• 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!

I Challenge Atheists to Submit a Proof of Their Claim that God Does Not Exist

vegas giants said:
Yes. I know that. So it must be true for everyone if I have first hand knowledge of this
Click to expand...
No, it's true as a matter of your personal knowledge. This just means you know something you can't prove. So how did you come to know enough to hail the Flying Sphagetti Monster?
 
Manc Skipper said:
The universe exists. We can see hear feel smell taste and and touch it. We can do none of those things with gods. They are superfluous.
Click to expand...
So your argument seems to be that because God is insensible, God is superfluous as an explanation. yes?
 
Angel said:
No, it's true as a matter of your personal knowledge. This just means you know something you can't prove. So how did you come to know enough to hail the Flying Sphagetti Monster?
Click to expand...

Met him in a bar. Nice guy. So your personal knowledge of god means you know something you cant prove
 
vegas giants said:
Met him in a bar. Nice guy. So your personal knowledge of god means you know something you cant prove
Click to expand...
Listen carefully. You replied to a post of mine to another member in which I illustrated that knowing and proving are different and distinct epistemological categories. That was the purpose and extent of that post. You replied that you have personal knowledge of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Fine. Now you claim you met him (is it male?) in a bar. That's as far as we've got. Are you following this?
 
Angel said:
Listen carefully. You replied to a post of mine to another member in which I illustrated that knowing and proving are different and distinct epistemological categories. That was the purpose and extent of that post. You replied that you have personal knowledge of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Fine. Now you claim you met him (is it male?) in a bar. That's as far as we've got. Are you following this?
Click to expand...

I am following you perfectly.

He has no gender as he is God.

Knowing and proving ate 2 separate things and that is also my point.


Got it?
 
Angel said:
So your argument seems to be that because God is insensible, God is superfluous as an explanation. yes?
Click to expand...

If god is a supernatural being, we natural beings have no interface by which we can interact.
 
Mashmont said:
Angel and I have both penned logical proofs showing God does exist. In my decades in chat. I've only seen atheists demanding proof, but never offering proof of THEIR position, or even attempting to do so.

So the purpose of this thread is for atheists to offer a logical proof or any kind of proof that the God of Abraham doesn't exist. This thread is NOT for rebuttal of Angel's proof or my proof. You may do that in those other threads, not here.

This thread is for atheists to put their money where their mouths are. And please don't cower like little mewlings and say "No, no. We don't have to prove there is no God. We just want to be left alone." That defense works only if you admit to being agnostic and saying "I don't know". But most of you atheists state emphatically the positive claim that God doesn't exist and you come with an activist agenda. So you need to be put on the burner and forced to prove your position.

Prediction: Not one single atheist will offer a proof, because it's a lie. It's like trying to write a book on 'winning roulette moves' It's like trying to prove blue is green or up is down.

So let's see what you got. You have the floor, atheists........
Click to expand...

slow the truck down.

You invent a creature, being, spirit, that nobody can see, just claim he is there without offering any proof of your claim.

and then you ask someone else to prove your invention of an invisible being is not real, implying that if he cannot disprove your fantasy, than it must be real.
 
vegas giants said:
I am following you perfectly.

He has no gender as he is God.

Knowing and proving ate 2 separate things and that is also my point.


Got it?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I got it. You don't know what you're talking about. Now get.
 
Manc Skipper said:
If god is a supernatural being, we natural beings have no interface by which we can interact.
Click to expand...
So you're second argument seems to be that that with which we cannot "interact" does not exist, yes?
 
Angel said:
God is the necessary and sufficient condition for the physical universe, life on earth, and consciousness.
Click to expand...

Stephen Hawking seemed to disagree.

Tell me, God is an intelligent being that created us in his own image. So if intelligent beings like us can't exist without being created by a God how can God exist without being created by a God? If the existence of one intelligent being necessitates an intelligent creator than the existence of the intelligent creator necessitates another intelligent creator.

Somewhere along the line you must accept the reality that an incredibly intelligent and complex being that is at least as complex as us if not more so came into existence without anyone else creating it. You can either realize the truth that it was us or you can invent a Deus ex machina to do it for you, but at least you know you exist.
 
Angel said:
Yeah, I got it. You don't know what you're talking about. Now get.
Click to expand...

I accept your full and complete surrender and concession. This is what you do everytime.


When cornered you run.


You lose again
 
MrWonka said:
Stephen Hawking seemed to disagree.

Tell me, God is an intelligent being that created us in his own image. So if intelligent beings like us can't exist without being created by a God how can God exist without being created by a God? If the existence of one intelligent being necessitates an intelligent creator than the existence of the intelligent creator necessitates another intelligent creator.

Somewhere along the line you must accept the reality that an incredibly intelligent and complex being that is at least as complex as us if not more so came into existence without anyone else creating it. You can either realize the truth that it was us or you can invent a Deus ex machina to do it for you, but at least you know you exist.
Click to expand...
Stephen Hawking's opinion doesn't interest me. Cite a poet and maybe there's be something to listen to.
The bulk of your post is based on a religious conception of the nature of God. The God I'm presenting in this thread is not any one of the gods of the thousand religious stories in the world. About the nature of God man knows nothing, and whatever man believes about the nature of God is a matter of religious faith. I'm talking here in this thread about the existence of God, not the nature of God, and my conception of God is strictly philosophical.
 
vegas giants said:
I accept your full and complete surrender and concession. This is what you do everytime.


When cornered you run.


You lose again
Click to expand...
You can "accept" any damn thing you like, boss. You don't know what you're talking about. Now it seems you don't even know what "get" means. Or maybe you're a Last Wordist. Fine. Get it in, and then get. Peace out.
 
Angel said:
Stephen Hawking's opinion doesn't interest me. Cite a poet and maybe there's be something to listen to.
Click to expand...

I always recommend Alexander Pope's Essay on Man. ;)
 
Angel said:
You can "accept" any damn thing you like, boss. You don't know what you're talking about. Now it seems you don't even know what "get" means. Or maybe you're a Last Wordist. Fine. Get it in, and then get. Peace out.
Click to expand...

Here is my last word.


You argue in a cowardly and dishonest fashion where if you are cornered you simply declare the argument over and knock over all the chess pieces like a child that has lost the game.


Run along
 
Angel said:
Stephen Hawking's opinion doesn't interest me. Cite a poet and maybe there's be something to listen to.
Click to expand...
Wow! That might be the most shockingly stupid thing I have ever heard. You think an arbitrary poet has more credibility on the nature and origin of the universe than one of the most preeminent astrophysicists of our time who actually wrote the best selling book "A Brief History of Time". You need to layoff the coco puffs lady.

Angel said:
my conception of God is strictly philosophical.
Click to expand...
So basically you're arguing the concept of a circle exists even though nothing in reality can actually be truly circular in shape. Nope, sorry. Imaginary beings are not real. That's what makes them imaginary.
 
Angel said:
So you're second argument seems to be that that with which we cannot "interact" does not exist, yes?
Click to expand...

That which we cannot interact with might as well not exist since there is no mode by which to communicate. How do you communicate digitally using a bullroarer?
 
MrWonka said:
Wow! That might be the most shockingly stupid thing I have ever heard. You think an arbitrary poet has more credibility on the nature and origin of the universe than one of the most preeminent astrophysicists of our time who actually wrote the best selling book "A Brief History of Time". You need to layoff the coco puffs lady.
Click to expand...
Nothing against your boy in particular, but scientists cannot tell us anything important about the universe, time, or reality.

MrWonka said:
So basically you're arguing the concept of a circle exists even though nothing in reality can actually be truly circular in shape. Nope, sorry. Imaginary beings are not real. That's what makes them imaginary.
Click to expand...
What are you referring to as "reality"?
Btw your argument from imaginariness begs the question.
 
Angel said:
Nothing against your boy in particular, but scientists cannot tell us anything important about the universe, time, or reality.
Click to expand...
Bwahahahahahahahahhahahsahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!! But a poet can?!?!?!?!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Holy **** this is good stuff!

Angel said:
What are you referring to as "reality"?
Click to expand...
BWAHAHAH!!!! Oh I don't know, maybe the REAL world. Like the one we're living in. Why don't you lay off the LSD and I'll show it to you.

Angel said:
Btw your argument from imaginariness begs the question.
Click to expand...

Umm...nope. No it really doesn't. Not sure you really know what that even means. In fact, now that you mention it that appears to be what you're doing. Your arguing that imaginary things are real so you can say your imaginary god is real. A thing cannot be both imaginary and real. You can imagine something that is real, but the version you've created in your imagination is not itself real.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Did I say that? No. Do you not understand the fallacious nature of the OP's claim? Really?
I'm using it in the context I mentioned. Can you not address that without your usual vapid noise?
That is simply on-line flatulence, as I have adequately explained the reasoning and you know it ~ well, you should.
Click to expand...
Then identify the fallacy you're talking about. I read the OP as a challenge to militant atheists. Do you read it differently?
"My usual vapid noise" and my "on-line flatulence" aside, what on earth is your point? You've explained nothing. Are you suggesting that militant atheists who deny the existence of God have no burden of proof in a debate?
 
MrWonka said:
Bwahahahahahahahahhahahsahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!! But a poet can?!?!?!?!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Holy **** this is good stuff!
BWAHAHAH!!!! Oh I don't know, maybe the REAL world. Like the one we're living in. Why don't you lay off the LSD and I'll show it to you.
Umm...nope. No it really doesn't. Not sure you really know what that even means. In fact, now that you mention it that appears to be what you're doing. Your arguing that imaginary things are real so you can say your imaginary god is real. A thing cannot be both imaginary and real. You can imagine something that is real, but the version you've created in your imagination is not itself real.
Click to expand...
The guffaw seems to be the extent of your argument. Why are you posting to this thread: do you or do you not have an argument. Reading someone laughing himself silly may be entertaining to some, but not to the OP, or to me.
The real world we're living in is not reality. Thoughtful folk have understood this for 2500 years.
Your argument from imaginariness begs the question. Yes, I know what the phrase means. Maybe you should google it.
 
Angel said:
Nothing against your boy in particular, but scientists cannot tell us anything important about the universe, time, or reality.
Click to expand...

....as Angel communicates with people around the world using all sorts of technology discovered by ... scientists.

Damn Angel, you went Full Trump. Never go Full Trump.
 
Angel said:
Irrelevant.

You think? Have you read much literature?
Click to expand...
reading is one thing understaning is another and you have shown that you do not understand any of the philosophy you constantly refernce
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom