Debating Christians makes me want to resort to physical violence.

[Tneedtoimprove]

Debated with a family friend today. He spent 20 minutes using the bible as a source to argue that the bible was a valid source. That's the equivalent of Bron getting drug-tested, then using himself 10 years ago, saying he'll never juiced, as evidence. The thing under questioning cannot be used as evidence. Then that family friend's friend was here too. I was debating with him, and he spent 15 minutes using the special pleading fallacy, saying God needs no creator, but the universe would. This confrontation between him and me lasted 2 hours. Most of the two hours was spent making unprovable claims and stating, "The bible has no contradictions." Then, when we went our separate ways, I texted them a couple of verses contradicting each other, and they left me on seen.

 

[prettyboymaxer]

"we dont have any evidence only faith bro"

 

[jingelton]

You cannot logically prove god is real but you cannot prove hes not real as well so trying to prove whether hes real or not in a debate is pointless.

 

[childishkillah]

I was debating with him, and he spent 15 minutes using the special pleading fallacy, saying God needs no creator, but the universe would.

There is no fallacy there is a logic to that

 

[Tneedtoimprove]

There is no fallacy there is a logic to that

Okay bud. Let me help a bit.

"God doesn't need a creator; he's Eternal." "The universe must need a creator; nothing must be made from something." But we have zero empirical evidence that the universe isn't an eternal cycle of mass changing form. We also have zero empirical evidence that god ever began to exist. Therefore, saying only their depiction of God is eternal is directly an example of special pleading.

Unless someone provided direct, verifiable evidence that the universe had a beginning, or God did not, there isn't any valid logical argument that supports the claim "God doesn't need a creator; he's Eternal." "The universe must need a creator; nothing must be made from something" are valid, or can even exist at the same time.

If your rebuttal would be "The Big Bang proves the universe had a start," I'd do some research before being so confident in that. The Big Bang wasn't inherently a creation event. It was an expansion event. And while we're speaking about philosophy, there's zero empirical evidence that our "universe" doesn't just exist inside of an unfathomably huge black hole, in which new rules of physics, new answers, and new life may exist. I'm not denying the possibility of a God. That'd just be completely contradictory. I'm denying the lack of logical arguments that try to prove that their idea of God exists and that there's no other correct conclusion.

The only evidence-based logical conclusion we can come to is that we don't know. So I'd rather not listen to assertions dressed up as truth.

 

[thomasjiooo]

Debated with a family friend today. He spent 20 minutes using the bible as a source to argue that the bible was a valid source. That's the equivalent of Bron getting drug-tested, then using himself 10 years ago, saying he'll never juiced, as evidence. The thing under questioning cannot be used as evidence. Then that family friend's friend was here too. I was debating with him, and he spent 15 minutes using the special pleading fallacy, saying God needs no creator, but the universe would. This confrontation between him and me lasted 2 hours. Most of the two hours was spent making unprovable claims and stating, "The bible has no contradictions." Then, when we went our separate ways, I texted them a couple of verses contradicting each other, and they left me on seen.

Why are u debating you’re low tier

 

[Tneedtoimprove]

You cannot logically prove god is real but you cannot prove hes not real as well so trying to prove whether hes real or not in a debate is pointless.

I agree with theres zero logically way to prove God does or doesn't exist. Lack of evidence isn't lack of existence. But I'm not trying to disprove the entire concept of a God. I don't think man-made concepts of God are unquestionable.

 

[Tneedtoimprove]

Why are u debating you’re low tier

DNR

 

[thomasjiooo]

DNR

You made a category error between God and the universe, one is contingent and potent one isn’t

 

[childishkillah]

Okay bud. Let me help a bit.

View attachment 5587593


"God doesn't need a creator; he's Eternal." "The universe must need a creator; nothing must be made from something." But we have zero empirical evidence that the universe isn't an eternal cycle of mass changing form. We also have zero empirical evidence that god ever began to exist. Therefore, saying only their depiction of God is eternal is directly an example of special pleading.

Unless someone provided direct, verifiable evidence that the universe had a beginning, or God did not, there isn't any valid logical argument that supports the claim "God doesn't need a creator; he's Eternal." "The universe must need a creator; nothing must be made from something" are valid, or can even exist at the same time.

If your rebuttal would be "The Big Bang proves the universe had a start," I'd do some research before being so confident in that. The Big Bang wasn't inherently a creation event. It was an expansion event. And while we're speaking about philosophy, there's zero empirical evidence that our "universe" doesn't just exist inside of an unfathomably huge black hole, in which new rules of physics, new answers, and new life may exist. I'm not denying the possibility of a God. That'd just be completely contradictory. I'm denying the lack of logical arguments that try to prove that their idea of God exists and that there's no other correct conclusion.

The only evidence-based logical conclusion we can come to is that we don't know. So I'd rather not listen to assertions dressed up as truth.

Dnr since the the second setence, we have, it's called causation law.

 

[Tneedtoimprove]

You made a category error between God and the universe, one is contingent and potent one isn’t

You're literally just asserting distinction. What would independently establish that God is non-contingent while the universe is contingent? If you were to define God as necessary, that doesn't actually prove he is.

 

[Tneedtoimprove]

Dnr since the the second setence, we have, it's called causation law.

That's a flawed argument. There isn't a scientific "Law of causation" that actually establishes that everything that exists must have a cause. And if we granted this principle, explain why it wouldn't apply to God but still the universe?

Edit: Please do so without using circular reasoning, special pleading, or any logical fallacy.

 

[jingelton]

If your rebuttal would be "The Big Bang proves the universe had a start," I'd do some research before being so confident in that. The Big Bang wasn't inherently a creation event. It was an expansion event. And while we're speaking about philosophy, there's zero empirical evidence that our "universe" doesn't just exist inside of an unfathomably huge black hole, in which new rules of physics, new answers, and new life may exist. I'm not denying the possibility of a God. That'd just be completely contradictory. I'm denying the lack of logical arguments that try to prove that their idea of God exists and that there's no other correct conclusion.

The only evidence-based logical conclusion we can come to is that we don't know. So I'd rather not listen to assertions dressed up as truth.

the big bang was both a creation event that started the universe’s expansion, it was the beggining of time, matter energy and space

 

[grav]

Isn't it a sin to debate

 

[childishkillah]

That's a flawed argument. There isn't a scientific "Law of causation" that actually establishes that everything that exists must have a cause. And if we granted this principle, explain why it wouldn't apply to God but still the universe?

Edit: Please do so without using circular reasoning, special pleading, or any logical fallacy.

What the fuck nigga Yes the fuck it is the law of causality is universally infallible. And God doesn't fall in the law since God is beyond the law of causality because He is a necessary being and transcends the universe.

 

[thomasjiooo]

You're literally just asserting distinction. What would independently establish that God is non-contingent while the universe is contingent? If you were to define God as necessary, that doesn't actually prove he is.

Because the universe only works within its laws, God doesn’t

 

[scuderia]

Debated with a family friend today. He spent 20 minutes using the bible as a source to argue that the bible was a valid source. That's the equivalent of Bron getting drug-tested, then using himself 10 years ago, saying he'll never juiced, as evidence. The thing under questioning cannot be used as evidence. Then that family friend's friend was here too. I was debating with him, and he spent 15 minutes using the special pleading fallacy, saying God needs no creator, but the universe would. This confrontation between him and me lasted 2 hours. Most of the two hours was spent making unprovable claims and stating, "The bible has no contradictions." Then, when we went our separate ways, I texted them a couple of verses contradicting each other, and they left me on seen.

There’s a reason your ptr is horrendous

Worst take oat

“Where’s the evidence bro where’s the evidence”

Where’s the evidence that humans need to drink water to survive?

It’s manmade evidence vs the bible was also man made so if you can believe manmade beliefs then you can at least take a look at the bible

Even if you don’t believe in god you can at least look into the evidence that is Christians believe

Keep coping

 

[Swarthy Knight]

Debating Muzzies is even more frustrating ngl

 

[Tneedtoimprove]

the big bang was both a creation event that started the universe’s expansion, it was the beggining of time, matter energy and space

The Big Bang model directly describes an expansion, not an established beginning of space time.

 

[Tneedtoimprove]

What the fuck nigga Yes the fuck it is the law of causality is universally infallible. And God doesn't fall in the law since God is beyond the law of causality because He is a necessary being and transcends the universe.

Calling causality "Universally infallible" while also exempting the idea of God because he's necessary is literally circular reasoning. The exact fallacy I've pointed out. You literally assumed the very exemption you're supposed to prove to make your statement valid.

 

[Tneedtoimprove]

There’s a reason your ptr is horrendous

Worst take oat

“Where’s the evidence bro where’s the evidence”

Where’s the evidence that humans need to drink water to survive?

It’s manmade evidence vs the bible was also man made so if you can believe manmade beliefs then you can at least take a look at the bible

Even if you don’t believe in god you can at least look into the evidence that is Christians believe

Keep coping

My ptr is irrelevant as it's not built on philosophical or religious debates. This is an ad hominem, not a direct rebuttal to my argument. As for water: Water needing evidence is independently empirically verifiable anecdotally or clinically. Citing a man-made book as evidence for supernatural claims contained in that very same book is circular reasoning. I'm seeing a pattern in the very people I'm debating. Also, you clearly didn't comprehend my thesis, so I'll say it again. I'm not saying I don't believe in a God. I'm simply stating we cannot directly prove or disprove the existence of mainstream interpretations of God.

 

[childishkillah]

Calling causality "Universally infallible" while also exempting the idea of God because he's necessary is literally circular reasoning. The exact fallacy I've pointed out. You literally assumed the very exemption you're supposed to prove to make your statement valid.

Retarded ass nigga. God is outside the universal laws since He is a superuniversal being. Since you seem to have down sindrome or an IQ of 60 i'll make it easy for you. When you make a bread your logic becomes the same as the bread or you are still a human being with the logic of a human being?

 

[scuderia]

My ptr is irrelevant as it's not built on philosophical or religious debates. This is an ad hominem, not a direct rebuttal to my argument. As for water: Water needing evidence is independently empirically verifiable anecdotally or clinically. Citing a man-made book as evidence for supernatural claims contained in that very same book is circular reasoning. I'm seeing a pattern in the very people I'm debating. Also, you clearly didn't comprehend my thesis, so I'll say it again. I'm not saying I don't believe in a God. I'm simply stating we cannot directly prove or disprove the existence of mainstream interpretations of God.

religion with the most evidence btw jfl

Just terrible take

Retarded ass nigga. God is outside the universal laws since He is a superuniversal being. Since you seem to have down sindrome or an IQ of 60 i'll make it easy for you. When you make a bread your logic becomes the same as the bread or you are still a human being with the logic of a human being?

This guy knows what’s up mirin

 

[Tneedtoimprove]

Retarded ass nigga. God is outside the universal laws since He is a superuniversal being. Since you seem to have down sindrome or an IQ of 60 i'll make it easy for you. When you make a bread your logic becomes the same as the bread or you are still a human being with the logic of a human being?

Your bread analogy still doesn't establish the conclusion you're making. The fact that a creator isn't subject to the properties of what they supposedly created doesn't prove the creator exists outside of causality or is a necessary being. These are just more premises you're refusing to actually justify.

 

[Tneedtoimprove]

religion with the most evidence btw jfl

Just terrible take



This guy knows what’s up mirin

This is an appeal to popularity fallacy. Even if Christianity had the most evidence relative to other religions, it doesn't mean it has sufficient evidence. None of you guys have once provided any evidence for the claim. Putting religions against each other doesn't establish that they're true.

 

[childishkillah]

Your bread analogy still doesn't establish the conclusion you're making. The fact that a creator isn't subject to the properties of what they supposedly created doesn't prove the creator exists outside of causality or is a necessary being. These are just more premises you're refusing to actually justify.

How would be God inside the causation law since he is a superuniversal being?

 

[Tneedtoimprove]

How would be God inside the causation law?

This is the exact thing I'm asking you to establish. You cannot say "God is outside causality" as the premise and then use that premise to conclude that God doesn't have a cause. By the same logic you're using, I could simply assert that the universe is outside causality and declare it uncaused, but I'm relying on proper logical reasoning.

 

[childishkillah]

This is the exact thing I'm asking you to establish. You cannot say "God is outside causality" as the premise and then use that premise to conclude that God doesn't have a cause.

>Universal laws describe the behavior of things within the universe.
>A law governing a system does not apply something outside that system
>God is not subject to the physical laws of the universe

By the same logic you're using, I could simply assert that the universe is outside causality and declare it uncaused, but I'm relying on proper logical reasoning.

No you could not, you cannot apply the same logic to the universe from the suprauniversal being logic.

 

[Tneedtoimprove]

>Universal laws describe the behavior of things within the universe.
>A law governing a system does not apply something outside that system
>God is not subject to the physical laws of the universe

No you could not, you cannot apply the same logic to the universe from the suprauniversal being logic.

Your first three points never established the conclusion. You're conflating physical laws with the causal principle itself. The universe being governed by physical laws doesn't establish that causality only applies inside the universe, nor does claiming "God is suprauniversal" actually prove that he would be exempt from causality. You're practically just asserting the conclusion over and over rather than actually demonstrating it.

 

[Tneedtoimprove]

Debating Muzzies is even more frustrating ngl

I haven't personally debated one, but if you read this thread, you may or may not retract that statement.