Please quote me properly, it's obnoxious when you don't.
=> I didnt define God as eternal please provide proof where i did so. Once again i emplore you to read. Before you write.
You defined god as a creator who was not created which is the essential equivalent of defining him as eternal. L-L-LOGIC. Think before you write.
Yes he is the creator by definition, not once did I state he is the ruler. Once again PLEASE READ and do not make up false facts.
You asked me to provide a definition of god and I provided the simplest definition of a god, yet, you here you are making accusations that I claimed you said he was the ruler of the universe when it was simply the definition I gave. I should be telling you to read more thoroughly, not the contrary.
Provide evidence please. You are creating thesis statements without providing evidence, obviously you weren't a very good essay writer or debater in school.
"Please provide me with an appropriate definition of God
pretty sure mine is correct."
This sentence implies an argument from personal incredulity fallacy. In this fallacy, one argues that because they do not find a premise to be likely or believable, it cannot be true, regardless of evidence(which I provided.) The fallacy lies in presenting one's beliefs about a proposition as evidence.
"=> I think you are quite confused as to what a fallacy is. God must be defined in some sort of way otherwise we could claim God and a squirrel were the same thing lol. I took the most simplistic and universal definition of God in my argument. Please provide me with an appropriate definition of God pretty sure mine is correct."
This paragraph implies an argument from ignorance. In this fallacy, an appeal to ignorance is made as one argues that a premise is true because it has not been proven false. The premise is your definition of god being creatorless and eternal. You do not know that god is creatorless and eternal, however, it can be proven false for they're attributes given to an unfalsifiable and untestable concept.
You cannot simply save a step and conclude the universe always existed everything by definition must be created in order to exist, and the only being that exists without being created but created is God.
Yes, you can, if you're going to continue to deny valid logic I will cease to debate with you.
Obviously you have never written a paper or been to a debate before. The provider of this thesis statement always carries the burden of proof since a thesis statement by definition is a statement that needs proving. Also for you to claim the burdon of proof must fall on theists is very arrogant of you. You claim all logic points towards the likeliness of there being no God yet you have yet to provide any evidence to support your point.
Any thought as to why apologetics always are the one putting forth an argument in formal debates? It's because the burden of proof is upon them, they're the one's making the claims, thus, trying to suffice and prove that apologetic claim with an argument.
You blatantly don't understand the logic that extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. If I was I meet a leprechaun and went to Jupiter to have tea with him, however, claimed I was incapable of proving solid evidence of my claim, would you believe me?
It's not arrogant, it's simply a matter of logic.
My response of "The burden of proof is not upon atheists, rather theists for extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. All logic points towards the likeliness of there being no god, I'm not naive," was directed towards "Also You say God does not exist as a fact yet you have supplied no evidence to prove it. Interesting how naive you are."
=> God must always have a capital G otherwise you are not writing about God. Its a commonly known fact. anyways I dont have time to quibble over grammar on the internet.
I'm the most grammatically literate user on this forum. I wouldn't state contrary if it weren't true.
It is not a fallacy for this reason, every term must have a definition. If I were to tell you the sky appears to be blue during the day and many people agreed that the sky appeared to be Blue it would not make that statement a fallacy. It is only logically incorrect if the definition is not fact.
"It is only logically incorrect if the definition is not fact," PRECISELY! The claim you are making is argument from ignorance fallacy, because of the aforementioned logic in quote three's rebuttal.
God is by definition a creator that is not created. I only use the term widely accepted in my argument since I am sure that not 100% agree with the definition just like i am sure there is at least on crazy person out there who honestly believes the sky appears to be orange during the day.
Again, defining god as creatorless and eternal is an argument from ignorance fallacy, refer to quote three's rebuttal.
I do not any where in my argument claim that since a majority of people believe in God he must exist, that is naive and ridiculous since the one may correct in the face of the many.
That's not what the fallacy implies. It implies that somehow their belief helps validate and support your claim, despite truth being independent, regardless of the populous.
Now I have a question for you,
Do you believe in miracles? Do you believe a miracle can occur? Can someone miraculously be healed of cancer?
That's three questions, not one. However, asking three questions was quite pointless, they're all asking the question, and the answer is no.
Also, stop using the phrase 'by definition,' because essentially every time you do, you're exhibiting fallacious logic, because you are providing your personal definition to avoid other logical fallacies.