The God Delusion

[Destroyer]

Quote by: Zhavric Strike one. Do what you stated you'd do and we can continue the debate. Fail to do so and you concede. Two more tries.

Way to ignore the entire post. Since you're no longer defending "design can never explain anything because the designer always requires an explanation" *, I'll consider the point conceded.

Furthermore, I did, in the very post you ignored and in numerous other posts ,explain God's origin in that he is eternal/timeless:

Quote by: Destroyer from last post that Zhavric ignored God existing eternally" follows from the logical deduction that an infinite regress of events is absurd/impossible and that for there to exist anything, something has to have existed forever -Destroyer If something didn't exist forever, then there is a infinite series of events that goes on and on and on, forever. With one event bringing about another event which brings about another event, which was brought about by a previous event, etc. etc. etc. Clearly this is "nonsensical" and the only alternative to an infinite regress of events is if something existed forever (because if it didn't exist forever, it was caused by something else, which was caused by something else etc.). And for various reasons, theists believe this "something" to be God...and we're now left with you declaring "god existed forever" a "cop-out" without ANY justification. It logically follows that God would have to exist forever in order to truly be "God" and you've given us no reason to believe otherwise. Just you calling it a cop-out with zero justification or explanation as to why. -Destroyer

Now, are you going to address this or ANY part of my previous post, or will you keep dodging (you have MANY kittens to kill) and coming back into the debate, selectively pick out one sentence to comment on while ignoring everything that refutes your claims?

Here, I'll make this very easy for you by pointing out some things you ignored in my last post...well, it's too long to fit into this post..it was the whole thing.


*which was the only thing we were debating before you introduced your red herrings

[Destroyer]

Some things Zhavric neglected to address from my last post:

Quote by: Destroyer Quote by: Zhavric I've had quite enough of your straw men, my friend. You attempted to mischaracterize my argument by fixating on "where god came from" and then attempting to assert I changed my position when I was actually clarifying your mischaracterization. This is absurd. Here is your original statement that I objected to: design can never explain anything because the designer always requires an explanation -Zhavric This is invalid and I've proved this. And you HAVE backed down from this with such statements as, "We're not so much interested in god's geographical background as we are in proving he's possible.", and "The thing that precludes god from creating the universe is the fact no evidence for god exists ". So it's not the fact that we might not know where God came from that makes design invalid, it's the fact that you think there's no evidence. And no matter how hard you'd like to try to make that my original disagreement, it wasn't - I merely objected to your absurd and ridiculous claim that somehow not knowing where God came from means he can't exist. If you want to concede the point (which you need to do), fine. But pretending the debate was about something else and introducing numerous red herrings is a very dishonest way to debate. Furthermore, I fully addressed both your questions here so don't you dare accuse me of evading either one: I'm going to accuse you of evading again because you've once AGAIN failed to address the bolded portion of the below, which is VERY crucial: Quote by: Destroyer Secondly, if you hold this position, please explain precisely how not knowing where God came from prevents him from creating the universe, then reconcile this with any non-God hypothesis as to the origins of the universe as well since that cause would also require an explanation which we probably wouldn't have an answer for. And this wasn't the only thing you conveniently ignored, more on this later... Quote by: Zhavric To use your own analogy, if we go to another planet and find a strange machine there, we'd conclude it was made by aliens because we have evidence beings evolve on planets and eventually build machines. Imagine someone suggested the machine's origin was a unicorn; you'd reject that because there's no precedent for unicorns let alone unicorns building machines. The hypothesis fails. God suffers the same problem. We cannot simply say, "Well, god created the universe and how he did it / where he came from isn't important." God needs evidence before we can conclude this. So where is your evidence? You're either being purposefully obtuse here or you're very, very confused and/or not paying attention AT ALL. My claim this ENTIRE time has not been, "God exists as evidenced by the existence of the universe". Rather, were you to have been paying attention, you'd know my claim has been, "You can't a priori exclude God as a possible cause of the universe, merely because we might not know His origins"....which is exactly what you suggest when you say "design can never explain anything because the designer always requires an explanation". I'm not making an argument for the existence of God here (obvious to anyone paying attention), I'm merely arguing against YOUR argument against the existence of God and showing how it's invalid. God may not exist, I'm not debating that here, but merely pointing out that you can't exclude Him as a possible cause of the universe merely because we might not know his origins. If you think there's no evidence, fine, and again, I'm not debating that here nor have I ever in this thread, I'm merely saying you can't exclude the God hypothesis just on the basis that we might not know where God came from -- THIS was your original claim, one you're no longer defending. Nan, we both know "timelessly" is just something you (or some other theist) has invented lol! How embarrassing for you! "Timeless" is a word used to describe ANY cause of the universe, be it a God or anything else as the Big Bang brought about all time and matter etc. Here's another wacky "theist": "The universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang" -Stephen Hawking Here's another nut job "theist": "The cause of spacetime exists timelessly." Quentin Smith, atheist philospher I'm sorry, did you think this was my burden? LOL YOU are the one making statements you cannot support, Nan. The cop out is on your part and it's your burden to prove otherwise. Yes Zhavric, you DO have a burden to share here. You see, in this wacky little thing we call "debate", you can't just make claims without support and run around demanding everyone refute your unsupported nonsense. So when you say: "saying God existed forever, is a cop out", you have to support WHY it's a cop out (something you've completely failed to do). Furthermore, in the neighborhood of at lease 10-15 times now, in this thread and others, I HAVE given reasons as to why God would need to exist forever: God existing eternally" follows from the logical deduction that an infinite regress of events is absurd/impossible and that for there to exist anything, something has to have existed forever -Destroyer If something didn't exist forever, then there is a infinite series of events that goes on and on and on, forever. With one event bringing about another event which brings about another event, which was brought about by a previous event, etc. etc. etc. Clearly this is "nonsensical" and the only alternative to an infinite regress of events is if something existed forever (because if it didn't exist forever, it was caused by something else, which was caused by something else etc.). And for various reasons, theists believe this "something" to be God...and we're now left with you declaring "god existed forever" a "cop-out" without ANY justification. It logically follows that God would have to exist forever in order to truly be "God" and you've given us no reason to believe otherwise. Just you calling it a cop-out with zero justification or explanation as to why. -Destroyer Each time you just ignore it and pretend it isn't there - I can see this is the strategy that probably led you to be an atheist and a Christ-myther. Don't you tire of constantly occusing me of not providing reasons as why God existed forever and then me turning around and linking you to about 10 other posts where I have already done this, only for you to ignore it and keep repeating that false charge? Speaking of cop outs, how about addressing this and NOT cop out by ignoring it: Quote by: Destroyer (emphasis added) You completely misunderstood, those are our only 3 options, for BOTH of us. Either something popped into existence, uncaused out of nothing (which we both agree is absurd), there is an infinite regress of events (which I BELIEVE we both agree is absurd), or something existed forever...maybe not God, but these are our three options. And here we have you claiming the last option as a "cop out", but ONLY when it applies to God. Please. ... ... Agreed. And I'm not trying to prove God exists here. I'm just pointing out that you have NO reason for saying "god exists forever" is a cop out, but allow for the other two options since your only reason for calling "god exists forever" a cop out is, "there is no evidence for God". It's absurd. You can't just sit there and say, "Either God popped out of nothing or he evolved but you can't say he existed forever...why not, you ask? because there's no evidence for god, lol!". Either call them all absurd on the basis that God doesn't exist or allow them all, but calling only one absurd on a basis that would render them all invalid is just dishonest. Again, I can only marvel at the accuracy of my own prediction: "I anticipate this is just a ploy to distract from your original argument" -Destroyer I said this after Zhavric started introducing red-herrings such as his "complexity" "argument". As we can clearly see, he's completely gotten away from what I originally objected to and what we were originally discussing (his statement: "design can never explain anything because the designer always requires an explanation ") and that "argument" has completely dropped from the debate.

[Zhavric]

Since you're no longer defending "design can never explain anything because the designer always requires an explanation" *

Nope. You're wrong. I took care of that here.

You've offered absolutely zero explanation on why we do not need to know what caused god. The same principles of design which you use to claim god must by definition also apply to god, itself.

To which you evaded here...

I've maintained that God's origin does not need to be known in order to determine if he created the universe or not. However, this does not mean that we shouldn't seek to explain the origin of God

"Possible" is an attribute a being must posses in order to create a universe. You have assumed "possible". You have not evidenced it.

But you said that you could here:

1) I do think we can explain God's origin

I challenged you to do so. So far you haven't even tried.

By the by, what's all this BS on your part about me evading? Which part of "I will respond to the rest of your replies once you have done this." are you not understanding? I haven't evaded. I'm waiting for you to do what you said you were going to.

Strike two. Next one and you're out.

[ZNFYRH]

Zhavric,

You are being rather evasive. You are not showing any kind of evidence to support your statements. You are basically saying that because someone else can't give evidence to prove their argument, you are correct by default. It reminds me of a movie called "Thank You For Smoking" where a guy teaches his kid that the method you are using is the way to win an argument.

It's not. It's an underhanded way of attempting to demean a person for failing to do what you are unable to do yourself. You seem to dismiss people's arguments by pigeon-holing them into certain self-created categories.

I've watched it for quite some time and I think you should be called out for your ignorance.

I think Destroyer wrote a very articulate post. It may have been long-winded but he made some good points which you glossed over because, I believe, you cannot respond to them. Given the way you post the same content repeatedly and lurk in the Religion section of the forum, and from the threads I've read in the past year, you cyclically make the same empty statements and when asked the same questions you evade with the same methods.

Your method of challenging the existence of God is sloppy, at best. I would hate for someone to think that your comments represent an intelligent argument against God, so I'll take a shot at it instead.

Destroyer,

I have a single reply for you that addresses most of what you bolded in your most recent post.

Quote by: Destoyer then reconcile this with any non-God hypothesis as to the origins of the universe as well since that cause would also require an explanation which we probably wouldn't have an answer for.

A single and significant difference between a "God" explanation and a "science" explanation is that we really don't know what God is. This board alone is rife with so many multiple and contradictory definitions of God. Zhavric restricts "God" to meaning a "tri-omni" God that is easy to attempt to debunk by citing laws of physics. Captain Chaos defines "God" as a being that has or had the ability to create the universe... no mention of intent.

The God explanation is already based on something that is undefined.

The "science" explanation looks deeper and deeper into causes, requiring that we understand each one. As we gain better understanding of a topic, it enlightens us to answers and questions that we never knew before.

As a result, the "science" explanation requires greater faith in the reliability of the process, a proven process, and not just accepting in a supernatural cause for everything.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I think Destroyer wrote a very articulate post.

I do as well. It was far superior to yours... which clumsily tossed out all sorts of accusations without actually citing specific examples. Destroyer is keen to quote specific phrases and paragraphs of mine and explain what he believes their flaws to be in detail.

Where did you do that in your post?

Ah. Right. You didn't.

You'll note also that Destroyer and I argue without stooping to insulting one another (another shortcoming of your writing).

Note also as a Christian in a thread about the god hypothesis / god delusion, the burden is largely on Destroyer to justify and evidence the claims made by Christianity. I'm not sure why volconvo.com breeds misunderstanding of the burden of proof in these debates. I hope you don't fall further prey to this very silly fallacy.

I look forward to replying to the rest of Destroyer's post as soon as he does what he said he'd do. As for you, flaming and insults are against volconvo.com rules. Employ them again and I'll take the issue up with the moderators.

[Destroyer]

Quote by: Zhavric "Possible" is an attribute a being must posses in order to create a universe. You have assumed "possible". You have not evidenced it. But you said that you could here: 1) I do think we can explain God's origin I challenged you to do so. So far you haven't even tried.

This is ridiculous. In this thread, I've NEVER claimed I would evidence the existence of God. When I said the above, I was (quite clearly) talking about showing why God would have to be eternal.

In fact, if you would have read my last post, you'd know that I've already said this:

Quote by: Destroyer (emphasis added) My claim this ENTIRE time has not been, "God exists as evidenced by the existence of the universe". Rather, were you to have been paying attention, you'd know my claim has been, "You can't a priori exclude God as a possible cause of the universe, merely because we might not know His origins"....which is exactly what you suggest when you say "design can never explain anything because the designer always requires an explanation". I'm not making an argument for the existence of God here (obvious to anyone paying attention), I'm merely arguing against YOUR argument against the existence of God and showing how it's invalid. God may not exist, I'm not debating that here, but merely pointing out that you can't exclude Him as a possible cause of the universe merely because we might not know His origins. If you think there's no evidence, fine, and again, I'm not debating that here nor have I ever in this thread, I'm merely saying you can't exclude the God hypothesis just on the basis that we might not know where God came from -- THIS was your original claim, one you're no longer defending.

Please read it this time and please CAREFULLY read all of the below:

You've "taken care" of absolutely nothing. You claimed that design can't explain anything because we don't know where god came from -- I pointed out that this is false, I pointed out that our knowledge of a designers' origin has no bearing on if he did or did not create the universe -- you respond by saying that I must show that God is "possible" in order to say he created the universe. BUT I'M NOT SAYING GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE, as I pointed out in my previous post, I'm saying "You can't a priori exclude God as a possible cause of the universe, merely because we might not know His origins".

Let me point that out again. I'm not arguing, in this thread, that God did indeed create the universe. Rather, I'm arguing AGAINST your argument against the existence of God -- your argument that says, "design can never explain anything because the designer always requires an explanation" -- I'm arguing against this and saying that this is an invalid reason to say God doesn't exist. So I'm not trying to prove or show that God does exist, but rather I'm showing that your argument against His existence is invalid.

To draw upon an analogy - Imagine someone arguing against the existence of God, their argument is: "God doesn't exist because evolution is true", then me replying, "that's not a good argument and here's why..." ...then that person saying, "well you have to prove God"....no I don't, I'm just pointing out that your argument against His existence is invalid.

Strike two. Next one and you're out.

You lose at baseball analogies.

You've balked several times throughout this thread and moved my men into scoring position, I've already come up to the plate in the bottom of the 9th and knocked it out of the park, thus winning the game. You're sitting in an empty stadium wondering why nobody is wanting to play anymore. Game. Over.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Zhavric I look forward to replying to the rest of Destroyer's post as soon as he does what he said he'd do. As for you, flaming and insults are against volconvo.com rules. Employ them again and I'll take the issue up with the moderators.

If what I did was against the rules, then please report it. I am new here and if that post was in violation then I welcome a moderator letting me know how so I can avoid such conduct in the future. It's simply commenting on the problem with your chosen way of disputing the point. If that is not welcome here, and if it's a concern, I apologize. I'll expect specifics from a moderator so I can better understand how to correct myself.

Quote by: Destroyer This is ridiculous. In this thread, I've NEVER claimed I would evidence the existence of God. When I said the above, I was (quite clearly) talking about showing why God would have to be eternal.

Destroyer,

I know your comments were not directed to me, but I also misunderstood. But I also hope you will read my response and comment on it.

Also, if you read other threads in which Zhavric has posted, any time someone requests that he further develop and support his arguments, he turns it around on them to prove that God exists. It's the tactic I detailed in my post; instead of supporting his own statements, he establishes that since you can't prove the opposing side then his side is automatically correct.

I would urge you to focus your energies on others and not allow yourself to be baited further.

I look forward to your response to post #104 and again urge you to stop trying to beat the dead horse.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Tman, you make ZERO sense.

I gave you a very practical, real world example of a cancer patient who knows that he will die, as his doctor has proved to him, yet still believe that he won't.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I gave you a very practical, real world example of a cancer patient who knows that he will die, as his doctor has proved to him, yet still believe that he won't.

You keep going back and forth! How am I supposed to debate with this?

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 If a proof exists, the point is that everyone automatically knows it's true.

I also asked you numerous questions that you keep ignoring! Seriously man, are you trying to be annoying or what?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I also asked you numerous questions that you keep ignoring!

Which ones?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Which ones?

No. This is like the 5th time. If you didn't read them the first 5 times, why should I keep trying?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer No. This is like the 5th time. If you didn't read them the first 5 times, why should I keep trying?

To further communication. He's directly asking you for the questions, which you want the answers to. It will take you more effort to keep sniping him for not answering them then it would to just repost them.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 To further communication. He's directly asking you for the questions, which you want the answers to. It will take you more effort to keep sniping him for not answering them then it would to just repost them.

Actually, dear.. I've reposted them for him 5 times. I'm not yours, or his, babysitter.. as much as I know you wish.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Actually, dear.. I've reposted them for him 5 times. I'm not yours, or his, babysitter.. as much as I know you wish.

You have the option to further communication between dissenting parties, and you instead choose to arbitrarily snipe at everyone around you?

Responding like that was rude - did you actually think it would accomplish anything?

At best, it'd simply piss off the 14 your old.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You have the option to further communication between dissenting parties, and you instead choose to arbitrarily snipe at everyone around you? Responding like that was rude - did you actually think it would accomplish anything? At best, it'd simply piss off the 14 your old.

Kame, why are you doing this again? I told tman that I wasn't going to keep posting the same thing over and over again just to hear him say, "what?"

You have a problem with that, apparently. You like starting fights, apparently. Just stop it. I don't know what your problem is, but just stop. Your not impressing anyone. Your not impressing me. I hope your not impressing your self.

I used to be just like you.. I got so frustrated with real life that I had to vent it with people I didn't even know on random forums. I'm sorry you feel you have to do this, and maybe you do need to vent.. I don't know. But you gotta learn sooner or later that there are better ways.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Kame, why are you doing this again? I told tman that I wasn't going to keep posting the same thing over and over again just to hear him say, "what?" You have a problem with that, apparently. You like starting fights, apparently. Just stop it. I don't know what your problem is, but just stop. Your not impressing anyone. Your not impressing me. I hope your not impressing your self. I used to be just like you.. I got so frustrated with real life that I had to vent it with people I didn't even know on random forums. I'm sorry you feel you have to do this, and maybe you do need to vent.. I don't know. But you gotta learn sooner or later that there are better ways.

Not every one of my disagreements with you is an inner cry for attention - which you seem to believe.

I've no "need to vent" - you're just being bullish.

Don't try to deflect my criticisms with your cereal-box psycology.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Not every one of my disagreements with you is an inner cry for attention - which you seem to believe. I've no "need to vent" - you're just being bullish. Don't try to deflect my criticisms with your cereal-box psycology.

Alright. But for everyone else's sake.. stop. This isn't a thread for your pick-a-fight games. I'm sick and tired of your BS bickering. Sooner or later what I told you is going to make sense, and your going to understand how annoying you are.

[Kamehameha34]

No, what you said will never make sense. Your ego was hurt because I told you to further discussion, instead of deter it. End of story. Move on.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, what you said will never make sense. Your ego was hurt because I told you to further discussion, instead of deter it. End of story. Move on.

: / Kame.. buddy. I know it's impossible for me to ask someone in your state to think clearly.. but you need to stop. It's annoying and unhealthy. Honest. Take it out on a pillow or something.. or listen to some music really loud.

I'm going to explain to you one more time.. I reposted the same things for tman 5 times. He replied with "what?" and now I am forced to accept that he isn't going to read what I post. You just have to a be a big boy and let it go. You can't control people.. and I understand your frustration, honest, I do, but it's no excuse to whine.

[Kamehameha34]

: / Kame.. buddy. I know it's impossible for me to ask someone in your state to think clearly.. but you need to stop. It's annoying and unhealthy. Honest. Take it out on a pillow or something.. or listen to some music really loud.

I responded to your post right after a nap. I've been listening to Queen for the past hour. I'm in a perfectly fit state of mind. You're just being a prick, and counterproductive.

I'm going to explain to you one more time.. I reposted the same things for tman 5 times. He replied with "what?" and now I am forced to accept that he isn't going to read what I post. You just have to a be a big boy and let it go. You can't control people.. and I understand your frustration, honest, I do, but it's no excuse to whine.

How many times have you posted on this thread, in response to me calling you out on your BS?

4.

How long has this lasted?

About an hour and fifteen minutes.

How long would it have taken you to post the questions?

I don't know, maybe 5 minutes?

But no, you chose to cling to your injured ego like a sick puppy to a colorful towel.