• 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!

Proof of God

Praxas said:
Big Pee Wee Herman fan, were you? Certainly not a fan of philosophy.
Toodle-loo.
Click to expand...

Hes a fan of philosophy. Problem is he is miseducated about it but thinks hes acgtually well versed.
 
Now tha the OP has admitted his so called "argument" is nothing more than a statement of his personal beleifs, I think we can call this thread as it has no chance of going anywhere else now.
 
The Futility of Contemporary Skepticism and Militant Atheism​

The resistance to the distinction between the two questions about God -- the question of God's existence and the question of God's nature -- a distinction which Angel has properly brought to the attention of skeptics and militant atheists in this thread -- is perfectly understandable.

This distinction spoils all the fun for skeptics and militant atheists. It shows their malicious attack on religion to be futile from the start.

The question whether God exists or not is not reached by the skeptical or atheistic attack on religion.

Religion is a story about the nature of God. There are a thousand stories about the nature of God. Debunk any or all of them, and the question of God's existence remains untouched.

The skeptic and militant atheist are baffled by this distinction. Or rather, their malicious attack on religion is baffled. So they resist understanding it. They sing and dance in the dim flickering light of their mean-spirited nescience.
 
Who else can you talk to during sex.
 
i can't believe that anybody would actually try to prove the existence of something that has no proof of existing...
 
Angel said:
The Futility of Contemporary Skepticism and Militant Atheism​

The resistance to the distinction between the two questions about God -- the question of God's existence and the question of God's nature -- a distinction which Angel has properly brought to the attention of skeptics and militant atheists in this thread -- is perfectly understandable.
Click to expand...

As you have been told repeatedly, the distinction is immaterial to the existence of the abstract. Furthermore, you are unable to demonstrate the relevance of such a distinction. You can prattle on about romantic ideals and imaginings all the day long, but they make little difference to the question itself.

This distinction spoils all the fun for skeptics and militant atheists.
Click to expand...

No, it simply has little relevance. You may think it is pertinent, but in reality, it isn't.

It shows their malicious attack on religion to be futile from the start.
Click to expand...

LOL The irony in that statement is palpable.

The question whether God exists or not is not reached by the skeptical or atheistic attack on religion.
Click to expand...

Nor can it be proven, but the sceptic does not have the burden of proof.

Religion is a story about the nature of God. There are a thousand stories about the nature of God. Debunk any or all of them, and the question of God's existence remains untouched.
Click to expand...

This is nonsense as you, yourself state they are simply stories, therefore, as such, they are irrelevant to the question of the existence of a such abstracts. Why would anyone need to debunk inventions of the imagination? I can write tales, plays or songs about a god or gods, but they would have absolutely no relevance to the question of the existence of such an entity.

The skeptic and militant atheist are baffled by this distinction. Or rather, their malicious attack on religion is baffled. So they resist understanding it. They sing and dance in the dim flickering light of their mean-spirited nescience.
Click to expand...

Baffled? It has little relevance and all your inane adjectives are merely the product of a tantrum.
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
The Futility of Contemporary Skepticism and Militant Atheism​


The resistance to the distinction between the two questions about God -- the question of God's existence and the question of God's nature -- a distinction which Angel has properly brought to the attention of skeptics and militant ASantists in this thread -- is perfectly understandable.

This distinction spoils all the fun for skeptics and militant atheists. It shows their malicious attack on religion to be futile from the start.

The question whether God exists or not is not reached by the skeptical or atheistic attack on religion.

Religion is a story about the nature of God. There are a thousand stories about the nature of God. Debunk any or all of them, and the question of God's existence remains untouched.

The skeptic and militant atheist are baffled by this distinction. Or rather, their malicious attack on religion is baffled. So they resist understanding it. They sing and dance in the dim flickering light of their mean-spirited nescience.
Click to expand...


We can always count on your arguments being as valid for Santa Claus as they are for Jesus Christ. Let's see if this one holds true, shall we?

The Futility of Contemporary Santa Skepticism and Militant ASantists​
Click to expand...
​
​

The resistance to the distinction between the two questions about Santa Claus -- the question of Santa Claus's existence and the question of Santa Claus's nature -- a distinction which I have properly brought to the attention of skeptics and militant atheists in this thread -- is perfectly understandable.

This distinction spoils all the fun for Santa skeptics and militant ASantists. It shows their malicious attack on religion to be futile from the start.

The question whether Santa Claus exists or not is not reached by the skeptical or ASantist attack on the North Pole.

Christmas Carols are stories about the nature of Santa Claus. There are a thousand Christmas Carols and stories about the nature of Santa Claus. Debunk any or all of them, and the question of Santa's existence remains untouched.

The skeptic and militant ASantist are baffled by this distinction. Or rather, their malicious attack on the North Pole is baffled. So they resist understanding it. They sing and dance in the dim flickering light of their mean-spirited nescience.
Click to expand...

Yep, as always. Poor Santa, being so unfairly attacked!
 
Angel said:
Proven? What are you talking about? You suddenly reveal a deep confusion. Nice talking to you, but I don't intend to rehearse our exchange to improve your understanding. Think whatever you like. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

No confusion on my part. Believe what you wish.
 
Angel said:
Science is mythology for secularists, comparable to the aforementioned religious stories.
Click to expand...

As you use a computer, courtesy of science, to post on the internet, courtesy of science, using an electrical grid, courtesy of science, and data system, courtesy of science, almost certainly with vision improved....courtesy of science.

But yeah, it's all a mythology. That's some hella good logic there Angel. :lamo
 
Individual said:
No confusion on my part. Believe what you wish.
Click to expand...

That's what always happens in a discussion with Angel. He makes claims that he can't support, and when you press him on it, he deflects and obfuscates, trying to change the topic. If it doesn't work, and you keep pressing him, he claims you don't understand, and runs away.
 
Bodhisattva said:
i can't believe that anybody would actually try to prove the existence of something that has no proof of existing...
Click to expand...
And how did Bodhisattva come to the conclusion that this something "has no proof of existing" unless by way of attempts to prove it?
Either your claim or your incredulity must go.
 
JustHanging said:
That's what always happens in a discussion with Angel. He makes claims that he can't support, and when you press him on it, he deflects and obfuscates, trying to change the topic. If it doesn't work, and you keep pressing him, he claims you don't understand, and runs away.
Click to expand...
Or what always happens is that militant atheists are outed as the blowhards and bullies they are and they retreat from bad thinking into bad faith.
This narrative has the record behind it.
 
NWO_Spook said:
As you have been told repeatedly, the distinction is immaterial to the existence of the abstract. Furthermore, you are unable to demonstrate the relevance of such a distinction. You can prattle on about romantic ideals and imaginings all the day long, but they make little difference to the question itself.
Click to expand...
No one's told me this repeatedly, as my laughter would not have subsided. Now, why don't you explain what you mean by your oracular declaration: "the distinction is immaterial to the existence of the abstract." Just tell us what you mean to say here; then we'll challenge it.


The rest of your post is empty assertion. You must think you post ex cathedra.
The only sensible point in the rest of your post is the bolded bit, which is of course exactly what I have said, presented here as if in disagreement with what I said.
Your authoritative manner of posting and your Scrabble vocabulary will not suffice in exchanges with this member. Post substance or expect exposure.



NWO_Spook said:
No, it simply has little relevance. You may think it is pertinent, but in reality, it isn't.

LOL The irony in that statement is palpable.

Nor can it be proven, but the sceptic does not have the burden of proof.

This is nonsense as you, yourself state they are simply stories, therefore, as such, they are irrelevant to the question of the existence of a such abstracts. Why would anyone need to debunk inventions of the imagination? I can write tales, plays or songs about a god or gods, but they would have absolutely no relevance to the question of the existence of such an entity.

Baffled? It has little relevance and all your inane adjectives are merely the product of a tantrum.
Click to expand...
 
JustHanging said:
As you use a computer, courtesy of science, to post on the internet, courtesy of science, using an electrical grid, courtesy of science, and data system, courtesy of science, almost certainly with vision improved....courtesy of science.

But yeah, it's all a mythology. That's some hella good logic there Angel. :lamo
Click to expand...
Above, a secularist points to the miracles of science.

Science is mythology for the secularist.
 
Angel said:
Above, a secularist points to the miracles of science.

Science is mythology for the secularist.
Click to expand...

So we can add mythology to logic and philosophy to the list of subjects that you are completely misinformed about
 
Angel said:
God is the one and only inference to the best explanation of all that exists or appears to exist.
Click to expand...

“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” Anne Lamott: American writer
 
weaver2 said:
“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” Anne Lamott: American writer
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to the quoted post: "God is the one and only inference to the best explanation of all that exists or appears to exist."
You appear unable to think beyond religion.
 
Angel said:
And how did Bodhisattva come to the conclusion that this something "has no proof of existing" unless by way of attempts to prove it?
Either your claim or your incredulity must go.
Click to expand...

Even religious people admit that there is no proof of God.
 
Angel said:
Irrelevant to the quoted post: "God is the one and only inference to the best explanation of all that exists or appears to exist."
You appear unable to think beyond religion.
Click to expand...

You appear unable to understand what Lamott is saying about those who decide they've proved that God exists.
 
Angel said:
And well they should. Religion is all about the nature of God and is a matter of faith.
Click to expand...

So is the beileif in the existence of God(s)
As your so called proff shows, since it is merely convoluted statement of your personal beleifs
 
weaver2 said:
You appear unable to understand what Lamott is saying about those who decide they've proved that God exists.
Click to expand...
I understand perfectly what the quote says. You don't. You are unable to separate the question of God's existence from religion, which is about the nature of God. The Lamott quote is about the nature of God, about religious belief; the Angel quote, which you don't understand, is not about religion, but rather about the question of God's existence, about philosophy.
 
Angel said:
I understand perfectly what the quote says. You don't. You are unable to separate the question of God's existence from religion, which is about the nature of God. The Lamott quote is about the nature of God, about religious belief; the Angel quote, which you don't understand, is not about religion, but rather about the question of God's existence, about philosophy.
Click to expand...

You have failed to prove the existence of God(s)
 
Nature is God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom