• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

See OP

  • Total voters
    67
Lightdemon said:
Yes, however the problem is when the adult does not recognize what he has been asking for is illogical, reverting back to a child's mental status.
Click to expand...
:roll:
As the ocean said to the drop of water.

We've already determined that:
- you admit you cannot support your position that there is no God
- you admit you are deluding yourself into thinknig that you have free wiil.

What -does- it say about the mental status of someone who stands by a claim that he knows he cannot support, and has to delude himself to let get past something he knows is true?
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
:roll:
As the ocean said to the drop of water.

We've already determined that:
- you admit you cannot support your position that there is no God
- you admit you are deluding yourself into thinknig that you have free wiil.

What -does- it say about the mental status of someone who stands by a claim that he knows he cannot support, and has to delude himself to let get past something he knows is true?
Click to expand...


Cherry picking? Why do you ignore the rest of my argument?

I admit that the claim "God does not exist" cannot stand by itself, because gathering proof of nothing is not possible, and also because it relies on the claim that "God does exist." Why have you so conveniently forgotten the second part of the argument? Could it be, perhaps, if you've actually acknowledged that point, you'd have to admit that I was right all along? Meaning you have to concede a single point? That would be uncharacteristic of you, wouldn't it? ;) Is winning really everything to you, because if it is, that's just more fun for me.


And you still can't bring yourself to admit that free will doesn't matter. You just keep dodging and ignoring it all you like. But you and I both know the answer already.
 
Lightdemon said:
Cherry picking? Why do you ignore the rest of my argument?
Click to expand...
Nothing in the rest of your argument does anything to change what I said.

You cannnot back up your position and you have to delude yourself to hang on to the idea that you have something you do not.

You -agree- to both of these things.

No more need be said.
 
Last edited:
I'm reading ALOT of Bull**** on this thread...

Goobieman said:
That you have taken an unsupportable position is -your- problem. Nothing in taking the position that there is no God in any way necessitates that anyone first even attempt to prove God.
Click to expand...

Of course there is, Chronologically.

Everyone is an atheist in respect to gods they have never heard of, they do not believe in them because they can't. Having a lack of belief in a deity is not unsupportable, it isn't anything; nor is the refusal to accept an unproven claim. But in order for one to say "I do not believe in that god" someone else must have claimed that said god exists. Given that no logical or scientific argument for ANY god has or can be made, it is safe to conclude that all of these obviously man-made gods do not exist.

The only claims that are unsupportable is "I know that there are not ANY gods in any sense" or "I know that there is." Why do YOU support the claim for your unproven god?

If --everything-- is created by the laws of physics, then you create NOTHING, including decisions on what you're doing for dinner or any other 'choice' you think you made. ALL of this was pre-determined at the moment of the big bang.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Free will is what we call our experience of making choices, it is what we have defined it. How is a god necessary for free will? I've heard you repeat this before, but you've never explained your logic behind it...

How was my choice in dinner tonight determined at the big bang? Determinism is utter tripe, that flies in the face of the studies of neurology and quantum physics. Conscious beings are not unprocessing input-output gene machines.

Where did you get this tripe from? Do you or do you not accept that we have free will? If you do, how is not only A god, but YOUR GOD necessary for this purely physical and explainable neurological phenomena?
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Nothing in the rest of your argument does anything to change what I said.
Click to expand...

Just won't concede it, will you? :rofl

It's hilarious that you can't. I don't think you realize how entertaining this is for me.
 
Lightdemon said:
I admit that the claim "God does not exist" cannot stand by itself
Click to expand...

If you're talking about a specific god, given the absence of evidence, fallacies in the proponent's logic and known history of the myth sure you can; as safely as one can state that Santa does not exist. But technically speaking, it is better to say "I do not believe in that god." Saying "god does not exist" presupposes that the god you're discussing, if there were a god, would be the god.

When someone asks me if I "believe in god," before admitting my lack of belief in any god(s) I first pose the question, "To which god do you speak of?... No I don't."
 
Lachean said:
If you're talking about a specific god, given the absence of evidence, fallacies in the proponent's logic and known history of the myth sure you can; as safely as one can state that Santa does not exist. But technically speaking, it is better to say "I do not believe in that god." Saying "god does not exist" presupposes that the god you're discussing, if there were a god, would be the god.
Click to expand...

Yes, but in this thread, I don't think there is any confusion about which god we're discussing.
 
Most of it is from you....

Lachean said:
Of course there is, Chronologically.
Click to expand...
No, there isnt. "God does not exist" is a position that can be taken without regard to and independent from the position that "God does exist".

What are you talking about? Free will is what we call our experience of making choices...
Click to expand...
The point is, that if you believe that -everything- is created by the laws of physics, you are then agreeing that there are no choices.

Free will is actually deciding what you want to do, not deludung yourself into thinking that you have decided what you want to do.

How is a god necessary for free will? I've heard you repeat this before, but you've never explained your logic behind it...
Click to expand...
I've never argued that God is necessary for free will.
I've argued that if -everything- is/was created by the laws of physics, then everything that has/will happen is set in stone, and thus, there is no such things free will as ALL things have already been determined.

How was my choice in dinner tonight determined at the big bang?
Click to expand...
Thru an incomprehesibly immense and complex interaction of mass and energy
If -everything- is/was created by the laws of physics, it means you did not choose your dinner as for you to do so it means you created someting. You creating something is negated by the premise that -everything- was created by terh laws of physics.

Determinism is utter tripe, that flies in the face of the studies of neurology and quantum physics.
Click to expand...
Both of these things are utterly and inexorably contrilled by the laws of physics, and as such, do nothing to negate the position.

Where did you get this tripe from? Do you or do you not accept that we have free will? If you do, how is not only A god, but YOUR GOD necessary for this purely physical and explainable neurological phenomena?
Click to expand...
This has all been addresed.
 
Last edited:
Lightdemon said:
Just won't concede it, will you?
Click to expand...
To recap:

You have admitted your position is unsupportable and that you have to delude yourself in order to get around the fact that you know you do not have free will.

That is, you have agreed to BOTH of my points.

And so, there's nothing for me TO concede.
 
Goobieman said:
To recap:

You have admitted your position is unsupportable and that you have to delude yourself in order to get around the fact that you know you do not have free will.

That is, you have agreed to BOTH of my points.

And so, there's nothing for me TO concede.
Click to expand...

First of all, I'm agnostic. I'm only arguing from the side of the atheist, because I find that your position is ridiculous and that it would be fun to have a conversation with someone with that position.

Second of all, I've only assumed your premise that the laws of physics negates free will, just for the sake of argument (if you recall, that is; you don't seem to remember to well). I do not personally believe your premise.

And lastly, I still find humor in your refusal to even acknowledge my entire argument. Your fear of conceding a single point from the opposition is hilarious. Absolutely entertaining. :)
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
It appears that your ability to delude yourself is not limited to the issue of free will.
Click to expand...

Both your points are dismissed by me, and you still won't answer the question.

For future reference, you should never be the one to speak of someone else's lack of testicular fortitude, unless you want to be a hypocrite.
 
Lightdemon said:
Both your points are dismissed by me...
Click to expand...
This is just another exhibition of that willful self-delusion.

You have done nothing to -counter- my points, and as such, your dismissal is nothing more than the pre-pubescent act sticking-of-fingers-in-ears-and-yelling 'I cant hear you".
 
Lachean said:
If you're talking about a specific god, given the absence of evidence, fallacies in the proponent's logic and known history of the myth sure you can; as safely as one can state that Santa does not exist. But technically speaking, it is better to say "I do not believe in that god." Saying "god does not exist" presupposes that the god you're discussing, if there were a god, would be the god.

When someone asks me if I "believe in god," before admitting my lack of belief in any god(s) I first pose the question, "To which god do you speak of?... No I don't."
Click to expand...

Why should we believe in his god instead of the hundreds of other gods we could pick. Sure God exists, as a metaphysical concept, the question is do you believe the cultists who claim to know its will.

I'm reading this topic wondering if people are aware of the scholars who debate these topics, and do so far more eloquently than we ever could.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QyE78vBdeA"]YouTube- (4-7) Christopher Hitchens vs Frank Turek (Debate Nr.1)[/ame]
 
Goobieman said:
This is just another exhibition of that willful self-delusion.

You have done nothing to -counter- my points, and as such, your dismissal is nothing more than the pre-pubescent act sticking-of-fingers-in-ears-and-yelling 'I cant hear you".
Click to expand...

You can't seem to concede the point, yet I'm the one who is delusional? lol

You have failed to show me how free will is relevant, this needs no "countering". You have failed to show how the atheist must have the burden of proof, also needs no "countering". Your insistence on the atheist having the burden of proof demonstrates that either you are not interested in logical analysis or you simply do not understand logical analysis. This last part defeats the purpose of you asking for proof.
 
How can I have been, before I ever posted? Learn how chronology works...

Goobieman said:
No, there isnt. "God does not exist" is a position that can be taken without regard to and independent from the position that "God does exist".
Click to expand...

Nonsense, how else would one know which god this person is claiming doesn't exist? Did anyone claim there was no Santa before he was thought up? Do you understand how a dismissal must chronologically follow a proposal?

One must have regard for claim of a particular god's existence in order to dismiss the logical fallacies. You cannot divorce the two, I fail to understand your reasons for insisting so. No one is skeptical without reason, they're unconvinced by bad (fallacious) arguments. I fear its your own insecurities that are behind it, in that you cannot support your own delusion through evidence, or logic. And for the delusional to call the skeptic delusional, for lacking a belief based on false premises, is truly concerning.

Goobieman said:
The point is, that if you believe that -everything- is created by the laws of physics, you are then agreeing that there are no choices.
Click to expand...

Who believes that everything is created by the laws of physics? Everything like matter and space-time? Or EVERYTHING everything like including the taste of chicken? Because the latter is not scientific theory.

Goobieman said:
Free will is actually deciding what you want to do, not deludung yourself into thinking that you have decided what you want to do.
Click to expand...

And just how can one be deluded into thinking they have made a choice when they have not, neurologically speaking? Which part of the brain has been found to perform that task?

Goobieman said:
I've never argued that God is necessary for free will.
I've argued that if -everything- is/was created by the laws of physics, then everything that has/will happen is set in stone
Click to expand...

Well EVERYTHING isn't created by the laws of physics, so how can things pertaining to conscious beings be set in stone billions of years ago?

and thus, there is no such things free will as ALL things have already been determined.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, the existence of conscious beings contradicts that. The logical law of non-contradiction demands that since conscious beings exist, you're claim about EVERYTHING being determined is false.

Goobieman said:
Thru an incomprehesibly immense and complex interaction of mass and energy
If -everything- is/was created by the laws of physics, it means you did not choose your dinner as for you to do so it means you created someting.
Click to expand...

What? Created "something"? A thought you mean, you had a "thought", electrical signals fired in your synapses, then you made a choice. All of this is explained in the study of neurology. Where did you get the notion that everything was decided at the big bang? Which scientist do you attribute this theory to? Because its utter straw-man for the scientific consensus, and my position.

Goobieman said:
You creating something is negated by the premise that -everything- was created by terh laws of physics.
Click to expand...

Who's premise is that? Not mine, nor is it big bang theory.

Who says "everything was created by the laws of physics?" The laws of physics were set @ the big bang, not "created." The laws of physics don't "create" anything, they explain how matter behaves. You'll be hard pressed to find me a reputable physicist who refers to the physical laws as creations let alone creative, the same goes for our universe being a "creation."

Goobieman said:
Both of these things are utterly and inexorably contrilled by the laws of physics, and as such, do nothing to negate the position.
Click to expand...

The laws of physics APPLY everywhere in the universe, but matter is not controlled by them. Just because we are held to this earth by gravity does not mean we are controlled by it, we can (through rockets) break free.

There are lots of physical laws, they are not a creative force... you're misunderstanding what they are and how they work. Nothing was determined at the big bang regarding conscious beings.

Goobieman said:
This has all been addresed.
Click to expand...

No, no it hasn't; Unless you can quote to me where you answered the following question: Do you or do you not agree that we have free will? If there is free will and no logical argument can be made for any deity being the cause for the universe, do you not see the contradiction in your logic that everything was determined @ the big bang?

I've asked you repeatedly, where do you get this tripe from? Who says that without a god, EVERYTHING was determined at the big bang? This is obviously contradicted by the facts and is a part of no valid theory I've heard of. As I stated, determinism is utter tripe.
 
Last edited:
Djoop said:
Why should we believe in his god instead of the hundreds of other gods we could pick.
Click to expand...

That thought is what started my atheism.

Djoop said:
Sure God exists, as a metaphysical concept, the question is do you believe the cultists who claim to know its will.
Click to expand...

Which god are you talking about? How are you sure it exists?

Djoop said:
I'm reading this topic wondering if people are aware of the scholars who debate these topics, and do so far more eloquently than we ever could.
Click to expand...

I'm quite familiar with Hitchens, as well as Harris and Dennett. I've read their books and know their arguments intimately.
 
Lightdemon said:
You can't seem to concede the point, yet I'm the one who is delusional?
Click to expand...
Yes, as further exhibited by the fact thay you think I hve something to concede.

You have failed to show me how free will is relevant...
Click to expand...
This is a lie.

You have failed to show how the atheist must have the burden of proof...
Click to expand...
This is also a lie.

So, delusional -and- dishonest.
 
Goobieman said:
Yes, as further exhibited by the fact thay you think I hve something to concede.


This is a lie.


This is also a lie.

So, delusional -and- dishonest.
Click to expand...

Whatever makes you happy Goob. Thanks for the fun.
 
You can prove how its a lie by quoting where you said so!

Goobieman said:
Yes, as further exhibited by the fact thay you think I hve something to concede.

This is a lie.

This is also a lie.

So, delusional -and- dishonest.
Click to expand...

Free will is irrelevant, considering you're arguing against the straw man that "EVERYTHING was determined @ the big bang." Or that the laws of physics "create" anything. BTW do you have ANY case to make for your unproven, baseless belief in a deity? Or are you just here to bash atheists?

Rather than calling him a liar, why not quote your argument for the burden of proof being on the non-believer rather than he who is supposed to be making the case for their god? I'd love to hear it...
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
That thought is what started my atheism.

Which god are you talking about? How are you sure it exists?
Click to expand...
Watch the vid ;-)


I'm quite familiar with Hitchens, as well as Harris and Dennett. I've read their books and know their arguments intimately.
Click to expand...
Your adversaries, obviously, have not.
 
The Crocoduck!

Djoop said:
Watch the vid ;-)
Click to expand...

I've watched EVERY Hitchens debate and still haven't heard a valid argument for any deity. Please, tell me yours; you're a new face to me, I wanna see what you've got.

EDIT: I'm shocked to find that I haven't seen that one. Watching... no wait I have seen this. But this video is ALL Hitchens, no argument FOR a god.

Djoop said:
Your adversaries, obviously, have not.
Click to expand...

Its always the same 3 tricks from religious apologists:
1. My religion is true because... (always fallacious, or based on false premises)
2. My religion is useful because... (irrelevant to its truth value, placebo effect)
3. And to bash atheists by projecting their religion's problems: try to paint them as faith based, historically immoral/oppressive etc...

Few actually stray away from fallacies or straw men and engage what we truly believe, and think. It'd be nice to come across an honest and worthy adversary, who doesn't engage in misrepresentations and equivocations. Instead all I ever get is:
crocoduck.jpg


All of that being said, it seems my adversary has fled, so here's all that has to be said about Free Will.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Crocoduck!

Lachean said:
I've watched EVERY Hitchens debate and still haven't heard a valid argument for any deity. Please, tell me yours; you're a new face to me, I wanna see what you've got.

EDIT: I'm shocked to find that I haven't seen that one. Watching... no wait I have seen this. But this is ALL Hitchens, no argument FOR a god.
Click to expand...

Get out of your debating mode! I said a metaphysical concept, I'm not a deist. Even if I would be of faith, I couldn't imagine picking one of the abrahamic faiths, I do have some morals.
 
Re: How can I have been, before I ever posted? Learn how chronology works...

Lachean said:
Nonsense, how else would one know which god this person is claiming doesn't exist? Did anyone claim there was no Santa before he was thought up? Do you understand how a dismissal must chronologically follow a proposal?
Click to expand...
An Atheist states, without provocation: There is no God.
There is no proposal to the contrary, implied or explicit, there is only his statement. The ONLY burden for anyone at this point is for the person making the claim to support that claim.

Who believes that everything is created by the laws of physics?
Click to expand...
Some of those that argue there is no God.
"Everything" is an all-encompassing word.

And just how can one be deluded into thinking they have made a choice when they have not, neurologically speaking? Which part of the brain has been found to perform that task?
Click to expand...
Beats me. Doesnt change the fact that if you believe that -everything- is created by the laws of physics, then you are forced to agree with the idea there is no such thing as free will as --everything-- is already set in stone -- and so, to then deliberatly and willfully think that you -do- have free will is necessarily self-delusional.

Well EVERYTHING isn't created by the laws of physics...
Click to expand...
If not the laws of physics, then what?
And, really, its not MY argument that everything was created by the laws of physics - as I stated at the very very beginnigof this coversation I'm simply pointing out the implications of that position.

If you want to argue that this position is false, that's fine, but you'll need to then tell that to those who DO believe that everything is created by the laws of physics.

how can things pertaining to conscious beings be set in stone billions of years ago?
Click to expand...
Think of an infinite billiard table, with a huge number of balls.
As soon as the cue breaks contact with the cue ball, the end position of every one of the other balls is pre-determined.
Scale up as necessary.

Nonsense, the existence of conscious beings contradicts that.
Click to expand...
It cannot. "Everything" is all-encompassing.

What? Created "something"? A thought you mean, you had a "thought", electrical signals fired in your synapses, then you made a choice.
Click to expand...
No. You didn't. Those impulses are all governed by the laws of physics, and controlled by same. The conditions that existed at the moment of the firing of the impulse that then created said impulse are there not because of anything you did, but because of a huge number of interactions all set in place by the laws as they goverened the results from the initial pulse of the big bang.

There is no choice, as choice creates something that is NOT created by the laws of physics, which is not possible if -everything- is created by the laws of physics.

All of this is explained in the study of neurology. Where did you get the notion that everything was decided at the big bang? Which scientist do you attribute this theory to? Because its utter straw-man for the scientific consensus, and my position.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to my point. Neurology is just chemistry, which is just physics.
To argue that you have some control over your neruology means that you, not the laws of physics, is creating something, an impossibility if -everything- is created by the laws of physics.

The laws of physics APPLY everywhere in the universe, but matter is not controlled by them.
Click to expand...
Everything is governed, controlled and acts according to the laws of physics. Everything. No exception.

There are lots of physical laws, they are not a creative force... you're misunderstanding what they are and how they work.
Click to expand...
Sure they are. Up until the advent of man, its impossible to argue that -anything- was created by anything other than the laws of physics - specificlaly., how they govern the interaction between mass and energy.

The sun? Created by gravity. The earth? Same.

Nothing was determined at the big bang regarding conscious beings.
Click to expand...
Sure it was - as I said, 'everything' is all-encompassing.

No, no it hasn't; Unless you can quote to me where you answered the following question: Do you or do you not agree that we have free will?
Click to expand...
I am not at all sure how you arent klar on this:

If everything is created by the laws of physics, then there can be no free will as to choose to do something is to create something that was NOT ceated by the laws of physics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom