Oh, that guy...I love that guy. I mean, I'm pretty sure he's wrong, but he brings it in such an entertaining way.
So your saying your better then they are, and that is why I should trust you. I probably know just as much about them as I do you, seeing as I have never met you and can only judge you on what you write. Interestingly enough it also tells you to be polite about it, which I think I very well have. I feel that at least most of my posts have been made solely based on logic. The problem I see with your debate is only using the logic that exists if a god does not exist, rather then the logic that exists if we assume nothing about the existence of a god.
You know I exist, and I am educated. In these two points, I am definitely "better" then them. I must inform you, rejectiong Bob and Bobianism in your heart has severe consequences for your afterlife! No DnD roleplay and free Mountain Dew in his holy basement when you die....just saying! If you really think that the sentence "Life exists, therefore god exists" is logical, then the joke is on you my friend....
Actually, we don't know any of that. You are just a name who can write, much like the writers of the Christian Bible, who you call unreliable because of their anonymity, the same kind of anonymity which you hold here. So, you're telling us to believe you because of your 'existence'. Surely, the writers of the Bible must have existed like you, and also must have been educated, like you, in order to actually write the Bible in a time period where the knowledge of how to write was uncommon. Ergo, all we know about you is that you exist and that you are educated enough to write, just like the writers of the Bible. In essence, you have just stated that you are as unreliable as you claim the writers of the Bible to be. 1. That isn't what he said. 2. What he said was not a statement about the existence of a deity, but about the poor construction of your argument. The argument is about the existence of a creating deity, which as of yet has not been totally disproven or proven. This discussion is a forum where sides of this topic use particular facts and observations to support their side (a great example is JosefVStalin's post a couple of pages back: he noted the historical luck that propelled Christianity to its global scale as a sign that there was no higher power dictating its rise). As Coex stated, logic would force us to only use the totally proven facts, in this case about the existence of a higher deity. Since the existence of a God has not been totally proven or disproven, we must base our arguments in a world where God is both existent and non-existent to have an argument that agrees with logic. To that effect, most of the posters have based this world. He was commenting on your argument's total basis in the non-existence of God in a discussion which requires those participating to base their arguments in a world where there both is and is not a God in order to argue his existence or non-existence. In other words, he said your argument sucked.
But I speak the truth, it is written right here in the book of mine... I swear to fucking Bob! Yes it is.... So he says the entire scientific community of the world is going on things backwards. They should first draw a conclusion, and then fix the evidence so it confirms with the assesement. Phew, I am glad we figured that out before something bad would happen!
Oooo... Good comeback. I might be so impressed I'll just have to give in. Get over yourself, you have no argument. Actually, he never pulled out the "Life, and therefore God" card. You might want to pray to Bob for better vision. Here's what he said: Wow man, that statement that you hide behind as to not give a definitive answer is so impressive, I wish I had one. Again, learn to read, and to respond to the comment correctly. He was referring to your logic in creating your argument. And what you said he is doing is exactly how you construct an argument: You take an undecided issue and take specific facts or observations to support it.
Funny.... because I am using the christians argument xD He said it yesterday..... Memory... hard thing, I know I said, that to evaluate a theory or hypothesis, you formulate it. Then, you test your theory within observable conditions. If the Objects/elements/whatever behave the way they should according to the theory, it will stand. If not, your theory is bullcrap and you disregard it. You said, that he thinks, that this is wrong. Ergo he (and you, seeing you argueing about it) thinks the scientific community does it wrong. I had to give you such a text, explaining a simple logical chain, before. Please try to keep up!
He did picked it up after him though, and used it.... EDIT: Page 12, He said that if we assume that a god created the universe, the existence of it would prove gods existence in it self. This is obviously flawed in itself, since there is no indication of creation in the existence of life (Theory of Evolution, prooven since 200 years.... Even the last pope said so....). His assumption is not verified just because there is life.... And yet, we debate it since page 12.... sad
I did not say any of that in the quote you are responding to. All I said was that you are not allowing the same restrictions on yourself as you put on others. You provide a clearly biased argument that you you claim to support by logic, but only logic as you see it. Ergo, you, by your previous statements, are calling yourself an idiot. Then why did you quote me. Even in that post all is was doing was responding to something you said to a more extreme extent to point out fallacies in your argument. And. Memory...hard thing, I know. Unless, of course, a deity were not able to be directly observed, yet existed, then no hypothesis or tests could be done to prove him/her/it, but it still would exist.
