Wilgrea7:


I was kind of thinking the vdestro person sounded a lot like you.

I didn't respond to it because it didn't make any sense.

I'm talking about how certain arguments for the existence of a god fail, and your best response is that this god whose very existence is being debated is the destination.

There's no logical line between the two.

If you are not seeing the logical line it is because you choose to be selective in your seeing.

For as you have just said, you are looking for the proof of God. Therefore, destination is "the proof of God". (Unless of course you are looking for an endless argument. And it is unreasonable and even stupid to partake in an endless argument. No christian will do such.

So when God lovers argued, is it that they did not give you the proof of God?

Yes, they did and you admitted they did.

But the next thing you wrongly did and do is/was to move the goalpost of the argument which is "proof of God" to "where did God come from." Thereby committing Moving the Goalpost falllacy.

See the fallacy you commit.
Logical fallacy
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia

And this is where you are wrong for as you have just said, the specific topic was/is proof of God and not where did God comes.from.

And this is you moving the post from proof of God to where God comes from.

Wilgrea7:
2) ARGUMENT FROM ORIGIN (UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING) ...
2) It pushes the problem upwards again. Let's assume the cause of the universe was a god. Where did that god come from? ...

...If we point to a god to explain the complexity of our universe, then we must also point to something else to explain the complexity of this god.

So, you see, it is not that Christians did not prove God but rather because you unjustly dodged its proof by moving the post (destination) after the proof had been given, as.your own words have shown and prove.

Dtruthspeaker:


If you are not seeing the logical line it is because you choose to be selective in your seeing.

Or maybe, just maybe, there's no line there.

For as you have just said, you are looking for the proof of God.

No I did not. The thread where I asked theists to prove their god is different. And you all seemed to shy away from it.

The purpose of this thread was to show why certain arguments don't work in favor of a god.

Therefore, destination is "the proof of God". (Unless of course you are looking for an endless argument. And it is unreasonable and even stupid to partake in an endless argument. No christian will do such.

The title of the thread clearly says "terrible arguments for the existence of god" and not "proof for the existence of god"

You like accusing people of shifting the goalpost, meanwhile you're the one who invents an arbitrary criteria, and then criticizes people for not following the arbitrary criteria you invented.

If you want to offer proof of a god, let's take it to the other thread. Or else stick to the topic of this one.

So when God lovers argued, is it that they did not give you the proof of God?

Yes, they did and you admitted they did.

But the next thing you wrongly did and do is/was to move the goalpost of the argument which is "proof of God" to "where did God come from." Thereby committing Moving the Goalpost falllacy.

See the fallacy you commit.
Logical fallacy
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia

And this is where you are wrong for as you have just said, the specific topic was/is proof of God and not where did God comes.from.

And this is you moving the post from proof of God to where God comes from.

So, you see, it is not that Christians did not prove God but rather because you unjustly dodged its proof by moving the post (destination) after the proof had been given, as.your own words have shown and prove.

[/quote]

Refer to point above

Wilgrea7:

No I did not. The thread where I asked theists to prove their god is different. And you all seemed to shy away from it.

The purpose of this thread was to show why certain arguments don't work in favor of a god.

Now you are lying and denying that you are not and have not been looking for the proof of God whereas you have just said it above that this thread is even about your objections the proofs of God, given. Yet you deny it. The very definition of dishonesty.

Wilgrea7:

The title of the thread clearly says "terrible arguments for the existence of god" and not "proof for the existence of god"

When people are arguing for the existence/nonexistence of a thing do they not give proof of that thing?

How can you not know that when people argue, they must give proof? Are you still a child to not know? Is that why you are being dishonest in lying and denying? Please grow up o. It is not easy for adults to argue with children.

Wilgrea7:

You like accusing people of shifting the goalpost, meanwhile you're the one who invents an arbitrary criteria, and then criticizes people for not following the arbitrary criteria you invented.

As you have seen it is fallacious and invalid to shift the goal post in an argument, as you have done. Stop it.

Thus, it is clear that you are wrong to be shifting the post whenever Christians score or about to score and that you lie when you say that you do not see the logical line whereas you have just addressed the logic of the line. See how dishonest you are?

Dtruthspeaker:


Now you are lying and denying that you are not and have not been looking for the proof of God whereas you have just said it that it above that this thread is even about your objections the proofs of God, given. Yet you deny it. The very definition of dishonesty.

Try to follow me here.

1) I opened a thread explaining why several arguments don't work in proving the existence of a god as it is understood.

2) You respond with some arbitrary statement that god is the destination, which has no bearing on the topic I was discussing

3) I explain to you that they're not related

4) you then say they are because I've asked for proof of a god in previous threads

You're the one who seems to be going off on a tangent here.

When people are arguing for the existence/nonexistence of a thing do they not give proof of that thing?

How can you not know that when people argue, they must give proof? Are you still a child to not know? Is that why you are being dishonest in lying and denying? Please grow up o. It is not easy for adults to argue with children.


As you have seen it is fallacious and invalid to shift the goal post in an argument, as you have done. Stop it.

Thus, it is clear that you are wrong to be shifting the post whenever Christians score or about to score and that you lie when you say that you do not see the logical line whereas you have just addressed the logic of the line. See how dishonest you are?

Again... You're going off in circles here. So far you've not made even a single cohorent rebuttal to the points I raised.

You seem to have the impression that I am somehow supposed to accept any random argument as "evidence" for a god. And we both know that's not how evidence works.

For claims to be regarded as evidence, it must be scrutinized.. which is what I'm doing.

You keep accusing me of being dishonest, and shifting the goal post, but so far everything I've said has been related to the topic of this thread. You on the other hand, not so much.

Wilgrea7:


Try to follow me here.

1) I opened a thread explaining why several arguments don't work in proving the existence of a god as it is understood.

2) You respond with some arbitrary statement that god is the destination, which has no bearing on the topic I was discussing

1. I am following you and you have said it above that this issues is because of the proofs of God, given by us.

2. How is it that you can not understand that proof of God, is the destination since you are asking for what proofs, prove God's existence?

Dtruthspeaker:


1. I am following you and you have said it above that this issues is because of the proofs of God, given by us.

2. How is it that you can not understand that proof of God, is the destination since you are asking for what proofs, prove God's existence?

Again. I completely understand you. But the statement you've made adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Let me play your game a little. Proof of a god is the destination. You've still not given proof.

Wilgrea7:


Again. I completely understand you. But the statement you've made adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Let me play your game a little. Proof of a god is the destination. You've still not given proof.

If we have not given you proofs how then can you say that our argument is terrible when you did not see it?

Dtruthspeaker:


If we have not given you proofs how then can you say that our argument is terrible when you did not see it?

I'll try to break it down for you again.

Some arguments were presented as proof of a god.

I pointed out that the arguments were flawed, and listed the reasons why they could not suffice as evidence for a god.

So therefore, no viable evidence has been presented.

Do you understand now?

Wilgrea7:


I'll try to break it down for you again.

Some arguments were presented as proof of a god...

Ehen!

This is what I have been trying to get
you to understand which you have been denying, hence my challenge.

A proper argument is always accompanied with its supporting proof. Where an argument is given with no proof, that is the first place an opponent should/must attack like I have done to bobestman who has given an argument with no proof and I have asked for his proof in support of his argument twice but and at the first request, he covertly insulted me without giving the proof demanded which compelled me to ask a second time, shown below

Re: JESUS CAME TO FULFILL MOSES LAW GIVEN BY GOD by Dtruthspeaker: 10:46am
bobestman:
Even a baby will answer you that is why i ignored you. The messiah came to correct the wrong things the ppl do in the sense that day are keeping the law. These things had been even since the OT days. The messiah keep correcting them. See Matt 5-7. I won't tell you cos this is very simple. You just want to find sth to argue

Then be the baby who answers the question if indeed it is True, for i did not what the Messiah came to do. This is off point.

I asked "which wrongs was in The Law" since you said "there are many wrongs in The Law? So, show some proof, of some of the many wrong Laws if in Truth you have them.
(Modify) (Quote) (Report) (Share)

Wilgrea7:

I pointed out that the arguments were flawed, and listed the reasons why they could not suffice as evidence for a god.

So, now that you have accepted that proof was given, then now you can appreciate my counter and objection that you commited the fallacy of Moving the Goalpost falllacy.

See the fallacy you commit.
Logical fallacy
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia fallacy of Moving the Goalpost falllacy.

Thus, it is not that Christians did not score the goal of giving the proof of God but rather that you moved the post after they scored and when you saw that they were scoring.

Therefore, there is no flaw or error in there answer rather it is you who did the wrong by moving the goal post.

Dtruthspeaker:


Ehen!

This is what I have been trying to get
you to understand which you have been denying, hence my challenge.

A proper argument is always accompanied with its supporting proof. Where an argument is given with no proof, that is the first place an opponent should/must attack like I have done to bobestman who has given an argument with no proof and I have asked for his proof in support of his argument twice but and at the first request, he covertly insulted me without giving the proof demanded which compelled me to ask a second time, shown below

Re: JESUS CAME TO FULFILL MOSES LAW GIVEN BY GOD by Dtruthspeaker: 10:46am
bobestman:
Even a baby will answer you that is why i ignored you. The messiah came to correct the wrong things the ppl do in the sense that day are keeping the law. These things had been even since the OT days. The messiah keep correcting them. See Matt 5-7. I won't tell you cos this is very simple. You just want to find sth to argue

Then be the baby who answers the question if indeed it is True, for i did not what the Messiah came to do. This is off point.

I asked "which wrongs was in The Law" since you said "there are many wrongs in The Law? So, show some proof, of some of the many wrong Laws if in Truth you have them.
(Modify) (Quote) (Report) (Share)



So, now that you have accepted that proof was given, then now you can appreciate my counter that you commited the fallacy of Moving the Goalpost falllacy.

See the fallacy you commit.
Logical fallacy
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia fallacy of Moving the Goalpost falllacy.

Thus, there is no flaw or error in them it is rather you who shifted the post and then turned around to say that it is flawed.

You shouldnt have shifted post and therfore you cheated!

selectively quoting me and cutting out the part where I clearly said the arguments were flawed, and therefore inadequate doesn't help your case.

I listed reasons why the arguments fail as proof of a god. If you disagree, then you can state your points/reasons. Otherwise we can end this pointless back and forth of fallacy listing. It's quite tiring and unproductive.

Wilgrea7:

selectively quoting me and cutting out the part where I clearly said the arguments were flawed, and therefore inadequate doesn't help your case. [/quoted]

It is clear for all to see that you are lying when you say this for my post directly captures that. So this you just trying to say something since you have nothing to say.

[quote author=Wilgrea7 post=124943164]
I listed reasons why the arguments fail as proof of a god. If you disagree, then you can state your points/reasons. Otherwise we can end this pointless back and forth of fallacy listing. It's quite tiring and unproductive.

And I have replied and pointed out that all your disputings are based on the fact that you commited the Moving the Goalpost falllacy.

See the fallacy you commit.
Logical fallacy
Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia fallacy of Moving the Goalpost falllacy.

So Christians stand while you fall! Its as simple as that.