Street_Scholar

Proof of Mageth using a Strawman argument and then claiming I am the one using a Strawman argument.
He totally disregards my first post, (1) (topic page 103) and moves on to my second one (2) (page 103) and then he selectively chooses the parts of my posts and refutes them (3) you can do a word count on the posts and clearly see what is going on. Anyway we move on to my 3rd post on page 103 and I answer the posts directed at me (4) now we move on to page 104 and Mageth, responds to my previous post (5) again if you do a word count on the posts you’ll see what is going on. There are also other posts where this has happened, however I would like to move on from this and get back to the topic at hand.

Let’s not play semantics you know what I mean.

When did I deny evolution? In actuality in a pervious post I said am an evolutionist. I also happed to agree on the BIG BANG theory on the origin of the universe. However my argument is god CREATED the big bang. It was a process.

Which is true, even some philosophical constructs are scientific theories. Yet they are not proven. Take for instance “0” in mathematics. You believe in that right? Yet can you prove the concept for zero?

Yes I did answer you chose to ignore it. I said, for me to explain how this is would be beyond the scope of this topic. And QM’s would suggest different laws apply in different universes.

Am sure there’s one out there. Just because we don’t know there is one out there doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

Relatively safely we can say they are not going to be the same as our universes. As the planets and stars will be in different orbits. And of different mass, which would have effect on time, (Time Dilation) and also gravity these are just two things I can think of from the top of my head there are also many more.

It does have an application such as Quantum Fluctuations which has been applied to explain universes outside of our owns. If you think it does and am telling you it does then I don’t see the problem here I don’t even see why you mentioned this.

It’s like I am repeating myself I don’t know how more clear I can make this to you. I’ve said laws such as time, gravity, space, matter ect, ect. We all know philosophy and science pretty much go hand in hand. How would have we have even came to the realization there are likely to be other universes outside of our own.

I know something, not everything. Some people are good at knowing things am not so good at.

So you say yourself that we can’t know everything about the universe so you agree that you can dismiss something without knowing it fully? This is my argument, we can’t have a limited understanding of something and rule out another thing in this case God (am not suggesting you’re but many Atheists do) without knowing the full facts. In that part which we do not have an understanding might provide irrefutable evidence for god.

It seems like you get an urge now and then to say am using or “straw man” or am “constructing” one.

So you have a prejudice mentality great! My point being even if you don’t like something you can’t deny that infact you might learn something from it.

Yes to understand everything – you do know what “everything” is right? You also convienitly over looked to quote me on that too.
Here is what I actually said: I don’t see how “God” constitutes as everything!

I see your point.

Which would make everything pointless; make you genetic garbage something that exists in a dustbin where pizza crusts and other such junk exists. What good would be anything, anything you ever did would mean jack-all. So the end would make everything you ever stood for inconsequential, you might aswell through your life away sniffing coke. A human that has no soul and is made from genetic garbage, and when he dies everything he stood for would die with human.

Yet you believe in other things that are based on conjecture.

I was making a point.

Please Penrose is one of the greatest scientists around, you should check out the work he has done on general relativity.

so in all that you managed to overlook “This is, by the way, more than the total number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe” now taking that into consideration we know what the heck Penrose is talking about.

Well could you explain then, saying something like “I don’t know” is not even an argument so if someone suggests god created it then, that is a sound theory until you can disprove it or give detail to a better one.

OrbitV2 I was asking him not you.

It was a truthful comment.

Regards
Street Scholar


References:
(1) , (2) , (3) , (4) , (5)

Hedshaker

"I don't know" is sometimes the only honest thing to say. And I can say it with the full knowledge that you don't know either.

so?



In you view :huh:

Street_Scholar

I was speaking to him, seemed somewhat rude that you posted that when I asked him a question.

I provided evidence. Truth is not measured in mass appeal so I don't care if non of you agree with me.

Gawen

This is a debate forum open to everyone (everyone = public). If you wish one-on-one debate you may enquire the opponent through the PM function to discuss what mediums are proper.

Hedshaker

As Gawen says, it's not your place to dictate who may and may not comment or reply to posts made by others. It's an open forum here.


What "Truth" would that be? It hasn't been established yet that your claims bare any "Truth" value at all.

Street_Scholar

Yes, sure. Next time I'll keep that in mind.

Street_Scholar

rhutchin

On the contrary. No one ever objects to the Wager by arguing that it is rational for a person to choose eternal torment. Pascal succeeded in exposing the hypocrites for what they are - hypocrites. Until you take up the challenge and argue that eternal torment is a real choice, you accomplish nothing.

Maybe you only imagine it to be imaginary. The non-hypocrite would say that he just doesn't know what happens after death.

A person can take action against X by embracing Y. A person can say that anything is possible, even the vampires, and then take one action, embracing the Biblical god, to respond to all. One might even embrace Allah or Buddha. In the end, the person admits to that which he doesn't know and embraces that which he does know with the realization that he can embrace error ar easily as truth.

rhutchin

I think that would be fun for both of us. Make it so (as Picard would say and because I don't have a clue how to do it).

rhutchin

I have no problem with this. The difficulty here is defining the truth claim. I can make the claim, "This is a true statement - Eternal torment is real," and offer as evidence that which the Bible says. Does that then require that I prove the Bible to be true (as many people want to force the argument in that direction) or does it mean that the opposing side provide its own evidence to the effect that there is no eternal torment? If I must prove that the Bible is true, then is the argument, ""This is a true statement - Jesus Christ said that He was God." Or is it "Jesus Christ is God."

My claim is that eternal torment is real. My evidence is that information recorded in the documents collected in the Bible. Is that a valid claim with valid evidence to which you (debating from the other side) can now respond with additional evidence?

I notice that there is a thread on "Burden of Proof" that I have not read. Does that thread address the issue here? If you want to get into the Burden of Proof issue with respect to the claim, "Eternal torment is real," then let's do it in a separate thread. It would be nice if you could describe the problem and how the debate would proceed (i.e., specifically on the validity of entering the Bible as evidence and how that evidence is treated).