Im an atheist, Pashley you have just insuled me becauce of my belefes and yet I have never sayed any thing to attack you.I have read evey post of yours yet you have not of replyed any of the arguments agianst you idea. I am interseted in what you have to say to the arguments. Rather than repeating your self please give a logical explanation of why these arguments could not work or plese admit that you could do some more thinking on the subject.
Oh, I nearly forgot to address the following points.
I would accept this challenge, but I have two problems with it. You cannot dismiss all other members. This type of discussion would be better located in an email forum. There is nothing to discuss. All this debate would consist of is your ability to posit.
Is this not what the OP is about? The concept of evidence is being miscontrued here.
It is unfair for you to have to defend your assertions against more than one individual? What do you do IRL?
Why do you choose to limit how many times someone can disagree with you?
I doubt it for the sole reason that it is unfair to omit nearly one hundred percent of the board from a discussion. I’d take you on, but hitherto you have fail to address any issues I have presented. Would that differ in your exclusive forum?
Threll, it is not my intention to insulted YOU, but the other atheists on here that have insulted me because of my beliefs in God. I apologize.
If you are asking me to reply to previouse questions, I am comfortable with the statements i have made, my rebuattals to them, including the uncaused nature of God, which was not even part of my original post.
I DID, a few months ago, take on the issue of Atheism, and did so to my satisfaction. I don’t want to get into it again; i would rather concentrate on the challenge i have issued.
Peace.
Patrick Ashley
“For those who believe, no evidence is necessary; for those who don’t believe, no evidence is enough.” -Unknown
Nen, look, what am i saying is, let the group pick one person they think can go toe-to-toe with me, let that person and me debate the issue that person selects, and let no other people enter the arena. They can just watch.
In this way, everyone can see an actual discussion going on, not a free for all against me.
Now, why is that a problem?
Patrick Ashley
“For those who believe, no evidence is necessary; for those who don’t believe, no evidence is enough.” -Unknown
Why don’t you start by answering the question I asked in very simple English and in a non-attacking way, eh?
Instead, you came back with a smart-ass response. This is not the sign of someone who wants to debate. This is the sign of someone who LOST a debate.
Yer pal,
Satan
http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif
Still not smoking, but away from my meter!
Pat? I don’t much give a damn for your idea of what constitutes a debate. Particularly when you get to define what is and is not acceptable. And while I wont be holding my breath in anticipation of a comprehensible reply, my queries, again:
Wanna take a stab at backing this up? Plus, more than a few of the folk who ripped into you are Christians. Or are they also “spiritually cowardly” simply because they do not agree with you?
Poly? You still around? I know that I saw Adam earlier. Monty is LDS. ~Tom is Catholic. Esprix is UU. Tell us again, Pat, how anyone with a different point of view is drummed out, please.
Waste
Flick Lives!
Pat to NTG:
Don’t forget them damn unclean lesbians. Ya just know they’re going straight to hell.
:d&r:
-andros-
Pashmeister opined:
" However, I can use evidence and logic to
show it is likely he exists. " (regarding God)
I can turn myself invisible (but only when nobody is watching me.)
“Faith doesn’t need to be blind.”
Then why are your arguments so handicapped?
Is it really all that hard for you to understand why if you postulate that “everything” needs a cause, some may not find it credible when in your next line you say that God doesn’t need a cause?
What form of logic is this? evidence?
Since when does a=b, but b not equal a?
DO you really not understand this?
“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar
I love how you presume to know what I believe. I, for one, am a theist. And yes, I attempted to show you the flaws in your logic, and was summarily ignored, just as you ignored everyone else. Now that you know I’m a theist, would you like to go back and answer my points?
None of us are saying that there IS NO GOD. (Well, some of us might be saying that, but not because of anything you said). We’re saying that your so-called logical proof of intelligent design by God is none of those things. There are flaws in your logic which I pointed out on the second page, especially dealing with your use of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, that you never bothered to answer. Just because you assume it to be true does not mean that it is, and that’s the closest you can come to ascertaining the truth of that particular statement. Your premise can’t be proven true, therefore your argument is not sound or valid. Your conclusion may very well be correct anyway, but the argument leading up to it is flawed.
I have no problem with having faith. That’s what God is all about. When you try to use bad logic or bad science to prove it, you’re trying to explain God in man’s terms, and you will always fall short. Always. Hopefully someday you will accept that, and rely on pure faith alone. But some people are afraid that the voice of doubt they hear inside their heads and hearts is right, and so they feel the need to PROVE that God exists. Funny thing is, you don’t have to. Just feel it, and know it, and that’s good enough. At least, it’s good enough for me, and I’m sure it’s good enough for God.
And this question is…? (which I’ve probabley answered already, sigh!)
Drain 3:27-34.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Amen.
(seriously, DB, nicely said. :))
[quote]
Originally posted by Drain Bead:
** I love how you presume to know what I believe.**
[QUOTE]
I made exceptions, did you not see it?
I made my points, i answered most arguments, but I refuse to reacaptiulate what I’ve answered before.
Yes, there are certainly no people here saying there is no God. Wake up.
I stated, I rebutted. If people can’t even agree to the first premise, that things don’t just come into being on their own, without cause, then why take it farther? Not only is that premise logically sound, it is reasonable and valid. I stand rock solid on that. If you disagree, fine.
I don’t assume it to be true, that things don’t come into being uncaused, I know it is true, based on science and logic. It is the burden of the unbeliever to prove to me that things can pop out of nowhere, which they cannot do. The argument stands as solid and valid.
Amen to that. But faith does not have to be based on faith alone. Again, i state that i cannot PROVE that God exists, so back off. I can, however, argue through evidence and logic, that it is highly likely He does exist. See my signature quote for a summation!
Patrick Ashley
“For those who believe, no evidence is necessary; for those who don’t believe, no evidence is enough.” -Unknown
Check the very top of page 3; you’ll find a direct quote of Satan’s direct question.
An open letter to pashley:
Dr. Crane! Your glockenspiel has come to life!
One more try:
You have asserted over and over again that your premise is true. I and others have politely asked you to support your premise. It’s your premise, not ours. If your premise is false, your argument is illogical. It’s up to you to justify your premise when it is demonstrated that it’s not universally accepted. We have suggested counterexamples, but inability to provide a counterexample is not proof of your premise (as has been often pointed out).
You have repeated your “because I say so” argument over and over again:
You have contradicted yourself repeatedly:
So for the Nth time:
You claim that you are satisfied with your defense of your premise. No-one else is. You have never defended your premise. You have only re-stated it.
If you hope to convince anyone, you need to come up with a set of premises that are universally accepted and a logical chain of reasoning that ends with “Therefore, whatever begins to exist, has a cause for its coming into being”.
Stating that your premise is fact won’t do it. Stating that your premise is logical won’t do it. Only a demonstration will do it.
I doubt that you can do it (I’m not impugning your abilities; I just think it can’t be done). But I’m willing to read and discuss an attempt to do it, and I’m prepared to change my mind.
So far you haven’t made the attempt.
jrf
b][pashley**, in regards to your challenge, come here.
Yeah, and you betray yourself with that sig. We HAVE posted evidence that things (electrons and positrons) CAN pop out of nothing and go back into nothing and they do so constantly. It HAS been observed, it’s not some wild theory that some “cowardly” atheist made up to comfort himself that there is no God.
And it seems to me that a spiritual coward is one who is frightened by the thought that he is alone in the world. A spritually brave person is one who is able to believe a discomforting truth instead of a comforting lie.
Sig Alert!
The thing is, pashley, it’s not just me who is disagreing with you. It’s a good portion of philosophers who spend their entire lives writing lengthy essays on the subject. It’s not that I disagree, even–if you notice, I told you that it can’t be proven to be true or false. You can say that it’s intuitively true until you’re blue in the face, but it’s only intuitively true for you–others will disagree. You can say that it’s a reasonable assumption in the face of the evidence all you want as well. That doesn’t make it true, either (as I mentioned, I can assume in the face of the evidence I’ve seen in this thread and others that you are a dimwit, but the truth or falsity of the statement “Pashley is a dimwit” is not based on my assumption thereof). If you claim that the premise is true for you, then it’s true for you. Don’t try to get the rest of the world to buy it, though.
Sounded good, but of course, we had have some slimeball jump in. As I said before, you and me, no idiots like Satan in there making adolescent comments. “HI, DUH, MY NAME IS SATAN, I’M A BAD-ASS!” Get a friggin life.
I will readily take you on, but the forumn must be secure, or it’s just another forumn where losers like this can jump in.
Pashtulation:
"
I don't assume it to be true, that things don't come into being uncaused, I know it is
true, based on science and logic. It is the burden of the unbeliever to prove to me that
things can pop out of nowhere, which they cannot do"
I wonder what Leiderman and all the rest of the particle physicists have been observing and quantifying for the last ten years or so.
Things do come into existence on their own, without a cause, from nothingness. This is a well known and documented phenomenom. It is not open to opinion. It is a fact.
The fact that one has to make a slight effort to understand the science behind this phenomenom makes it that much easier for the willfully ignorant to ignore.
“Don’t just stand there in Uffish thought!”
-The Caterpillar