Is God Real?

[Cann!bal]

I don't wanna get in this debate or anything and am kind in the middle in this argument, but I found this funny.

Spoiler

That image is making a straw man argument, by misrepresentation of an atheists beliefs in an attempt to downgrade atheism in general. Atheism is solely the rejection of a god, nothing more. It does not imply you believe in the big bang, evolution nor does it even imply you can't believe in superstitious concepts, such as magic, the afterlife and souls. For example; Buddhists do not believe in god, therefore, are atheists, however, some believe there is an afterlife.

The same downgrade can be made with Christianity: God sent god to save god's creations from god.

 

[Greed]

That image is making a straw man argument, by misrepresentation of an atheists beliefs in an attempt to downgrade atheism in general. Atheism is solely the rejection of a god, nothing more. It does not imply you believe in big bang, evolution nor does it even imply you can't believe in superstitious concepts, such as the magic, afterlife and souls. For example; Buddhists do not believe in god, therefore, are atheists, however, some believe there is an afterlife.

Yeah I also noticed that it was flawed when it said "the belief" since Atheism is not a belief.

 

[Quattro]

That image is making a straw man argument, by misrepresentation of an atheists beliefs in an attempt to downgrade atheism in general. Atheism is solely the rejection of a god, nothing more. It does not imply you believe in big bang, evolution nor does it even imply you can't believe in superstitious concepts, such as the magic, afterlife and souls. For example; Buddhists do not believe in god, therefore, are atheists, however, some believe there is an afterlife.

Same goes for believing in God. just because I believe in God doesnt mean I have to believe hes omniscient omnipotent or in Jesus or anything else lol.

 

[Cann!bal]

How can there logically not be a primary creator? Show me how my logic is wrong. It is not an argument from ignorance because there is a logical chain that is followed.

I have! It's an argument from ignorance and a cop out, you're simply in denial of my aforementioned logic.

 

[Nevermind]

Same goes for believing in God. just because I believe in God doesnt mean I have to believe hes omniscient omnipotent or in Jesus or anything else lol.

Well, you would have to clarify in which "God" you believe.

 

[Cann!bal]

Yeah I also noticed that it was flawed when it said "the belief" since Atheism is not a belief.

Correct, it is the rejection of a faith-based belief.

 

[Quattro]

Well, you would have to clarify in which "God" you believe.

God, the creator of the universe eternal and outside the 'system'. Closest defined God would be Arsitotle's God

---

I have! It's an argument from ignorance and a cop out, you're simply in denial of my aforementioned logic.

how is it an argument from ignorance explain.

Everyone one of your responses to this thread as follows:

I provide a logical explanation

you claim its some sort of fallacy without explaining why you claim it.

This is the worst debate ive ever been in. If you dont feel like you need to explain any decision or explanation you give I may as well not waste my time because you are acting in ignorance.

 

[Nevermind]

God, the creator of the universe eternal and outside the 'system'. Closest defined God would be Arsitotle's God

Aristotle's view of "God" could still be disproved by the same facts used to disprove any other god.

 

[Cann!bal]

how is it an argument from ignorance explain.

Everyone one of your responses to this thread as follows:

I provide a logical explanation

you claim its some sort of fallacy without explaining why you claim it.

This is the worst debate ive ever been in. If you dont feel like you need to explain any decision or explanation you give I may as well not waste my time because you are acting in ignorance.

I have explained why it is an argument from ignorance several times!

"How do you know that there must be a primary creator? You simply don't know that, therefore, it's an argument from ignorance."

I have explained why they are fallacies.

YOU'RE SO STUBBORN!!!

 

[Quattro]

I have explained why it is an argument from ignorance several times!

"How do you know that there must be a primary creator? You simply don't know that, therefore, it's an argument from ignorance."

I have explained why they are fallacies.

YOU'RE SO STUBBORN!!!

Lol if you think that is an argument against God, then I have you are committing an argument from ignorance as well LOL!

How do you know there must be NO GOD? You simply don't know that, therefore, it's an argument from ignorance.

YOU'RE SO STUBBORN!!!

On a more serious note;

You have a creator, your creator has a creator, your creator's creator has a creator. We follow this chain all the way down to THE FIRST EVER CREATOR. THAT CREATOR WHO IS FIRST MUST CREATE WITHOUT BEING CREATED. If you are saying that is logically incorrect you are simply ignorant and I will be done debating with you. If any neutral person were to look at our arguments up until this point, and only base the correct answer based on the argument given I would have beaten you by a landslide at this point.

 

[Gor]

I personally thing god is real but I also believe everyone is entitled to there own opinion and do not like debating beliefs

 

[Nevermind]

Lol if you think that is an argument against God, then I have you are committing an argument from ignorance as well LOL!

How do you know there must be NO GOD? You simply don't know that, therefore, it's an argument from ignorance.

YOU'RE SO STUBBORN!!!

On a more serious note;

You have a creator, your creator has a creator, your creator's creator has a creator. We follow this chain all the way down to THE FIRST EVER CREATOR. THAT CREATOR WHO IS FIRST MUST CREATE WITHOUT BEING CREATED. If you are saying that is logically incorrect you are simply ignorant and I will be done debating with you. If any neutral person were to look at our arguments up until this point, and only base the correct answer based on the argument given I would have beaten you by a landslide at this point.

You realize that if you trace back your lineage to the beginning of time, you will end up at a molecular level, with particles so small that we can't even imagine. It would not lead back to God.

 

[Quattro]

You realize that if you trace back your lineage to the beginning of time, you will end up at a molecular level, with particles so small that we can't even imagine. It would not lead back to God.

yup. i do and whatever you want to say is the smallest particle would have been created by God. I am not claiming adam and eve created that it would be prepostorous. Evolution is a legitimate and acceptable theory. Even the Roman Catholic church accepts it as correct.

anyways I wont be entertaining points from you at this point only cannib!l. 2 against 1 isnt very fair, and I dont have much spare time to be able to hold 2 seperate arguments.

 

[Cann!bal]

Lol if you think that is an argument against God, then I have you are committing an argument from ignorance as well LOL!

How do you know there must be NO GOD? You simply don't know that, therefore, it's an argument from ignorance.

YOU'RE SO STUBBORN!!!

I am not committing a fallacy.

I never claimed there must be no god, I said logic chiefly favors the likeliness of there being no god. Regardless, you're the claimant, I am the rejector of your claim. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.

You have a creator, your creator has a creator, your creator's creator has a creator. We follow this chain all the way down to THE FIRST EVER CREATOR. THAT CREATOR WHO IS FIRST MUST CREATE WITHOUT BEING CREATED. If you are saying that is logically incorrect you are simply ignorant and I will be done debating with you. If any neutral person were to look at our arguments up until this point, and only base the correct answer based on the argument given I would have beaten you by a landslide at this point.

That's not correct, you do not understand the process of how we came to be. You're scientifically illiterate, you exhibited this earlier.

Plus, the logic you convey is that everything has a creator, not that it eventually ends it ends and there's one that's creatorless.

 

[Nevermind]

yup. i do and whatever you want to say is the smallest particle would have been created by God. I am not claiming adam and eve created that it would be prepostorous. Evolution is a legitimate and acceptable theory. Even the Roman Catholic church accepts it as correct.

anyways I wont be entertaining points from you at this point only cannib!l. 2 against 1 isnt very fair, and I dont have much spare time to be able to hold 2 seperate arguments.

There doesn't have to be God to create the smallest particle. It could be so small that there is no creator. The first particle could be smaller than we could even imagine, so small that it barely exists. The whole argument behind God, is that God created the universe and life, not the smallest, infinitesimal particle that in billions upon billions of years became the universe as we know it. There could be many other explanations that make much more sense than a creator.

 

[Quattro]

I am not committing a fallacy.

I never claimed there must be no god, I said logic chiefly favors the likeliness of there being no god. Regardless, you're the claimant, I am the rejector of your claim. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence.


That's not correct, you do not understand the process of how we came to be. You're scientifically illiterate, you exhibited this earlier.

Plus, the logic you convey is that everything has a creator, not that it eventually ends it ends and there's one that's creatorless.

This statement right here proves my point that you cannot read. This entire time that is exactly what I have been claiming.

I am out of this thread, I am sick of arguing with illiterate baboons. I truly believe if you went to school you wouldn't even be able to hold a 1.8 gpa in any philosophy course regardless of content.

 

[Cann!bal]

anyways I wont be entertaining points from you at this point only cannib!l. 2 against 1 isnt very fair, and I dont have much spare time to be able to hold 2 seperate arguments.

That's how forum debates work.

 

[Cannabis]

What have we discovered about our universe that would invalidate there being a primary creator. Also there would HAVE to be a primary creator otherwise our universe would be infinite and have no finite start point, which we know by science is not true.

Why does there have to be a source, how do you know every thing isn't cyclical and just repeats and repeats and repeats. Life certainly does. Birth, death, decay, repeat. The life form may change but the matter that makes it is the same.

 

[Cann!bal]

This statement right here proves my point that you cannot read. This entire time that is exactly what I have been claiming.

I am out of this thread, I am sick of arguing with illiterate baboons. I truly believe if you went to school you wouldn't even be able to hold a 1.8 gpa in any philosophy course regardless of content.

I don't think you understand the concept of logic. EDIT: Let me more precise; you do not understand logic.

Yes, I am the illiterate baboon. Right you are. Philosophy is a dying concept, science is prevailing. Wouldn't matter either way.

 

[Establish]

Well, that was one of the best debates I've seen on here.