God exists (repost) - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




God exists (repost)

Debate Information

Debate on the existence of God. Im arguing that the naturalistic theory fails to adequately interpret the data we see and has too much of an epistemological cost while the theistic theory because of the argument from limits is a much better one.
NotReallydallased25ZeusAres42



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • DeeDee 4771 Pts   -  
     Im arguing that the naturalistic theory fails to adequately interpret the data we see and has too much of an epistemological cost while the theistic theory because of the argument from limits is a much better one.

    What “naturalistic” theory are you referring to ? What “epistemological cost “? Lay out your argument from limits please 
    ZeusAres42
  • BarnardotBarnardot 185 Pts   -  
    Its a bit dumkoff to debate about god because every one knows there is no god and even if you are dumkoff enough to debate your not going to win anyway because you dont have any proof so whats the point except that you want to stir up mess and bring attention to yourself which is not going to be very good intention anyway.@skyz56
    NotReallyZeusAres42
  • NotReallyNotReally 92 Pts   -   edited January 2
    @Dee

    Dee said:

     I'm arguing that the naturalistic theory fails to adequately interpret the data we see and has too much of an epistemological cost while the theistic theory because of the argument from limits is a much better one.


    What “naturalistic” theory are you referring to? What “epistemological cost “? Lay out your argument from limits, please 

    --Naturalism: 

    naturalism, in philosophy, is a theory that relates the scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural. Consequently, all knowledge of the universe falls within the pale of scientific investigation.


    Epistemological cost: He means that the naturalistic theory is impossible and is epistemically innocent. In such a scenario, when no other alternative is possible, the one idea without proof is adopted as the answer.--


    --I wish I knew these words, through the long debates, these were what I was mentioning...--


    Dee
  • NotReallyNotReally 92 Pts   -   edited January 2
    @Barnardot

    Barnardot said:
    Its a bit dumkoff to debate about god because every one knows there is no god and even if you are dumkoff enough to debate your not going to win anyway because you dont have any proof so whats the point except that you want to stir up mess and bring attention to yourself which is not going to be very good intention anyway.@skyz56
    --Barney, I got a question. Do you only know how to insult, or do you actually debate? It's all bark and no bite in your case, you know.

    Also if you are debating restrain from insults (claiming from personal experience). It is unethical--
  • NotReallyNotReally 92 Pts   -  
    @skyz56
    skyz56 said:
    Debate on the existence of God.

    --Finally a fellow ... uhh... Theist? Are you a Theist?--

     Im arguing that the naturalistic theory fails to adequately interpret the data we see and has too much of an epistemological cost

    --Yes, I agree. Right now, they declare "science doesn't have enough knowledge to know of the creation". But the proper sentence would be "science will never know about the creation", since no matter how much words are twisted and how many more theories come, the question always comes to this: "How did the Natural world come from nothing".--

    while the theistic theory because of the argument from limits is a much better one.

    --Albeit not having proof, the conditions for the creation of the natural world fit perfectly in terms with a supernatural entity, the best albeit not perfect. And certainly better than the naturalistic theory, which breaks down it's own rules, and thus cannot be even called a proper theory.

    The proof for something supernatural can only be supernatural, and not natural, but supernatural proof cannot exists in a natural world, so it's futile. It's like doing your homework but leaving it on your desk and going to school. It doesn't matter you have done it, you cannot show it.--

  • BarnardotBarnardot 185 Pts   -  
    So you should look in your mirror because you insult everybody with your big boss talk and telling everyone that they insult you just because you don’t agree. And I bet my house that you are going to say some dufus excuse for not explaining what the evidence you have that has reason. So let’s get it out of the way now what excuse do your have this time why @NotReally
  • NotReallyNotReally 92 Pts   -   edited January 2
    @Barnardot

    Barnardot said:
    So you should look in your mirror because you insult everybody with your big boss talk and telling everyone that they insult you just because you don’t agree. And I bet my house that you are going to say some dufus excuse for not explaining what the evidence you have that has reason. So let’s get it out of the way now what excuse do your have this time why @NotReally
    --Have I ever used an insulting word? No. Have I wanted to? Definitely. But please, let's stop this. What is your argument against him? Just above your reply, I have replied to Sky agreeing with his terms. That is my explanation. Now show me otherwise, without the insults part, please.--
  • DeeDee 4771 Pts   -   edited January 2
    @NotReally


    Why are you answering for someone else? I know perfectly well what the terms mean , you have formed a team it seems 

    Also I want him to explain what he means by  “naturalistic” theory are you referring to ? What “Data” is he referring to which has nothing to say on gods 

     What “epistemological cost “? 

    Read above a naturalistic theory cannot investigate something there is zero evidence for as in gods. No one but a theist accepts something without proof that’s called gullibility 

    --Naturalism: 
    naturalism, in philosophy, is a theory that relates the scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural. Consequently, all knowledge of the universe falls within the pale of scientific investigation.

    Epistemological cost: He means that the naturalistic theory is impossible and is epistemically innocent. In such a scenario, when no other alternative is possible, the one idea without proof is adopted as the answer.--

    --I wish I knew these words, through the long debates, these were what I was mentioning...--


    How were you arguing for something you didn’t understand?
  • NotReallyNotReally 92 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Dee said:
    @NotReally


    Why are you answering for someone else? I know perfectly well what the terms mean 

    Also I want him to explain what he means by  “naturalistic” theory are you referring to ? Which has nothing to say on gods 

    --He said the naturalistic theory fails, that means, their exists supernatural entities in this Universe.--

     What “epistemological cost “? 

    Read above a naturalistic theory cannot investigate something there is zero evidence for as in gods. No one but a theist accepts something without proof that’s called gullibility 

    --The cost that science can NEVER explain the events of creation, and in such a situation, the only persistent claim is declared true--

    --Naturalism: 
    naturalism, in philosophy, is a theory that relates the scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural. Consequently, all knowledge of the universe falls within the pale of scientific investigation.

    Epistemological cost: He means that the naturalistic theory is impossible and is epistemically innocent. In such a scenario, when no other alternative is possible, the one idea without proof is adopted as the answer.--

    --I wish I knew these words, through the long debates, these were what I was mentioning...--


    How were you arguing for something you didn’t understand?

    --I understood it. I am not supporting the naturalistic theory, I am against it, the world is not full of natural entities. Such a world cannot exist--

  • DeeDee 4771 Pts   -  
    @NotReally

    --Yes, I agree. Right now, they declare "science doesn't have enough knowledge to know of the creation".

    The intellectually honest answer to how it all began is I don’t know anyone who claims otherwise is doing so without sufficient evidence to back their claims up 

     But the proper sentence would be "science will never know about the creation", since no matter how much words are twisted and how many more theories come, the question always comes to this: "How did the Natural world come from nothing".--


    How did a god come from nothing? What is nothing ? How did you and others determine and evaluate something cannot come from nothing?

    while the theistic theory because of the argument from limits is a much better one.

    According to you , all your doing is attempting to assert a god into existence 

    --Albeit not having proof, the conditions for the creation of the natural world fit perfectly in terms with a supernatural entity, the best albeit not perfect. And certainly better than the naturalistic theory, which breaks down it's own rules, and thus cannot be even called a proper theory.


    Utter nonsense , there is zero proof of the supernatural science is not investigating that which there is zero proof for. Naturalism perfectly explains what we only have which is a natural world 



    The proof for something supernatural can only be supernatural,

    That’s an utterly useless comment and is circular , what your saying is the proof for the unproven is the unproven which is totally irrational 

     and not natural, but supernatural proof cannot exists in a natural world, so it's futile

    There are no “supernatural proofs “ 

    . It's like doing your homework but leaving it on your desk and going to school. It doesn't matter you have done it, you cannot show it.--

    It’s not that at all because one can demonstrate they have done their homework if asked for proof as evidence can be supplied , it’s like claiming you did your homework but being unable to produce proof which is something you keep openly admitting as you said several times quiet clearly …..” Albeit not having proof,” ……you keep admitting what everyone knows that is you or others have zero proof for your claims , all you’re doing is saying god exists because we think he /it does that’s preaching …… Albeit not having proof……

  • NotReallyNotReally 92 Pts   -   edited January 2
    @Dee
    @Dee

    Dee said:
    @NotReally


    The intellectually honest answer to how it all began is I don’t know anyone who claims otherwise is doing so without sufficient evidence to back their claims up 

    --I don't know is not an intellectually honest answer. The proper paraphrasing of your sentence will be "I will never know"--


    How did a god come from nothing? What is nothing ? How did you and others determine and evaluate something cannot come from nothing?

    --Seriously Dee? That is your argument? God is a supernatural entity. Anything falling in the supernatural category can be eternal.--


    According to you , all your doing is attempting to assert a god into existence 

    --Because no other argument will ever prevail--


    Utter nonsense , there is zero proof of the supernatural science is not investigating that which there is zero proof for. Naturalism perfectly explains what we only have which is a natural world.

    --Okay Dee, I want you to explain how will science ever explain how something came from nothing?--


    That’s an utterly useless comment and is circular , what your saying is the proof for the unproven is the unproven which is totally irrational 

    --I know, I followed-up the sentence--

     and not natural, but supernatural proof cannot exists in a natural world, so it's futile

    There are no “supernatural proofs “ 

    --Such a claim cannot be made since a supernatural category exists, and it works, thus proof also exists in such a system--

    . It's like doing your homework but leaving it on your desk and going to school. It doesn't matter you have done it, you cannot show it.--

    It’s not that at all because one can demonstrate they have done their homework if asked for proof as evidence can be supplied , it’s like claiming you did your homework but being unable to produce proof which is something you keep openly admitting as you said several times quiet clearly …..” Albeit not having proof,” ……you keep admitting what everyone knows that is you or others have zero proof for your claims , all you’re doing is saying god exists because we think he /it does that’s preaching …… Albeit not having proof……

    --Yes, I agree. I don't have proof. Any rational Theist or Deist will also agree. What I am asking is, if there is no other claim possiible in such a situation, wouldn't the only claim prevail?

    Not sure about the analogy, but imaginary numbers don't have clear proof. They only came into acceptance when it started to fill an actual purpose. Similarly, their is no proof for supernaturals, but the natural world cannot create itself. If you are making a house, you are outside the house, you are not a part of it. A supernatural entity is outside the natural world and can create a natural world.

    The sentence starts with an Albeit, that means there is a continuation. Blaming me by cherry-picking sentences is futile too.

    "I don't know" is a futile claim, since science can NEVER know. What science has to answer is: "How did something come from nothing?"--


  • DeeDee 4771 Pts   -   edited January 2
    @NotReally

    --I don't know is not an intellectually honest answer. 

    **It certainly is tell me how it’s dishonest ? **

    The proper paraphrasing of your sentence will be "I will never know"--

    **How do you know this?**


    How did a god come from nothing? What is nothing ? How did you and others determine and evaluate something cannot come from nothing?

    --Seriously Dee? That is your argument? 

    **No answers ? That’s your best ?***

    God is a supernatural entity. Anything falling in the supernatural category can be eternal.--

    **Nonsense prove a god or gods ?**


    According to you , all your doing is attempting to assert a god into existence 

    --Because no other argument will ever prevail--

    **Prove your god ? You have no “argument” just empty assertions **


    Utter nonsense , there is zero proof of the supernatural science is not investigating that which there is zero proof for. Naturalism perfectly explains what we only have which is a natural world.

    --Okay Dee, I want you to explain how will science ever explain how something came from nothing?--

    **I’m not saying it can or it cannot , I’m asking you to explain how something can come from nothing as in a god you cannot do that ?**

    Also again ….
    How did a god come from nothing? What is nothing ? How did you and others determine and evaluate something cannot come from nothing?


    That’s an utterly useless comment and is circular , what your saying is the proof for the unproven is the unproven which is totally irrational 

    --I know, I followed-up the sentence--

    ** and not natural, but supernatural proof cannot exists in a natural world, so it's futile**

    There are no “supernatural proofs “ 

    --Such a claim cannot be made since a supernatural category exists, and it works, thus proof also exists in such a system--


    **If it exists prove it? **

    . It's like doing your homework but leaving it on your desk and going to school. It doesn't matter you have done it, you cannot show it.--

    **It’s not that at all because one can demonstrate they have done their homework if asked for proof as evidence can be supplied , it’s like claiming you did your homework but being unable to produce proof which is something you keep openly admitting as you said several times quiet clearly …..” Albeit not having proof,” ……you keep admitting what everyone knows that is you or others have zero proof for your claims , all you’re doing is saying god exists because we think he /it does that’s preaching …… Albeit not having proof……**

    --Yes, I agree. I don't have proof. Any rational Theist or Deist will also agree. What I am asking is, if there is no other claim possiible in such a situation, wouldn't the only claim prevail?

    **No , why accept something on no proof ?**

    Not sure about the analogy, but imaginary numbers don't have clear proof. They only came into acceptance when it started to fill an actual purpose. Similarly, their is no proof for supernaturals, but the natural world cannot create itself.

    Numbers we understand and use daily they have explanations that are rationa


     If you are making a house, you are outside the house, you are not a part of it. A supernatural entity is outside the natural world and can create a natural world.

    **You’re preaching saying supernatural exists because you say so , prove it?**

    I don't know is a futile claim, since science can NEVER know. What science has to answer is: "How did something come from nothing?"--

    **Read what I said on this already **
  • DeeDee 4771 Pts   -  
    @NotReally

    You also state......



    --Yes, I agree. I don't have proof. Any rational Theist or Deist will also agree. What I am asking is, if there is no other claim possiible in such a situation, wouldn't the only claim prevail?


    That's the most honest answer you've given .

    Why is no other claim possible?

    How did you rule out every other possible claim?

    Even if there was only one claim its absolutely worthless without what you admit you don't have as in proof

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4664 Pts   -   edited January 2
    @skyz56

    I read your original argument very carefully and followed it up to this point near the end:
    1) There are limited beings
    2) Limited beings can have an explanation 
    3) The totality of limited beings cannot be explicable in terms of limited things 
    4) Therefore there can be an unlimited being
    This I think is where the mistake occurs: I do not see how you derive 4 from 3. That is, 4, of course, is true in itself, but it simply does not follow from 3. 2 states that the limited beings can have an explanation, not that they must have it. This means that they may not have an explanation, thus not requiring an unlimited being to explain them, thus not requiring the existence of an unlimited being. An unlimited being, indeed, can exist, but even if it does, it does not have to explain all the limited beings, or even some of them.

    One can also imagine an hierarchy of limited beings explaining each other that does not require existence of an unlimited being. Let us measure the "limitness" of a being with some numerical score expressed as a non-negative real number L: a being with L=2 is more limited than a being with L=1, but less limited than a being with L=3. Let us order all limited beings (assuming that their set is countable) by their L-score. In principle, the ordering can be as follows:

    1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6...

    Every being with a higher L-score explains the next being in the series, which, in turn, explains the next being and so on. Yet every being in the series in itself is limited, and the series is infinite. A being with L=0 would be truly unlimited, but such a being does not exist in this imaginary Universe. Every being is explained by some other being, yet no being explains every existing being.

    Let me know what you think about this argument. I do not see any errors in it, but I may have overlooked something. :)
  • NotReallyNotReally 92 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Dee said:
    @NotReally

    You also state......



    --Yes, I agree. I don't have proof. Any rational Theist or Deist will also agree. What I am asking is, if there is no other claim possiible in such a situation, wouldn't the only claim prevail?


    That's the most honest answer you've given .

    --Thank you--

    Why is no other claim possible?

    --The only other claim is science, and science will never know, so supernatural is ruled in--

    How did you rule out every other possible claim?

    --Two rational claims can be made, any claim made by science will be instantly rebuked as something from nothing is not natural, it is supernatural--

    Even if there was only one claim its absolutely worthless without what you admit you don't have as in proof

    --If there is no other explanation for some event other than one, then it is considered. Because ignoring the only possible claim is illogical--


  • DeeDee 4771 Pts   -  
    @NotReally

    --The only other claim is science, and science will never know, so supernatural is ruled in--

    If science never knows it does not rule the supernatural in where do you get this stuff from?

    How do you know science will never know how do you know the future of science ?


    --Two rational claims can be made, any claim made by science will be instantly rebuked as something from nothing is not natural, it is supernatural--


    What are you on about claiming there is a supernatural without evidence is the height of ignorance , prove something cannot come from nothing ?

    Where did your god come from?



    --If there is no other explanation for some event other than one, then it is considered.

    Nonsense , as I said before anything the superstitious and ignorant do not understand they st-upidly say “Godidit “ 

     Because ignoring the only possible claim is illogical--

    You mean rejecting the supernatural because it has zero evidence is illogical oh dear ?

    Accepting the supernatural without evidence ( you admit ) this is logical ? Man oh man you really are totally lost aren’t you?

  • NotReallyNotReally 92 Pts   -   edited January 2
    @Dee

    Dee said:
    @NotReally

    If science never knows it does not rule the supernatural in where do you get this stuff from?

    --The Natural world we know was created either by
    1) Natural forces
    2) Supernatural forces

    The terms necessary for the creation of a natural world
    1) Some force or entity that has existed forever

    Now, by definition and in accord to the limitations of the naturalistic theory, something eternal, can never be natural. It directly falls into the supernatural category.--

    How do you know science will never know how do you know the future of science ?

    --Because something natural cannot create a natural world. I may not know the future of mankind, but worldwide peace is not possible unless you have mind control. Something cannot create itself as long as it is natural.--



    What are you on about claiming there is a supernatural without evidence is the height of ignorance , prove something cannot come from nothing ?

    --Something coming from nothing depends on your perspective of nothing. What I am talking about is absolute nothing. Something from nothing breaks almost every law in science and also bends its definiton, towards supernatural. Something from absolute nothing is impossible in a natural world because saying otherwise breaks the definition of natural--

    Where did your god come from?

    --Again, God is supernatural. A supernatural entity does not have the limitations of a natural entity. The word itself says so. God is eternal. It has existed from the beginning. Only something supernatural can have such capability.--



    Nonsense , as I said before anything the superstitious and ignorant do not understand they 
    st-upidly say “Godidit “ 

    --The didit fallacy cannot be used in every context. In this context, no other option was viable, is viable, or will be viable, because of the nature of the definition of the word 'NATURAL'

    Epistemic innocence - Wikipedia
    Didit fallacy - RationalWiki

    --


    You mean rejecting the supernatural because it has zero evidence is illogical oh dear ? 
    Accepting the supernatural without evidence ( you admit ) this is logical ? 
    Man oh man you really are totally lost aren’t you?
    --It is illogical to electrocute someone, but in a situation where one's heart is stopped, THAT illogical event is what will bring the person back to life. Since there is a more logical application to something, albeit it's illogicalness based on the system, the logical method, the only explanation, is used--




  • DeeDee 4771 Pts   -   edited January 3
    @NotReally




    I cannot read your totally irrational nonsense anymore , when you have proof of your god or the supernatural please let us all know about your Nobel prize as the man who proved god all you’re doing now is preaching and your every post is guilty of Petittio principi and 3 other fallacies 

    Your argument has 4 logical fallacies just to start with the tragedy is no matter how many times they are explained to you all you do is childishly deny it. What’s worse is you are so irrational you claim anyone who  says they don’t know something because of lack of evidence is dishonest and those who claim they do know without evidence are honest , this demonstrates truly you have the typical stubborn closed mind of the person who actually lies to themselves because they cannot accept their arguments are without susbstance and think repeating nonsense makes it true 

    Fallacy 1

    Petitio principii

    Begging the question, which goes by the technical name petitio principii, is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument implicitly assumes its conclusion in a premise.

    Fallacy 2 

    Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proved true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof. The term was likely coined by philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century.


    Fallacy 3 


    Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

    Arguments from incredulity can take the form:

    1. I cannot imagine how F could be true; therefore F must be false.
    2. I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true.

    Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive 'gut' reaction, especially where time is scarce. They are also frequently used to argue that something must be supernatural in origin. This form of reasoning is fallacious because one's inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false in reality.


    Finally …..


    Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion. Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.



    Also please stop using terms  you don’t understand as in ….


    Epistemic innocence - Wikipedia
    Didit fallacy - RationalWiki
  • NotReallyNotReally 92 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Dee said:
    @NotReally




    I cannot read your totally irrational nonsense anymore , when you have proof of your god or the supernatural please let us all know about your Nobel prize as the man who proved god all you’re doing now is preaching and your every post is guilty of Petittio principi and 3 other fallacies 

    --Oh you edited this--

    Your argument has 4 logical fallacies just to start with the tragedy is no matter how many times they are explained to you all you do is childishly deny it. What’s worse is you are so irrational you claim anyone who  says they don’t know something because of lack of evidence is dishonest and those who claim they do know without evidence are honest , this demonstrates truly you have the typical stubborn closed mind of the person who actually lies to themselves because they cannot accept their arguments are without susbstance and think repeating nonsense makes it true 

    --And you do not accept my argument--

    Fallacy 1

    Petitio principii

    Begging the question, which goes by the technical name petitio principii, is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument implicitly assumes its conclusion in a premise.


    --"that occurs when an argument implicitly assumes its conclusion in a premise."

    I am not assuming anything. The creation of the universe was either natural or supernatural. Since natural is ruled out, supernatural is the only obvious answer. So here, nothing is being assumed. Through elimination, the obvious answer is supernatural. 


    Consider a room with four children and a chocolate. A minute later, the chocolate wrapper has nothing inside it. Somebody ate it. Suppose three of the children have instant allergic reaction to chocolate, but everyone looks normal, that means, through elimination, the only child left is the one without the allergy. When only one option is viable in a situation, that is taken.--

    Fallacy 2 

    Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proved true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. In debates, appealing to ignorance is sometimes an attempt to shift the burden of proof. The term was likely coined by philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century.


    --I believe this fallacy is in relaion to my elimination of the  'I don't know' argument. Your proposition will fail anyways. It is like taking an acid and trying to prove if its Ph can be above 10. When you are arguing that something supernatural did not create the universe, and something natural did, is like saying pigs can biologically fly. It goes against the laws of nature-- 


    Fallacy 3 


    Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

    Arguments from incredulity can take the form:

    1. I cannot imagine how F could be true; therefore F must be false.
    2. I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true.

    Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive 'gut' reaction, especially where time is scarce. They are also frequently used to argue that something must be supernatural in origin. This form of reasoning is fallacious because one's inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false in reality.

    --It does not contradict any of my personal beliefs. And it is not difficult to imagine, when it is impossible. My question to you is: How will Science ever find how natural made natural? 

    For the Universe to have been created, there must have been something beforehand. And if so, it must have had no beginnning. Then it falls in the supernatural category. If you say it is the nature of everything, then it is eternal and falls in the supernatural category. If you say something came from nothing, it falls into the supernatural category. What I don't understand is, how can even the general concept of creation even be displayed as natural?--

    Finally …..


    Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion. Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.


    --Mention where I commited this fallacy, please--



    Also please stop using terms  you don’t understand as in ….


    --I understood both the terms clearly, thank you--


    Epistemic innocence - Wikipedia
    Didit fallacy - RationalWiki

  • DeeDee 4771 Pts   -   edited January 3
    @NotReally

    As I keep saying you do not understand basic logic or the fallacies you’re childishly denying you have used ……let’s take the first one which is guilty of all four …..

    Fallacy 1

    Petitio principii

    Begging the question, which goes by the technical name petitio principii, is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument implicitly assumes its conclusion in a premise.

    --"that occurs when an argument implicitly assumes its conclusion in a premise."



    I am not assuming anything. The creation of the universe was either natural or supernatural.

    Since natural is ruled out, 


    There you go you ruled the natural out I didn’t , scientists haven’t you are assuming your conclusion 


    supernatural is the only obvious answer

    I and many others disagree the world of science disagrees you are assuming your conclusion again 


    . So here, nothing is being assumed. 


    You’ve just done it twice


    Through elimination, the obvious answer is supernatural. 

    You mean that’s your conclusion assumed yet again 


    You have in this post alone posted an argument from ignorance , an argument from incredulity , a circular argument and are also begging  the question , I or others cannot understand these principles for you , also you do not understand the two terms you used or the four I just posted you’ve clearly demonstrated you are absolutely clueless when it comes to basic logic and rationality it’s like debating with a flat earther 


    Also you made yet another ridiculous statement as in scientists who say they don’t know are dishonest yet those who say they do know without evidence are honest  again you run and hide when asked to defend this truly st-pid comment right?

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4664 Pts   -   edited January 3
    NotReally said:

    --Because something natural cannot create a natural world. I may not know the future of mankind, but worldwide peace is not possible unless you have mind control. Something cannot create itself as long as it is natural.--
    Could you specify what exactly you mean by "natural world"? From your comment, it appears that you define it as a set of laws by which our observable world operates and the corresponding structure of reality. If so, there can be nothing outside the natural world: the natural world is eternal, it has never been created and will never be destroyed. Our particular subset of that world, the part we call our Universe, may have been created - but it must have been created within the scope of the larger natural world.

    All of this assumes that there, indeed, is a set of non-permutable laws on some level. It may be the case that there, in fact, is no such set of laws. In this case, the "natural world" defined this way does not exist, and thus "supernatural" does not exist either.

    Either way, I do not see how the concept of the supernatural can be fit in a coherent picture of the world. If there is nature, then everything outside that nature effectively does not exist. And if there is no nature, then the term "supernatural" does not make a lot of sense.
  • NotReallyNotReally 92 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Dee said:
    @NotReally

    As I keep saying you do not understand basic logic or the fallacies you’re childishly denying you have used ……let’s take the first one which is guilty of all four …..

    Fallacy 1

    Petitio principii

    Begging the question, which goes by the technical name petitio principii, is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument implicitly assumes its conclusion in a premise.

    --"that occurs when an argument implicitly assumes its conclusion in a premise."



    I am not assuming anything. The creation of the universe was either natural or supernatural.

    Since natural is ruled out, 


    There you go you ruled the natural out I didn’t , scientists haven’t you are assuming your conclusion.


    --I gave an explanation for why natural was ruled out. Any argument to be made so must be made against that.--


    supernatural is the only obvious answer

    I and many others disagree the world of science disagrees you are assuming your conclusion again 


    --BECAUSE natural is ruled out. Cherry-picking sentences and making it look ridiculous  isn't very ethical--


    . So here, nothing is being assumed. 


    You’ve just done it twice


    --I ruled out natural. There is nothing to be assumed--


    Through elimination, the obvious answer is supernatural. 

    You mean that’s your conclusion assumed yet again 


    --Let me ask you something. If there is a MCQ question: Does Sun rise in (a) East (b) West, and if you rule out West, won't East be the answer?--


    You have in this post alone posted an argument from ignorance , an argument from incredulity , a circular argument and are also begging  the question , I or others cannot understand these principles for you , also you do not understand the two terms you used or the four I just posted you’ve clearly demonstrated you are absolutely clueless when it comes to basic logic and rationality it’s like debating with a flat earther 


    --You have not responded for the others. By this you are kind of accepting you have no comeback agaisnt that, and you are just ignorant to my arguments--


    Also you made yet another ridiculous statement as in scientists who say they don’t know are dishonest yet those who say they do know without evidence are honest  again you run and hide when asked to defend this truly st-pid comment right?


    --I am not in the process of defending supernatural right now. I am in the position of attacking natural.--


  • NotReallyNotReally 92 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    MayCaesar said:
    NotReally said:

    --Because something natural cannot create a natural world. I may not know the future of mankind, but worldwide peace is not possible unless you have mind control. Something cannot create itself as long as it is natural.--
    Could you specify what exactly you mean by "natural world"?

    --All of Universe--

    From your comment, it appears that you define it as a set of laws by which our observable world operates and the corresponding structure of reality. If so, there can be nothing outside the natural world: the natural world is eternal, it has never been created and will never be destroyed.

    --And by definition, that falls in the supernatural category--

    Our particular subset of that world, the part we call our Universe, may have been created - but it must have been created within the scope of the larger natural world.

    --What about the larger natural world? If it came from nothing, supernatural. If it was eternal, supernatural--

    All of this assumes that there, indeed, is a set of non-permutable laws on some level. It may be the case that there, in fact, is no such set of laws. In this case, the "natural world" defined this way does not exist, and thus "supernatural" does not exist either.

    --Destroying the system of definiton won't do much good in debating--

    Either way, I do not see how the concept of the supernatural can be fit in a coherent picture of the world. If there is nature, then everything outside that nature effectively does not exist. And if there is no nature, then the term "supernatural" does not make a lot of sense.

    --"then everything outside that nature effectively does not exist"

    I think I have used this argument, but if you are building a house, you are outside it, not inside. So once the house is made, you still exist, right?

    One argument that the existence of Universe is its very nature is ridiculous. For that, the natural world would have to be eternal, and then it wouldn't be so natural. Another is coming from nothing. Considering there are two categories: Supernatural and Natural, where natural states that everything has an origin, such an event falls under supernatural.

    The existence of a supernatural category is definite, but the existence of a supernatural entity is not. The only way to prove a category that is, by nature, unimaginable, the category must have a purpose, so is for imaginary numbers. A concept, with no definite proof, but with a practical purpose.--
  • DeeDee 4771 Pts   -   edited January 3
    @NotReally ;

    I am not assuming anything. The creation of the universe was either natural or supernatural.

    Since natural is ruled out, 
    There you go you ruled the natural out I didn’t , scientists haven’t you are assuming your conclusion.
    --I gave an explanation for why natural was ruled out. Any argument to be made so must be made against that.--
    But I keep telling you and you’re not listening I or scientists believe we only have the natural you say we have the supernatural but have zero proof for your irrational claims supernatural is the only obvious answerI and many others disagree the world of science disagrees you are assuming your conclusion again 
    --BECAUSE natural is ruled out.
    Ruled out by you without justification as you’ve zero proof for your irrational claims 
     Cherry-picking sentences and making it look ridiculous  isn't very ethical--What have I cherry picked ? You now resort to lying and it’s you making yourself look ridiculous 
    . So here, nothing is being assumed. 
    You’ve just done it twice
    --I ruled out natural. There is nothing to be assumed--You did , I and scientists didn’t it’s up to you to prove your claims you cannot so you’re just preaching as usual 
    Through elimination, the obvious answer is supernatural. 
    You mean that’s your conclusion assumed yet again 

    --Let me ask you something. If there is a MCQ question: Does Sun rise in (a) East (b) West, and if you rule out West, won't East be the answer?--
    What are you on about?
    You have in this post alone posted an argument from ignorance , an argument from incredulity , a circular argument and are also begging  the question , I or others cannot understand these principles for you , also you do not understand the two terms you used or the four I just posted you’ve clearly demonstrated you are absolutely clueless when it comes to basic logic and rationality it’s like debating with a flat earther 
    --You have not responded for the others. By this you are kind of accepting you have no comeback agaisnt that, and you are just ignorant to my arguments--What are you even talking about , the only ignorant one is you and your st-pidity is annoying , just because you say you ruled out the natural that means absolutely nothing it’s just you preaching as you still have zero evidence for your bull cr-ap
    Also you made yet another ridiculous statement as in scientists who say they don’t know are dishonest yet those who say they do know without evidence are honest  again you run and hide when asked to defend this truly st-pid comment right?
    --I am not in the process of defending supernatural right now. I am in the position of attacking natural.--Because you cannot defend something there’s zero proof for. All we have is the natural please stop repeating id-iotic nonsense 
  • BarnardotBarnardot 185 Pts   -  
    Man your real weird and that’s making it mild and it’s no wondering that you were stalling so much with so many dum excuses. I mean this is real lunar stuff way off the moon. It’s like saying there is a god because god exists like if I’m getting your dog mess right you are trying to say that the proof for supernatural is supernatural and like that’s real convenient to say to get out of what you said. That stuff is so cuckoo clock that anyone who thinks of passing off that mess needs to go to a shrink right away. @NotReally
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4664 Pts   -  
    @NotReally

    What falls in the supernatural category? The point exactly is that nothing that exists can fall in it.

    The larger natural world did not come from nothing in this terminology; it has always existed and will always exist. There has never been "nothing" the world could possibly have come from.

    When you are building a house, you have to work both from the outside and inside of it. Regardless, both you and the house are a part of the bigger system, say, the Solar system. Similarly, our observable Universe is a part of the bigger system, say, the natural world as you define it.

    Why does the natural world being eternal imply that it is not so natural? This point eludes me completely.

    You keep saying that supernatural is a valid category, which it is. I keep saying that it is an empty set, that nothing belongs to this category. That it is like the category of all real numbers that are larger than 2 and smaller than 1: it is a perfectly valid category, it just does not contain any members.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 185 Pts   -  
    This is what I’m saying to the dufus. Supernatural is made up for movies so that people can fantasy about it and that’s what Duisburg is doing. He’s fantasizing because he doesn’t want to face the realty that there is no supernatural stuff and if there is it would be natural which is why there is no supernatural anything.@MayCaesar
  • dallased25dallased25 303 Pts   -  
    1. The "Theistic theory" isn't actually a theory at all in scientific terms, it's just a hypothesis at best and at worst a "Wag". 
    2. Of course the theistic idea "fits" better, because you can explain anything...literally anything if you include magic in the mix. 

    Put it this way, the film the Matrix perfectly explains Deja Vu as "they changed something in the programming" and used that same reference to say why people see ghosts, or weird things. Well if we consider that all of reality is a computer simulation, then it could perfectly explain some of the weird and freaky things people see and sometimes catch on camera. But just because the "explanation fits better" than say, "well it's natural, even if we can't fully explain it yet", it's not actually an explanation at all, it's simply a filler for whatever the actual answer is. As of today, the "Theistic idea", isn't even actually a contender answer until someone actually demonstrates that it's possible for there to even be a being like a god. So to put this to bed, no the "theistic theory" isn't a better answer, unless you are lazy and intellectually dishonest. 
    ZeusAres42piloteer
  • BarnardotBarnardot 185 Pts   -  
    Your totally right and explained everything right there because people are the opposite to dogs. Dogs always dig holes and humans always want to fill them in with anything that seems good for their life.@dallased25
  • NotReallyNotReally 92 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    Dee said:
    @NotReally ;

    But I keep telling you and you’re not listening I or scientists believe we only have the natural you say we have the supernatural but have zero proof for your irrational claims 


    --I made a claim. This is a debate. You have to strike points against the attack to refute my claims--

    Ruled out by you without justification as you’ve zero proof for your irrational claims 
    --I have made claims which you remain ignorant to--
     Cherry-picking sentences and making it look ridiculous  isn't very ethical--What have I cherry picked ? You now resort to lying and it’s you making yourself look ridiculous 
    --Taking parts of sentences which have continuation, and arguing against that particular part of the sentence instead of the sentence as a whole--
    You did , I and scientists didn’t it’s up to you to prove your claims you cannot so you’re just preaching as usual 
    --The only option left is supernatural such so, then what else would you choose?--

    --Let me ask you something. If there is a MCQ question: Does Sun rise in (a) East (b) West, and if you rule out West, won't East be the answer?--
    What are you on about?
    --The situation here--

    --You have not responded for the others. By this you are kind of accepting you have no comeback agaisnt that, and you are just ignorant to my arguments--What are you even talking about , the only ignorant one is you and your st-pidity is annoying , just because you say you ruled out the natural that means absolutely nothing it’s just you preaching as you still have zero evidence for your bull cr-ap
    Also you made yet another ridiculous statement as in scientists who say they don’t know are dishonest yet those who say they do know without evidence are honest  again you run and hide when asked to defend this truly st-pid comment right?
    --I am not in the process of defending supernatural right now. I am in the position of attacking natural.--Because you cannot defend something there’s zero proof for. All we have is the natural please stop repeating id-iotic nonsense 
    --If a category has a purpose, it has present entities inside it--

  • NotReallyNotReally 92 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    MayCaesar said:
    @NotReally

    What falls in the supernatural category? The point exactly is that nothing that exists can fall in it.

    --Supernatural is almost the opposite of natural. Something that is eternal is not natural. So it falls into the supernatural category. And if you claim the Universe is eternal, and then say nothing that exists falls into the supernatural category, you are saying the Universe does not exist--

    The larger natural world did not come from nothing in this terminology; it has always existed and will always exist. There has never been "nothing" the world could possibly have come from.

    --Yes. But something being eternal is not natural. Two categories exist in this case: Natural and Supernatural. Those which are not natural fall into the supernatural category. Eternal is not natural--

    When you are building a house, you have to work both from the outside and inside of it. Regardless, both you and the house are a part of the bigger system, say, the Solar system. Similarly, our observable Universe is a part of the bigger system, say, the natural world as you define it.

    --So you are saying our Universe is enclosed in another one?--

    Why does the natural world being eternal imply that it is not so natural? This point eludes me completely.

    --There are certain rules for sorting into categories. By defintion, something natural CAN exist forever, but cannot not have a beginning. Not having a beginning is supernautral, not natural. Saying eternal is natural is like saying -34 is a whole number.--

    You keep saying that supernatural is a valid category, which it is. I keep saying that it is an empty set, that nothing belongs to this category. That it is like the category of all real numbers that are larger than 2 and smaller than 1: it is a perfectly valid category, it just does not contain any members.

    --If something does not belong to natural category, it will fall into the supernatural category, right? IF it does not belong.

    It feels like you are trying to peel in 'eternal' into as a condition for being in the natural category.

    Something being eternal is against the rules of a natural existence
    And in such a case, it will fall into the only other category, supernatural--


  • DeeDee 4771 Pts   -  
    @NotReally

    You’re repeating nonsense which has been utterly destroyed so you resort to lying as claiming I cherry picked your words which is why you cannot prove your claim so  you lie ……  all you’re saying is as you’ve admitted is “ the supernatural is unproven but it still proves a god” which is an utterly ridiculous statement 

    Also you claimed all scientists who say they don’t know are dishonest liars yet those that say they do know without proof are honest , please explain what you mean by this piece of nonsense? 
    You keep avoiding answering why’s that?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4664 Pts   -  
    @NotReally

    Please explain to me why nature cannot be eternal in principle. In my view, nature in the sense in which you are using this word must be eternal. It seems to me that you are just redefining the terms to make your concept of supernatural work.

    The observable Universe certainly is enclosed in some bigger abstract space that contains the laws according to which such Universes are born.

    Why is not having a beginning supernatural? The list of integers ordered from smallest to largest integers does not have a beginning; it certainly is not supernatural.
  • dallased25dallased25 303 Pts   -  
    @Notreally
    Supernatural isn't even a category as an available option. Everything that is measurable and quantifiable is natural. Supernatural is a made up category that scientists don't use, because there's no evidence of anything beyond the natural. There's no reason at all to classify the origins of the universe, or to say that it "can't be eternal and therefore supernatural"...that's just an argument from ignorance fallacy. It's shocking to me that anyone could even make that statement with a straight face, but perhaps it's because you lump in "eternal" with your idea of what that means in the terms of a being. For you eternal must be supernatural, because it has to be a god. But you are simply assuming the very thing you have yet to prove. If something is not understood, that does not make it supernatural. If something in nature, that is quantifiable, or that we know exists, but isn't explained...then the answer will never be supernatural, because it is natural, just unexplained. Again, you must demonstrate that the supernatural is even a category. You can't just insist that something within nature has an attribute that you believe is supernatural without any evidence. You also kind of refuted yourself in saying that something natural could be eternal, but then said it must be supernatural. I think categorically you are simply confused at to what it all means. Put it this way, the current scientific understanding is that our cosmos and everything in it has finite forms, but if you take things down to the quantum level, you have working mechanics that are eternal that spawned everything. Massive difference. But I'd wager you'll just say "that's not natural, therefore supernatural" again, without any reason to classify it that way. You have no reason to classify anything natural into the supernatural category, because it's not even an available option until you demonstrate that there is anything beyond nature. 
    piloteer
  • NotReallyNotReally 92 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    I AM BACK!!

    For this time only, I will be aftw for a loong time again probably, coz I am really busy now, with exams and functions.

    MayCaesar said:
    @NotReally

    Please explain to me why nature cannot be eternal in principle. In my view, nature in the sense in which you are using this word must be eternal. It seems to me that you are just redefining the terms to make your concept of supernatural work.

    --Here, when you are considering nature to be eternal, you are automatically considering one of the particles or forces that caused Big Bang. Considering the quantum mechanic theory of creation of Universe is logically and lawfully correct, but it contradicts all experimentation and observations.--

    The observable Universe certainly is enclosed in some bigger abstract space that contains the laws according to which such Universes are born.

    --Wdym--

    Why is not having a beginning supernatural? The list of integers ordered from smallest to largest integers does not have a beginning; it certainly is not supernatural.

    --Numbers are a concept. We are talking about Real, existing entities. You don't see a number walking across the street, but you do see a person walk across the street. One is a mind-made concept, the other is an existing entity. Concepts can be infinite, since it is made by your mind.--

    Adios, for a long time(prob a couple of days only.), since it's night here, and English exam is next, so I don't have to tense much.--

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4664 Pts   -   edited January 12
    @NotReally

    Yes, I am: if anything at all caused the Big Bang, it is, by definition, a part of nature. Something that is not a part of nature cannot cause anything in this nature, because it does not exist. There is nothing in quantum mechanics that I know of that contradicts this.

    Everything is a concept: we use words to represent real entities, but this representation is conceptual. A "car" is a concept: this is how we classify the set of particles ordered a certain way, yet that set of particles is just a set of particles and, in itself, does not correspond to any concept.
    I have not seen any arguments so far that would suggest that something that does not have a beginning must be supernatural.
  • DeeDee 4771 Pts   -   edited January 13
    @NotReally

    Numbers are a concept. We are talking about Real, existing entities.

    Everything is a concept . We create concepts to rationalize our observations.

    “We “? You are talking about an unproven supernatural entity and saying it’s “real “ with zero proof for your assertions and you’re yet again dishonestly trying to use a false analogy to make your case 

     You don't see a number walking across the street, but you do see a person walk across the street

    You don’t see supernatural entities walking down the street either do you? Again you’re resorting to dishonestly trying to say  a supernatural entity has the same plausibility of existing as a god without a shred of proof 

    . One is a mind-made concept, the other is an existing entity. 

    The “other “ is an unproven which has zero proof of its “existence  

    Concepts can be infinite, since it is made by your mind.--

    That makes no sense at all 
  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 569 Pts   -  
    I'm flat out saying this right now, every religious debate is an Alder's Razor. You can't experiment on nor observe any gods or goddesses, so it is not worthy of debate
    dallased25
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • dallased25dallased25 303 Pts   -  


    --Here, when you are considering nature to be eternal, you are automatically considering one of the particles or forces that caused Big Bang. Considering the quantum mechanic theory of creation of Universe is logically and lawfully correct, but it contradicts all experimentation and observations.--

    ****No it does not. That is a completely made up and false statement. There are no "experiments" on the beginning of the universe, but the mechanics and the available information are not in conflict. The astrophysicists who specialize in big bang cosmology see no problem with an eternal cosmos that gives rise to universes like ours, either in theory or with the current available evidence. As Stephen Hawking famously said, "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." which came from his last paper before he died. The mechanics and models work just fine without invoking the supernatural or god, it's only people like you with no expertise that insist it must. 

    --Numbers are a concept. We are talking about Real, existing entities. You don't see a number walking across the street, but you do see a person walk across the street. One is a mind-made concept, the other is an existing entity. Concepts can be infinite, since it is made by your mind.--

    They are more than just a concept. Numbers are a method/quantification system we invented to make sense of reality. Numbers work and are constantly a proven methodology. You don't have to "see numbers", you can do measurements, experiments and see the results of the math. Math is what got us to space, to the moon, is responsible for the very computer you type on, and practically effects everything in our lives daily. Without math and numbers, you would likely be dead due to medicine dosage being given incorrectly, or in a plane or car accident. So it's more than a concept, it's a working methodology that is consistently proven to be accurate and works. Nothing like this can be demonstrated for a god. You can't prove god in any measurable way and math would be the simplest and most effective way...yet no one can do it. 




  • SwolliwSwolliw 1442 Pts   -  
    @Luigi7255
    I'm flat out saying this right now, every religious debate is an Alder's Razor. You can't experiment on nor observe any gods or goddesses, so it is not worthy of debate

    And I'm flat out saying that you are wrong by your own standards. You are conflating "God" and "Religion" The existence of God is merely one element of religion; in fact. in most cases of those who are religious, the existence of God has diddly squat to do with it. It's mostly about the culture and doctrines. And, as I am so keen to point out, it is about the prejudices, the fears, the psychosis. 

    The other thing also is that many people do "observe a God or a Goddess" and even if you were to tell them that it is not true and is not worthy of debate, they will debate you on that topic. "Like derrr, how do you define God?" or "Like derrrr, how do you define delusion?" or "Like derrr Can you prove there is no God?" or, "Derrr like, God is in another dimension"

    So, technically, Alder's Razor is correct but in practice, there is no end to the debates on religion or God, just look at this forum alone, by far the most active on the site. I like religious and God debates because I know that I am on the winning side. You can't tell those on the other side of the reality fence that. I just love watching them run around like hens with their heads chopped off, being the nit-wits that they are.


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch