Challenge To Theists

Author: Salixes

Posts

Read-only
Total: 65
Topic's author
#1
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
I am prepared, right here and now to place my reputation on the line and disprove the existence of God.

My pledge is genuine and unequivocal: I am prepared to disprove the existence of God.

So, please, can someone start the ball rolling and present a proof for me to disprove?
#2
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
Just a note -- your rhetorical approach is intellectually dishonest though it might just be an effect of your lack of understanding about claims and proof.

You make the offer to prove a negative (which you have elsewhere said can't be done), that God does not exist, but then you ask for material from someone else that you will disprove.

Those are two different claims:

Claim 1 is "I will disprove God"

Claim 2 is "I will disprove your proof that God exists." 

Even claim 1A would have been a better option (1A is "I will disprove the claim that God exists") though not optimal as it shifts focus from the existence to the claim.

You should clarify what you intend to do -- disprove God's existence or disprove someone else's proof that God exists. Or you could just rant about how demanding intellectual honesty and rhetorical consistency is quibbling. That's fine, too.
#3
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Salixes
Potential evidence that God exists (just playing Devil's advocate since I'm agnostic):

-If God doesn't exist, how did the pope come into power? (if you responded, I forgot the answer)

-If God doesn't exist, then how did DNA get coded?  There are I think 10^77 failed combinations of DNA for every 1 that actually works.  There are less atoms in the observable universe.  Life did not happen by coincidence by this logic.  I remember someone responded with something, and it sort of made sense, but I forgot the reason.
#4
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Salixes
The Ultimate Reality is God.

You can't appeal to truth to disprove The Truth. You would undermine your own argument.

Topic's author
#5
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
your rhetorical approach is intellectually dishonest 
Talk about intellectually dishonest. You have done nothing more than nitpick the arguments of others.

How about not being such a wimp and stop deceptively avoiding the subject.

Anyone with half a brain can see that I blatantly and sarcastically asked the rhetorical (yes, it was rhetorical) question for anyone to supply some proof.

And, you and I know why it is a rhetorical question, now don't we?

Because we both know that there is absolutely no proof to submit, don't we?

So, you stop your deceptive, slimy  dishonesty in making childish diversions.

You know damned well what the subject is about.
Topic's author
#6
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Alec
If God doesn't exist, how did the pope come into power? (if you responded, I forgot the answer)
Yes I did answer and no bleeding wonder you forgot since it was a pretty dumb question anyway.

And quite frankly I forgot the exact answer, but you could be sure that it would have been quite blunt and sarcastic.
#7
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Salixes
There is no argument against The Ultimate Reality that stands.

You at best can only refute straw man false gods. You have no argument  against God, The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
#8
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Salixes
Talk about intellectually dishonest. You have done nothing more than nitpick the arguments of others.
which is not intellectually dishonest. If you need me to explain any of the more complex concepts, let me know. In the meantime, I'll use simpler ideas.

How about not being such a wimp and stop deceptively avoiding the subject.
Demanding that you make sense is not avoiding the subject. Holding you to a level of intellectual rigor, consistency and honesty might be too difficult for you to understand, but it doesn't avoid anything. It establishes a proper framework for any conversation. You are clearly not used to that.

Anyone with half a brain can see that I blatantly and sarcastically asked the rhetorical (yes, it was rhetorical) question for anyone to supply some proof.

And, you and I know why it is a rhetorical question, now don't we?

Because we both know that there is absolutely no proof to submit, don't we?
OK, great...let's think this through then, shall we? You now claim that your solicitation of anyone to come up with a proof for you to disprove was rhetorical. Therefore, you are NOT asking for anyone to present a proof. Therefore, there is no reason to ask anyone else to "get the ball rolling" and you should have, by now, made good on your offer. And, of course, since you are not asking anyone else to participate, you are actually not challenging anyone and your thread title is wrong.

Are you new at this?


You know damned well what the subject is about.
Yes, your insistence that you can prove a negative though elsewhere you wrote that it couldn't be done.


#9
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@rosends
His behavior is consistently nihilistic.

Taking himself as his own god, his reasonings are foundationally arbitrary.

I am not likely telling you anything you don't already see. It is foolishness.

Topic's author
#10
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@rosends
Yes, your insistence that you can prove a negative though elsewhere you wrote that it couldn't be done.
You can keep on pouring out the stalling crap as much as you want but here are the facts:

1) You have failed to provide any proof whatsoever.

2) Because you have no proof to offer.

3) Your latest deceptive tactic is to infer that I came down in the last shower and that your delaying tactics were merely "enquiries".

4) I didn't come down in the last shower.

5) Because of your dishonest delaying tactics, you lose...once again.

Is it any wonder that die-hard religious fanatics have a universally nasty reputation for being a bit shy of the truth?
#11
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,209
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Salixes
Will you except a ' burning fiery bush ' as proof of god. ?
I know someone who did. 
#12
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,209
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Mopac
The ultimate reality.
Tell me about a dream you had.
Topic's author
#13
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Will you except a ' burning fiery bush ' as proof of god. ?
I know someone who did. 

Thanks for that Deb.

Isn't it amazing that some people can instantly get the meaning of the thread and others make out they don't. Hmmmm.

As opposed to one other member on this page (and I won't mention rosends), you have the guts and honesty to actually properly respond to the thread without endlessly beating around the bush.

In fact, you set it on fire.
#14
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Salixes
Yes, your insistence that you can prove a negative though elsewhere you wrote that it couldn't be done.
You won't touch this will you Sal? Your contradictions are all orphans.

You have failed to provide any proof whatsoever.
If your question was rhetorical, then no one needed to offer any proof. You should know what "rhetorical" means before you use the word.

You said disproving a negative could not be done, then you insist you can disprove a negative. When your contradiction is pointed out to you, you say its a delaying tactic. Delaying what?

Rhetorical questions need no prompt. You should have simply gone ahead and disproven God.

As I remember, the last time you spammed this clunker you were similarly blown out of the water then too. I know you tire of losing, but.... Compulsion.

Try again Sal.

#15
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6

1) You have failed to provide any proof whatsoever.
But your request was rhetorical so you don't want me to.

2) Because you have no proof to offer.
That's a claim for a different thread. I could say "there is no proof you would accept, having previously decided that no proof exists"

3) Your latest deceptive tactic is to infer that I came down in the last shower and that your delaying tactics were merely "enquiries".
You have clarified that you made no enquiries. Therefore, your concern in your point 1 is unfounded.
4) I didn't come down in the last shower.
I have never heard that figure of speech. I'm not even sure what it means.

5) Because of your dishonest delaying tactics, you lose...once again.
You have yet to prove dishonesty.


Please do what you intended to do, without what you have decided you don't need. Thanks in advance.

#16
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Salixes
I am prepared, right here and now to place my reputation on the line and disprove the existence of God.

LOL a challenge?? that's cute Willard...

In this case "proof" and or "evidence" belongs with the individual translated as interpretation not necessarily as a collective agreement (but not opposed to that either). Proof is defined as "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement"....and evidence is defined as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". In this light you can't "prove" anything, all you can really do is give your own personal interpretation of what we observe.
Science for example is not at all opposed to Theism, it's simply a neutral method of study we use to determine the natural world and its functions (it has no say on whether or not God exists) and since that's the case you can't use that as an excuse to reject the possibility God exists. All you can assume is that what we observe through the scientific method translates as atheism. Having said that I fail to see how you could ever believe that you can prove something to someone else's interpretation.

To a Theist, intelligent processes occurring in our universe is an indication (evidence) of an intelligent Source since processes are associated with minds, to an atheist for example.....these processes occur all by themselves, they are just coincidentally natural events. See how they both have their own interpretation of what we observe?

To a Theist, NDE's, spiritual experiences, paranormal activity, religious sources and OBE's are good solid evidence that the soul indeed exists independent of the physical body. Whereas an atheist per say assumes these are just manifestations of some imagination. See how they both have their own interpretation of what we observe?

To a Theist, it's obvious looking at creation as a whole and where we currently are that there is indeed a Creator. To an atheist it's obvious no Creator exists simply because they can't "see" God, to them the universe is just some mechanical manifestation.

To a Theist, processes and matter come after mind/intelligence and consciousness not before. To an atheists matter somehow creates conscious beings and intelligence.

To a Theist evolution for example is a process and that process is how the Creator brings things into existence from point A to point B. The same with solar systems arranging, planets forming, habitations developing, embodiments appearing, consciousness/sentience manifesting ect ect….And again, to an atheist evolution occurs by itself and planets form for no real purpose or reason. Stars are born and die just because ect ect

These examples are interpretations of the individual (and I could go on and on), the individual looks at the evidence and observations and applies their own logic and common sense. To a Theist their interpretation is obviously superior, it comes together and makes much more sense. To an Atheist a Theists interpretation is silly, probably stupid. But they both are interpretations of what we all have in front of our faces. So you can believe in your own mind you can prove your worldview is the correct one but that's a pipe dream, a delusion. Your interpretation is no more valid than mine and your assumptions about the world we observe are no more intelligent than mine. You have your opinions and interpretations and I have mine, mine are proven to me and your are proven to you.
When we come together to discuss the subject at hand we are left with arguing our own interpretations and common sense logic. You'll never be able to make any step beyond that fact, you can try but it's nonsensical since all our ideas about creation or the universe are personal observations.

#17
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Salixes
If God doesn't exist, then how did it predict the founding of Israel in the Revelation?
#18
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,209
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
If Jesus doesn't exist, then why do we have Hot cross buns ?
#19
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
The Ultimate Reality exists.

Anyone who denies this knowing what it means is an idolator, wicked in the most perverse way, and a fool above all fools. 





#20
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,209
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Ok
The ultimate reality exists = God.   
But i highly doubt.
The ultimate reality =  the father the son and the holy spirit
#21
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Then what you call God is a conception of God.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is an acknowledgement that for us to meaningfully discuss God, we must use a conception. That for God to become incarnate. To believe that "God" means exactly what it says it means, rather than mistaking God for a conception.


It is an acknowledgment that though we communicate God through a name, the name itself points to a name that transcends naming. That Holy Name being the essence of what God Is rather than a conception of what God Is.

#22
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Or as the Tao te Ching rightly puts it, "The name that can be named is not the eternal Name".
The Eternal Name is The Ultimate Reality, what that Truly is.

The Eternal Way.


Jesus Christ is The Eternal Way to the glory of God The Father through the communion of The Holy Spirit.




Topic's author
#23
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Alec
If God doesn't exist, then how did it predict the founding of Israel in the Revelation?
    I'm presuming that you mean the Christian God.

It would not take any extraordinary powers of foretelling to predict that any number of states in the region would undergo formation, in particular Israel, which was destroyed and resurected a number of times. The region was even more volatile 2000 years ago.

If someone, thousands of years ago had specifically predicted that David Ben-Gurion would be appointed leader of the new state in 1948 and wrote such in the Bible, every person in the world would be a Christian.

However, that's not the case, is it?
#24
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
We have hot cross buns because a bloke named Jesus might have existed once upon a time a couple of thousand years ago.

Similarly, that's why we stuff ourselves senseless in December.

Religion hey! 

It's all food and drink based really.
#25
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,209
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
MMMMMMM  Hot cross buns with triple butter. 

Speaking of it all being food and drink based. 
Lent :  Day #3.  So we probably shouldn't be talking about food hey? 

God must love it when he sees them fasting. 
LOVES IT.   
 
  



#26
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Salixes

#27
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Salixes
Good point.
#28
skittlez09
skittlez09's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,012
3
3
9
skittlez09's avatar
skittlez09
3
3
9
-->
@Salixes
Going about it like you have all the answers and they're stupid isn't the way to go about it.

whether or not you believe they are stupid or not, it comes across that way. 
Topic's author
#29
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@skittlez09

Going about it like you have all the answers and they're stupid isn't the way to go about it.

whether or not you believe they are stupid or not, it comes across that way. 
Those are very bold statements.

Perhaps you would like to elaborate on exactly what you mean. 
Topic's author
#30
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@zedvictor4
We have hot cross buns because a bloke named Jesus might have existed once upon a time a couple of thousand years ago.

Similarly, that's why we stuff ourselves senseless in December.

Religion hey! 

It's all food and drink based really.

I heard that Lindt are making chocolate nails for Easter this year.