- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Tim.
I am inviting you to a debate. I have noticed that you are quite confident that there is no God and as you are aware, I believe that only a fool denies in the existence of God.
So this debate will give both of us the chance to see who is being foolish with their belief.
I will argue why there is a God and you will argue why there is not a God and give other possible options besides God as to how the universe came to exist.
I look forward to this debate and I hope that you are as brave in accepting this debate as you appear in some of your posts in other topics.
If Tim doesn't accept the debate then others can chime in on why they think he didn't accept. If Tim accepts, then when we agree that the debate is finished, or if one member stops posting, then I would like to give others the opportunity to chime in anyway with some feedback on the debate.
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 14 2012,19:45) I believe that only a fool denies in the existence of God.
Tim quite rightly observed that I should be worthy of a penalty square if I had called you an idiot in another thread, and I am quite contrite about the confusion I might have caused. It is the god you described that is the idiot. Calling another member here an idiot would have been crass of me.And now here you are calling people fool.
I am under the impression that at one stage in history Tim might have called himself a believer, a “brother”, in which case I think t8 you qualify for “hell fire” under the terms of Matthew 5:22.
Stuart
Would you call a person who drank 24 bottles of beer and then took his family for a drive as a fool. I wouldn't because the person could have been driving his family, away from a tsunami or bush fire or something like that. We cannot know the full circumstances behind every action and therefore must reserve judgement to God and the law of the land.
What scripture condemns is passing final judgment on them as if you were God.
Scripture sets precepts for judgement and a man who denies God is a fool, not according to me, but according to scripture. But if I don't like someone and call them a fool, then yes that is wrong.
Let's face it, fools exist. So let's not pretend that they don't. Scripture is warning us to not set our own rules as to who is a fool or what constitutes a fool. Scripture also clearly states for good reason that a man who denies God existence is a fool. I simply concur and have not set this standard myself.
Do you propose that every person who believes in scripture ignores that verse and act like they never read it. Because I believe that all scripture is given for reproof, correction, and encouragement.
“I believe that only a fool denies in the existence of God”. – t8
Matthew 5:22 … but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Stuart
Well then. You are subscribing to the idea that no one can believe that particular verse.
I believe it and as I said before, it is not my standard. So it is not me doing the judging. I simply concur with scripture by believing it.Also I didn't say that Tim was a fool. I said that a fool is one who denies the existence of God. It is Tim who says that he doesn't believe in God.
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 14 2012,19:45) Hi Tim. I am inviting you to a debate. I have noticed that you are quite confident that there is no God and as you are aware, I believe that only a fool denies in the existence of God.
So this debate will give both of us the chance to see who is being foolish with their belief.
I will argue why there is a God and you will argue why there is not a God and give other possible options besides God as to how the universe came to exist.
I look forward to this debate and I hope that you are as brave in accepting this debate as you appear in some of your posts in other topics.
HI T8,You titled this debate proposal, “How did the universe come to exist.”
and then almost immediately turned it into “I will argue why there is a God and you will argue why there is not a God”So it would be a very short debate. T8's simple answer to how the universe came into existence is, God did it, and Tim says no.
Neither of us can prove or disprove the other persons argument.Thanks but I will have to decline your invitation.
TimOkay if you decline it on that basis, then that seems to infer that you would accept if the title was better. I will come up with a better one for you later as it is getting late now. A title that is acceptable to the point that you will either accept or make a further excuse to not debate me.
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 14 2012,21:38) Okay if you decline it on that basis, then that seems to infer that you would accept if the title was better. I will come up with a better one for you later as it is getting late now. A title that is acceptable to the point that you will either accept or make a further excuse to not debate me.
If it's not an acceptable moot to Tim then you cannot conclude that it is a matter of making excuses.Are you intending to deploy anything that could be recognised as conventions of logic in these debates you are proposing? It would be more reassuring if there was a bit more evidence that you know how debating actually works.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 14 2012,21:38) Okay if you decline it on that basis, then that seems to infer that you would accept if the title was better. I will come up with a better one for you later as it is getting late now. A title that is acceptable to the point that you will either accept or make a further excuse to not debate me.
The problem was that your title said one thing and your point of debate was something totally different.
In fact it was the same thing that you have proposed to debate with stu, who I might add would be a much more worthy opponent than I.Tim
How about tag team debating? We could take turns to respond to t8 and…er…maybe there is another skeptic who could take on the believer's position for a laugh.
Stuart
No problem with a tag team, however because I am already debating Stu, (or will be), it doesn't seem that great an idea. I also think that I might not get to the heart of how Tim thinks, which is what I want to do.
So prefer to keep it myself and Tim.
I will make a post with a new topic that is satisfactory to debate.
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 15 2012,07:30) No problem with a tag team, however because I am already debating Stu, (or will be), it doesn't seem that great an idea. I also think that I might not get to the heart of how Tim thinks, which is what I want to do. So prefer to keep it myself and Tim.
I will make a post with a new topic that is satisfactory to debate.
A debate is not the way to get to the heart of how Tim thinks.Whether debating how the universe started, or if there is or isn't a God, I could debate your side in the afirmitive, just as easily as I can debate the negative side, regardless of what I believe.
The challange, and the fun in the debate is to make the case for your argument.
Tim
t8 has rarely shown an interest in getting to the heart of how people think before. So I think his motives are cynical as usual.
However, he hasn't come up with a moot that can't be easily demolished in the spirit of his own cynicism. The downside is that t8 is unlikely to recognise his own demolition.
Stuart
It's been a week since t8 posted in this thread. Maybe someone could just post a summary of how the universe actually came to exist then you could both move on to things which are properly debatable.
Perhaps t8 has moved on already.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 22 2012,08:55) It's been a week since t8 posted in this thread. Maybe someone could just post a summary of how the universe actually came to exist then you could both move on to things which are properly debatable. Perhaps t8 has moved on already.
Stuart
stuthe universe I mean yours is a “IF “
and you called God the creator an IF ,so we believers are still ahead
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
