in your response. You asked for evidence that we have discovered better ways to explain the world, and I pointed out to you that there have been so many things that idiots in the past have attributed to God that is now explained. Your only response is to bring up random worthless occurrences that prove God is ineffectual. Why are you so convinced that there is a God who has almost no power? Side: False
1
point
Here is how it works. God was responsible for 100% of everything that happened in the world. Then, someone figured out how something worked. So, what God was responsible for fell to 99%. What are we at now, 5%? There has been a massive shift. People who actually want an explanation for things can only conclude that God does not exist because everything that used to be explained by God is now not. Seeing this trend would indicate to most that eventually everything will be explained. You are of the opinion that explanations don't get rid of God. Strangely enough, you also think God is the biggest possible jerk ever. I don't understand how you can live like that just like you don't understand how explaining God is not doing things leads to the conclusion that God is not there. Hope that helps. Side: False
1
point
Here is how it works. God was responsible for 100% of everything that happened in the world. Then, someone figured out how something worked.You are of the opinion that explanations don't get rid of God. But it isnt an opinion. It is the truth. Explanations contributes nothing to the question of God's existence. It is just another example of Human's narcism who takes themselves on the same level just because they know how to do it. Unless you can prove it otherwise Strangely enough, you also think God is the biggest possible jerk ever. Dont tell me you disagree. I don't understand how you can live like that just like you don't understand how explaining God is not doing things leads to the conclusion that God is not there. Im not the type who takes pleasure from fooling myself. That is how I can live my life peacefully without any need for worship God exists but we are better off without him. Wont you agree? Side: True
But it isnt an opinion. It is the truth. Only for the case of God, weird. Everything else works the opposite of the way you think it does for God. Explanations contributes nothing to the question of God's existence. It is just another example of Human's narcism who takes themselves on the same level just because they know how to do it. Hehe, that's funny. You do realize that most people think that God invented everything for humans. It is narcism to believe that there is an all powerful being and it created you in His image, right? Dont tell me you disagree. I do. I think that an all benevolent being is not a jerk. Im not the type who takes pleasure from fooling myself. That is how I can live my life peacefully without any need for worship So you don't worship Him, well, at least that's normal. God exists but we are better off without him. Wont you agree? Obviously not. I think He doesn't exist and we would be better off with Him. Side: False
1
point
Hehe, that's funny. You do realize that most people think that God invented everything for humans. It is narcism to believe that there is an all powerful being and it created you in His image, right? You do realized that you changed the topic, right? I was aiming to show that it is plain arrogant to claim ourselves high just because we can understand the process And yet you are now pressing the finger towards God and his narcisistic behavior. Please dont add topics that has no connection with anything I do. I think that an all benevolent being is not a jerk.So you don't worship Him, well, at least that's normal.Obviously not. I think He doesn't exist and we would be better off with Him. Are we going back to the topic of God's existance? But you already admitted my victory, right? "Your only accomplishment for God is Guadalupe, a worthless achievement that does not better mankind at all." Bitter as it maybe, you already admitted the existence of the supernatural. I see no point in repeating the arguments. Side: True
You do realized that you changed the topic, right? I was aiming to show that it is plain arrogant to claim ourselves high just because we can understand the process And yet you are now pressing the finger towards God and his narcisistic behavior. Please dont add topics that has no connection with anything You changed the topic first. And, you have your whole philosophy backwards. Theists are the arrogant narcissists who think God does everything for them, and Atheists think they can explain how the universe works. Are we going back to the topic of God's existance? But you already admitted my victory, right? "Your only accomplishment for God is Guadalupe, a worthless achievement that does not better mankind at all." Bitter as it maybe, you already admitted the existence of the supernatural. I see no point in repeating the arguments. You said the only explanation for Guadalupe was God. Now you are saying it is anything supernatural. And, you are saying that God is the thing that created the universe. So, I may not be able to explain Guadalupe, but I still claim that that is not God. Side: False
1
point
Theists are the arrogant narcissists who think God does everything for them, and Atheists think they can explain how the universe works. There is no narcissism in showing admiration for the works that you never created. But there is arrogance in believing yourself high and mighty just because you have learned a few things that made simple things complicated You said the only explanation for Guadalupe was God. Now you are saying it is anything supernatural. And, you are saying that God is the thing that created the universe. So, I may not be able to explain Guadalupe, but I still claim that that is not God. sigh I fail to remember anything where I claimed Guadalupe as God, but I do said that it is an evidence of his existence. Side: True
There is no narcissism in showing admiration for the works that you never created. You just described science, awesome. But there is arrogance in believing yourself high and mighty just because you have learned a few things that made simple things complicated You just described religion, great. I fail to remember anything where I claimed Guadalupe as God, but I do said that it is an evidence of his existence. Stop fucking sighing and learn to fucking read. You are the only person to mention Guadalupe as God first off, and I didn't even say anything like that just now. I said you claimed that God is the only thing that could have created Guadalupe. But, you also say that Guadalupe just shows that something supernatural exists and you can't just jump to say oh, that must mean that this God also created the universe. You can't make that call. There is no link to Guadalupe and the universe. Side: False
1
point
It's true that no matter what is determined about the origins of the universe, it cannot be proven that the whole thing didn't start with some entity (an entity that somehow overcomes the problem of infinite regression) holding a magic wand and uttering the word presto. What are the odds of this entity existing? it's impossible to say, but I'd say the odds of such a thing existing are similar to the odds of dragons, fairries, or Russel's teapot existing. Side: True
1
point
1
point
It's more complicated than that (I'm certainly no expert), but it would seem the odds of a magical being born of human imagination, capable of zapping everything into existence coming from nothing would be lower. It's like saying, nobody knows the origin of the universe, and it couldn't have come from nothing, so clearly a made up magical being which somehow can come from nothing existing is just as likely as it not existing. Seems like a failure of logic. Side: False
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
He said: "It's like saying, nobody knows the origin of the universe, and it couldn't have come from nothing, so clearly a made up magical being which somehow can come from nothing existing is just as likely as it not existing." So I asked him what makes him think that God can be disproven by making simple things complicated Side: True
1
point
We already have actually. And its called the "M Theory" We have already found the answers for our origins, and yet, it still failed to disprove God. As for God's origin, every theologist agree that he is an infinite. He has no beginning nor end. I am not a theologist though, so I cannot entertain you in this subject Side: True
1
point
1
point
There is no such thing as Theory that supports God. THere is only proof of his existence And proof he has given Side: True
There is no such thing as Theory that supports God. Ok, dummy, how can you bring up M Theory if it has nothing to do with God? THere is only proof of his existence There is no proof, so awesome. And proof he has given He claims that his brain doesn't work, and you find that to be a credible witness. Strangely enough, his imagination center was awake when he started coming up with his hallucination story, right? Side: False
1
point
Ok, dummy, how can you bring up M Theory if it has nothing to do with God? Dont push yourself too hard if you cant understand. He claims that his brain doesn't work, and you find that to be a credible witness. Strangely enough, his imagination center was awake when he started coming up with his hallucination story, right? Read this wiki) He recieved the same criticism from fellow doctors from which he replied: "If you would have asked me before my coma, How much will someone who is in coma for a week with a severe bacterial meningitis -- so severe that the sugar level ... around my brain, normally around 60-80 and in a bad meningitis maybe down to 20; in my case it went down to 1 -- to me, that's just one piece of evidence of how severe this was. If you'd ask me how much would that patient remember, I'd say nothing," he said. "They wouldn't remember a single thing. ...The severity of the meningitis would have prevented dreams, hallucinations, confabulations, because those things all require a fairly coordinated amount of cortex." In order to disprove this, he hired 9 of his colleges and fellow doctors . All of them failed to give any valid explaination. May I hear your opinion? Side: True
Dont push yourself too hard if you cant understand. I can't understand because an idiot brought up something that disproves God as an example to prove God. In order to disprove this, he hired 9 of his colleges and fellow doctors . All of them failed to give any valid explaination. May I hear your opinion? How was his blood sugar when he wrote down his "memories"? I imagine pretty good. So, perhaps he "remembered" after his brain recovered. I won't read your stupid link on a guy who doesn't believe himself. Side: False
1
point
How was his blood sugar when he wrote down his "memories"? I imagine pretty good. So, perhaps he "remembered" after his brain recovered. Yep, he remembered everything that happened in his dream and wrote it down. Which shouldnt have happened because his brain was dead and incapable of a dream. So....what is your explanation? Side: True
Yep, he remembered Not necessarily true. His imagination was fully functioning when he wrote down his "memories". Which shouldnt have happened because his brain was dead and incapable of a dream. He didn't do anything when his brain was dead, so his claim of memories is false. So....what is your explanation? I was trying to say that he made it all up and his brain has convinced him that it is memories. Side: False
1
point
Not necessarily true. His imagination was fully functioning when he wrote down his "memories".He didn't do anything when his brain was dead, so his claim of memories is false.I was trying to say that he made it all up and his brain has convinced him that it is memories. Oh, you meant he is a fraud isnt it? Well, your not alone. Plenty of people says the same thing just search for it However under that reason, I ask if you can you provide me a reason why he had to destroy his career as a doctor and gain the disgust of his fellow scientist for a single lie? Side: True
1
point
I don't think he is the typical fraud. I think he has had a really convincing hallucination. He is a nuerologist with years of experience. If the explanation is that simple, then he wouldn't convert. I ask you this, why would your wonderful God show this guy a vision and not show anyone else causing him to destroy his career? Theres plenty of people who lost even their life in the name of God. What makes him any different? Side: True
He is a nuerologist with years of experience. If the explanation is that simple, then he wouldn't convert. He had a near death situation, I think you over estimate his resolve. His brain has implanted a false memory so powerful that he can't think it could be something else. Well, the brain controls his thoughts, so yeah, that will happen. Theres plenty of people who lost even their life in the name of God. What makes him any different? Thank you. Do you realize you just lost? You just pointed out that his claims are just as fake as everyone else. Side: False
1
point
1
point
He had a near death situation, I think you over estimate his resolve. His brain has implanted a false memory so powerful that he can't think it could be something else. Well, the brain controls his thoughts, so yeah, that will happen. It doesnt make any difference you are still insisting that he is lying. And under that logic, I ask you what purpose does he need to lie to the world and ruin his name in the process? Do you realize you just lost? You just pointed out that his claims are just as fake as everyone else. sigh It appears like you misunderstood your own words. You said "why would your wonderful God show this guy a vision and not show anyone else causing him to destroy his career?" Which means that you are asking for a reason why no one else was granted such an experience. From which I replied that it is a normal feat if you were chosen. And then suddenly, you are claiming that he is a fake sigh Please keep this debate civil by keeping track of what you post Side: True
It doesnt make any difference you are still insisting that he is lying. And under that logic, I ask you what purpose does he need to lie to the world and ruin his name in the process? Didn't he sell a book? I am saying that is lying, but he doesn't realize he is lying. To him it is the truth. It appears like you misunderstood your own words. You said "why would your wonderful God show this guy a vision and not show anyone else causing him to destroy his career?" Which means that you are asking for a reason why no one else was granted such an experience. From which I replied that it is a normal feat if you were chosen. And then suddenly, you are claiming that he is a fake There was nothing sudden about it, I have been saying he is fake the whole time. You were saying that his fake visions aren't any more special than anyone else. You also said his fake visions were special and proof of God, so what is it? Are his visions special or are they the same as everyone else's? Please keep this debate civil by keeping track of what you post I am being civil, you lost, I wasn't trying to rub it in or anything, it is just that I won, no big deal, you lost. Side: False
1
point
Didn't he sell a book? I am saying that is lying, but he doesn't realize he is lying. To him it is the truth.There was nothing sudden about it, I have been saying he is fake the whole time. You were saying that his fake visions aren't any more special than anyone else. You also said his fake visions were special and proof of God, so what is it? Are his visions special or are they the same as everyone else's? Ahhh...I can get the point now. You are saying that he went into a delusion right before his full recovery, right? Well, it was also discussed on his critics page that I linked to you. to deny the possibility of any natural explanation for an NDE, as Dr. Alexander does, is more than unscientific — it is antiscientific."..."The one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander's case...is that his NDE occurred not during his coma, but as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function. It is curious that he does not allow this obvious and natural explanation, but instead insists on a supernatural one." From which Alexander replied: ""My synapses—the spaces between the neurons of the brain that support the electrochemical activity that makes the brain function — were not simply compromised during my experience. They were stopped. Only isolated pockets of deep cortical neurons were still sputtering, but no broad networks capable of generating anything like what we call 'consciousness.' The E. coli bacteria that flooded my brain during my illness made sure of that. My doctors have told me that according to all the brain tests they were doing, there was no way that any of the functions including vision, hearing, emotion, memory, language, or logic could possibly have been intact."" After that, the doctors no longer replied You can read more of the discussion on his wiki if you want. Side: True
Alexander is lying for real then. Unless he is claiming that his brain does not currently functioning. Otherwise his explanation is completely bogus because he has no way of knowing when his "memory" occurred. there was no way that any of the functions including vision, hearing, emotion, memory, language, or logic could possibly have been intact. If he can see, hear, remember, speak, and use logic right now, then his explanation is completely worthless. Because obviously, his brain could make it all up now, right? Side: False
1
point
Alexander is lying for real then. Unless he is claiming that his brain does not currently functioning. Otherwise his explanation is completely bogus because he has no way of knowing when his "memory" occurred.If he can see, hear, remember, speak, and use logic right now, then his explanation is completely worthless. Because obviously, his brain could make it all up now, right? Say, did you read his wiki page yet? This question was raised right after he woke up. He hired his friends to reach an explanation but in the end, he and his team reached the same conclusion-his vision did not came from his brain. Side: True
This question was raised right after he woke up. He hired his friends to reach an explanation but in the end, he and his team reached the same conclusion-his vision did not came from his brain. His friends are dumb, I wonder how many malpractice lawsuits they have against them. Side: False
1
point
1
point
1
point
Eben Alexander, says that his brain didn't work at time A. He then says he has memories at time B which is after his brain started working again. He is in denial when he says that the only possible time that his memories could be from is time A. Is he claiming that he was telling people about his memories when his brain was still not functioning? Side: False
1
point
Yeah, I know. You will say read his wiki page because you don't actually have any knowledge that you claim to have. You know that his brain was perfectly functional when he told all of his stories. Therefore, his explanation is worthless because he doesn't know when the "memories" actually occurred. Side: False
1
point
1
point
I read it, but when there are unsubstantiated claims I kind of tune out. He is rather boring. I just want to know one thing. The very first time he told his "memories" was his brain fully functioning? I can't tell. I may have missed it. Since you have read it can you point to where it talks about his initial recovery? Side: False
1
point
1
point
It is 45 minutes of him droning on and on. You have 5 minutes to convince me. You failed. He says that when his brain was not working that he could not speak. This means that any time he talked about his "memories" his brain was fully functional. This means that he cannot be sure that his "memories" are actually from the time of the coma. Since he cannot verify that, his claim that the part of the brain that would be responsible for making it up was not working is unsubstantiated. Which 1 minute of the video does he show otherwise? Side: False
1
point
I watched. He says that when his brain was not working that he could not speak. This means that any time he talked about his "memories" his brain was fully functional. This means that he cannot be sure that his "memories" are actually from the time of the coma. Since he cannot verify that, his claim that the part of the brain that would be responsible for making it up was not working is unsubstantiated. Which 1 minute of the video does he show otherwise? Side: False
He hadn't been working for a year before the incident and he had multiple malpractice lawsuits. My theory is that he wasn't in the best situation financially and decided that a former athiest neurosurgeon turned Christian after a near death experience, would land him some well-paying interviews and a best-selling book. Side: False
1
point
1
point
1
point
Actually, he never said anything about his brain functions. A) I asked you to show that his brain was not functioning properly when he first told his "memories" to people to show that his version of the truth is correct. Now you claim that the video evidence you provided doesn't even have the evidence you are providing, good job. B) Yes, he talks right away about how his brain functions were attacked and he was not able to speak. So, you didn't watch the video. But thankyou for proving that you never watched the video. It is not a video really. It was a really boring guy with a monotone talking about what he thinks his experience was. With such refusal to learn, I cant help but feel sorry for your parents I have read your "research" articles. I watched your video "evidence". There is nothing to learn. You have nothing. And, after talking with you it is clear that you believe that because you subscribe to M Theory and admit that your God has nothing to do with it. (His coma experience starts at 12:00 by the way) It takes him 12 minutes to talk about the only thing worth hearing from him. Good choice in evidence. Side: False
1
point
A) I asked you to show that his brain was not functioning properly when he first told his "memories" to people to show that his version of the truth is correct. Now you claim that the video evidence you provided doesn't even have the evidence you are providing, good job. B) Yes, he talks right away about how his brain functions were attacked and he was not able to speak. So, you didn't watch the video. sigh At the very beginning of the video, he made it clear that his cortex stopped working. Please stop wasting my time Side: True
At the very beginning of the video, he made it clear that his cortex stopped working. Please stop wasting my time You are the one who is attacking your own video evidence and being wrong about it. You are wasting my time. You are the one who said that in the video he never mentioned anything about his cortex not working. I am trying to explain something to you. It is almost like you don't want to learn or something. Side: False
1
point
1
point
1
point
Fact 1: You said the video does not have any part where he talks about his brain not working. Fact 2: You said that the video talks about how his brain doesn't work. There is no ignorance on my part. You said 2 completely opposite things. That means that the ignorance is on your part. Side: False
1
point
Thanks, I figured out this misunderstanding while on coffee break. Anyway, I take back my words. Eben did said something about his brain. But according to what he said at 12:00, he mentioned nothing about his state while on recovery. That is all. Now, will you mind watching it? Side: True
I did. He said that when he was sick his brain was so damaged that he could not speak. This means that when he was recovering and telling people about his memories, his brain obviously was working because he was able to speak. I didn't see anything else special about his lecture. Side: True
1
point
exasperated sigh 15:00 After giving explanation of the damages in his brain then waking up, he made a time skip of four months. He mentioned nothing about his recovery state. Quit pretending already. You dont want to be called "Ferrous Cranus" now do you? Now that you know your warrior type, can you leave me alone now? Side: True
Please explain how if he says that the proof that his brain doesn't work is that he can't speak, then he is able to speak about his "memory", that his brain had not recovered. Please explain how you think that the person in the video had a brain that wasn't functioning. Stop projecting on me. I gave you a perfectly good explanation for my thought process. You only give your worthless opinion that is not backed up by anything. Side: True
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
4
points
1. Not really, sorry. 2. Since Theism is mostly wrapped up in religion we have contradiction problems. If theism idea A is right, then theism B-Z is wrong. Since all of those ideas have some kind of contradiction to the others only one can be correct. Since there are so many, statistically speaking it is close to 0% are correct. Side: False
4
points
1. Yeah there are. There are a bunch of different theories. 2. I see what you are saying - but if we think of the definition of theism and atheism then: Theism - Is a belief in a supreme being Atheism - Is .. a disbelief of this being If we think that way - don't they have equal chance of being true? I mean we can't know anything for sure. Side: True
1. I disagree. Name some. 2. Very few people think that a God exists without attributing some attributes to that God, since there are so many contradicting ideas on what God is I am forced to assume that they are all wrong. I guess I just feel that if something existed it be a lot easier to identify. We know what elephants look like, they exist. We know what kangaroos look like, they exist. Etc. Atheism and Theism seem like binary choices, but we can investigate the 2 choices and 1 seems more and more likely every day. Side: False
3
points
1. There is the Big Bang Theory, the Steady State Theory, the belief that Aliens planted life on earth (ridiculous, by the way) there is the ''we came from monkey's theory'' intelligent design the ''always has been'' theory. There are plenty. 2. Okay, let me explain something. You walk into a restaurant, you order something, you eat and you love the meal. You rarely meet the chef in a restaurant, as he spends most his time in the Kitchen. If you were to think how the chef was, you would probably think he is rich and powerful, and if your friend did the same he would probably disagree and think he is generous and kind. You both have different ideas of how the chef is like, but does that mean the chef is less likely to exist? If God exists, then he is a being that you haven't met, and you begin to think how he is, and so does everyone else, and that is how religions are born. I don't think different religions lower the possibility of the existence of a God. Side: True
1. A) Some of those things are able to go together because they explain different things. B) Intelligent design is a theistic theory, so you shot yourself in the foot. C) All of the origin ideas show that there are better things to explain reality than God. D) You are still wrong just because I don't like Theism. ;) 2. The chef doesn't have the ability to affect how people think. Why would there be so many ideas when God should have some influence on it since God pretty much has to be all powerful? We know the chef exists, and we can go in and check to see if our beliefs on his lifestyle are valid. How come we can't see anything about God? Side: False
2
points
1. A) Probably, but there are still different theories. B) People say intelligent design can go together with atheism, I don't know how though .. but whatever. Just forget that part :) C) And they also show than atheistic theories can contradict each other. D) Invalid argument :) 2. A) I would guess that just like God, the chef doesn't want to affect how people think. B) According to the Christian Belief, God doesn't tolerate sins, and can't face a sinner. (which practically proves he isn't all-powerful, but let's not get into that now) Therefore he doesn't interfere with us. Side: True
1. A) Wrong. These theories are used to explain completely different things. They do not overlap, they do not contradict each other, therefore, there is no problem and your argument is invalid. B) I don't want to forget. C) Touche. D) No it isn't :P 2. A) Wrong. The chef is absolutely trying to affect how the patrons think. He is trying to get them to think that his food is the best. That's why he provides the food. Why isn't God providing any evidence He exists? B) False. Christians believe in the stories of the Old Testament. God hardened Pharaohs heart, and Pharaoh was obviously a sinner, so God does interfere. Side: False
1
point
1. A) The Steady State Theory does contradict the Big Bang Theory. 2. A) If God did create everything, don't you think he did it very nicely? I mean, aside from all the ugliness man has brought to earth, look how beautiful everything is. If someone created this I would certainly eat from him again ;) B) You just said God doesn't interfere. Now you are contradicting yourself. Side: True
1. A) We weren't talking about those. You listed Biog Bang with came from monkeys. 2. A) If God did create everything, don't you think he did it very nicely? Absolutely, that's how I know he doesn't exist, nothing was done nicely. I mean, aside from all the ugliness man has brought to earth, look how beautiful everything is. God would be responsible for creating man, therefore God created ugliness. And since we agreed God would not create ugliness, God does not exist. B) I was talking about Christian beliefs, not my own. Side: False
2
points
1. I did mention it before, you said all they didn't contradict each other. But I listed both the Big Bang Theory and the Steady State Theory. 2. A) You seriously think nothing on this world is done nicely? B) Okay, let's say God DID create ugliness. No one said that if there is a God, he HAS to be good. Maybe we have an evil God? Side: True
1. You mentioned a list of things. The list had things that weren't contradictory as well as ones that were. 2. A) My exaggeration is the same as the religious exaggerations, no big deal. B) Interesting, so the same God can be seen as great by some and not so great by others and yet it is still possible for Him to exist. What we see in life is so random I find it incredibly hard to believe that it could be created by God. Side: False
1
point
I am not saying I believe, I am just saying their are those who are atheist and do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent design Intelligent design arguments are formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit. Although they do not state that God is the designer, the designer is often implicitly hypothesized to have intervened in a way that only a god could intervene. Dembski, in The Design Inference, speculates that an alien culture could fulfill these requirements. That is an excerpt. Side: True
3
points
I understand what you mean, but the way you say it is wrong. Obviously believing in God and believing in Religion can't have nothing to do with each other seeing as so many religions are centered around God(s). So, your statement is false. What I am trying to say is that if a God exists He certainly made it very difficult for people to understand Him at all, otherwise, we wouldn't have so many different ideas of Him. Side: False
Your wrong You're you can believe in a supreme being and disagree with religion Yeah, I realize that is what she is saying, but that is vastly different than saying believing in God has nothing to do with religion. I have met people exactly like that just because you believe in god doesn't meen you have to join one of his gang's Those people are obviously rare. Plus, they probably have a different view of God as well which is what I am trying to point out. Side: False
1
point
believing in God and believing in Religion can't have nothing to do with each other Heard of Theism and Deism? Those are belief that centers around worshipping God without any need for religion. My statement is true What I am trying to say is that if a God exists He certainly made it very difficult for people to understand Him at all Question: What are the chances that we can even understand him in the first place? Side: True
Heard of Theism and Deism? Those are belief that centers around worshipping God without any need for religion. My statement is true Have you heard of Christianity. That is this pretty large group of people that created a religion around God. Well, they believe in religion and they believe in God. So, saying that believing in God and believing in religion have nothing to do with each other makes you an idiot. Question: What are the chances that we can even understand him in the first place? If he existed in an actual capacity 100%. Side: False
1
point
Have you heard of Christianity. That is this pretty large group of people that created a religion around God Which brings us back at the start. It is possible to believe in a God without any need for religion. If he existed in an actual capacity 100%. What makes you say so? Side: True
Which brings us back at the start. It is possible to believe in a God without any need for religion. That's what you meant, but that's not what you said. That's why I said I understand what you are saying instead of yelling at you like you are an idiot. What makes you say so? Let's play the Centrifolia game. Prove me wrong. Side: False
1
point
That's what you meant, but that's not what you said. That's why I said I understand what you are saying instead of yelling at you like you are an idiot. Oh, then I guess we came into a good conclusion then. Prove me wrong. Im afraid the burden of proof is carried by the one making the claim. Side: True
Oh, then I guess we came into a good conclusion then. Yeah, your point doesn't change the fact that there are so many ideas of God out there. Im afraid the burden of proof is carried by the one making the claim. Good, we can finally agree that your claim that God exists is false and He doesn't actually exist. For my case, we have some understanding of so many things that exist on planet Earth. If God existed on planet Earth it would make sense to have some understanding of Him. So, I feel justified in asserting it would be 100%. Side: False
1
point
Yeah, your point doesn't change the fact that there are so many ideas of God out there. Is this an invitation to repeat the argument? Forgive me, but it does not interest me to tackle something I cannot learn anything new. Good, we can finally agree that your claim that God exists is false and He doesn't actually exist. For my case, we have some understanding of so many things that exist on planet Earth. If God existed on planet Earth it would make sense to have some understanding of Him. So, I feel justified in asserting it would be 100%. I fail to see your point. Would you mind explaining it? Side: True
I fail to see your point. Would you mind explaining it? The first point that you obviously conceded that you agree God doesn't exist, or the second point? We have understanding of things that exist on Earth. That allows me to conclude that we would have understanding of God if He existed. Side: False
1
point
We have understanding of things that exist on Earth. That allows me to conclude that we would have understanding of God if He existed. Im afraid, I still cannot understand how the ability to conceptualize the nature of divine being will disprove his existence. In the first place, If we do not even know that he exists, how can we predict his nature? Side: True
Im afraid, I still cannot understand how the ability to conceptualize the nature of divine being will disprove his existence. You asked me what were the chances of us being able to understand him. I said 100%. I was explaining why I said 100%, that's all. In the first place, If we do not even know that he exists, how can we predict his nature? You have it backwards. We have assumed He exists. We can't predict His nature. Therefore, He doesn't actually exist. The not predicting of the nature led to the inability to know He exists. Side: True
1
point
e have assumed He exists. We can't predict His nature. Therefore, He doesn't actually exist. The not predicting of the nature led to the inability to know He exists. Dont you think thats too ambitious for mortals to create assumptions on how God should act when we do not even know how our own identities? Just as what Marthin Luther said "We have conquered the land, the ocean and the sky. But we still havent learned how to walk as brothers and sisters" If we do not even have an idea on how we can end strifes and foolishness, what makes you think we can even comprehend the wisdom of someone who has been watching over everything since eternity? Side: True
Dont you think thats too ambitious for mortals to create assumptions on how God should act when we do not even know how our own identities? Not with all of the attributes that are given to Him. How the heck would God not be the first thing I understand? He is supposed to be everywhere. Side: True
1
point
While a real calculation would seem difficult, what is there seems pretty cut and dried. There is no empirical evidence to support theistic claims, and most, if not all, of the claims can be disproven. And there is no empirical evidence that suggests atheists are wrong. No evidence of a soul, no evidence of a deity, and thus far we've been able to come up with a pretty good working model of our universe, from which the supernatural is entirely absent. Side: True
1
point
0
points
1
point
No one was able to disprove Russel's Tea Cup nor the Flying Sphagetti Monster. Though its was meant to be taken as a joke, you cant deny the logic behind their creations. It is meant to show how everything that cannot be proven false, has a chance of being proven true Side: True
1
point
I think a good place to start would be with this: Do you think that any one proposed "thing" has the same chance to exists as to not exist? (examples: dragons, time-traveling hornets, a dog named tymoriusnous) If no, by what means do you determine if one proposed "thing" is more likely than another proposed "thing"? Side: True
1
point
1
point
We aren't talking about them having a chance of existing, we are only talking about if they have an equal chance. If you think a dog with a funny name is just as probable as a time-traveling hornet, there isn't really anything to talk about I guess, it would explain your gullibility though. Side: True
1
point
May I ask, what factors decreases the chances of a claim to be true? This is phrased incorrectly, it should be "What factors increase the chances of a claim to be true. The answer is evidence. For example, the dog with a funny name is more probable because we have evidence that dogs exist, and the people name dog. This can be compared to a time-traveling hornet, we have evidence that hornets exist, but we have no evidence that "time-travel" has ever occurred, so this claim is less likely than the dog. Side: True
1
point
1
point
That statement can work both ways Please explain how my statement could work both ways? But nevertheless, if a theory is convincing enough, its normal for it to have followers Yes, there are gullible people who believe things without evidence, that doesn't mean they are right. Side: True
1
point
Please explain how my statement could work both ways? I can simply reverse your word as: "There is no reason not to believe unless proven false" Yes, there are gullible people who believe things without evidence, that doesn't mean they are right. I can reverse that to: "Arrogant people who judge things they do not understand". It is not a right thing to assume something that you cannot study. Let alone disprove Side: False
1
point
So based on your logic around half of every claim that can't be proven or disproven is most likely true right. So, big foot, UFOs, dragons, unicorns, magic, God, fairies, mermaids, time travelling hornets, etc. Half of these more or less are likely to exist right? That's what 50/50 means after all. Side: True
1
point
Nope. big foot, dragons, unicorns, mermaids, There are scientific factors that makes their existence unlikely to live in the current environment. SUch as size, evolution, and nature UFOs, God, fairies, magic, Theres no scientific studies that disproves nor supports them. So I guess yes, its 50/50 Side: False
1
point
Theres no scientific studies that disproves nor supports them. So I guess yes, its 50/50 So more or less half of these are likely to exist right? Every imaginary thing that I could make up, half of that is probable to existing if they all can't be proven or disproven? Side: True
1
point
Practically yes. And theres plenty of samples that came earlier than you. Such as Russels Tea Cup and the Flying Spaghetti Monster They are examples of ideas born out of humor and satire to prove that "Anything that cannot be proven false, has a chance of being proven true" The question is how can you make it convincing enough. Side: False
1
point
That has nothing to do with the topic though. A dog with a funny name and a dragon are two different ideas. God is one idea. Atheism: I believe God does not exist Theism: I believe God does exist Neither have been proved or disproved only certain ideas of God have been disproved because of the many contradictions, but there is no contradictions in the idea of just a God. Therefor the concept of the existence of God remains in the middle and that means equality. Side: True
1
point
I think the point he/she is trying to make is if you say God is 50/50 because it can't be proven or disproven, then more or less half of everything that can't be proven or disproven exists. That isn't how probability works. If I flip a quarter I can't disprove it will land on it side (the small part not the flat part) nor can I prove it will ergo it has a 50/50 chance of doing so right? This 50/50 chance thing is an argument from ignorance. Truth is we can't determine the probability of god, so every chance ratio has an equal chance. This means there is a 1/99 chance of it being 50/50. Side: False
1
point
1
point
Well I have to say the debate was poorly constructed, a lack f belief or being unconvinced can't be true or false, the reasoning behind not believing something can be (I.E. there is no logic or evidence to support it). I won't get nitpicky with the debate construction though cause I'd rather argue what he meant. Though I assume it means God's nonexistence is equally probable to God's existence, so if I were to bet money it wouldn't matter right? See this is how my point still applies it is unlikely that a god exists if the only reasoning is that God can't be disproven, because majority of things that can't be proven or disproven would contain everything that we could possibly imagine, that would refer to dragons, fairies, etc, basically if only a few of these things are likely to be true then God has a 1/X chance of existing, with X being a very big number. If I claim something completely out of the blue for seemingly no reason, Iam unlikely to be correct for the same reason they it would be nearly miraculous for someone to imagine a chicken before ever hearing or discovering a chicken (or anything closely similar). If I make up a creature, let's say the seven eyed purple monster, I'm unlikely to be correct. Same applies to bertrands teapot, their is no origin of this idea it unlikely to be true. Everything is unlikely until more evidence is introduced. Side: False
1
point
1
point
I don't think it's possible to ascribe probability to these sort of things. For all we know there's nothing influencing the chance of God being there or not. We could assume that arguments change the probability of a supreme being, but then again, when does talk ever change the likelihood of an event? We don't know anything about a potential metaphysical plane where God supposedly 'lives', so it's inherently impossible to say anything about probabilities. From our perspective it may look like a 50/50 proposition, but that would be arguing from ignorance. Side: False
1
point
I have a magical, wise dinosaur in my back yard that grants my every wish. Do you accept that claim as likely true as false? Can you prove I don't have a magical dinosaur? Well let's say you try. You ask to see the Dino and I say "He is right there on the lawn but only I can see him" , still 50/50 odds of being true? So you turn on the sprinklers to see if the lawn under the Dino stays dry but the whole lawn gets wet. "I say the Dino is not just invisible but also without substance" Still 50/50? So you ask if I am willing to tell the Dino to grant your wish of winning this week's lotto and I say "Yes I will tell the Dino to grant your wish". When you don't win I say "The Dino works in mysterious ways. He sometimes grants wishes in the future or does not grant the wish at all but he is wise and so knows best" Still 50/50? After many, many attempts like this with no proof of any kind you ask "How can you believe in this invisible, magical Dino when you have no evidence that he exists?" I say "When I talk to the Dino about my problems I feel better afterwards". You accept that but does it make the reality of the Dino 50/50? If you answer is that it is still 50/50 then you are really saying that you can accept anything that someone tells you so long as they are sincere in their belief. It means that antibiotics and a medicine dance are the same, so long as the person providing the medicine is sincere in their belief that it will cure your child's infection. It means that words and actions are equal. It means that the person who thinks they can fix you car but doesn't is the same as the person who actually fixes your car. When it comes to everyday things, people know that actions matter much more than words. They prefer the reality of a burger that tastes good over a burger that is advertised as "world famous". They prefer to pay the mechanics who actual fixes their car over one who does not fix it but says "I'm the best mechanic". They prefer to spend time with folks who act friendly rather than spend time with people who say they are your friend, but only rip you off. Atheism is poorly defined as "Not believing in God" when it should be defined as "I only believe in things with properties that can be observed". We don't have to understand how gravity works to accept that falling down hurts. Side: False
2
points
3
points
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Can God do the logically impossible, such as making a married bachelor? If not, then there is nothing wrong, since omnipotence has classically had a maximum up to the ability to not do the logically impossible: that means that God cannot contradict Himself by making a rock bigger than He can lift. If so, then He can do the logically impossible and, thus, can make a rock bigger than He can lift and be able to lift it. So, tell me: what logical conundrums are there with God? Side: True
1
point
This is to put to rest the bullshit 50/50 argument im hearing. You cant even assign odds to this kind of thing but if you could it sure as hell wouldnt be 50/50 even. You can strip ANYTHING down to its bare either/or but that makes it inaccurate. in this video they use the example of winning the lottery. The chances of winning are 1 in 74,000,000. But you can just say oh you either win or you dont its 50/50 win or dont win. But that isnt even close to true because the REAL probability is 1 in 74,000,000. please watch Odds of an Afterlife
Side: False
1
point
Script starting from 6:15 "What are the odds of it and how likely it is to there be an afterlife. One of the things we consider is what are there that can possibly live on after my death. Because as far as we know, every function of who I am and what I am and what I do, all of my thoughts and everything else which we know, dies. And in order for there to be an afterlife. There must be something there that is me. That is separate from the physical being. And theres no evidence there is no such thing exist" "But there you have an example of something scientifically. If you really wanted to find the reality of this out, heres maybe something that we could live for and we could try to find that" "If we did find something that would qualify as a soul or some entity or some good reason that could survive the physical death. Only then will the afterlife speak of something more probable. But as long as then, the probability of an afterlife is vanishingly small" "As long as we can explain all of who we are and what we are with our brain then theres no possibility of anything like the soul and theres no basis to make any claim about anything like an afterlife Which is why I think the odds are low" . The whole video gave no mathematical equation about the odds of an afterlife. Just a couple of atheist giving their message that there is no evidence for a metaphysical world Which as everyone knows...is a tired argument Side: True
1
point
There cant be a mathematical probability for this. My argument is against the fact that it is an exact 50/50. Nothing more nothing less. and this video illustrated it perfectly. Theres nothing more than pure faith that there is a god/afterlife, whereas science has actual evidence against an afterlife and against supernatural causation of the universe which gives us not proof, but at the very least good reason to lean in that direction, thus tilting the odds in favor of atheism/science and away from religion. Not 50/50. And how can you say that us saying theres no evidence for a metaphysical world is a tired argument if its never been refuted? Just because you might hear it alot doesnt make it any less true Side: True
1
point
If there is no formula for it, added by how we cannot study it, then I see no reason why it cant be a 50/50 There is a difference between motion and moving. A rocking chair never leaves it place. -Anonymous It is a tired argument when you kept on hearing the same things over and over without reaching any conclusions Side: True
1
point
1
point
Honestly I don't see Atheism as being more likely than Theism. I mean, unless you can concretely prove a god doesn't exist, I'm not about to hop on the bandwagon of sheep who claim to be intellectuals solely because they are 'enlightened'. And before someone thinks I'm dissing atheism exclusively, I've met just as many, if not more so, idiotic people on the religious side of the argument as well. Side: False
I don't believe you believe what you just wrote. It is easy to say this, but can you live it in your real life? Would you buy magic beans from me if I told you they would grow into a new car? Can you prove they won't? You could buy them and plant them and have nothing grow, but that doesn't disprove that they will grow a new car. Maybe you didn't fertilize them properly, or water them enough, or maybe watered them too much. Maybe the soil has the wrong PH. I can provide an excuse for as many objections you raise and you still won't have disproved the magic beans. The point is that you wouldn't buy magic beans to grow a new car because you live in the real world and have learned that cars don't grow from magic beans. In the real world, where you have to choose to spend your money on magic beans or on other real things, you would require proof of my extraordinary claim. You would expect me to plant some beans so you could watch them grow into cars. And you would expect a refund if your beans failed to grow into new cars after following my growing instructions. Theism offers not poof and no refunds. So do you really accept things without any proof of them being real so long as there is no concrete proof of them being unreal? Side: True
1
point
Equal chance? Hell no. No religion has any provable God, and the Atheist automatically wins in that regard, because he has to do nothing to be right. The only way to make an Atheist wrong is to change the definition around and claim that "God" is simply what came before "[X] known entity", thus being a "creator". Common accepted definitions make Atheism right by default, until proven otherwise. Side: False
|
