What's the cause...

Originally posted by josephw
Such folly. And all quite silly and childish ramblings. In fact, virtually everything you said is based on faulty reasoning.

I don't have time to waste on each, but will ask you a simple question. Can you show me where in the Bible it says the earth is flat?

Yes.

http://www.goatstar.org/the-bibles-flat-earthsolid-sky-dome-universe/

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/1flat90.html

http://www.geocentricity.com/astronomy_of_bible/flatearth/doesbibleteach.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_flat_earth_claims

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htm



EDIT: And btw, if you are not prepared to actually respond to serious and carefully thought
out arguments what are you doing here and what's the point of anyone debating with you?

I have made my arguments.

They stand unless and until you can knock them down.

Originally posted by josephw
So, for you, the idea that you were created, as was everything in existence, by a creator/God is fallacious because in your opinion everything in existence wasn't created?

Do you have any evidence for the idea that everything in existence wasn't created that isn't fallacious?

You are trying to shift the burden of proof.

You are making the positive claim that the universe (and everything in it including us) was
created by god.

YOU need to provide the evidence that that is true.

We are not claiming that nothing was created, we are asking you to prove it was.


And even if you could do that, how do you get from there is a creator to the god of the bible exists?

Originally posted by FMF
You say in a sense I am correct and then proceed to say something that is the diametric opposite of what I said, in every sense.

[b]Doubt is a necessary evil it seems in this world "humanity" has built.

Doubt is "evil"?[/b]

I'm not going to get on the defence over the dissection of words and meanings.

If you knew a truth, would you have doubt about it?

Originally posted by josephw
Just sit quiet for a while and look at the heavens. They are quite clear in their meaning. You're missing it in the confusion of the words.

Just sitting back and looking at the heavens doesn't, however, make the writings of Muhammad, Saul of Tarsus, L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, or others, as they pertain to the nature of God, "true" per se.

Originally posted by josephw
I'm not going to get on the defence over the dissection of words and meanings.

If you knew a truth, would you have doubt about it?

The question is HOW can you 'know truth' in such a way as it is indisputable.

Unless you can show how you can know anything (except the fact of your own
existence) beyond all possible doubt then there must be some measure of doubt
about everything you think of as being true.

Originally posted by josephw
I'm not going to get on the defence over the dissection of words and meanings.

If you knew a truth, would you have doubt about it?

You need to pay attention to the meaning of words, josephw. Idiosyncratic or non-conventional use of them impairs your ability to be understood.

To say you "know" the "truth" when it comes to spiritual matters and God is OK as long as its part of your internal monologue, but as soon as you talk to someone who doesn't believe the same things as you do, then your use of the word "know" and "true" are no different from the way Dasa, for instance, uses them.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are trying to shift the burden of proof.

You are making the positive claim that the universe (and everything in it including us) was
created by god.

YOU need to provide the evidence that that is true.

We are not claiming that nothing was created, we are asking you to prove it was.


And even if you could do that, how do you get from there is a creator to the god of the bible exists?

"You are trying to shift the burden of proof."

So are you.

"You are making the positive claim that the universe (and everything in it including us) was
created by god."

OK

"YOU need to provide the evidence that that is true."

No I don't. You need to open your eyes and see that life exists because it was created. The evidence, that all that exists was created, is the existence of all that exists. I know that that is very difficult for you to understand. But try. There can be no other logical/rational explanation for why/how everything exists except that it was created.

"We are not claiming that nothing was created, we are asking you to prove it was.'

By denying the existence of a creator as the cause for the existence for all that exists you are doing just that.

"And even if you could do that, how do you get from there is a creator to the god of the bible exists?"

If and when you get past your denial of a creator we'll tackle that.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"You are trying to shift the burden of proof."

So are you.

"You are making the positive claim that the universe (and everything in it including us) was
created by god."

OK

"YOU need to provide the evidence that that is true."

No I don't. You need to open your eyes and see that life exists because it was created. The ev exists?"

If and when you get past your denial of a creator we'll tackle that.[/b]

Originally posted by josephw
"You are trying to shift the burden of proof."

So are you. "

The burden of proof lies with the person who is making the positive claim.

YOU are making the positive claim that the universe was created by the god of the bible.

I am saying prove it.

You are making a claim I am just asking for the evidence to justify that claim.

I have no burden of proof because I am not making any claim. You are.

Them's the rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Originally posted by FMF
You need to pay attention to the meaning of words, josephw. Idiosyncratic or non-conventional use of them impairs your ability to be understood.

To say you "know" the "truth" when it comes to spiritual matters and God is OK as long as its part of your internal monologue, but as soon as you talk to someone who doesn't believe the same things as you do, then yo ...[text shortened]... he word "know" and "true" are no different from the way Dasa, for instance, uses them.

Doggonit John. Do you have to be right every time? 😉

Listen, I'm not as dense as I appear. I may be impaired in my ability to communicate effectively as you imply, but you are too literal, and you dodge around with words.

You asked if I thought, or believed, or whatever, doubt was evil. I answered with the question; if you knew a truth would you have a doubt about it?

I don't know why you won't answer.

Originally posted by josephw
You asked if I thought, or believed, or whatever, doubt was evil. I answered with the question; if you knew a truth would you have a doubt about it?

I don't know why you won't answer.

I asked: Doubt is "evil"? And you did not answer it.

As for a spiritual matter, I would never use the word "true" and "know". Did you not read my previous post? In spiritual matters I would always embrace "doubt". Always.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Originally posted by josephw
[b]"You are trying to shift the burden of proof."

So are you. "

The burden of proof lies with the person who is making the positive claim.

YOU are making the positive claim that the universe was created by the god of the bible.

I am saying prove it.

You are making a claim I am just asking for ...[text shortened]... m. You are.

Them's the rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof[/b]

Screw the rules. I was born a rebel.

Positive claim/negative claim. A claim is a claim. The problem for you is there is no evidence for a negative.

You can't prove that all that exists wasn't created because there is no evidence for a negative claim. I can prove that all was created by the use of that which exists as the evidence for creation, hence a creator.

Therefore I win the debate. 😉 Now, I'm going to bed to sleep the sleep of one with a clear conscience, and of a hard days work.
😴

Originally posted by FMF
I asked: Doubt is "evil"? And you did not answer it.

As for a spiritual matter, I would never use the word "true" and "know". Did you not read my previous post? In spiritual matters I would always embrace "doubt". Always.

Are you sure? 😉

Good night.

Originally posted by josephw
Are you sure? 😉

Good night.

So. Are you still contending "doubt" is "evil"?

Originally posted by FMF
So. Are you still contending "doubt" is "evil"?

We all have doubts FMF. The difference is how we deal with such doubt. How does it effect us in what we do or do not do?

Originally posted by josephw
Screw the rules. I was born a rebel.

Positive claim/negative claim. A claim is a claim. The problem for you is there is no evidence for a negative.

You can't prove that all that exists wasn't created because there is no evidence for a negative claim. I can prove that all was created by the use of that which exists as the evidence for creation, hence a going to bed to sleep the sleep of one with a clear conscience, and of a hard days work.
😴

No you fail miserably.

let me make this clear to you.

for the purposes of this debate I AM NOT MAKING ANY CLAIM OF ANY KIND.

Positive or negative.

YOU are claiming that the universe was created by your god.

I am asking you to prove that positive claim while not currently making ANY counter claim.

Also...
Trying to explain the existence of everything by saying that it was created by god.
And then saying that the existence of everything is proof of god.
because god created everything...
Is a circular argument (among other fallacies)


You must present arguments backed by evidence as to WHY everything MUST have been created.
Furthermore you must present arguments backed by evidence as to WHY it MUST have been created by a god or gods.
And Further to that you must present arguments backed by evidence as to WHY it MUST be YOUR god.


You have not yet presented ANY arguments or evidence to back up your assertion that everything was created by your god.

You have simply asserted that it was so and ignored any and all counter arguments.

You have not 'won' anything. In technical terms as I have presented arguments and you have simply made unfounded
assertions if anyone is 'winning' thus far out of the two of us it's me.

However I am not trying to 'win' but have a debate.

And you can't have a debate where only one side presents arguments.