The Odds of you winning the Powerball lottery is 1-195 million
The odds someone will win the powerball lottery is 1 in 6
Example there are 104 drawings a year the average is one winner in six draws.
Someone will win the lottery, when there is liquid water and a great amount of time, some polymers, proteins, amino acids,(someone) should evolve to because self replicating cells.
@GodKillerAtheist And there'e the real issue. You believe evolution, not because of it's level of credibility but, much like all atheists, because you THINK the idea of God is rediculous. Then you attempt to over-simplify God by saying that we believe he "magicked" everything into being. God didn't "magic" anything. He created a very advanced and complex system that functions in such a way as to give us the creation as we know it.
@jesusknight72 I don't just blindly believe evolution like you blindly believe in god. I know how evolution functions I've seen the evidence and products of evolution. And for me trying to make god-thingy sound like it uses magic is because your dogma states that god is supernatural and outside of determinism. If so than god wouldn't use a natural process it would poof shit with a magic spell
@GodKillerAtheist Evidence and products of evolution....like what??? You now what, clearly by your responses, you're an immature individual. I'm not going to waste time in one-sided polite conversation with you. When we both die we'll find out who's correct and then we'll know. I'm TOTALLY comfortable with that. Are you? Because, by following your philosophy (and that's all it is) you better be right. The alternative will be quite uncomfortable for you. God Bless.
@jesusknight72 "Evidence and products of evolution....like what?"
Like medication designed to combat genetic defects. Like a paternity test, Like a TURKEY. You do know modern turkeys can't copulate naturally, Nope they have to all be artificially inseminated because their sexual organs can't reach because they are too fat! I could go on and on about the technological advancements of evolution that you use every day and you would struggle to name just ONE technological benefit of your creatardism
@jesusknight72 It's obvious you can't produce a rebuttal to refute any of my points so I guess I shouldn't be surprised if your only option is to make vague threats. See from where I'm sitting you're going to waste your only one life for a evil cult that will go down in history as the greatest plague that ever was invented by the sick primitive worm infected brains of insane men from a time before electric, and actual medication to cure even basic ailments. I'll be praying you grow a brain.
@jesusknight72 "When we both die we'll find out who's correct and then we'll know. I'm TOTALLY comfortable with that. Are you? "
WOW Threats I didn't know you were a terrorist but I should have known! Dude you just convinced me who was right no argument needed if all you can do is try to scare me into your cult instead of bringing some truthful proof to the table then I say No Thanks!
BTW you do know Philosophy supersedes Theism as logical argument Just as Science supersedes Philosophy.
@GodKillerAtheist Thank you sooooo much for writing what you just wrote. You just showed everyone here the type of person that you are. How you got that I threatened you, from what I wrote, is a verification of your rational. Thank you. Thank you. LOL
@GodKillerAtheist Thank you sooooo much for writing what you just wrote. You just showed everyone here the type of person that you are. How you got that I threatened you, from what I wrote, is a verification of your rational. Thank you. Thank you. LOL
@jesusknight72 The problem is there are actually no random events they all fall under determinism because determinism is the main cause of everything in science. Atoms form chemicals based on their structural attributes, These Chemicals easily form polymers, proteins, and other basic structures. NO magic needed like you believe in. The structures that reproduce like RNA started biological evolution. The molecules that survived the best reproduced more. No need for anyone to stupidly roll a dice
@GodKillerAtheist Listen to what you're saying. Yes, atoms form chemicals based on their attributes......which were embued to them by the creator so that they function in such a way. It didn't just HAPPEN. It's far too complex to make such a simplistic arguement that it JUST HAPPENED.
@jesusknight72 WRONG! Atoms were formed by deterministic processes you haven't provided any evidence to refute this basic scientific fact. All you have are empty claims. Also let me add that you haven't coherently defined this god-thingy and by saying it can't do magic refutes your own doctrine that god-thingy is supernatural
@GodKillerAtheist Which part was I WRONG about? I didn't say HOW atoms were formed, I quoted what you said about atoms forming chemicals based on their structural attributes. I then said that God embued atoms with those attributes (which clearly shows a designed pattern, that intelligent beings should be able to see). They aren't a non-sensical hodge podge of chance. HOW God formed atoms(and he did), I don't know but I'm sure I'll find out one day. God thingy??? C'mon man. How old are you?
@jesusknight72 " I then said that God embued atoms with those attributes"
And that's where you were wrong. You didn't even read my comment did you. You only read the first word. pathetic.. cant you even try to refute my actual points? God-thingy Yes because you FAIL to coherently define God so that it has meaning. Nothing is a hodge podge of chance you have a very limited sense of the universe. Everything is in it's natural order based on determinism this is why a god-thingy can't magic up atoms
@Nalenec The Odds of you winning the Powerball lottery is 1-195 million
The odds someone will win the powerball lottery is 1 in 6
Example there are 104 drawings a year the average is one winner in six draws.
Someone will win the lottery, when there is liquid water and a great amount of time, some polymers, proteins, amino acids,(someone) should evolve to because self replicating cells.
@GodKillerAtheist Except the probability of something relating to God happening cannot be measured. Any attempt to assign probability numbers to God is wishful thinking, or, more accurately, a complete misunderstanding of how both probability works and how the concept of God works. To assign probability to something you can neither understand nor even prove the existence or nonexistence of is to instantly lose credibility.
@Azmodan6 So what you're saying is my invisible, rainbow colored, flying unicorn shoes can't be disproved or proven since logic is irrelevant to your sense of understanding reality. So the default should be that they exist since they can't be disproved.
Sorry but the logical maxim "claims are fiction until proven fact by supporting evidence." takes play here and your fictional God claim is no more relevant or true as the flying invisible rainbow colored unicorn shoes.
@GodKillerAtheist Trying to make my point seem stupid doesn't actually make it stupid and it also doesn't make your point any stronger. Go look up "straw man" in a logic book.
The logical rule is only good so far as it goes. The existence of a Being, especially One the is claimed as being outside our universe, is not quite the same as a claim in an argument. My inability to prove God exists doesn't mean He doesn't. It means you shouldn't be compelled by my argument that He does.
@GodKillerAtheist "Your inability to prove your claim makes your claim fiction. Logically I don't have to disprove what already lacks proof." Being the observant fellow you are, you might have noticed that I didn't make a claim that God exists. So, why label this as my claim? My claim was that you can't claim something related to God as 0 probability. If you assume that everything that hasn't been proven has 0 probability, I have a hard time believing you would function well in the world.
@GodKillerAtheist If you assume unproven things have 0 probability, not only would you not eat (because the food is unproven to be unpoisoned, and you have therefore reasoned it has 0 probability of not being poisoned), but you would never seek to prove anything new, because you think it has 0 probability, so it would be wasted effort. Note: That probability line of reason was hypothetical, based on the idea of assuming 0 probability to everything that is unproven.
@GodKillerAtheist Also, you're inability to prove God doesn't exist doesn't mean He does exist.
Nonetheless, it is absolute foolishness to think that God's existence is determined by the ability or inability of humans to prove His existence. In a somewhat similar fashion, most or all animals cannot actually prove that humans exist. This is mostly due to their inability to use logic well, but we exist even to animals despite their inability to prove it.
@Azmodan6 "it is absolute foolishness to think that God's existence is determined by the ability or inability of humans to prove His existence"
And that's not what I'm doing I'm simply asking for proof of a claim that the religious made that THEY refuse to produce evidence for. Therefore Logically, so I must assume for sanity sake that their claim is false and fictional since THEY cannot even provide truth for their obviously FICTIONAL claim.
@GodKillerAtheist "Therefore... their obviously FICTIONAL claim." The claim is not obviously fictional, as evidenced by the fact that billions of clinically sane people believe in some Being(s)/supernatural force(s) that is unproven. The idea that many people believe it is not proof, but the fact that not everyone is so incredibly stupid to believe something that is obviously false is evidence (at least, for the sane). You have a scathingly low view of nearly the entire world's population.
@Azmodan6 "evidenced by the fact that billions of clinically sane people believe in some Being(s)/supernatural force(s) that is unproven. The idea that many people believe it is not proof, "
WOW you like to contradict yourself in the same sentence.
Like I said Fictional. You haven't proven your claims fact so they are Fiction you can reword your fallacy any way you want but my logical maxim holds solid. Claims are fiction until proven by evidence to be true. Your claims hold no truth.
@GodKillerAtheist Go look up "proof" and "evidence", and we can discuss it further when you understand the difference. Also, please stop quoting out of context, because you've cut off a qualifier from a sentence. How else is it supposed to qualify the following clause? Further still, they were two different sentences, not the same one.
@Azmodan6 "but the fact that not everyone is so incredibly stupid to believe something that is obviously false is evidence (at least, for the sane). You have a scathingly low view of nearly the entire world's population."
You love to contradict yourself. So far you said evidence of fictional claims are proven by belief, but belief isn't proof. Then you say the fact that people are stupid enough to believe them are the proof, but you say I have a low perspective of humanity.
@GodKillerAtheist "So far you said evidence of fictional claims are proven by belief" - I didn't say that, nor imply it, and that sentence doesn't even make sense. You don't prove evidence, you prove claims. Get a dictionary (and maybe a grammar book and a logic book).
@Azmodan6 "You don't prove evidence, you prove claims"
Lets not turn this around on to me YOU BARE THE BURDEN OF PROOF not me. God thingy is your claim not mine. Like I said you don't have the evidence to prove your cults claims as fact.
"Get a dictionary"
I have one built in to my web browser "google dictionary". You need to learn how to use a dictionary, and stop blaming your cults shortcomings on an assumption that I have no knowledge of dictionary definitions when I post them.
@GodKillerAtheist No, the burden of proving God is not mine, because my claim is not "God exists". Thanks for reading. Try again. Also, the claim I'm in a cult is unfounded, and, if you have a dictionary, why do you mess up "evidence" and "proof"? Perhaps that was merely the misquoting (or, rather, misparaphrasing) that confused you.
@Azmodan6 I think the problem is we are both arguing different things not even closely related and our debate is just getting confusing and pointless. I think for both our sake we should agree and move on
Is a god thing probable? Sure I have an open mind, but it makes no sense whatsoever and basically makes life and the universe pointless, meaningless and without any real value. peace
@GodKillerAtheist Again, I don't think anyone can assign probability to God. Honestly, I don't think life and the universe is pointless, meaningless, or without value. If it was, what would be the point of trying to seek truth and, further, why would you care if anyone disagrees with you? Clearly it must have enough meaning to each of us to debate anything at all. We must value the subject somewhat. Debate is evidence that life has meaning, at least a little to those that debate, anyway.
@Azmodan6 "I don't think life and the universe is pointless, meaningless, or without value. "
With a God they are. we become the toys of a super baby. our lives and the universe have zero value when we are just a pawn in a game played out by a bored super ego. Without God our lives and everything that ever has achieved anything has infinite value. Reality makes much more sense than superstition. and that alone is probability against something that can't even be coherently defined (god)
@GodKillerAtheist I don't see any support for those claims. You suppose that with an ultimate Being that (whether we serve or are used by Him for His pleasure) life and everything is meaningless etc. Yet, if He exists it would seem life has all the meaning that it has without Him plus it has any meaning you might have from either serving Him or being used by Him. What support do you have for the claim that His existence would destroy the meaning and point of life?
@GodKillerAtheist "the proof is that life has meaning so there can be no God." - Ok, so your argument is as follows: 1. Life has no meaning with God. 2. Life has meaning. 3. Therefore, there can be no God.
First of all, you still haven't offered any support for premise #1. The burden of proof is on you. Secondly, this "proof" is not about the claim that God's existence would destroy meaning. Now, where's your support for the original claim, or premise #1 for that matter?
@Azmodan6 Didn't you read any of the previous comments I posted before? You're like a goldfish with a 3 second memory I explained EVERYTHING..dolt!
Ok for a 3rd time with God thingy our lives are meaningless because we are but toys of some super ego and our existence is limited by its desires and will. Without a God thingy our lives and existence have infinite value because there is no God to limit us.
I've proved my burden so many times and yet you haven't offered any for your claim of God
@GodKillerAtheist Ad Hominem. Also, being "toys" to an ultimate Being does not remove meaning. Many people that believe God exists and that He controls the functions in the universe still find meaning in that kind of existence. That is not evidence for Him removing meaning. Try again.
For the last time, I didn't make a claim of God. The burden of proof is not mine on that.
@GodKillerAtheist The argument I listed with numbers isn't circular and only fallacious if the premises aren't proven. Oh well.
Premise 1 - You still haven't proven (given compelling support) for life being meaningless with God if people are used purely for His happiness nor have you given support that He wouldn't use us for any other meaningful purpose. After all, the toys in the Toy Story movies found meaning in being played with (at least, some playing, if you've watched the 3rd movie).
@Azmodan6 "You still haven't proven (given compelling support) for life being meaningless with God "
And I have numerous times, you have blatantly refused to even read any of my posts you are like a parrot squawking the same tired mantra. By HIM using us in HIS meaningful purpose it limits our existence to HIS meanings and HIS purpose. without your penis god our existence is infinitely meaningful because HE doesn't impose a limit on what it means for US to exist. UNDERSTAND? FFS! it's simple
@Azmodan6 I honestly don't know how I can dumb it down anymore for you. I think you like to argue for no reason at all and you still haven't proven your God. You offer no evidence for your claims that life has meaning if we are all the slaves and toys to fulfill the whim of a bored super ego. Thus degrading life and demoralizing humanity to be objectified. If existence has no personal meaning there is God. If existence has personal meaning then there can be no God.
@GodKillerAtheist "You offer no evidence for your claims that life has meaning if we are all the slaves and toys to fulfill the whim of a bored super ego." I was not saying life has "personal meaning" (by which you seem to mean meaning that isn't imposed on us), I was saying it had meaning. In the case of God controlling us, He assigns the meaning and therefore there is meaning. Claim proven. However, as you have since mentioned, you are after "personal meaning", not merely any meaning.
@Azmodan6 Are there any topics you can understand? It seems like you just go wandering off on some tangent totally unrelated to just what I'm talking about. Your claim is not proven since your claim was invalid and off topic. I have to rephrase everything to get you to understand a simple concept that I've tried to help you understand with the tiniest of baby steps, and you are light years away from understanding. Apparently you're just trolling, and not worth my time. BYE!
Considering you started by insulting me (which is a fallacy) about a topic I wasn't talking about (again, my claim was about probability), realized after a dozen posts that you were accusing me about an unmade claim, misworded the burden of proof rule, and only mentioned "personal meaning" today, which is different from just any meaning (lest you think the word "personal" is meaningless), I find your accusations unfounded. I'm not sorry for interpreting your words as your type them.
@GodKillerAtheist With regard to "personal meaning" - Oh no, I can grasp the concept quite well. However, the concept of "meaning" and the concept of "personal meaning" are different, and I was talking about "meaning", as that was how you first mentioned it.
"I wasn't talking about probability so your claim was off topic and irrelevant." My topic started with probability. It was the first comment I posted.
@GodKillerAtheist "insults are not fallacious they are insults." -- "Ad hominem abuse - usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument... This tactic is logically fallacious because insults... have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."
So, if your insults are part of your debate, they are fallacious. I will admit, though, if they aren't part of it, they're just poor conduct (and unfounded).
@Azmodan6 "He assigns the meaning and therefore there is meaning."
I hold my hand to my forehead in shame for your stupidity. Enforced totalitarian rule does not give it's subjects and slaves existence personal meaning.
@GodKillerAtheist I think you have a misunderstanding of the concept of meaning. Aside from the definitions that mean (hehe, so funny) something conveyed, there is "significant quality" (definition 3 from Merriam-Webster's dictionary). That is the most powerful of the simple definitions of meaning. If a Being is all-powerful, I would imagine He could assign meaning, since even a child can assign meaning to a toy. This meaning exists, even if it is not personal.
@GodKillerAtheist "if he forced meaning to existence it would be LIMITED." So... hypothetically, if He forced meaning into existence, that would be creating meaning, not destroying it. TADA! Meaning with God. I never disagreed that it's limited. We're finite beings, so meaning (and everything else about us) must be limited with or without God, unless we have (eternal) souls. If we have souls, I don't think it's logical to say they would exist without God or some other supernatural thing.
@GodKillerAtheist "A Fictional Disney movie has no bearing when talking about reality."
A person came up with this idea of toys finding meaning in such an existence and it is theoretically possible someone could live with such an outlook and find meaning in such an existence. Because it is possible and is a relevant outlook, it does have bearing.
@Azmodan6 "A person came up with this idea of toys finding meaning in such an existence and it is theoretically possible someone could live with such an outlook and find meaning in such an existence"
I'm not talking about finding meaning in existence I'm talking about existence meaning more than what is imposed on us with the fallacy of God.
@GodKillerAtheist "I'm not talking about finding meaning in existence I'm talking about existence meaning more than what is imposed on us with the fallacy of God."
Ah, well why didn't you say so earlier? That would change the argument about "meaningless life" to "a life with no meaning outside of God". In that case, I would agree that it is entirely probable that if God exists then life has no meaning outside of Him. Yet, I wonder, how can you tell what meaning is from Him and what is not?
@Azmodan6 "In that case, I would agree that it is entirely probable that if God exists then life has no meaning outside of Him."
NO! you're retarded. you can't understand existence without a GOD thingy YOU can't even coherently define. YOU Cant even offer one spec of evidence for., You're brain is broken you are totally brainwashed.
I'm not going to explain it to your trolling ass any more.. GROW A BRAIN and some teeth.
@GodKillerAtheist "you can't understand existence without a GOD thingy YOU can't even coherently define" I find it funny that you have often talked as if I were trying to prove God, the burden of proof was mine, etc etc, when I refer to God in the hypothetical sense or as a concept. Yet, how could you suppose what meaning in existence would be like if you can't define God? If you can define God, why do you think your point is meaningful at all, since the God theists believe He is undefinable?
@Azmodan6 I don't believe you I've been here and talked to too many fundamentalists to believe you are just some agnostic or atheist just debating hypothetically you are just another liar and hypocrite.
"how could you suppose what meaning in existence would be like if you can't define God?"
I can define god. it's a lie used to brainwash people. You cannot coherently define God in your hypothetical senses. You are a theist and a liar.
@GodKillerAtheist "I can define god. it's a lie used to brainwash people. You cannot coherently define God in your hypothetical senses. You are a theist and a liar."
I never said I could define God. Even if I could prove God exists, trying to define such a Being is a foolish undertaking.
@Azmodan6 "I never said I could define God. Even if I could prove God exists, trying to define such a Being is a foolish undertaking."
So it's foolish to even try to coherently define a being you and your cult claim to know fully and truly? You and your cult will never try to offer one spec of proof and that is why you refuse to Coherently define what you know for a fact is pure dishonest nonsense.
@GodKillerAtheist Let's look at it this way. The challenge is to offer proof that God exists (evidence would be more reasonable, since very few non-mathematical things are completely proven). Well, the entire universe is evidence for God's existence in one interpretation, but you want more than the universe. So, you want me to offer you something that is outside of the universe as proof. Unless you already believe in something supernatural, both the challenge and the undertaking are silly.
@Azmodan6 " the entire universe is evidence for God's existence in one interpretation, "
No that is a unfounded claim not a fact. you are spewing fiction.
"you want me to offer you something that is outside of the universe as proof. Unless you already believe in something supernatural"
No, NO, NO and NO! your entire argument is totally fallacious garbage! I want proof of your claim. Since you have only a claim and no proof YOUR CLAIM is only fiction THE END!
@GodKillerAtheist "Since you have only a claim and no proof YOUR CLAIM is only fiction " No, that's an incorrect conclusion. Without proof, a claim is "in question", not automatically incorrect. If I claim the world is round, but I can't prove it, that doesn't make the world not round. Also, if one person makes the claim that God exists and another makes the claim God doesn't exist and neither can prove it, that doesn't make both of their claims "fiction" and make God exist and not exist.
@Azmodan6 " No, that's an incorrect conclusion. Without proof, a claim is "in question", not automatically incorrect."
The problem is at some time you need to realize that when one side REFUSES to produce any evidence their claim can only logically be fiction. You can't admit to that because you're a liar.
@GodKillerAtheist "The problem is at some time you need to realize that when one side REFUSES to produce any evidence their claim can only logically be fiction." At some point, the other other side (that would be you) refuses to acknowledge the fact that, despite all the anger and hatred he's built up against theists, his opponent (that would be me) has only made claims about probability and about him debating wrongly and has not made the claim that God exists.
@Azmodan6 " if one person makes the claim that God exists and another makes the claim God doesn't exist and neither can prove it, that doesn't make both of their claims "fiction" and make God exist and not exist."
But this is totally fallacious. Logically one must ask them self "Why would someone make a negative claim?" They wouldn't. So therefore the person who made the claim of GOD in the first place bares the burden of proof. So your statement is invalid and your claim is still fiction
@Azmodan6 " if one person makes the claim that God exists and another makes the claim God doesn't exist and neither can prove it, that doesn't make both of their claims "fiction" and make God exist and not exist."
But this is totally fallacious. Logically one must ask them self "Why would someone make a negative claim?" They wouldn't. So therefore the person who made the claim of GOD in the first place bares the burden of proof. So your statement is invalid and your claim is still fiction
@GodKillerAtheist To address a slightly older point... "So it's foolish to even try to coherently define a being you and your cult claim to know fully and truly?"
Yes, it is foolish to even try to coherently define a Being that one believes to be outside the universe and have attributes beyond understanding. Defining Him would likely just produce an inaccurate description. However, the vast majority of theists wouldn't say they claim to know God fully anyway.
@Azmodan6 "Yes, it is foolish to even try to coherently define a Being that/ outside the universe and / beyond understanding"
Then you shouldn't claim it if you cannot produce evidence of your claim. But you're dishonest so you will continue to make failed garbage arguments that can't even hold their own weight.
"However, the vast majority of theists wouldn't say they claim to know God fully"
So then why do they impose their GODS WORD on everyone so hatefully? You're comments are at best lies
@GodKillerAtheist "So then why do they impose their GODS WORD on everyone so hatefully?" Imposing God's Word on people "hatefully" is almost certainly against the commands in His Word (though it depends on what you mean by it). You shouldn't extrapolate the actions of bad Christians to the entire Christian community. Also, I wonder at people that impose atheism or evolution of people hatefully, lacing nearly every point with insults.
"You're comments are at best lies" That's also unfounded.
@Azmodan6 " Imposing God's Word on people "hatefully" is almost certainly against the commands"
Prove that statement... you can't. more lies from a liar.
" I wonder at people that impose atheism or evolution of people hatefully, lacing nearly every point with insults."
LOL! you are insane I don't see science teachers mutilating a child's genitals. I don't see a armies of biologists invading other countries to spread the gospel of Darwin LOL!!!! you are an idiot supreme
@GodKillerAtheist "you are insane... the gospel of Darwin" Ah, is this what you mean by hateful? Well, circumcision (or "mutilating a child's genitals" as you call it) was something that people did willingly to be included in the nation of Israel prior to Christ. If they didn't want that, they didn't have to circumcise, so that wasn't hateful. Also, it was common knowledge that Jews never required gentiles to circumcise.
@GodKillerAtheist "armies of biologists invading other countries" As for armies invading other countries to spread the gospel, etc, that is blatantly against Jesus' instructions to His disciples and not in accordance with any command.
I have known some atheists to completely disregard arguments, questions, and company and offer no respect upon finding out the person/opponent in question is a theist. There are some countries in which it is common to sentence theists to death for their beliefs.
@Azmodan6 "As for armies invading other countries to spread the gospel, etc, that is blatantly against Jesus' instructions"
And yet it happens every day.
"There are some countries in which it is common to sentence theists to death for their beliefs"
only other theocracies would ever care what religion you are. There are no Atheist countries, Atheism is a personal lack of belief in the claims theists make and have failed to provide evidence for.
@GodKillerAtheist "And yet it happens every day." That doesn't mean anything about the religion. It just means the people doing it are sinning, according to the doctrines of Christianity, anyway. Concluding things about Christianity based on the sins of some Christians is a horribly incorrect extrapolation. By the same logic, I could conclude atheism is about murder because some atheists have murdered. Your idea of Christians' hateful imposition of the gospel isn't a part of the doctrine.
@Azmodan6 I don't have to ask you if you're a theist I know. All theists use the same old broken arguments backed up with the blind eyes of faith and ignorance.
@GodKillerAtheist "Then you shouldn't claim it if you cannot produce evidence of your claim." Once again, I challenge you to quote where I actually claim God exists. Otherwise, stop challenging me to produce evidence for a claim I didn't make. The rest of that paragraph of yours is unfounded, especially since nearly all your responses consist of insults and challenges to produce evidence for a claim that I didn't make instead of logical responses.
@GodKillerAtheist "You wouldn't say this if you didn't believe in God." Whether or not I would is irrelevant. That quote is an acknowledgement that the idea of the Judeo-Christian God includes indescribable traits, not a claim that He exists. Try again.
"Prove that statement." Well, since I had a "though it depends on what you mean by it" attached, and "hatefully" was your term, I'd need you to specify what manner they were imposing God's Word that you describe as hateful.
@Azmodan6 There is no question you are trying to produce a fallacy in favor of the existence of a god thingy even if you have to take the middle ground. I've shown you that your fallacious argument holds no weight and still you believe you have some middle ground. All your posts have been a dodge and weave to avoid the facts and hold fast to the middle because my points all stick and you can't stand it. So fine I will play your game. Do you believe God exists?
@GodKillerAtheist "I've shown you that your fallacious argument holds no weight" No, you have not shown me anything of the sort.
"still you believe you have some middle ground" On the contrary, I believe precisely what I started with.
"All your posts have been a dodge and weave... all stick and you can't stand it." Yet, you've abandoned so many points (like the fact I haven't claimed God exists, or the first point of probability) and not responded to many of mine.
@GodKillerAtheist "So fine I will play your game. Do you believe God exists?" That's not my game. I neither want you to ask that, nor do I care. Whether or not I personally believe is irrelevant to my points.
@Azmodan6 Yes, Yes! I say lets not beat around the bush any longer come off of your false middle ground. Are you a Theist or are you just arguing because you have nothing better to do. State fact do you claim or deny God? Stop dodging I hate it when Christians try to take this false middle ground, it's because they are taught to be dishonest in their cult. Naturally they will be dishonest and deceitful elsewhere. So come clean no more lies and dodging.
@GodKillerAtheist An early comment of yours, was marked as spam by someone, so I didn't see it until now...
"So your statement is invalid and your claim is still fiction" I don't agree with your conclusion, but let's try this. In a hypothetical universe, there are two beings: Billy and Johnny. One is God. The laws of logic are the same as in this universe. Billy thinks he's God and Johnny thinks he's God. Both claims are positive and neither are proven. Are both claims fiction?
@GodKillerAtheist "So your statement is invalid and your claim is still fiction" If you prefer a hypothetical of this universe, since you didn't like my Toy Story example, you could also try this: One person claims I'm closer to the truth than you are. Another person claims you're closer to the truth than I am. Both are positive statements. If both are unproven, are both fiction? What if a 3rd person says we're the same distance from the truth and doesn't prove it? Are all three fiction?
@Azmodan6 "One person claims I'm closer to the truth than you are. Another person claims you're closer to the truth than I am. Both are positive statements."
Yes and thats exactly NOT what's going on here. I can't lack belief in a claim you have yet to make. Therefore since YOU support the claim there is a God you have inadvertently with your middle ground deceitful tactics claimed God without actually saying that you're claiming God. Your argument keeps failing. Face the facts!
@GodKillerAtheist "Therefore since YOU support the claim there is a God..." Where did I support the claim? Is it because I know about the concept of God (in some respects) and argue against illogical conclusions about God? If I did so about evolution, would you call me an evolutionist? If I did so about Africa, would you say I'm a native African? As Aristotle pointed out, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it."
@Azmodan6 "Billy thinks he's God and Johnny thinks he's God. Both claims are positive and neither are proven. Are both claims fiction?"
This situation is also invalid since only one person is claiming god in our situation. I CANT LACK BELIEF IN WHAT YOU HAVE YET TO CLAIM. Therefore you have deceivingly made the claim by putting forward an argument for the claim but not actually stepping up to state your side. since you are a pussy like all christians. because you know your side always loses
@GodKillerAtheist "This situation is also invalid" No, the situation is not invalid; assuming both of their arguments to be true is invalid because of mutual exclusion. The situation's a description of the facts of a hypothetical situation, so it can't be invalid within the situation.
"argument for the claim but not actually stepping up to state your side" My argument in this post was that your idea of something being fiction if it is not proven is stupid. My claim is that you are wrong.
@GodKillerAtheist "Step up be a man or a woman or whatever have some pride in your cult. It's obvious you're a Christian by your apologetic argument style.."
Wow... not only do you attempt to conclude my religious beliefs based on my argument style, but you ask me to show pride in "[my] cult". Didn't you know pride is a deadly sin, according to many religions?
@GodKillerAtheist "State fact do you claim or deny God?" Why? If it's irrelevant, why do I have to state it? I don't feel the need to state my age, sex, or political stance either since they are all irrelevant also, though they may be facts. Logic stands on its own, no matter the beliefs (or lack of beliefs, as you've described for atheists) of the people that speak it.
@Azmodan6 "Why?" to see if you'll be honest. it's already apparent you're a theist most likely a christian. It's made apparent by your dodge, weve, middle ground arguments that always require special pleading.
"It's made apparent by your dodge, weve, middle ground arguments that always require special pleading."
I still don't see how I've done this. I still believe what I started with. Any alterations are rewordings and such so you could understand. Pardon me for trying to be on topic. I'll try not to. OOOOOOooo! Look! Something shiny!!
"I can't lack belief in a claim you have yet to make." ... and that's not a topic I was arguing about. If you want to argue it, find another opponent.
@GodKillerAtheist "you've been defeated." Now you're just boring me with false claims and insults. I think I'm done here. My point about probability remains quite valid and my other points remain unfazed, despite your myriad of insults and repeated unfounded accusations. Unless you want to add something of substance, I think I shall retire from this debate.
@mrgetrealpeople Lets take your game of chance and apply it to the chance that a God-thingy could have existed infinitley and used magic spells to create everything, and compare that to the chance that a few basic chemical structures evolved through chemical evolution to reproduce themselves, starting the whole chain of biological evolution.
Even if the chance of Biological evolution was one in a Trillion the chance of a magic wizard who knew everything who had magic powers would be far less.
@mrgetrealpeople Well excuse me if I'm wrong. Sorry I don't gamble so I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. Although I've seen this, the argument of probability that creationists like to use, and if that's what you're going on about I should warn you that even 195 million to 1 are better odds than the odds supporting a magic man using spells those odds are ultimate because God is supposedly ultimately complex and all knowing So the odds are infinity, to infinitesimal
@mrgetrealpeople Sorry Like I said I don't gamble so I don't know the odds. The problem though is that evolution isn't a lottery so maybe you're using a bad analogy to try to make a point. Every player has a set of genes that all are governed by natural selection. Those players who reproduce all win in respect to your lottery analogy because they will pass on these amplified genes to their offspring. The product of evolution is variation that survives best. Not one player who wins it all.
@GodKillerAtheist "I can define god. it's a lie used to brainwash people."
So, you can imagine the meaning in a universe in which God is a lie, but it's not the universe any of your opponents are thinking about. Therefore, your points concerning your concept of God, in such a case, are irrelevant to present discussions. Similarly, if you proceed to talk about the core of the earth and call it Chicago, it is irrelevant to any discussion of the actual city of Chicago.
@Azmodan6 "you /imagine the meaning /in which God is a lie, /not the universe any of your opponents are thinking about"
ya I got to go you're totally retarded. you're just turning what I said around on itself
"your points concerning your concept of God, in such a case, are irrelevant to present discussions"
Therefore, since all I've done is ask you to coherently define God I apparently have no concept of the lack of proof you've provided and your claim is irrelevant to all discussions.
@GodKillerAtheist I'm still not obligated to define Him. Yet, my point of you imagining wrongly is still valid, since I cannot argue a counter point if we aren't talking about the same universe (one with God, for this point and one without God for another point). You must suppose a term I use, since it is relevant to my point, otherwise you've made an impasse, and you've refused to pursue logic. If you wish to prove my term as incorrect in reality, go for it.
@GodKillerAtheist "Yes you are since a universe where GOD is necessary... is your claim" No, that's not my claim. Try again.
"No that is a unfounded claim not a fact."
Sorry, let's try again. "the entire universe is evidence for God's existence in ONE INTERPRETATION". I didn't claim it to be an undeniably fact, but, then again, very very few things are.
@GodKillerAtheist "Yes you are since a universe where GOD is necessary... is your claim not mine." No, that's not my claim. If you think it is, please quote the post I made such a claim in.
"No that is a unfounded claim not a fact"
Let's try again. The entire universe is evidence for God's existence in ONE INTERPRETATION. I didn't say it was an undeniably fact (which very few non-mathematical things are). It is an unproven claim, but so is the claim that it's fiction, which you made.
@Azmodan6 "You must suppose a term I use, since it is relevant to my point, otherwise you've made an impasse, and you've refused to pursue logic. If you wish to prove my term as incorrect in reality, go for it."
I have no CLUE what you are babbling about I've stated you need to produce evidence for your claim of god for it to not be fiction and you are dancing dodging and tossing out fallacious garbage to avoid doing this you are sweating buckets to avoid providing one spec of evidence.
@GodKillerAtheist "I have no CLUE what you are babbling about" You said you can define God and you define God as a "lie used to brainwash people". If that is true, then when you talked about the meaning of a universe with God in it, you talked about a universe with a brainwashing lie for an entity. However, that doesn't prove anything about the meaning in a hypothetical universe in which God truly exists.
@GodKillerAtheist Since you are so caught up with this idea of God using us as toys, imagine a bunch of child's toys on a floor. How much meaning do they have just sitting there? Not a lot. How much do they have when they are fulfilling their purpose by being played with? More. Also remember that many people believe God sustains the universe, so there'd be no people to have meaning without Him in that case. Is it so hard to imagine that God would add meaning to the equation?
@Azmodan6 " How much do they have when they are fulfilling their purpose by being played with?"
none since they are lifeless toys.
"God sustains the universe, so there'd be no people to have meaning without Him"
Again you are confusing what a God thing would limit us with, if he was choosing our purpose then our existence has NO purpose but to the God thingy. Our IMPOSED purpose of serving some sky magician would be irrelevant to the actual unlimited purpose of reality.
@GodKillerAtheist "Then you say the fact that people are stupid enough to believe them are the proof" - If billions of people miss this obviousness, it's not obvious. I think you meant "the fact... IS proof" Again, I said it was evidenced by the fact. If you use a dictionary, you would see that "evidence" means "to support by evidence" not "to prove". Finally, I said "but the fact that not everyone is so incredibly stupid...". NOT everyone... Not is an important word. Do NOT omit it.
@Azmodan6 "evidence" means "to support by evidence" not "to prove" and that's not what you said. I never stated evidence is to prove. I said you need to have evidence to make your claims fact.
Evidence=The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
@GodKillerAtheist You said "Then you say the fact that people are stupid enough to believe them are the proof"
I said "The claim is not obviously fictional, as evidenced by..."
I used "evidence" the verb in that quote; I did not say it proved anything, as you claim I did. In fact, the next sentence had the qualifier "The idea that many people believe it is not proof" follow by a statement that it was evidence.
@Azmodan6 OK buddy you wanna play word verb and noun games since you can't defeat logic. come back to the argument you're fading into some convoluted grammar nazi paranoid misconception of what I was trying to say because you're argument failed and this is all you have...pathetic.
@GodKillerAtheist "And that's not what I'm doing" Yes, it is, unless you aren't abiding by the logical rule you have misquoted. You have concluded that God is fictional until proven fact. The logical rule you must have been thinking of is called "burden of proof", and it states that a person is obligated to provide evidence for his position. It doesn't state that a claim is fiction until proven. The proof doesn't determine something's existence, just the strength of a position in a debate.
@Azmodan6 ""burden of proof", and it states that a person is obligated to provide evidence for his position. It doesn't state that a claim is fiction until proven"
Yes, I know what the burden of proof is and all theists argue that they are not required to provide any evidence for their claims. That's why my logical maxim supersedes this argument. You're claim is Fiction without evidence to prove
Oh and BTW Proof=Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth
@GodKillerAtheist "Yes, I know what the burden of proof... their claims." - Clearly you don't know what it is, because you're misquoting it, and your extrapolation about all theists is incorrect also. If you think it is correct, why don't you provide proof (else by your "logical maxim" it is fiction)?
Proof - the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact (from merriam-webster . com)
Proof is can be sufficiently compelling evidence , evidence is not proof.
CLEARLY I DO. SERIOUSLY DO I NEED TO TAKE KIDDY STEPS WITH YOU?
" why don't you provide proof (else by your "logical maxim" it is fiction)?"
Proof of what? my lack of belief in your child rapist god?
So ok if you want to use your version of the word then you are obviously trolling and a dishonest twat after I posted the version of the word I'm using.
evidence=The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
Information given personally, drawn from a document, or in the form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in court.
So you can't win so you are playing word games Ok I see what you're doing now HAHA funny.
@GodKillerAtheist I'm sorry, what? I gave that statement in defense of a previous statement that you attacked with a confusion of "proof" and "evidence". It was actually relevant. Also, the definition you provided does not refute my statement that evidence is not proof, so... why did you provide it?
You have still not provided a single logical point against my original claim about probability. It seems you are either caught up trying to argue something else, or you're avoiding it.
@GodKillerAtheist "fail" Proof is definitely evidence, but evidence is not definitely proof. The definitions and uses of the words support this claim, otherwise circumstantial evidence would also be proof because it is still evidence. Yet, circumstantial evidence is not proof, but proof is "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact" (Merriam-Webster . com). Therefore, not all evidence is proof, but proof is, as defined, always evidence. I am correct.
@Azmodan6 The Odds of you winning the Powerball lottery is 1-195 million
The odds someone will win the powerball lottery is 1 in 6
Example there are 104 drawings a year the average is one winner in six draws.
Someone will win the lottery, when there is liquid water and a great amount of time, some polymers, proteins, amino acids,(someone) should evolve to because self replicating cells.
I thought it was science that said life came about from random or chance event. Science in trying to explain evolution, so why the attack on the creationist? I'm not into creation but to call a creationist a simpleton, retardus, ignorance is ad hominem. Where is the science in character assisination? Isn't the question about the appearance of the eye, a fair question for evolutionists to answer? I notice that a probability figure for the eye was not given. The idea of randomness is false.
While it appears there is a 1 in 6 chance, that is only a 1 in 6 "chance" because we aren't aware of certain variables,
If I were to throw the same dice the same way twice, the outcome would be the same
So there is no chance, there are just variables we aren't aware of, the position of the dice at point of release, energy put into the throw, direction it is thrown in, and nearby environment, all add up to an unpredictability to us as humans, yet there is no chance involved, its just physics
And talk about an infinite numbers of possibilities also! Those were only 6 sided die, the amount of ways things could evolve is much larger than just 6 ways. What a magnificent world we live in!
Hahah creating the world in a year, now you can see what religion can do to close-minded people.
Bravo for most of the math and for the dice simulation, but the "100%" conclusion to the question "what are the chances of [a planet perfectly suited for us happening] without God?" is based on assumption. You assumed God doesn't exist, observed this planet existing, and concluded 100%. You can't use this universe as evidence that such a planet appeared without God unless you prove He doesn't exist.
@Azmodan6 there are about 100.000.000.000.000 planets and stars in the universe.. maybe far more.. we find water on the moon and on mars... please tell how are the chances that NO planet perfectly suited for us exists?
I cannot answer the question you asked. However, it is also irrelevant to my post. I was not providing another point, but merely pointing out that the person that made the observation concerning the chances of something happening without God committed a fallacy and was therefore wrong.
Again, this is irrelevant to my point. My point is not concerning evolution, adaptation to environment, etc. My point is about the guy that made this video and his completely illogical conclusion of probability about God (see my first comment).
If it is irrelevant to your point then you shouldn't use it as part of your argument.
The chances of a lot of things are very low, 1 in X, where X is a large number. But note there is a 1 there, which means given enough time they WILL happen, just not often.
That's exactly what we see in the expansion of the universe, and the origins of life. Things that don't happen very often but that have had billions of years to try.
Let me clarify: the probability of whether or not a planet exists that is perfectly or imperfectly suited for us is irrelevant to my argument. The probability of such a planet, or any planet, or anything existing with or without God is relevant.
The problem would be that God is often completely discounted in this calculation. Since you cannot prove God does or does not exist, you cannot calculate the chances of something with Him or without Him. Why do we think anything would exist without Him? How could we possibility assume He doesn't exist now if we can't disprove Him? If we can't prove or disprove His existence, we cannot conclude the probability of anything happening without Him.
"The probability of any planet existing without God is relevant"
And how do you propose to determine this probability? Create God and see how many planets appear, or destroy God and see how many planets appear?
How about looking at it more logically? The planets DO exist, the probability of them existing is 1. This fact increases the probability of Elephants existing, but has no bearing on whether or not God exists.
Ah... now that is a logical perspective. Your perspective, however, is not more logical than mine. I think you've just finally realized the logic, which I've been commenting about this whole time. I never proposed there was any way to determine the probability of anything existing without God. In fact, I pretty much said there wasn't one. thermionicemission stated a probability for something existing without God. thermionicemission is/was completely wrong. That was my point.
Can someone answer me please...If true, evolution had mutation that mostly bad, where are the fossils? since there should had been thousands of wrong developed species.
I watched this now from Rabbi Boteach Vs hitchens.
The Odds of you winning the Powerball lottery is 1-195 million
The odds someone will win the powerball lottery is 1 in 6
Example there are 104 drawings a year the average is one winner in six draws.
Someone will win the lottery, when there is liquid water and a great amount of time, some polymers, proteins, amino acids,(someone) should evolve to because self replicating cells.
mrgetrealpeople 2 months ago
@mrgetrealpeople The odds are still in favor of evolution. because the alternative is infinitley improbable.
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist And there'e the real issue. You believe evolution, not because of it's level of credibility but, much like all atheists, because you THINK the idea of God is rediculous. Then you attempt to over-simplify God by saying that we believe he "magicked" everything into being. God didn't "magic" anything. He created a very advanced and complex system that functions in such a way as to give us the creation as we know it.
jesusknight72 2 months ago
@jesusknight72 I don't just blindly believe evolution like you blindly believe in god. I know how evolution functions I've seen the evidence and products of evolution. And for me trying to make god-thingy sound like it uses magic is because your dogma states that god is supernatural and outside of determinism. If so than god wouldn't use a natural process it would poof shit with a magic spell
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist Evidence and products of evolution....like what??? You now what, clearly by your responses, you're an immature individual. I'm not going to waste time in one-sided polite conversation with you. When we both die we'll find out who's correct and then we'll know. I'm TOTALLY comfortable with that. Are you? Because, by following your philosophy (and that's all it is) you better be right. The alternative will be quite uncomfortable for you. God Bless.
jesusknight72 2 months ago
@jesusknight72 "Evidence and products of evolution....like what?"
Like medication designed to combat genetic defects. Like a paternity test, Like a TURKEY. You do know modern turkeys can't copulate naturally, Nope they have to all be artificially inseminated because their sexual organs can't reach because they are too fat! I could go on and on about the technological advancements of evolution that you use every day and you would struggle to name just ONE technological benefit of your creatardism
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist Keep talking. You're doing a great job burying yourself.
jesusknight72 2 months ago
@jesusknight72 It's obvious you can't produce a rebuttal to refute any of my points so I guess I shouldn't be surprised if your only option is to make vague threats. See from where I'm sitting you're going to waste your only one life for a evil cult that will go down in history as the greatest plague that ever was invented by the sick primitive worm infected brains of insane men from a time before electric, and actual medication to cure even basic ailments. I'll be praying you grow a brain.
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@jesusknight72 "When we both die we'll find out who's correct and then we'll know. I'm TOTALLY comfortable with that. Are you? "
WOW Threats I didn't know you were a terrorist but I should have known! Dude you just convinced me who was right no argument needed if all you can do is try to scare me into your cult instead of bringing some truthful proof to the table then I say No Thanks!
BTW you do know Philosophy supersedes Theism as logical argument Just as Science supersedes Philosophy.
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist Thank you sooooo much for writing what you just wrote. You just showed everyone here the type of person that you are. How you got that I threatened you, from what I wrote, is a verification of your rational. Thank you. Thank you. LOL
jesusknight72 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodKillerAtheist Thank you sooooo much for writing what you just wrote. You just showed everyone here the type of person that you are. How you got that I threatened you, from what I wrote, is a verification of your rational. Thank you. Thank you. LOL
jesusknight72 2 months ago
Who molded the dice???????
Who shaped the dice?????
Who put numbers on the dice??????
Who rolled the dice???????
The person who designed the dice..............genius.
And yes evolutionists state RANDOM instances ALL THE TIME. You just lied.
jesusknight72 5 months ago
@jesusknight72 The problem is there are actually no random events they all fall under determinism because determinism is the main cause of everything in science. Atoms form chemicals based on their structural attributes, These Chemicals easily form polymers, proteins, and other basic structures. NO magic needed like you believe in. The structures that reproduce like RNA started biological evolution. The molecules that survived the best reproduced more. No need for anyone to stupidly roll a dice
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist Listen to what you're saying. Yes, atoms form chemicals based on their attributes......which were embued to them by the creator so that they function in such a way. It didn't just HAPPEN. It's far too complex to make such a simplistic arguement that it JUST HAPPENED.
jesusknight72 2 months ago
@jesusknight72 WRONG! Atoms were formed by deterministic processes you haven't provided any evidence to refute this basic scientific fact. All you have are empty claims. Also let me add that you haven't coherently defined this god-thingy and by saying it can't do magic refutes your own doctrine that god-thingy is supernatural
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist Which part was I WRONG about? I didn't say HOW atoms were formed, I quoted what you said about atoms forming chemicals based on their structural attributes. I then said that God embued atoms with those attributes (which clearly shows a designed pattern, that intelligent beings should be able to see). They aren't a non-sensical hodge podge of chance. HOW God formed atoms(and he did), I don't know but I'm sure I'll find out one day. God thingy??? C'mon man. How old are you?
jesusknight72 2 months ago
@jesusknight72 " I then said that God embued atoms with those attributes"
And that's where you were wrong. You didn't even read my comment did you. You only read the first word. pathetic.. cant you even try to refute my actual points? God-thingy Yes because you FAIL to coherently define God so that it has meaning. Nothing is a hodge podge of chance you have a very limited sense of the universe. Everything is in it's natural order based on determinism this is why a god-thingy can't magic up atoms
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
Sophisticated mythology. Doesn't explain how accident can produce intentionality, which is logically impossible.
Nalenec 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Nalenec The Odds of you winning the Powerball lottery is 1-195 million
The odds someone will win the powerball lottery is 1 in 6
Example there are 104 drawings a year the average is one winner in six draws.
Someone will win the lottery, when there is liquid water and a great amount of time, some polymers, proteins, amino acids,(someone) should evolve to because self replicating cells.
mrgetrealpeople 2 months ago
1 chance in a trillion billion zillion is better odds than the zero percent odds of some even more complex god thingy magicking everything
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist Except the probability of something relating to God happening cannot be measured. Any attempt to assign probability numbers to God is wishful thinking, or, more accurately, a complete misunderstanding of how both probability works and how the concept of God works. To assign probability to something you can neither understand nor even prove the existence or nonexistence of is to instantly lose credibility.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 So what you're saying is my invisible, rainbow colored, flying unicorn shoes can't be disproved or proven since logic is irrelevant to your sense of understanding reality. So the default should be that they exist since they can't be disproved.
Sorry but the logical maxim "claims are fiction until proven fact by supporting evidence." takes play here and your fictional God claim is no more relevant or true as the flying invisible rainbow colored unicorn shoes.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist Trying to make my point seem stupid doesn't actually make it stupid and it also doesn't make your point any stronger. Go look up "straw man" in a logic book.
The logical rule is only good so far as it goes. The existence of a Being, especially One the is claimed as being outside our universe, is not quite the same as a claim in an argument. My inability to prove God exists doesn't mean He doesn't. It means you shouldn't be compelled by my argument that He does.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "Trying to make my point seem stupid doesn't actually make it stupid"
What does make you look stupid is your inability to see the similarities in my example when compared to your fictional unprovable myth.
"My inability to prove God exists doesn't mean He doesn't"
Your inability to prove your claim makes your claim fiction. Logically I don't have to disprove what already lacks proof.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "Your inability to prove your claim makes your claim fiction. Logically I don't have to disprove what already lacks proof." Being the observant fellow you are, you might have noticed that I didn't make a claim that God exists. So, why label this as my claim? My claim was that you can't claim something related to God as 0 probability. If you assume that everything that hasn't been proven has 0 probability, I have a hard time believing you would function well in the world.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist If you assume unproven things have 0 probability, not only would you not eat (because the food is unproven to be unpoisoned, and you have therefore reasoned it has 0 probability of not being poisoned), but you would never seek to prove anything new, because you think it has 0 probability, so it would be wasted effort. Note: That probability line of reason was hypothetical, based on the idea of assuming 0 probability to everything that is unproven.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist Also, you're inability to prove God doesn't exist doesn't mean He does exist.
Nonetheless, it is absolute foolishness to think that God's existence is determined by the ability or inability of humans to prove His existence. In a somewhat similar fashion, most or all animals cannot actually prove that humans exist. This is mostly due to their inability to use logic well, but we exist even to animals despite their inability to prove it.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "it is absolute foolishness to think that God's existence is determined by the ability or inability of humans to prove His existence"
And that's not what I'm doing I'm simply asking for proof of a claim that the religious made that THEY refuse to produce evidence for. Therefore Logically, so I must assume for sanity sake that their claim is false and fictional since THEY cannot even provide truth for their obviously FICTIONAL claim.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "Therefore... their obviously FICTIONAL claim." The claim is not obviously fictional, as evidenced by the fact that billions of clinically sane people believe in some Being(s)/supernatural force(s) that is unproven. The idea that many people believe it is not proof, but the fact that not everyone is so incredibly stupid to believe something that is obviously false is evidence (at least, for the sane). You have a scathingly low view of nearly the entire world's population.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "evidenced by the fact that billions of clinically sane people believe in some Being(s)/supernatural force(s) that is unproven. The idea that many people believe it is not proof, "
WOW you like to contradict yourself in the same sentence.
Like I said Fictional. You haven't proven your claims fact so they are Fiction you can reword your fallacy any way you want but my logical maxim holds solid. Claims are fiction until proven by evidence to be true. Your claims hold no truth.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist Go look up "proof" and "evidence", and we can discuss it further when you understand the difference. Also, please stop quoting out of context, because you've cut off a qualifier from a sentence. How else is it supposed to qualify the following clause? Further still, they were two different sentences, not the same one.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "but the fact that not everyone is so incredibly stupid to believe something that is obviously false is evidence (at least, for the sane). You have a scathingly low view of nearly the entire world's population."
You love to contradict yourself. So far you said evidence of fictional claims are proven by belief, but belief isn't proof. Then you say the fact that people are stupid enough to believe them are the proof, but you say I have a low perspective of humanity.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "So far you said evidence of fictional claims are proven by belief" - I didn't say that, nor imply it, and that sentence doesn't even make sense. You don't prove evidence, you prove claims. Get a dictionary (and maybe a grammar book and a logic book).
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "You don't prove evidence, you prove claims"
Lets not turn this around on to me YOU BARE THE BURDEN OF PROOF not me. God thingy is your claim not mine. Like I said you don't have the evidence to prove your cults claims as fact.
"Get a dictionary"
I have one built in to my web browser "google dictionary". You need to learn how to use a dictionary, and stop blaming your cults shortcomings on an assumption that I have no knowledge of dictionary definitions when I post them.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist No, the burden of proving God is not mine, because my claim is not "God exists". Thanks for reading. Try again. Also, the claim I'm in a cult is unfounded, and, if you have a dictionary, why do you mess up "evidence" and "proof"? Perhaps that was merely the misquoting (or, rather, misparaphrasing) that confused you.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "No, the burden of proving God is not mine, because my claim is not "God exists"
Then why are you arguing with me?
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist I was arguing about use of probability, not the existence of God, as I've stated multiple times.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 I think the problem is we are both arguing different things not even closely related and our debate is just getting confusing and pointless. I think for both our sake we should agree and move on
Is a god thing probable? Sure I have an open mind, but it makes no sense whatsoever and basically makes life and the universe pointless, meaningless and without any real value. peace
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist Again, I don't think anyone can assign probability to God. Honestly, I don't think life and the universe is pointless, meaningless, or without value. If it was, what would be the point of trying to seek truth and, further, why would you care if anyone disagrees with you? Clearly it must have enough meaning to each of us to debate anything at all. We must value the subject somewhat. Debate is evidence that life has meaning, at least a little to those that debate, anyway.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "I don't think life and the universe is pointless, meaningless, or without value. "
With a God they are. we become the toys of a super baby. our lives and the universe have zero value when we are just a pawn in a game played out by a bored super ego. Without God our lives and everything that ever has achieved anything has infinite value. Reality makes much more sense than superstition. and that alone is probability against something that can't even be coherently defined (god)
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist I don't see any support for those claims. You suppose that with an ultimate Being that (whether we serve or are used by Him for His pleasure) life and everything is meaningless etc. Yet, if He exists it would seem life has all the meaning that it has without Him plus it has any meaning you might have from either serving Him or being used by Him. What support do you have for the claim that His existence would destroy the meaning and point of life?
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "What support do you have for the claim that His existence would destroy the meaning and point of life?"
the proof is that life has meaning so there can be no God.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "the proof is that life has meaning so there can be no God." - Ok, so your argument is as follows: 1. Life has no meaning with God. 2. Life has meaning. 3. Therefore, there can be no God.
First of all, you still haven't offered any support for premise #1. The burden of proof is on you. Secondly, this "proof" is not about the claim that God's existence would destroy meaning. Now, where's your support for the original claim, or premise #1 for that matter?
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 Didn't you read any of the previous comments I posted before? You're like a goldfish with a 3 second memory I explained EVERYTHING..dolt!
Ok for a 3rd time with God thingy our lives are meaningless because we are but toys of some super ego and our existence is limited by its desires and will. Without a God thingy our lives and existence have infinite value because there is no God to limit us.
I've proved my burden so many times and yet you haven't offered any for your claim of God
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist Ad Hominem. Also, being "toys" to an ultimate Being does not remove meaning. Many people that believe God exists and that He controls the functions in the universe still find meaning in that kind of existence. That is not evidence for Him removing meaning. Try again.
For the last time, I didn't make a claim of God. The burden of proof is not mine on that.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "so your argument is as follows: 1. Life has no meaning with God. 2. Life has meaning. 3. Therefore, there can be no God."
incorrect. That would be purely fallacious and circular. It would be like proving the existence of God with the bible.
1. Our existence is meaningless and limited if the purpose of it is to be a toy for a super ego (god).
2. without God our existence has no limitations.
Therefore the claim that "existence is meaningful" must require no God.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist The argument I listed with numbers isn't circular and only fallacious if the premises aren't proven. Oh well.
Premise 1 - You still haven't proven (given compelling support) for life being meaningless with God if people are used purely for His happiness nor have you given support that He wouldn't use us for any other meaningful purpose. After all, the toys in the Toy Story movies found meaning in being played with (at least, some playing, if you've watched the 3rd movie).
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "You still haven't proven (given compelling support) for life being meaningless with God "
And I have numerous times, you have blatantly refused to even read any of my posts you are like a parrot squawking the same tired mantra. By HIM using us in HIS meaningful purpose it limits our existence to HIS meanings and HIS purpose. without your penis god our existence is infinitely meaningful because HE doesn't impose a limit on what it means for US to exist. UNDERSTAND? FFS! it's simple
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 I honestly don't know how I can dumb it down anymore for you. I think you like to argue for no reason at all and you still haven't proven your God. You offer no evidence for your claims that life has meaning if we are all the slaves and toys to fulfill the whim of a bored super ego. Thus degrading life and demoralizing humanity to be objectified. If existence has no personal meaning there is God. If existence has personal meaning then there can be no God.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "You offer no evidence for your claims that life has meaning if we are all the slaves and toys to fulfill the whim of a bored super ego." I was not saying life has "personal meaning" (by which you seem to mean meaning that isn't imposed on us), I was saying it had meaning. In the case of God controlling us, He assigns the meaning and therefore there is meaning. Claim proven. However, as you have since mentioned, you are after "personal meaning", not merely any meaning.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 Are there any topics you can understand? It seems like you just go wandering off on some tangent totally unrelated to just what I'm talking about. Your claim is not proven since your claim was invalid and off topic. I have to rephrase everything to get you to understand a simple concept that I've tried to help you understand with the tiniest of baby steps, and you are light years away from understanding. Apparently you're just trolling, and not worth my time. BYE!
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
Considering you started by insulting me (which is a fallacy) about a topic I wasn't talking about (again, my claim was about probability), realized after a dozen posts that you were accusing me about an unmade claim, misworded the burden of proof rule, and only mentioned "personal meaning" today, which is different from just any meaning (lest you think the word "personal" is meaningless), I find your accusations unfounded. I'm not sorry for interpreting your words as your type them.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "Considering you started by insulting me (which is a fallacy)"
insults are not fallacious they are insults.
"my claim was about probability"
I wasn't talking about probability so your claim was off topic and irrelevant.
" and only mentioned "personal meaning" today"
because you couldn't and still cannot grasp the concept
"I'm not sorry for interpreting your words as your type them."
As I stated you are unable to understand the concepts I've stated. Thank you for acknowledging this
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist With regard to "personal meaning" - Oh no, I can grasp the concept quite well. However, the concept of "meaning" and the concept of "personal meaning" are different, and I was talking about "meaning", as that was how you first mentioned it.
"I wasn't talking about probability so your claim was off topic and irrelevant." My topic started with probability. It was the first comment I posted.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "insults are not fallacious they are insults." -- "Ad hominem abuse - usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument... This tactic is logically fallacious because insults... have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."
So, if your insults are part of your debate, they are fallacious. I will admit, though, if they aren't part of it, they're just poor conduct (and unfounded).
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "He assigns the meaning and therefore there is meaning."
I hold my hand to my forehead in shame for your stupidity. Enforced totalitarian rule does not give it's subjects and slaves existence personal meaning.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist I think you have a misunderstanding of the concept of meaning. Aside from the definitions that mean (hehe, so funny) something conveyed, there is "significant quality" (definition 3 from Merriam-Webster's dictionary). That is the most powerful of the simple definitions of meaning. If a Being is all-powerful, I would imagine He could assign meaning, since even a child can assign meaning to a toy. This meaning exists, even if it is not personal.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 no, no more word games with you You are UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND. Do you understand that?
If you think i'm wrong then tell me what i'm trying to tell you because you have NO CLUE!
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "Being is all-powerful, I would imagine He could assign meaning, "
Yep just as I said you don't even understand what i'm talking about... if he forced meaning to existence it would be LIMITED.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "if he forced meaning to existence it would be LIMITED." So... hypothetically, if He forced meaning into existence, that would be creating meaning, not destroying it. TADA! Meaning with God. I never disagreed that it's limited. We're finite beings, so meaning (and everything else about us) must be limited with or without God, unless we have (eternal) souls. If we have souls, I don't think it's logical to say they would exist without God or some other supernatural thing.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "After all, the toys in the Toy Story movies found meaning in being played with (at least, some playing, if you've watched the 3rd movie)."
A Fictional Disney movie has no bearing when talking about reality. Unless you purely believe your God is fictional.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "A Fictional Disney movie has no bearing when talking about reality."
A person came up with this idea of toys finding meaning in such an existence and it is theoretically possible someone could live with such an outlook and find meaning in such an existence. Because it is possible and is a relevant outlook, it does have bearing.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "A person came up with this idea of toys finding meaning in such an existence and it is theoretically possible someone could live with such an outlook and find meaning in such an existence"
I'm not talking about finding meaning in existence I'm talking about existence meaning more than what is imposed on us with the fallacy of God.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "I'm not talking about finding meaning in existence I'm talking about existence meaning more than what is imposed on us with the fallacy of God."
Ah, well why didn't you say so earlier? That would change the argument about "meaningless life" to "a life with no meaning outside of God". In that case, I would agree that it is entirely probable that if God exists then life has no meaning outside of Him. Yet, I wonder, how can you tell what meaning is from Him and what is not?
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "In that case, I would agree that it is entirely probable that if God exists then life has no meaning outside of Him."
NO! you're retarded. you can't understand existence without a GOD thingy YOU can't even coherently define. YOU Cant even offer one spec of evidence for., You're brain is broken you are totally brainwashed.
I'm not going to explain it to your trolling ass any more.. GROW A BRAIN and some teeth.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "you can't understand existence without a GOD thingy YOU can't even coherently define" I find it funny that you have often talked as if I were trying to prove God, the burden of proof was mine, etc etc, when I refer to God in the hypothetical sense or as a concept. Yet, how could you suppose what meaning in existence would be like if you can't define God? If you can define God, why do you think your point is meaningful at all, since the God theists believe He is undefinable?
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 I don't believe you I've been here and talked to too many fundamentalists to believe you are just some agnostic or atheist just debating hypothetically you are just another liar and hypocrite.
"how could you suppose what meaning in existence would be like if you can't define God?"
I can define god. it's a lie used to brainwash people. You cannot coherently define God in your hypothetical senses. You are a theist and a liar.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodKillerAtheist "I can define god. it's a lie used to brainwash people. You cannot coherently define God in your hypothetical senses. You are a theist and a liar."
I never said I could define God. Even if I could prove God exists, trying to define such a Being is a foolish undertaking.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "I never said I could define God. Even if I could prove God exists, trying to define such a Being is a foolish undertaking."
So it's foolish to even try to coherently define a being you and your cult claim to know fully and truly? You and your cult will never try to offer one spec of proof and that is why you refuse to Coherently define what you know for a fact is pure dishonest nonsense.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist Let's look at it this way. The challenge is to offer proof that God exists (evidence would be more reasonable, since very few non-mathematical things are completely proven). Well, the entire universe is evidence for God's existence in one interpretation, but you want more than the universe. So, you want me to offer you something that is outside of the universe as proof. Unless you already believe in something supernatural, both the challenge and the undertaking are silly.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 " the entire universe is evidence for God's existence in one interpretation, "
No that is a unfounded claim not a fact. you are spewing fiction.
"you want me to offer you something that is outside of the universe as proof. Unless you already believe in something supernatural"
No, NO, NO and NO! your entire argument is totally fallacious garbage! I want proof of your claim. Since you have only a claim and no proof YOUR CLAIM is only fiction THE END!
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "Since you have only a claim and no proof YOUR CLAIM is only fiction " No, that's an incorrect conclusion. Without proof, a claim is "in question", not automatically incorrect. If I claim the world is round, but I can't prove it, that doesn't make the world not round. Also, if one person makes the claim that God exists and another makes the claim God doesn't exist and neither can prove it, that doesn't make both of their claims "fiction" and make God exist and not exist.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 " No, that's an incorrect conclusion. Without proof, a claim is "in question", not automatically incorrect."
The problem is at some time you need to realize that when one side REFUSES to produce any evidence their claim can only logically be fiction. You can't admit to that because you're a liar.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "The problem is at some time you need to realize that when one side REFUSES to produce any evidence their claim can only logically be fiction." At some point, the other other side (that would be you) refuses to acknowledge the fact that, despite all the anger and hatred he's built up against theists, his opponent (that would be me) has only made claims about probability and about him debating wrongly and has not made the claim that God exists.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Azmodan6 " if one person makes the claim that God exists and another makes the claim God doesn't exist and neither can prove it, that doesn't make both of their claims "fiction" and make God exist and not exist."
But this is totally fallacious. Logically one must ask them self "Why would someone make a negative claim?" They wouldn't. So therefore the person who made the claim of GOD in the first place bares the burden of proof. So your statement is invalid and your claim is still fiction
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Azmodan6 " if one person makes the claim that God exists and another makes the claim God doesn't exist and neither can prove it, that doesn't make both of their claims "fiction" and make God exist and not exist."
But this is totally fallacious. Logically one must ask them self "Why would someone make a negative claim?" They wouldn't. So therefore the person who made the claim of GOD in the first place bares the burden of proof. So your statement is invalid and your claim is still fiction
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist To address a slightly older point... "So it's foolish to even try to coherently define a being you and your cult claim to know fully and truly?"
Yes, it is foolish to even try to coherently define a Being that one believes to be outside the universe and have attributes beyond understanding. Defining Him would likely just produce an inaccurate description. However, the vast majority of theists wouldn't say they claim to know God fully anyway.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "Yes, it is foolish to even try to coherently define a Being that/ outside the universe and / beyond understanding"
Then you shouldn't claim it if you cannot produce evidence of your claim. But you're dishonest so you will continue to make failed garbage arguments that can't even hold their own weight.
"However, the vast majority of theists wouldn't say they claim to know God fully"
So then why do they impose their GODS WORD on everyone so hatefully? You're comments are at best lies
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "So then why do they impose their GODS WORD on everyone so hatefully?" Imposing God's Word on people "hatefully" is almost certainly against the commands in His Word (though it depends on what you mean by it). You shouldn't extrapolate the actions of bad Christians to the entire Christian community. Also, I wonder at people that impose atheism or evolution of people hatefully, lacing nearly every point with insults.
"You're comments are at best lies" That's also unfounded.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 " Imposing God's Word on people "hatefully" is almost certainly against the commands"
Prove that statement... you can't. more lies from a liar.
" I wonder at people that impose atheism or evolution of people hatefully, lacing nearly every point with insults."
LOL! you are insane I don't see science teachers mutilating a child's genitals. I don't see a armies of biologists invading other countries to spread the gospel of Darwin LOL!!!! you are an idiot supreme
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "you are insane... the gospel of Darwin" Ah, is this what you mean by hateful? Well, circumcision (or "mutilating a child's genitals" as you call it) was something that people did willingly to be included in the nation of Israel prior to Christ. If they didn't want that, they didn't have to circumcise, so that wasn't hateful. Also, it was common knowledge that Jews never required gentiles to circumcise.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "armies of biologists invading other countries" As for armies invading other countries to spread the gospel, etc, that is blatantly against Jesus' instructions to His disciples and not in accordance with any command.
I have known some atheists to completely disregard arguments, questions, and company and offer no respect upon finding out the person/opponent in question is a theist. There are some countries in which it is common to sentence theists to death for their beliefs.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "As for armies invading other countries to spread the gospel, etc, that is blatantly against Jesus' instructions"
And yet it happens every day.
"There are some countries in which it is common to sentence theists to death for their beliefs"
only other theocracies would ever care what religion you are. There are no Atheist countries, Atheism is a personal lack of belief in the claims theists make and have failed to provide evidence for.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "And yet it happens every day." That doesn't mean anything about the religion. It just means the people doing it are sinning, according to the doctrines of Christianity, anyway. Concluding things about Christianity based on the sins of some Christians is a horribly incorrect extrapolation. By the same logic, I could conclude atheism is about murder because some atheists have murdered. Your idea of Christians' hateful imposition of the gospel isn't a part of the doctrine.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
Comment removed
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 I don't have to ask you if you're a theist I know. All theists use the same old broken arguments backed up with the blind eyes of faith and ignorance.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "Then you shouldn't claim it if you cannot produce evidence of your claim." Once again, I challenge you to quote where I actually claim God exists. Otherwise, stop challenging me to produce evidence for a claim I didn't make. The rest of that paragraph of yours is unfounded, especially since nearly all your responses consist of insults and challenges to produce evidence for a claim that I didn't make instead of logical responses.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "I challenge you to quote where I actually claim God exists"
Sure here is just one instance.
"Defining Him would likely just produce an inaccurate description."
You wouldn't say this if you didn't believe in God. You're being dishonest because you're a liar.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "You wouldn't say this if you didn't believe in God." Whether or not I would is irrelevant. That quote is an acknowledgement that the idea of the Judeo-Christian God includes indescribable traits, not a claim that He exists. Try again.
"Prove that statement." Well, since I had a "though it depends on what you mean by it" attached, and "hatefully" was your term, I'd need you to specify what manner they were imposing God's Word that you describe as hateful.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 There is no question you are trying to produce a fallacy in favor of the existence of a god thingy even if you have to take the middle ground. I've shown you that your fallacious argument holds no weight and still you believe you have some middle ground. All your posts have been a dodge and weave to avoid the facts and hold fast to the middle because my points all stick and you can't stand it. So fine I will play your game. Do you believe God exists?
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "I've shown you that your fallacious argument holds no weight" No, you have not shown me anything of the sort.
"still you believe you have some middle ground" On the contrary, I believe precisely what I started with.
"All your posts have been a dodge and weave... all stick and you can't stand it." Yet, you've abandoned so many points (like the fact I haven't claimed God exists, or the first point of probability) and not responded to many of mine.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "So fine I will play your game. Do you believe God exists?" That's not my game. I neither want you to ask that, nor do I care. Whether or not I personally believe is irrelevant to my points.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 Yes, Yes! I say lets not beat around the bush any longer come off of your false middle ground. Are you a Theist or are you just arguing because you have nothing better to do. State fact do you claim or deny God? Stop dodging I hate it when Christians try to take this false middle ground, it's because they are taught to be dishonest in their cult. Naturally they will be dishonest and deceitful elsewhere. So come clean no more lies and dodging.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist An early comment of yours, was marked as spam by someone, so I didn't see it until now...
"So your statement is invalid and your claim is still fiction" I don't agree with your conclusion, but let's try this. In a hypothetical universe, there are two beings: Billy and Johnny. One is God. The laws of logic are the same as in this universe. Billy thinks he's God and Johnny thinks he's God. Both claims are positive and neither are proven. Are both claims fiction?
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "So your statement is invalid and your claim is still fiction" If you prefer a hypothetical of this universe, since you didn't like my Toy Story example, you could also try this: One person claims I'm closer to the truth than you are. Another person claims you're closer to the truth than I am. Both are positive statements. If both are unproven, are both fiction? What if a 3rd person says we're the same distance from the truth and doesn't prove it? Are all three fiction?
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "One person claims I'm closer to the truth than you are. Another person claims you're closer to the truth than I am. Both are positive statements."
Yes and thats exactly NOT what's going on here. I can't lack belief in a claim you have yet to make. Therefore since YOU support the claim there is a God you have inadvertently with your middle ground deceitful tactics claimed God without actually saying that you're claiming God. Your argument keeps failing. Face the facts!
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "Therefore since YOU support the claim there is a God..." Where did I support the claim? Is it because I know about the concept of God (in some respects) and argue against illogical conclusions about God? If I did so about evolution, would you call me an evolutionist? If I did so about Africa, would you say I'm a native African? As Aristotle pointed out, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it."
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "Billy thinks he's God and Johnny thinks he's God. Both claims are positive and neither are proven. Are both claims fiction?"
This situation is also invalid since only one person is claiming god in our situation. I CANT LACK BELIEF IN WHAT YOU HAVE YET TO CLAIM. Therefore you have deceivingly made the claim by putting forward an argument for the claim but not actually stepping up to state your side. since you are a pussy like all christians. because you know your side always loses
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "This situation is also invalid" No, the situation is not invalid; assuming both of their arguments to be true is invalid because of mutual exclusion. The situation's a description of the facts of a hypothetical situation, so it can't be invalid within the situation.
"argument for the claim but not actually stepping up to state your side" My argument in this post was that your idea of something being fiction if it is not proven is stupid. My claim is that you are wrong.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 Step up be a man or a woman or whatever have some pride in your cult. It's obvious you're a Christian by your apologetic argument style..
I'd be ashamed if I was a christian also.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "Step up be a man or a woman or whatever have some pride in your cult. It's obvious you're a Christian by your apologetic argument style.."
Wow... not only do you attempt to conclude my religious beliefs based on my argument style, but you ask me to show pride in "[my] cult". Didn't you know pride is a deadly sin, according to many religions?
Azmodan6 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Azmodan6 "Didn't you know pride is a deadly sin, according to many religions?"
So is lying but that never stopped people like yourself.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "State fact do you claim or deny God?" Why? If it's irrelevant, why do I have to state it? I don't feel the need to state my age, sex, or political stance either since they are all irrelevant also, though they may be facts. Logic stands on its own, no matter the beliefs (or lack of beliefs, as you've described for atheists) of the people that speak it.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "Why?" to see if you'll be honest. it's already apparent you're a theist most likely a christian. It's made apparent by your dodge, weve, middle ground arguments that always require special pleading.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
"It's made apparent by your dodge, weve, middle ground arguments that always require special pleading."
I still don't see how I've done this. I still believe what I started with. Any alterations are rewordings and such so you could understand. Pardon me for trying to be on topic. I'll try not to. OOOOOOooo! Look! Something shiny!!
"I can't lack belief in a claim you have yet to make." ... and that's not a topic I was arguing about. If you want to argue it, find another opponent.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "and that's not a topic I was arguing about. If you want to argue it, find another opponent."
Because you're off topic because your trying to dodge the subject because you've been defeated.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodKillerAtheist "you've been defeated." Now you're just boring me with false claims and insults. I think I'm done here. My point about probability remains quite valid and my other points remain unfazed, despite your myriad of insults and repeated unfounded accusations. Unless you want to add something of substance, I think I shall retire from this debate.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist Lets take the US Power ball lottery
1.What are the odds of you winning, if you play one pick?
2. What are the odds of someone winning on one pick?
mrgetrealpeople 2 months ago
@mrgetrealpeople Lets take your game of chance and apply it to the chance that a God-thingy could have existed infinitley and used magic spells to create everything, and compare that to the chance that a few basic chemical structures evolved through chemical evolution to reproduce themselves, starting the whole chain of biological evolution.
Even if the chance of Biological evolution was one in a Trillion the chance of a magic wizard who knew everything who had magic powers would be far less.
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist.....Why did you think I believe in God? I just asked a simple math odds question...Again
Lets take the US Power ball lottery
1.What are the odds of you winning, if you play one pick?
2. What are the odds of SOMEONE winning on one pick?
Pay special attention to question 2
The odds on Question 1 is...... 195 million to 1
mrgetrealpeople 2 months ago
@mrgetrealpeople Well excuse me if I'm wrong. Sorry I don't gamble so I don't even know what the hell you're talking about. Although I've seen this, the argument of probability that creationists like to use, and if that's what you're going on about I should warn you that even 195 million to 1 are better odds than the odds supporting a magic man using spells those odds are ultimate because God is supposedly ultimately complex and all knowing So the odds are infinity, to infinitesimal
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@mrgetrealpeople The odds are the same. Seriously I don't gamble so I don't even know what a power ball is.
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist The odds are not the same, 1 player= 1 in 195 million.
195 million players odds 1 to 1....Evolution has lots of players...
mrgetrealpeople 2 months ago
@mrgetrealpeople Sorry Like I said I don't gamble so I don't know the odds. The problem though is that evolution isn't a lottery so maybe you're using a bad analogy to try to make a point. Every player has a set of genes that all are governed by natural selection. Those players who reproduce all win in respect to your lottery analogy because they will pass on these amplified genes to their offspring. The product of evolution is variation that survives best. Not one player who wins it all.
GodKillerAtheist 2 months ago
@GodKillerAtheist "I can define god. it's a lie used to brainwash people."
So, you can imagine the meaning in a universe in which God is a lie, but it's not the universe any of your opponents are thinking about. Therefore, your points concerning your concept of God, in such a case, are irrelevant to present discussions. Similarly, if you proceed to talk about the core of the earth and call it Chicago, it is irrelevant to any discussion of the actual city of Chicago.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "you /imagine the meaning /in which God is a lie, /not the universe any of your opponents are thinking about"
ya I got to go you're totally retarded. you're just turning what I said around on itself
"your points concerning your concept of God, in such a case, are irrelevant to present discussions"
Therefore, since all I've done is ask you to coherently define God I apparently have no concept of the lack of proof you've provided and your claim is irrelevant to all discussions.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist I'm still not obligated to define Him. Yet, my point of you imagining wrongly is still valid, since I cannot argue a counter point if we aren't talking about the same universe (one with God, for this point and one without God for another point). You must suppose a term I use, since it is relevant to my point, otherwise you've made an impasse, and you've refused to pursue logic. If you wish to prove my term as incorrect in reality, go for it.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "I'm still not obligated to define Him"
Yes you are since a universe where GOD is necessary for some unknown reason is your claim not mine.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodKillerAtheist "Yes you are since a universe where GOD is necessary... is your claim" No, that's not my claim. Try again.
"No that is a unfounded claim not a fact."
Sorry, let's try again. "the entire universe is evidence for God's existence in ONE INTERPRETATION". I didn't claim it to be an undeniably fact, but, then again, very very few things are.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "Yes you are since a universe where GOD is necessary... is your claim not mine." No, that's not my claim. If you think it is, please quote the post I made such a claim in.
"No that is a unfounded claim not a fact"
Let's try again. The entire universe is evidence for God's existence in ONE INTERPRETATION. I didn't say it was an undeniably fact (which very few non-mathematical things are). It is an unproven claim, but so is the claim that it's fiction, which you made.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "You must suppose a term I use, since it is relevant to my point, otherwise you've made an impasse, and you've refused to pursue logic. If you wish to prove my term as incorrect in reality, go for it."
I have no CLUE what you are babbling about I've stated you need to produce evidence for your claim of god for it to not be fiction and you are dancing dodging and tossing out fallacious garbage to avoid doing this you are sweating buckets to avoid providing one spec of evidence.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "I have no CLUE what you are babbling about" You said you can define God and you define God as a "lie used to brainwash people". If that is true, then when you talked about the meaning of a universe with God in it, you talked about a universe with a brainwashing lie for an entity. However, that doesn't prove anything about the meaning in a hypothetical universe in which God truly exists.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 " plus it has any meaning you might have from either serving Him or being used by Him"
you would be meaningful to him not yourself.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist Since you are so caught up with this idea of God using us as toys, imagine a bunch of child's toys on a floor. How much meaning do they have just sitting there? Not a lot. How much do they have when they are fulfilling their purpose by being played with? More. Also remember that many people believe God sustains the universe, so there'd be no people to have meaning without Him in that case. Is it so hard to imagine that God would add meaning to the equation?
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 " How much do they have when they are fulfilling their purpose by being played with?"
none since they are lifeless toys.
"God sustains the universe, so there'd be no people to have meaning without Him"
Again you are confusing what a God thing would limit us with, if he was choosing our purpose then our existence has NO purpose but to the God thingy. Our IMPOSED purpose of serving some sky magician would be irrelevant to the actual unlimited purpose of reality.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "Then you say the fact that people are stupid enough to believe them are the proof" - If billions of people miss this obviousness, it's not obvious. I think you meant "the fact... IS proof" Again, I said it was evidenced by the fact. If you use a dictionary, you would see that "evidence" means "to support by evidence" not "to prove". Finally, I said "but the fact that not everyone is so incredibly stupid...". NOT everyone... Not is an important word. Do NOT omit it.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "evidence" means "to support by evidence" not "to prove" and that's not what you said. I never stated evidence is to prove. I said you need to have evidence to make your claims fact.
Evidence=The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist You said "Then you say the fact that people are stupid enough to believe them are the proof"
I said "The claim is not obviously fictional, as evidenced by..."
I used "evidence" the verb in that quote; I did not say it proved anything, as you claim I did. In fact, the next sentence had the qualifier "The idea that many people believe it is not proof" follow by a statement that it was evidence.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 OK buddy you wanna play word verb and noun games since you can't defeat logic. come back to the argument you're fading into some convoluted grammar nazi paranoid misconception of what I was trying to say because you're argument failed and this is all you have...pathetic.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "And that's not what I'm doing" Yes, it is, unless you aren't abiding by the logical rule you have misquoted. You have concluded that God is fictional until proven fact. The logical rule you must have been thinking of is called "burden of proof", and it states that a person is obligated to provide evidence for his position. It doesn't state that a claim is fiction until proven. The proof doesn't determine something's existence, just the strength of a position in a debate.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 ""burden of proof", and it states that a person is obligated to provide evidence for his position. It doesn't state that a claim is fiction until proven"
Yes, I know what the burden of proof is and all theists argue that they are not required to provide any evidence for their claims. That's why my logical maxim supersedes this argument. You're claim is Fiction without evidence to prove
Oh and BTW Proof=Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "Yes, I know what the burden of proof... their claims." - Clearly you don't know what it is, because you're misquoting it, and your extrapolation about all theists is incorrect also. If you think it is correct, why don't you provide proof (else by your "logical maxim" it is fiction)?
Proof - the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact (from merriam-webster . com)
Proof is can be sufficiently compelling evidence , evidence is not proof.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "Clearly you don't know what it is"
CLEARLY I DO. SERIOUSLY DO I NEED TO TAKE KIDDY STEPS WITH YOU?
" why don't you provide proof (else by your "logical maxim" it is fiction)?"
Proof of what? my lack of belief in your child rapist god?
So ok if you want to use your version of the word then you are obviously trolling and a dishonest twat after I posted the version of the word I'm using.
How about we use this one since you are drunk
Proof=The strength of distilled alcoholic liquor
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "evidence is not proof"
evidence=The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
Information given personally, drawn from a document, or in the form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in court.
So you can't win so you are playing word games Ok I see what you're doing now HAHA funny.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist I'm sorry, what? I gave that statement in defense of a previous statement that you attacked with a confusion of "proof" and "evidence". It was actually relevant. Also, the definition you provided does not refute my statement that evidence is not proof, so... why did you provide it?
You have still not provided a single logical point against my original claim about probability. It seems you are either caught up trying to argue something else, or you're avoiding it.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
@Azmodan6 "Proof is can be sufficiently compelling evidence , evidence is not proof"
fail
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
@GodKillerAtheist "fail" Proof is definitely evidence, but evidence is not definitely proof. The definitions and uses of the words support this claim, otherwise circumstantial evidence would also be proof because it is still evidence. Yet, circumstantial evidence is not proof, but proof is "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact" (Merriam-Webster . com). Therefore, not all evidence is proof, but proof is, as defined, always evidence. I am correct.
Azmodan6 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Azmodan6 The Odds of you winning the Powerball lottery is 1-195 million
The odds someone will win the powerball lottery is 1 in 6
Example there are 104 drawings a year the average is one winner in six draws.
Someone will win the lottery, when there is liquid water and a great amount of time, some polymers, proteins, amino acids,(someone) should evolve to because self replicating cells.
mrgetrealpeople 2 months ago
I thought it was science that said life came about from random or chance event. Science in trying to explain evolution, so why the attack on the creationist? I'm not into creation but to call a creationist a simpleton, retardus, ignorance is ad hominem. Where is the science in character assisination? Isn't the question about the appearance of the eye, a fair question for evolutionists to answer? I notice that a probability figure for the eye was not given. The idea of randomness is false.
the0fart0machine 1 year ago
@the0fart0machine "I thought it was science that said life came about from random or chance"
science is based on determinism.
GodKillerAtheist 1 year ago
While it appears there is a 1 in 6 chance, that is only a 1 in 6 "chance" because we aren't aware of certain variables,
If I were to throw the same dice the same way twice, the outcome would be the same
So there is no chance, there are just variables we aren't aware of, the position of the dice at point of release, energy put into the throw, direction it is thrown in, and nearby environment, all add up to an unpredictability to us as humans, yet there is no chance involved, its just physics
Rrrrobbo 1 year ago
Random chance can do anything.
bouiglob 2 years ago
And talk about an infinite numbers of possibilities also! Those were only 6 sided die, the amount of ways things could evolve is much larger than just 6 ways. What a magnificent world we live in!
Hahah creating the world in a year, now you can see what religion can do to close-minded people.
AtheisticTranquility 2 years ago
Bravo for most of the math and for the dice simulation, but the "100%" conclusion to the question "what are the chances of [a planet perfectly suited for us happening] without God?" is based on assumption. You assumed God doesn't exist, observed this planet existing, and concluded 100%. You can't use this universe as evidence that such a planet appeared without God unless you prove He doesn't exist.
Azmodan6 2 years ago
@Azmodan6 there are about 100.000.000.000.000 planets and stars in the universe.. maybe far more.. we find water on the moon and on mars... please tell how are the chances that NO planet perfectly suited for us exists?
ecreif 2 years ago
I cannot answer the question you asked. However, it is also irrelevant to my post. I was not providing another point, but merely pointing out that the person that made the observation concerning the chances of something happening without God committed a fallacy and was therefore wrong.
Azmodan6 2 years ago
@Azmodan6 The planet isn't perfectly suited for us. We are sufficiently adapted to continue surviving on Earth.
TheRationalizer 2 years ago
Again, this is irrelevant to my point. My point is not concerning evolution, adaptation to environment, etc. My point is about the guy that made this video and his completely illogical conclusion of probability about God (see my first comment).
Azmodan6 2 years ago
If it is irrelevant to your point then you shouldn't use it as part of your argument.
The chances of a lot of things are very low, 1 in X, where X is a large number. But note there is a 1 there, which means given enough time they WILL happen, just not often.
That's exactly what we see in the expansion of the universe, and the origins of life. Things that don't happen very often but that have had billions of years to try.
TheRationalizer 2 years ago
Let me clarify: the probability of whether or not a planet exists that is perfectly or imperfectly suited for us is irrelevant to my argument. The probability of such a planet, or any planet, or anything existing with or without God is relevant.
Azmodan6 2 years ago
The problem would be that God is often completely discounted in this calculation. Since you cannot prove God does or does not exist, you cannot calculate the chances of something with Him or without Him. Why do we think anything would exist without Him? How could we possibility assume He doesn't exist now if we can't disprove Him? If we can't prove or disprove His existence, we cannot conclude the probability of anything happening without Him.
Azmodan6 2 years ago 3
"The probability of any planet existing without God is relevant"
And how do you propose to determine this probability? Create God and see how many planets appear, or destroy God and see how many planets appear?
How about looking at it more logically? The planets DO exist, the probability of them existing is 1. This fact increases the probability of Elephants existing, but has no bearing on whether or not God exists.
TheRationalizer 2 years ago
Ah... now that is a logical perspective. Your perspective, however, is not more logical than mine. I think you've just finally realized the logic, which I've been commenting about this whole time. I never proposed there was any way to determine the probability of anything existing without God. In fact, I pretty much said there wasn't one. thermionicemission stated a probability for something existing without God. thermionicemission is/was completely wrong. That was my point.
Azmodan6 2 years ago
My bad... it is Nick Gisburn that is completely wrong in this respect and not thermionicemission.
Azmodan6 2 years ago
Can someone answer me please...If true, evolution had mutation that mostly bad, where are the fossils? since there should had been thousands of wrong developed species.
I watched this now from Rabbi Boteach Vs hitchens.
Please help thank you
Forkroute 2 years ago
What do you think happened to bad mutations? They got eaten or dispatched in other gruesome ways very quickly.
Fossilization is an EXTREMELY rare process, and yeah there are plenty of fossils out there if