If any of you misguided atheists is brave enough to debate me on the existence of God, using the arguments put forward (well, what little there are) in Dawkins' badly titled book, I will gladly refute them all. Hackenslash has problems with it due to his confusion over the title, but if we can work around that, let's see how this goes. I guarantee that this will be a lot of fun for me

so where's your evidence for god?

josephchoi wrote:so where's your evidence for god?

Did you read the opening post? I suggest you do.

Armageddo wrote:If any of you misguided atheists is brave enough to debate me on the existence of God, using the arguments put forward (well, what little there are) in Dawkins' badly titled book, I will gladly refute them all. Hackenslash has problems with it due to his confusion over the title, but if we can work around that, let's see how this goes. I guarantee that this will be a lot of fun for me

Thats the thing with deluded people, they'll just keep on laughing despite being blown out of the water

Armageddo wrote:If any of you misguided atheists is brave enough to debate me on the existence of God, using the arguments put forward (well, what little there are) in Dawkins' badly titled book, I will gladly fail to refute them all. Hackenslash has I have problems with it due to his my confusion over the title, but if we can work around that, let's see how this goes. I guarantee that this will be a lot of fun for me you

Armageddo wrote:

josephchoi wrote:so where's your evidence for god?

Did you read the opening post? I suggest you do.

No no no. That's not how it works.

you claim a magic sky wizard exists, you provide the evidence.

In the absence of evidence the default position has to be 'Magic Sky Wizards do not exist'

Perhaps you would like to provide the evidence that magic pink fairies don't live under my bed?

josephchoi wrote:so where's your evidence for god?

There isn't any. You won the debate

Dracena wrote:

Armageddo wrote:If any of you misguided atheists is brave enough to debate me on the existence of God, using the arguments put forward (well, what little there are) in Dawkins' badly titled book, I will gladly fail to refute them all. Hackenslash has I have problems with it due to his my confusion over the title, but if we can work around that, let's see how this goes. I guarantee that this will be a lot of fun for me you

Nice work

Armageddo wrote:If any of you misguided atheists is brave enough to debate me on the existence of God, using the arguments put forward (well, what little there are) in Dawkins' badly titled book, I will gladly refute them all. Hackenslash has problems with it due to his confusion over the title, but if we can work around that, let's see how this goes. I guarantee that this will be a lot of fun for me

Firstly you didnt read the God delusion, because if you did you would know that after Dawkins debunks the Abrahamic God he goes on to talk about why there (probably) is no god.

Secondly its not up to me to disprove God, its up to the believer (or God himself) to prove that he does indeed exist. I don't live my life built on presuppositions of things that are impossible to disprove. Like Zeus, Allah, Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, Big Foot or your supposed Sky Daddy.

Until I find some evidence to show that there is a god the default setting is to automatically make no assumptions, have a clean slate and live a life "without belief" a.k.a. without theism or atheism.

Dracena wrote:

Armageddo wrote:If any of you misguided atheists is brave enough to debate me on the existence of God, using the arguments put forward (well, what little there are) in Dawkins' badly titled book, I will gladly fail to refute them all. Hackenslash has I have problems with it due to his my confusion over the title, but if we can work around that, let's see how this goes. I guarantee that this will be a lot of fun for me you

...You don't actually think TGD is quality material?

Do you?

Armageddo wrote:

josephchoi wrote:so where's your evidence for god?

Did you read the opening post? I suggest you do.

Well considering one of the major points raised in TGD is the startling lack of evidence for God, it would seem to be a good question and in line with the OP.

HughMcB wrote:
Firstly you didnt read the God delusion, because if you did you would know that after Dawkins debunks the Abrahamic God he goes on to talk about why there (probably) is no god.

Secondly its not up to me to disprove God, its up to the believer (or God himself) to prove that he does indeed exist. I don't live my life built on presuppositions of things that are impossible to disprove. Like Zeus, Allah, Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, Big Foot or your supposed Sky Daddy.

Until I find some evidence to show that there is a god the default setting is to automatically make no assumptions, have a clean slate and live a life "without belief" a.k.a. without theism or atheism.

1) TGD is perhaps the perfect example of how NOT to defend atheism or attack theism.
2) God is not unfalsifiable.

UnderConstruction wrote:

Armageddo wrote:

josephchoi wrote:so where's your evidence for god?

Did you read the opening post? I suggest you do.

Well considering one of the major points raised in TGD is the startling lack of evidence for God, it would seem to be a good question and in line with the OP.

Well that's a start at least but hardly an argument. You say it's a "major" point. What other points are there, then? (It would be in keeping with the OP). Thanks

Armageddo wrote:If any of you misguided atheists is brave enough to debate me on the existence of God, using the arguments put forward (well, what little there are) in Dawkins' badly titled book, I will gladly refute them all. Hackenslash has problems with it due to his confusion over the title, but if we can work around that, let's see how this goes. I guarantee that this will be a lot of fun for me

IIRC, I don't think Dawkin's choose the title for that book.

Nocterro wrote:2) God is not unfalsifiable.

Now THIS I need to hear more about

Armageddo wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:

Armageddo wrote:

josephchoi wrote:so where's your evidence for god?

Did you read the opening post? I suggest you do.

Well considering one of the major points raised in TGD is the startling lack of evidence for God, it would seem to be a good question and in line with the OP.

Well that's a start at least but hardly an argument. You say it's a "major" point. What other points are there, then? (It would be in keeping with the OP). Thanks

What more do you need? Anything else is just bonus points.

And yes, it is an argument. In short, there is no evidence for the existence of God that has been presented to date that stands up to scrutiny. Therefore, there is no need to give credence to the claims of those who assert he/she/it does exist.

Now then, unless you can either provide such evidence or a reason why evidence should not be required, it's pretty much game over.

Nocterro wrote:2) God is not unfalsifiable.

Depends which one you are talking about but many, perhaps most are forever placed beyond the reach of falsifiability.

Mr P wrote:

Nocterro wrote:2) God is not unfalsifiable.

Now THIS I need to hear more about

1) You start a debate with a theist.
2) Theist presents his definition of God.
3) You show that the definition is incoherent.

This isn't hard...

Nocterro wrote:

HughMcB wrote:
Firstly you didnt read the God delusion, because if you did you would know that after Dawkins debunks the Abrahamic God he goes on to talk about why there (probably) is no god.

Secondly its not up to me to disprove God, its up to the believer (or God himself) to prove that he does indeed exist. I don't live my life built on presuppositions of things that are impossible to disprove. Like Zeus, Allah, Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, Big Foot or your supposed Sky Daddy.

Until I find some evidence to show that there is a god the default setting is to automatically make no assumptions, have a clean slate and live a life "without belief" a.k.a. without theism or atheism.

1) TGD is perhaps the perfect example of how NOT to defend atheism or attack theism.
2) God is not unfalsifiable.

1) Subjective drivel
2) You do realise in that double (triple?) negative you have just said "God is falsifiable" (God is not unfalsifiable)

Nocterro wrote:

Mr P wrote:

Nocterro wrote:2) God is not unfalsifiable.

Now THIS I need to hear more about

1) You start a debate with a theist.
2) Theist presents his definition of God.
3) You show that the definition is incoherent.

This isn't hard...

Theist: Ah, but God cannot be understood by a mere human and does not conform to our logic. Ergo, God can be as logically inconsistent as I want him to be.

A bit harder than you might think...