The Claim That The Christian God Exists

Arguments "God is real because the Bible says so you're ignorant if you don't agree" is the reason that people don't take theism seriously, as a theist.

Well, since this discussion has descended into a name calling temper tantrum (despite a denial to the contrary), I'm going to stop responding here and add another name to my block list.

I don't want Raltar's vote, because his votes are worthless. He doesn't vote on what is. He votes on what his mind creates, like a true theist.

To destroy, in the way that I used the word, is to easily defeat. I easily defeated Mopac, therefore I destroyed him. I don't care if you agree with the word usage, and it certainly has absolutely no bearing on who won the debate.

I'm not some child who throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. I get angry when I see a place of intellect taken over by idiots. You can't seriously tell me you don't find votes for Mopac in THIS debate to be idiotic. I clearly won dude. You'd have to be a complete imbecile to think Mopac won.

The only specific thing you said was your complaint about BoP - which was corrected by Raltar.

The second thing you said was that Raltar claimed you didn’t provide an effective rebuttal - and then say yor rebutdak destroyed Mopac. That’s pretty generic to me, nothing specific, no arguments mentioned, no particular issue outlined.

I would completely disagree with your assessment that you “destroyed mopac” too - you were effective, but you by no means destroyed him, in any way shape or form. I can underand how someone could come down the other side on your position for that very reason. I’m not saying this to annoy you, I’m saying this because it seems that you’re just getting annoyed with Raltar because he didn’t vote the way you think he should, rather than because his reasons were wholly unjustified.

You won, the system worked; why not ask something constructive - such as what you could have done to win Raltars vote.

@Ramshutu Did you not read my comments to him? I pointed out two very specific things in his vote that were incorrect. Did you simply ignore them, or do you just feel like further annoying me by making bullshit comments? There was nothing vague at all about my "allegations." Oh, and showing all 5 of his arguments to be guilty of the exact same fallacy destroys an argument. That's how.

@Raltar: "and you clearly set this debate up knowing in advance what Mopac was going to do and in a way that would sabotage him while giving you an excuse to say nothing in defense of your own position."

Seriously? You think this debate would have been any different at all if I hadn't made rules? Dude, Mopac didn't even FOLLOW the rules! And I STILL beat him! The only reason I made those rules is because Mopac's argument is utterly fucking ridiculous and not worthy of debate, because he's essentially trying to "define" his god into existence. It's a pathetic and laughable excuse for an argument that you apparently support(what does that say about you, sir?). But, as I said, he ignored my rules and went on with his idiotic arguments, and I defeated them easily. I didn't even need to try, because trying to "define" something into existence is self defeating. All I needed to do is point out the fallacy and walk away.

I’m actually going to back up Raltar here. While I completely disagree with his conclusion, and his vote: I have no reason to conclude it was done for any other reason than this is how he viewed your debate.

I frequently have people that make exactly these same accusations when I have gone to fairly great lengths to justify the vote I have made. By all means, clarify if you think one of the things he’s said is not correct, that both makes people better debaters and better voters; but I really can’t stand people making bland and non-specific allegations of bias like this.

I will personally say that while I believe your arguments did win, and refuted pros position - I disagree with you that you absolutely destroyed his position, I can happily explain what you could have done better, or while I feel like that: but I can see people coming down the other way on this as a result.

We talked previously about the "burden of proof" issue and I agreed that you didn't have one. However I also pointed out that the way you dodged the burden of proof was sketchy and you clearly set this debate up knowing in advance what Mopac was going to do and in a way that would sabotage him while giving you an excuse to say nothing in defense of your own position. So, per Ramshutu's advice, had I been able to change my vote, you would have also lost points on conduct for that. In regards to the rest of what you said, you can believe whatever you want, but most of the mods on this site are atheist, so if they are biased, it surely isn't in my favor, or Mopac's favor. So you may want to give your theory some more thought, Chief.

It doesn't, but there appears to be nothing any of us can do about it. I had several issues with your vote, because several of your reasons given were invalid, such as claiming I have a burden of proof, when even if I hadn't written a description, I wouldn't have, because I'm not making a claim, and saying I didn't provide an effective rebuttal, when my rebuttal utterly destroyed Mopac's entire argument, which can be clearly and easily seen by anyone with the ability to read and interpret the English language. Your vote was full of bias. You were looking for any reason you possibly could to vote against me because I'm an atheist in a debate against theism, and when you couldn't find any valid reason at all, you made up reasons. I can't believe the mods actually allowed that vote to stand, but I'm glad they did, because it shows me how biased even the mods are, and shows me what to expect from this site in terms of objectivity in moderation, and likelihood of actually winning a debate based on the arguments instead of what the voter personally believes.

I may have still won, but the fact that Mopac got any votes at all proves that this isn't a very good site for debate.

As we (Ram, myself and Brutal) discussed several days ago (before Thanksgiving), I had asked Bsh1 to let me change my vote for this debate.

However, it looks like Virtuoso got to it first and decided that it is "more than sufficient."

I don't know if that makes it possible for the mods to still take it down or if we are stuck with it now...

BUT, even if I had changed the vote, it would not have really mattered. The only change I would have made was to remove what I said about the "burden of proof" and instead penalize Con on conduct points for evading the burden of proof by setting up an unfair debate (as Ram suggested I do). As such, Con actually gets more points from my current vote than he would otherwise, and since it looks like he is going to win anyway, changing my vote wouldn't even be to his advantage anymore.

Hopefully this resolves any further dispute over this issue.

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wylted // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>Reason for decision: See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: This is borderline so as per the standards, we will let the vote stand.
************************************************************************

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ralter // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
>Reason for decision: See vote
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote is more than sufficient
************************************************************************

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Alec // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for sources, conduct, and arguments.
>Reason for decision:
Better conduct: The BoP was on Pro and Pro didn't prove anything except using cites from the bible. Although there is proof of God's existence(sadly), Pro failed to present any proof of God whatsoever. Con wins by my vote.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to survey the arguments and the conduct point is not sufficiently explained
************************************************************************

The whole world can deny The Ultimate Reality. It is that it is.

It doesn't really matter whether you can see your own stupidity or not, because everyone else can. I don't expect to be able convince someone that they're wrong when they insist that they're right even in the face of overwhelming proof that they aren't. It would be quite insane of me to expect to change the mind of someone who is cognitively dissonant. It is good enough for me that every person, regardless of what they personally believe(atheist, theist, anyone) is going to take one look at the insanity of your words here, and understand that you are utterly, and indeed laughably, unreasonable.

Firstly, it’s not irrelevant nonsense, it’s an abstract logic problem that uses the same logic as you, that helps explain the logical error.

Are you dismissing me the example because you don’t know the answer, or because you don’t want to answer knowing that it may deleterious to your position?

Secondly: Your whole argument is based on claiming God exists because of the way God is defined. Prior to the dictionary (a few hundred years), and the Bible (a few thousand), God and truth wasn’t defined in the way you are claiming because they weren’t defined at all.

When your “proof” of something’s existance is based on the definition of words: that is “defining it into existance”. This is exactly what you are doing it, and so far, you’ve gone dozens of pages saying that this is not what you’re doing, only to continually repeat the poor logic.

What is pretty clear here: is throughout these comments you’re trying to provide any actual explanation or respond to any arguments, you are almost invariably just repeating - over and over again - the same shoddy argument. If you can’t defend your position, this is probably not a good place to be.

Both of you are too stupid to understand what I'm saying, it isn't the other way around.

You think I'm defining God into existence!

What nonsense.

It's actually not irrelevant nonsense. He is giving a very basic example of knowledge a priori to you. The fact that you clearly don't understand his example proves that you didn't even read my opening argument. I'd be willing to bet money that you completely ignored it and just posted yours, and ignored each subsequent argument I made, aside from reading the text so you'd have something to respond to. You have no idea what knowledge a priori is do you? This is mind boggling. A guy who thinks he can define gods into existence, as if a human construct(words) had some kind of magical power to create gods, further proves his ignorance by saying that an example of knowledge a priori is "irrelevant nonsense." lmao, I really hope the entirety of the members of this site have witnessed this debate, and all of the comments between Mopac, myself, and Ramshutu, because if they have, no one, atheist nor Christian, will ever take Mopac seriously again.

Irrelevant nonsense

Zigs and Zags, Zigs are also Zogs. Zags exist - do Zigs?

The Ultimate Reality is not a logical construct.

It is reality in the realest sense of the word.

No they don’t. They come from logical analysis of your argument.

Also, fyi defining something isn't logic.

All you can do is dispute the definition, because you know it makes your denial of God unreasonable.

Your arguments are invalid because they come from a place of ignorance, not knowledge.

The Ultimate Reality is God.

As I said even in the debate, the only atheist argument is to make God something else, and then argue that straw man.

So I predicted your behavior before you started.

And your argument is invalid, because really, you are the one who doesn't understand what I am saying, not the other way around. I understand what you are saying, and it is invalid.

Firstly, oddly enough: no part of that definition actually applies to me in this case: I think it’s just wishful thinking on your part to make yourself feel better.

If you’re just going to repeat the same bad logic, and not actually address the key issue with your argument (which I have been explaining throughout and you don’t appear to have really even acknowledged, leave alone addressed), I will take that as a confession on your part that you can’t defend your position.

My God is The Ultimate Reality.

That is how I understand God.

You say God doesn't exist, you are saying The Ultimate Reality doesn't exist.

All you can do is argue over the meanings of words, because thousands of years of Church Tradition and the 2 most authoritative dictionaries of the English language back me up.

You are so arrogant that you are basically saying you have more authority whem it comes to defining what we are talking about.

I bet you can't say that The Ultimate Reality doesn't exist. Even you know how stupid that makes you sound. Yet this is what you are denying when you deny God.

THIS IS THE GOD I BELIEVE IN.

You deny my God? How foolish you are, you even believe my God! You know my God exists, it is written on your heart! Your denial is little more than vain posturing and arrogance.

You are simply lying.

Superstition

Full Definition
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

Your abject attitude toward God is the result of ignorance, fear of the unknown, and a false conception of causation.

Ignorance because The Ultimate Reality is God, and you won't accept this.
Fear of the unknown because you refuse to be educated about your error.
A false conception of causation because you think God is a created thing.

You are superstious. Just like brutaltruth who has blocked me because deep down behind his WWE posturing, is a scared loser.

For someone fixated on definitions, it seems you don’t know what the definition of superstitious is.

At this point, you haven’t really provided any actual logical defense of your illogical claims: it has mostly been an argument of denial!-!you have barely acknowledged leave alone responses to anything I’ve said: so I’m just going to drill home the followings

Zigs are Zags. Zigs are also Zogs.

If Zags exist, do Zigs?

I don’t think you understand logic well enough to answer that question, or justify it.

He’s not going to change his mind, at least not here. Changing a mind is not an event, it’s a process. My aim isn’t to change his mind, or even to start him down the path by some nugget of information. My reasons are three fold: change only happens under pressure, and while I’m sure he probably won’t change his mind ever, when confronted with contradictions, problems and issues, and challenged on hisn “facts”, the discomfort of generalized cognitive dissonance is more likely to do that than nothing at all. Secondly, maybe one day I will figure out the one way of getting through to the boneheaded and irrational: I won’t know unless I try. Thirdly, I enjoy coming up with ways of showing, explaining and coming up with logical reasons why people are wrong - so theres that too.

I'm sitting here shaking my head and wondering when Ramhutu is gunna finally realize that Mopac isn't interested in being correct. He's one of those people who will cling to a belief even in the presence of smoking-gun-proof that their belief is wrong. Continued debate with such people is quite literally insane, which leads me to a point I'd like to make to Ramshutu: Insanity, as I'm sure you know, is defined as the repeating of the same action numerous times, expecting different results. Being that you're clearly not insane, I can't begin to fathom why you still care to respond to this psycho anymore. A little enlightenment please?

You don't even know what God is, you're superstitious.

Or God doesn’t exist, in which case all of that is nonsense.

Thus far, as demonstrated, the only reason you’ve given me to believe God exists is logically faulty.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

I am very secure that you are wrong and that God is right.

No amount of sophistry, rhetoric, or semantic fumblings are going to change the fact that The Ultimate Reality exists.

If you had read or understood ANYTHING I’ve said so far: you would understand that at no point an I arguing that reality, or whatever truly exists, or truth itself exists - but that just because they do, doesn’t mean God exists - despite your illogical assertions to the contrary.

Now, stating you won’t change your mind is one of the most ignorant and surefire way to tell someone who is wrong. If you started wrong, and won’t change your mind: you’ll stay wrong forever. It’s actually sad.

You can't prove that The Ultimate Reality doesn't exist, you are wasting your time.

No, you really don't.

And what do you hope to gain by contradicting me on this? You are not going to convince me of anything.

I completely understand your logic, you just don’t seem to understand the major flaw with it:

A Zig is a Zog, a Zig is also a Zag.

If Zogs exist, do Zigs?

You don't understand my logic before you refute what you think it is.

Actually, everything I’m saying is true.

What you did: is you ignored the key issues with your arguments, picked up on some irrelevant and nonsensical difference, and asserted that Chewbacca doesn’t exist.

Unfortunately - your exact logic can be used to show Chewbacca exists because your logic is wrong.

It’s like a basic logic question on an IQ test.

A Zig is a Zog, a Zig is also a Zag.

If Zogs exist, do Zigs?

You claim yes: basic logic shows no.

You think the burden of proof is on the person claiming that reality is real.

You also, for some reason, gave con a vote for conduct.

If you aren't voting honestly, why should I take you as anything but a mocker?

None of what you are saying is true. I am not misusing definitions. What I am saying is only illogical when you try to reconcile it with your superstitions. I already demonstrated that your chewbacca argument is total nonsense.

You think you know, but you don't know, so how can I correct you? After all, you know what I believe better than I do, and you think I am being deceitful.

Well, we won't get anywhere like this, because it is fundamentally a matter of you disrespecting my most sincerely held convictions, convictions I am willing to die for. If I take my beliefs that seriously, don't you think understanding my position before dismissing it is important?

At some point, you are going to have to believe me, or we aren't going to progress.

That’s not what you were doing. What you were doing is pointing to a fact and claiming it shows God exists. You can do that for literally any fact that you want.

It’s a combination of cherry picking (you are forced to ignore all examples where it seems to disprove God), confirmation bias (for the same reason), and assessing only one way: IE not assessing the probability of the example being true in the converse.

I was trying to point out how science confirms that God exists.

Because it appears you’re trolling

Why am I being ignored?

I’m rejecting yor assertions because they are completely illogical nonsense.

You are misusing definitions by ignoring additional properties of God.

Your logic can be used to show Chewbacca exists.

It am not sure why you have gone dozens and dozens of posts and ignoring the key issues with your position, but your position is logically and theologically bankrupt.

Rejecting The Truth is not the same as rejecting my logic. I am not presenting you any logic to reject. I am making assertions. Assertions you reject out of strife, not any real insight.

And I am not using the two most respected dictionaries of the English language, Oxford and Merriam-webster to prove that God exists, I am using them to make clear what it is I am talking about. Something you reject arbitrarily.

I am not being ridiculous. I am here waiting for you to catch up because I want you to realize the truth. I want you to come to the truth because I love you. I don't care about arguing. I know what I am talking about, and how am I supposed to help you understand if you don't want to?

I am not using the dictionary to prove God. As I said several times already, Church Tradition is older than English, and I know my God.

Again for the ten thousandth time: I am rejecting you bad logic

AgaIn, for the ten thousandth time, and you keep ignoring: you are using the definition of God to prove he exists. That is ridiculous.

The reason it is ridiculous, is because the definition of God is not ONLY reality, is reality AND a bunch of other stuff. That’s the massive glaring and obvious error which makes your logic so bad it can be used to prove a Chewbacca exists.

If God doesn't exist, then why does Ice float on water, despite Ice being a solid and solids usually being less dense then liquids? And what would happen if it didn't float above water? Then fish would die and many civilizations that survived off of fish would die as well.