| Both have some basic logical fallicies, i think in general we have simply gone much more in depth to the argument here than either, and have already thorouly discussed the problems with both sides. The theist just doesn't make sense in general.
The first mile is evidence, while the second mile is faith. He the proceeds to define faith as the belief in something not proven. Why do you need the first mile?
His exceptions, based on the fact that he believes that his God is just- he only has two. I mean, he should be confronted with the argument of what he would do if that little indian pygmie kid told him the story of their god and asked him to convert. He has a "holier-than-thou." attitude.
He doesn't really say what he thinks about pascals wager other than it is "a bad argument" because "his video taught him so." I dont even understand whether the theist was talking about the atheist's argument or pascal's argument, or whether he even understood the point the atheist was trying to make.
I mean, there are blatant fallacies in this theist's argument, and i bet that if anybody confronted him with different situations he would modify his faith and qualify the hell statement to keep his God "just." All in all, however, his basic argument is that you need faith to believe in god (duh) and that Jesus said that you need faith. Thats all the evidence he presents, period, and thats circular logic.
He also fails to address the atheist's argument whatsoever, even though the atheist's argument was a tad callus and had its weak points. But just because the atheist can retaliate, and the theist doesnt even try, i dont think this even constitutes a debate.
Nevermind, i hadnt watched all three, and AZ just stated that is possible to disprove God, while in the first video he clearly stated that he could believe in unicorns when he saw unicorns. This undermines the definition of "proof." Both suck
 |