• 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!

Nothing made everything....

It is not a question of whether you want to believe in an imaginary friend did it.
Bigotry noted.

Not my problem. It is a question of looking at the reasoning you are using to maintain your fiction.
Repetitious bigotry noted. The reasoning Davey is using, as well as myself, is the philosophical definition of 'religion', which is "an initial circular argument with additional arguments stemming from it". We both believe (faith based) that the initial circular argument (that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is) is the truth. It is no different than you believing (faith based) that the atheistic initial circular argument (that no god(s) exist) is the truth. -- Both positions (initial circular arguments) are logically valid through the proof of identity. -- In short, whether you accept or deny a particular religion in favor of another one, your reasoning is the same... It boils down to putting faith in the truth of a particular initial circular argument...

Your post that i replied to is incorrect in the ways i stated. Your reasoning is false.
As to this part, it wasn't even a scientific discussion that you two were having; it was a religious discussion... Science doesn't have theories about past unobserved events. Talking about "the beginning of the universe" type stuff is talking about non-falsifiable theories (in other words, theories outside the realm of science). Davey happens to adhere to one religion, and you happen to adhere to another...

Personally i think believing a godidit scenario is bad enough in it self.
It is equally logically valid to a "god didn't do it" scenario for the reasons I described above...

...deleted multiple 'you're lying' mantras... deleted 'you're ignorant' mantra...
Mantras are typically deleted on sight as they are not substantive reasoning...
 
Religious people made up god...

Religious people also deny god(s)... This is common with people who adhere to numerous religions, such as Atheism, The Big Bang Theory, The Theory of Abiogenesis, etc...
 
Religious people also deny god(s)... This is common with people who adhere to numerous religions, such as Atheism, The Big Bang Theory, The Theory of Abiogenesis, etc...

Really asinine statement there.
 
Yeah, because the Bible tells me God created the universe...who tells you the universe has always been?

The Bible says a lot of things....

Those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible are in for a shock. The Bible describes a cosmos that few of us would recognize today.

The earth is fixed and immovable and lies at the center of all things. The sun moves about the earth, not the other way around. Use of the phrase "solar system" should therefore be avoided in favor of the more accurate "geosystem."
The earth is flat and finite. Its boundary may be circular, but the earth is most certainly not a sphere as was hypothesized by Eratosthenes (a pagan scientist who lived two centuries before the birth of Christ). The placement of globes in public classrooms can only serve to promote ecology as a possible state religion.
The sky is the roof over the earth — a solid impervious barrier that protects both believers and non-believers from the waters beyond. The term "outer space" is a notion perpetrated by secular humanists, new age gurus, and other freethinkers.
The stars on the sky are much smaller than the earth. (The word "on" is not a typographical error here.) The notion of "distant suns" is nothing more than a theory entertained by misguided scientists.
The laws of physics as they exist on the earth are different from those of the sun, moon, stars, and planets. Astronomers should look to the Bible and not the Principia before they aim their telescopes. The former is the unerring word of God while the latter is merely the word of Isaac Newton.

https://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric/
 
Really asinine statement there.

Argument of the Stone fallacy...

I will add onto what I said by saying that there are also a sizable amount of people who adhere to the Big Bang Theory who believe in god(s). A sizable amount of Christians believe in the BBT... A sizable amount of atheists also believe in the BBT... My point was giving a few examples of religions in which people deny god(s) [instead of just "making up" god(s)]...
 
What are you gaining by positing a Supreme Being? It's like a long chain of causation and you can't see the beginning of it. Adding a Supreme Being is just adding an additional link to that chain. But you still don't see what that additional link is hooked up to. Because then who created that Supreme Being? And if you are going to tell us he just was, why can't the universe just have been?

What am I losing? And the universe is not a Supreme Being...
 
In order for a supreme being to exist it would have to live inside a universe of some sort that has always existed. The real question is why is it that you can believe in a supreme being that did not need to be created, but you can't accept the possibility that human beings didn't need creating?

Says a mere human...lol...
 
What am I losing? And the universe is not a Supreme Being...

The universe doesn't have to be a supreme being in order to be infinite. It may be that the universe was never actually created. It may also be that it was created by a First Cause. The origin (or lack of origin) for the universe is interesting to think about, but we can never know. Both are equally possible.

If you choose to believe that a First Cause is the origin point of the universe, that's fine, I can't tell you you're wrong-- any more than you can tell me I'm wrong for believing the universe has always existed.
 
This isn't quite correct. Human beings are part of the causal chain of the universe .... if we have a finite causal chain, there must by logical necessity be an Uncaused Cause™ who is responsible for the existence of the universe.

False, there is no need for any such causal chain and no need for us to be a part of it.
 
Argument of the Stone fallacy...

I will add onto what I said by saying that there are also a sizable amount of people who adhere to the Big Bang Theory who believe in god(s). A sizable amount of Christians believe in the BBT... A sizable amount of atheists also believe in the BBT... My point was giving a few examples of religions in which people deny god(s) [instead of just "making up" god(s)]...

Not a fallacy. You made a false equivalency by stating that atheism is a religion, and Big Bang Theory, etc.

That was a really stupid statement by you.
 
Not a fallacy.
You claimed absurdity without any reasoning as to why; that is a logical fallacy known as 'argument of the stone'.

You made a false equivalency by stating that atheism is a religion, and Big Bang Theory, etc. ...deleted 'lack of intelligence' mantra...
No, I did not. Those are all religions by philosophical definition. Religion is 'an initial circular argument with additional arguments stemming from it' ... Science is 'a set of falsifiable theories' ... Atheism, BBT, Abiogenesis, etc... are all non-falsifiable, therefore none of them are science. They are instead religion since they all have an initial circular argument from which additional arguments stem from... That is the very definition of a religion...
 
Not a fallacy. You made a false equivalency by stating that atheism is a religion, and Big Bang Theory, etc.

That was a really stupid statement by you.

Especially when one considers the the definition of the word atheist, a definition that few believers seem to able to understand.
 
Especially when one considers the the definition of the word atheist, a definition that few believers seem to able to understand.

I understand it just fine... I also understand the initial circular argument that it makes use of, and the arguments that stem from that initial argument... That, by philosophical definition, is what a religion is...
 
You claimed absurdity without any reasoning as to why; that is a logical fallacy known as 'argument of the stone'.


No, I did not. Those are all religions by philosophical definition. Religion is 'an initial circular argument with additional arguments stemming from it' ... Science is 'a set of falsifiable theories' ... Atheism, BBT, Abiogenesis, etc... are all non-falsifiable, therefore none of them are science. They are instead religion since they all have an initial circular argument from which additional arguments stem from... That is the very definition of a religion...

No, they aren't. If Atheism is a religion, than barefoot is a shoe. If Atheism is a religion, than bald is a hair color.

Its cute that you just learned about logical fallacies, however, you really don't get it.

BTW, where can one go to a church of the Big Bang Theory?:roll:

tumblr_p4ygurHM4F1wreoqmo1_1280.png
 
I understand it just fine... I also understand the initial circular argument that it makes use of, and the arguments that stem from that initial argument... That, by philosophical definition, is what a religion is...

Religion is not an initial circular argument. It's an initial belief founded on faith-- faith being "a belief without sufficient reason". You can use all sorts of reason on top of your faith after that, but the bottom of that stack is always faith.

Circular reasoning can be attacked on grounds of reason and critical thinking. Faith cannot, because it's not playing by the same rules. It is literally absent reason. There's no true reason to speak of.
 
If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
 
Time for entertainment...:2razz:

 
;):mrgreen::giggle1:






Regardless of the arguments in the videos, the following is a fact that no one can refute.

Either something came from nothing or something has always existed. Period.

That's a fact. If your argument is purely laughing at the idea that either something has always existed or that something came from nothing then you have no argument. Because one of them must be true. The idea that a "god" has always existed is no more believable or less silly than the idea that matter or some completely natural phenomena has always existed. It doesn't have to be a god. And suggesting that a God somehow gets us around this question is simply false. The same questions still arise. There is no reason to suggest that god is a better answer. We simply don't know.
 


You seem to resort to posting satirical videos when you don't have a response for the well-reasoned arguments people make here.

I guess you can do whatever you want, but you don't seem real keen on having actual discussions.
 
You seem to resort to posting satirical videos when you don't have a response for the well-reasoned arguments people make here.

I guess you can do whatever you want, but you don't seem real keen on having actual discussions.

That's pretty much what some discussions evolve into...round in circles...:2razz:
 
That's pretty much what some discussions evolve into...round in circles...:2razz:

That only happens when one or more people involved are deflecting or failing to understand what is being said.

In a successful discussion, the individuals involved are able to understand each other and either reach an agreement or reach an impasse. Around here, it mostly seems to be people changing the subject, failing to understand what is being said on a nearly comedic level, resorting to insults, or posting videos ironically.
 
Religion is not an initial circular argument.
Yes it is... and then other arguments stem from that initial circular argument.

It's an initial belief founded on faith-- faith being "a belief without sufficient reason".
That's not what faith is... Faith has sufficient reason (through the proof of identity) ... Faith is synonymous with circular reasoning... Here you are agreeing with me (that religion is an initial circular argument...)

You can use all sorts of reason on top of your faith after that, but the bottom of that stack is always faith.
You're still agreeing with me without realizing it... circular arguments are logically valid as long as they aren't fallaciously advanced as 'proofs'... that's committing the circular argument fallacy.

Circular reasoning can be attacked on grounds of reason and critical thinking.
No it cannot be... unless as I described above...

Faith cannot, because it's not playing by the same rules.
Faith is synonymous with circular reasoning, so faith plays by the same rules by definition.

It is literally absent reason. There's no true reason to speak of.
False... P, therefore P is logically valid reasoning through the proof of identity.
 
Back
Top Bottom