Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Danmark]

I am confident in my position. My position is that the argument to which I responded in my initial post is fallacious. There have been no critiques which have raised any flaws in my response. Hence, my confidence has only grown.

I do notice the manipulative language and personal attacks continue. Shall I also take additional confidence in my position given such? I think I will.

This subtopic is now 256 pages long. Could you please restate your argument that you contend has no flaws or has not been successfully answered?

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to Danmark]

The third error is that there are only two errors. Riddle/Paradox Inception!!!!

[iamtaka]

Please point out the sentences in this post that advance the argument or are not personal. I fail to see how you advance the argument by saying an argument is 'manipulative' or 'bad.' If you actually demonstrate why an argument is weak or otherwise defective, that would help. But simply pasting a label on it does not further debate.

The second portion of my response was not relevant. You are correct to call me out for it. It does not advance the discussion. I made the comment out of frustration for the reasons stated. I should have refrained. I did not. Therefore, I apologize.

The first portion is accurate. I have already repeatedly demonstrated that Tired of the Nonsense's argument is fallacious. It is a straw man argument. I feel no need to repeat it.

[iamtaka]

This subtopic is now 256 pages long. Could you please restate your argument that you contend has no flaws or has not been successfully answered?

No. I have already restated it multiple times. I have specifically repeated the argument to you, twice. I am not going to repeat it again.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

The third error is that there are only two errors. Riddle/Paradox Inception!!!!

Very good grasshopper!

Your next task is to find the argument that Imataka made that he thinks is flawless.
Should you succeed in this task, you will have exceed the accomplishments of your teacher.

[FarWanderer]

I'm a bit surprised that no one else seems to have picked up on the main argument of TotN's most recent post. His primary argument wasn't that God is ridiculous (although he clearly is expressing that point as well), but that the notion that God is simple is ridiculous.

This is precisely why I posed the following question.

Why did Tired of the Nonsense post a long-winded summary?

I understood the argument being made. He presented a long list in an attempt to make the idea of divine simplicity laughable. It could be restated as, "You see all of these attributes? And God is simple? That's absurd!" So, the argument wasn't missed. And that's why he was called the floor for mockery and ridicule.

Ok, so you did understand it. But I still don't see how the last (bolded) sentence follows.

He doesn't think that the Christian God as presented qualifies as simple. How else is he supposed to make the argument that God isn't simple, other than to explain in what ways he's not?

And that the "divine simplicity" doctrine doesn't change the fact.

Fact? Interesting choice of words. Let's assume that God is indeed complex. Let's that such a God is indeed more complex than RNA. Let's assume that this demonstrates the absurdity of arguments for the necessity of a designer. Does all of this cause any harm to the Christian's argument? No. The line of reasoning replaces the Christian perspective of God with a non-Christian perspective. It does not matter whether a non-Christian believes the Christian perspective of God is complex. It only matters what the Christian believes about God.

Uh, the whole point of a debate is arguing why the other side's perspective is wrong. If Christians think God is a married bachelor, they're wrong. If Christians say God is "simple" and claim that God has attribute set X, then if TofN makes an argument that attribute set X indicates that God is not simple, Christians better be ready to defend against that argument.

If Christians just want to assume their beliefs about God are true and ignore arguments that their beliefs are logically inconsistent, rather than do the intellectually courageous thing and address them, they are welcome to do so. But such Christians should not be on DebatingChristianity.

Personally I don't see where the doctrine is even useful, though. Once the argument that God is simple is in play, then the design argument is forfeit. This is because if simple to complex is the norm, then God isn't required for anything... at all. All we'd need is something, and complex stuff would just happen. Which is, incidentally, the materialist's worldview.

God as simple does not necessarily forfeit the design argument. There are a host of issues which would have to be explored (e.g., which design argument, the mechanisms for simplicity to complexity, etc.). I can see how, from a materialist perspective, one might conclude the design argument is forfeit, but I think there are too many issues to be explored to claim it necessarily forfeits it. That said, I personally find the design argument to be less appealing.

Until I actually encounter a design argument that doesn't base itself off of God being more complex than his creation, I will tentatively hold my position.

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to post 2559 by Danmark]



The search is on.

[Sir Hamilton]

I think you are a bit confused. I was not argueing over whether or not the universe exist. I agree with you that the universe exist. What we are disagreeing over is the origin of the universe. What evidence do you have that proves the universe has always been? Are you serious when you say you have no idea what the word God means?? Even small children can grasp somewhat of the idea of what God means.

Relativity has already shown that the universe has always been. It has shown that time is part of the universe, so there exists no point in time in which the universe has not existed.

So yes, the universe has "always been". This is true regardless of whether the universe extends finitely into the past or infinitely.

How has Relativity shown the universe to always have been? Isn't it all relative anyways? You speak as if Relativity is a god....it is a theory....maybe it is wrong.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to iamtaka]

I am confident in my position. My position is that the argument to which I responded in my initial post is fallacious. There have been no critiques which have raised any flaws in my response. Hence, my confidence has only grown.

I'm ready to go toe to toe, point by point on the resurrection of Jesus, derived directly from the pages of Scripture, if you are. Only the facts, no mockery or ridicule. While it may be true that I represent the very swine that you have been cautioned against casting your pearls before, you might also notice that there are currently over 65,000 views of this particular thread, and rising. So I am not the ONLY ONE you will be casting your pearls before. I maintain that the story of the empty tomb and missing corpse of Jesus, features of the story which lead directly to the claim that he was resurrected from the dead, can be easily dismissed, even from within the text of your own Holy Book, as actions taken by the living, specifically the disciples of Jesus. As long as the story can clearly be seen to have been a contrivance manufactured by the followers of Jesus, the claim that the corpse of Jesus came back to life and ultimately flew off up into the clouds has no merit whatsoever. If you chose not to argue against this contention, then you apparently recognize this particular flaw in Christian claims yourself. I'm calling you out. Show us that you are not an empty vessel, filled with nothing but air.

[otseng]

You sir are an empty vessel, exposed for all to see. I am not the only one watching here. If you had any actual confidence in your position you would seize this as an opportunity to educate the uneducated and to preach the Word of the Lord. But you fall short of that qualification, and you are apparently aware of that fact.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make any comments of a personal nature.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.