CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
pic


Enemies
View All
pic


Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Leahn

Reward Points:21
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
93%
Arguments:51
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

He was making the point that religious people will bite into dogma that promises big things but overlook small details.

The reason for those small details ceased to be. The reason for the big details didn't.

Then god is responsible, as the maker and final authority of everything.

Maker, yes. Final authority? Hardly. We still have free will. Lots of things happen that God is not responsible for.

God being neglectful is the fault of god, not us.

He isn't being neglectful. We refused his aid.

I said these experiences are independent of religion.

And I said that you can't affirm with all certainty that all of them are independent of religion. You can only affirm that there are some experiences considered 'religious' in nature that are not religious.

If flat earth was obviously wrong, people would have dropped it long ago. Oh wait:

Yeah, I know. Those scientists never give up when they believe something, even when proven wrong over and over. Like those evolutionists guy that are still at it, even after 150 years of being proven wrong over and over.

Didn't say it did.

Oh, yes, you did. Your sentence was, "We have now discovered that other planets and moons may indeed have life on them, albeit not the kind that you see in the movies."

Timeline of Big Bang

Showing what happened planck time after the Big Bang already happened is reason for the Big Bang to have happened how? You completely missed the point.

You're cute for shoehorning god into speculation, as if "god" is a concept coherent enough and established enough to be in the same league as physics speculation.

I am not entirely sure of what fallacies you are commiting in this sentence. It is certainly an ad hominem with absolutely no substance behind it, but is there anything else as well. This sentence will be an interesting case study. You are cute for shoehorning ad hominem into nearly every sentence of yours, though. You can certainly type a lot and write nothing.

A circle has no beginning. That's the point.

And that applies to the question at hand, how?

And the question about entropy is a good one, guess we'll learn one day won't we?

No, we won't. We won't be alive to see it happen.

Also remember that this discussion is entirely speculation and educated guesses until we build some really big particle colliders.

We already have very big particle colliders. What we need is particle colliders that are as big as the Earth radius. We ain't getting any of those anytime soon. Anyway, thank you for confirming my argument that the only laws that appeared after the Big Bang are the ones reigning over the four fundamental forces. All the others were in place from time 0, thank you.

Sorry, stating that the laws of nature are god's laws is a bare assertion

You failed to address my point. Answer it.

I have no more time to address your points. I have to leave. I will address the others tomorrow.

1 point

This would be a valid argument if the bible didn't allude to a flat, geocentric earth numerous times that support each other

It doesn't. Your knowledge of Ancient Hebrew is lacking, probably non-existing, actually.

I spent a day

A day? A single day? Certainly it was a very throught study of the around 31k verses of the Bible to give you an accurate picture.

looking up passages and correlating translations to determine a picture, especially on unusual passages that seemed to make my argument too strong

So, you claim to know Ancient Hebrew, and yet correlate translations to determine a picture? Lemme guess, KJV and Skeptic's ?

I also looked at context.

Certainly. With a whole day to study, you certainly had time for a complete contextual and historical analysis.

The matter is, Samuel Rowbotham and his predecessors were right, the bible does paint a picture of a flat earth.

So, lemme guess what actually happened. You googled 'Bible Flat Earth', stumbled upon some websites, found this Samuel Rowbotham guy, perused his arguments, decided that he was right, and now you are here defending his claims.

Specially when this Samuel guy was not a Hebrew scholar, but an English inventor, that wrote a whole new field of astronomy called Zetetic Astronomy which attempted to prove that the Earth was flat, and was many times sued for fraud and libel due to his "findings."

It is completely amazing that a person that spent his life trying to prove that the Earth was flat would somehow interpret the Bible as saying that the Earth was flat.

I searched for flat earth verses, looked at preceding and following passages, and checked with Enoch

Ahh, I see. I was wrong, then. You didn't really read the Bible, at all. What is 'Enoch?' Never heard of it.

Hence why I was careful with translations.

Certainly. You picked all the ones that supported your position.

1 point

I didn't say that.

I asked if you read any other version. You answered by stating that skeptic's is a good source, which implies that you read it. You didn't state any other version that you read. The conclusion follows.

Whether or not they have an agenda isn't relevant.

Of course not! A website created exclusevely with the purpose of making the Bible sound ridiculous can certainly be trusted to take the Bible at face value and interprete it fairly. What was I thinking when I doubted them? Their agenda is completely meaningless.

Heuristics mainly.

Heuristics can lead to incorrect results. In your case, it just did.

You don't see the big picture, in other words.

You're a science apologetics, then. It is still inconsistent and often conflicting and you have not addressed this yet.

Evolution is distinct from abiogenesis

True. It only relies on it. It states that abiogenesis happened, and then says "not our problem to confirm or prove it, but it happened. We take from here."

Do you deny this as well?

life could pop into existence interdimensionally and it would mean nothing to evolution.

That would be a theist evolutionary hypothesis. True, it is a possibility, but if you believed it, you wouldn't be here trying to argue that God does not exist, would you?

Or are you going to defend the theist evolutionary hypothesis while trying to defend that God does not exist at the same time? Hypocrisy much?

1 point

Which isn't the case with god.

Why not?

I find it funny, actually, because a cursory look at the internet shows those aren't strawmen.

Really? Because I am sure that the internet is full of websites known for sound reasoning and critical thinking skills (e.g 4chan), and a cursory look at the internet is sure to bring forth the best ones.

Or not. I am not sure. I usually think by myself. I do not let Google do the thinking for me.

1 point

Note that I said "something of faith." If you have evidence of something, you need no faith to accept that something. If you believe in something by faith, then you have no evidence of it.

Except that it was not what you said. You said that if you believe something by faith, then evidence does not exist.

Robber's Cave Experiment

They were twelve years old. They were already prejudiced prior to the experiment. That proves nothing. Childrens in kindengarden are not prejudiced.

Looks like you didn't address what I said.

You didn't have an argument. Only bare assertions and name calling. Nothing to address. I don't have to address every nonsense you can came up with in your head, specially since they are not backed up by evidence.

It's hard to avoid name calling when people say really dumb things.

I know. I am having a hard time addressing your "arguments" in a civil manner. Your poor grasp of Logic is the worst part since I have to demonstrate it to be wrong, instead of simply dismissing your bare assertions as being mere bare assertions.

The Odyssey happened in Turkey, and we know that Troy existed, so I object to calling it a mythology.

Fair enough. Provide me archeological evidence for the history of the Odyssey and we stop.

Incorrect, it is deductive reasoning (a priori cannot be inductive).

I stand corrected, it is deductive reasoning. However, it matters nothing. It is still not a categorical syllogism. Not every deductive reasoning is a categorical syllogism.

I'm still correct in my assessment, the minor premise is subjective, an assertion.

There is no minor premise. It is not a syllogism.

Object defined to exist does not follow into it existing.

It does if you can prove that it possibly necessarily does.

Seeing as that was the first time I encountered that argument written that way, and I countered it successfully,

You only countered it successfully inside your own head. Strawman doesn't count as counterargument.

looks like I'm smarter than you and the maker of that argument.

You are free to think so. Your arguments show otherwise.

because it doesn't depend on smartness anyway, but reasoning skills

Poor you, then.

Complex things don't require design, necessarily.

And you claim such because..? Wait, I know that one. Because evolution is true and it can create complex beings without the need of a designer. Ah, ok. Circular reasoning.

And a tautology from a loaded word like design/designer.

You don't seem to know what the word tautology means. If it is a tautology, you shouldn't even be disputing it.

You misread it. When the premise and conclusion are the same, it is a tautology.

I didn't misread anything. When the premise and conclusion are the same, the premise is not justifying the conclusion. The premise is the conclusion. And when the premise and conclusion are the same, it is not a tautology (you really do not know what it means, it seems). It is circular reasoning. I believe you meant to say 'a tautological argument' instead of 'a tautology,' which would be correct, then. Yet, your use of the word justify is completely incorrect. Are you a native American speaker?

You assume gravity is true.

And your point is? If gravity is true, then evolution is true too? Or maybe you mean to say that if I can assume gravity to be true, then you are free to assume that evolution is true. Let me tell you that if you can assume evolution to be true, then I can assume that God exists, and we can end the discussion here, with my victory, since we are free to assume to be true whatever we want to, regardless of proof.

I thought it was obvious that he was using a god of the gaps after inventing a need.

Unfortunately, mere thoughts are not stored on the server. You still need to type them if you want to address people's arguments.

And yes, it is a God of the Gaps argument. The Argument from Morality has been dropped from discussion a while ago, and I am not aware that anyone has tried to restate it since.

He wasn't sharing an opinion, he was using the bible to support his argument that we are wrong.

I don't see how what he said applies to the questions at hand. If you do, you're alone on it.

1 point

You didn't read the links. The universe and solar system didn't evolve as in biological evolution.

The caput was not a question about how the Universe evolved. The caput was a person demanding to know an explanation to where all the water in the Universe came from, to which you answer, "Nature made it." I demanded proof for you claim, and you sent a link explaining evolution. So did evolution made the water, or do you still owe me proof for your claims?

Logic: if the premises are valid and the syllogism consistent, then it must follow.

Go back to College and study Logic all over again. You fail at it and you shame your teachers. God cannot be part of everything if He caused it. If the God was part of the everything, and He needs to exist to be able to cause the Universe, then everything needs to exist before it can be caused.

Your logic is flawed and your premise that God is part of everything that has a cause doesn't hold. It generates a self-defeating argument.

My conclusion isn't justified by my word, but by the definition of everything. Everything is omni-inclusive. God must be a part of everything, and if you state that everything has a cause then you are saying that god has a cause.

I think I already addressed your idea of everything being omni-inclusive. It leads to self-defeating conclusions so it must be wrong. No logically sound and correct statement can lead to self-defeating conclusions. Your claim that God must be a part of everything must still be met with proof that you succeedingly failed to provide so far.

I never stated that everything has a cause. I stated that everything in this Universe has a cause.

Is god a part of everything? If not, then he doesn't exist by definition.

Non sequitur.

No serious philosopher tries to prove god using logic, not anymore.

Alvin Plantinga, Anthony Flew, William Dembsky...

Is god a part of everything? If so, he has a cause.

I am tempted to think that you believe that your strawman was actually a good argument, by the number of times you keep repeating it.

Did you just say that supernatural things don't have a cause? Then the premise is negated, because not everything has a cause, and so your entire cosmological argument falls apart.

Your strawman falls apart, not my argument. I stated that everything in this Universe must have a cause, since this is as far as we demonstrated Causality to apply. If you want it to be applied to supernatural beings, prove. Stating that it does is not proof that it does, no matter how many times you keep stating it.

what you don't realise is that being timeless means no work is done, it implies a fixed state

Ok, now we are cherry picking. So, do "timeless" only mean what you say it means? Or are you claiming yourself to be Humpty Dumpty again, and deciding what the words do mean and do not mean to try to make a point?

1 point

He was implying that we persecuted him and his colleagues in the debate, when we didn't.

No, he wasn't. His sentence was Jesus said in the Bible that people in the world will hate you and persecute you for my name sake.

He never implied that he was being persecuted. You are grasping at straws here.

1 point

I'm just getting white noise from your argument indicative of denialism.

I am sure that the noise is coming from your own mouth.

Crystals are highly ordered, complex structures that form naturally.

Interesting. Do they form through means of evolution?

Both of these statements are facts.

I love your comments. They always make me smile. You have now burden of proof for both of those statements. I hope you can fulfill it.

You mean back in the days before science had a common practice of challenging common knowledge and was restrained by church dogma?

No. Before it happened. Before the Church had any say on this matter. Science is not really a product of modern times, you know?

Can you handle the fact that one day scientists claimed that earth was flat and the earth was the center of the Universe, and that those were proven facts? You can't blame Catholic Church for the blunders of the Greek and Egyptian scientists, you know? The Church didn't even exist back then.

Again, should I remind you that flat earth and geocentrism were considered facts by scientists the same way that evolution is considered a fact today?

2 points

Complex things have a maker.

God is complex.

God was designed.

Interesting. So you understand enough about the nature of God to claim that He is complex? Can you back up this claim? Or this just another bare assertion fallacy?

Moreso, what if God needs a creator? How does this supports your position that the Universe does not need a creator?

Now, what is the universe? Everything. The universe must include everything, there can be no "beyond."

Your reasoning is so unsound that it took me a while to understand what was wrong with it. It relies on yet more unproven premises (for which you are under burden of proof as well), which are, 'there can be no beyond,' and 'God is part of everything.' Can you back up those claim, or is this just more of your bare assertions? If you can't, then you must retract it, and your conclusion is incorrect.

God is, by definition, supernatural. He does not need to be part of the Universe, as everything contained by the Universe is natural.

I guess you aren't keeping up with my reasoning.

I tried to find any reasoning, and I couldn't. Your argument is basically "Occam's Razor! Hah, I am right and you are wrong!."

The correct expression is creation ex nihilo, by the way, not nilho, and although spelling mistakes don't really detract from the argument, you've made it twice, so please correct yourself in the future.

The Occam Razor states two things:

Among many unsupported statements, the one that makes the least assumptions is the likeliest to be correct.

None of the statements are well supported. It means that you can claim that your statement is likelier to be correct (I disagree, you make a lot of assumptions that you ignore) because it makes less assumptions, but then you jump from that to claim that your statement is then the correct one. And claim Occam's Razor to back it up.

Why do to continue to argue from incredulity?

I could ask you the same question about God. You demand evidence for my claims, I am demanding evidence for yours. It is a fair game. The idea of an Universe self-creating itself is as outrageous as you claim that the idea of God is.

Emergence arises from smaller behaviours, accounting where laws come from.

Explain. I do not think you know what you are talking about.

There is no why, only a how.

Ah, a nihilist. So, there is no reason for the Universe to have laws?

My point was The Big Bang theory alone fails to provide sufficient reason to assume a godless genesis.

There is no reason, I told you that.

Interesting proposition. If the Big Bang alone fails to provide sufficient reason to assume a godless genesis, and there is no further reasons to add, then a godless genesis can not be assumed. Are you aware that you are arguing my point for me?

I believe you are mistaking the meaning of the word reason* in my proposition. You should understand what the Principle of Sufficient Reason states before attempting to argue further.

Supporting Evidence: Principle of Sufficient Reason (en.wikipedia.org)
1 point

The only reason people believe god exists is because they are afraid to die.

I am not afraid to die.

as a result of the materialistic society we live in today, people become attached to their lives, to their sense of self.

The emphasys is mine. How does it apply to the 6000 years of human history?

they create an after life with "God" where they can live forever by "his" side as name, they never have to die.

How does it apply to religions that don't have an afterlife?

Thus we arrive at the second reason for God's existence, Social order.

It is a good theory. I know, for a conspiracy chit chat kind of good. Unfortunately, you can't back it up, can you? It is very difficult to justify "God's existence" by Christian religion alone, specially when some widely different religions existed thousands of years prior. How do you justify "God's existence" if we remove the Christian religion from the scene?

Leahn has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here