- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I challenge Stu to a debate and no one else, (just me and him). If Stu refuses to debate this, then I may open it up to others to put in their 2 cents worth, all the while leaving our minds to wonder why he didn’t step up to the plate like he has in other debates.
Anyway, the reason for no one else (at this stage), is that I have taken Stu to task on a number of occasions about his statement that there is no God, and I have explained to him that there are three things that could have caused the universe. They are:
1) God/Creator
2) Something (non-living)
3) Nothing (absolutely nothing)I have asked him to explain to me which one of these options is the truth and he hasn’t appeared at this stage to give me a definitive answer from the posts that I have read at least. I have also explained to him that if these options are not enough, then he is free to add a fourth option. But from what I can see, there is nothing else outside of something, nothing, or a creator/living God.
My argument with Stu goes something like this:
If he says that there is definitely no God, or that there is a 0.05% chance that there is a God, (as I think he once said) then why is he qualified to make such a statement if he doesn’t have a clue as to what or how the universe was first caused.
Sure, I can appreciate from an atheists point of view that the idea of God seems far-fetched when you have lived out your days never seeing him or experiencing him. I was once an atheist myself after all, but I have experienced God in very powerful ways since, because I gained some faith later on in life.
If we look at the three options, it appears that they are all ludicrous to some degree. It depends on what you believe at the end of the day though. Whether we like it or not, we are forced to believe in one of these ludicrous or far-fetched options.
Looking at the options deeper, I believe that the universe was caused or created by a creator or God. But for those who say that God doesn’t exist, they are forced into believing one of the last two options.
The idea that nothing actually caused anything is impossible and ludicrous because if nothing can actually do anything, then it was at least something all a long. Nothing does nothing because it is nothing. How can ‘no thing’ do ‘some thing’? Only ‘some thing’ or ‘some one’ can do some thing.
Looking at the idea that ‘something’ was the possible cause of the universe, seems ludicrous to me too. How can something non-aware that supposedly caused the universe, come up with life or awareness of itself? If you admit that this something was itself living then we are back to the God option. If this something doesn’t have life, then how does something dead give birth to life and why isn’t this something alive? Also, how does one know that the something that caused the universe doesn’t itself possess life the very attribute it produced?
Plus why is it that if this something that cannot think, can come up with better inventions than humans who can think? I mean a dead something has the IQ of zero/nada/nothing. That would mean that a person with the IQ of 1, would have an advantage over whatever caused the universe, yet even if Albert Einstein lived for billions of years, could he make a universe?
So let’s see if Stu is willing to come clean and take a stance and to explain why he believes his option, or let’s hear him say, “I don’t have a clue”.
If he admits to not knowing the answer, then the only logical conclusion to draw is that he is completely and utterly unqualified to say that there is no God because writing off one of the three options by bias alone is shabby science.
Let the fireworks begin. Your turn Stu.
To prove that you are not in a position to say that there is no God and that deleting one of the 3 options on bias alone is bad science or just plain ignorant.
I want you to demonstrate in your defence, which of the options was the first cause for the universe, or admit that you are unqualified or unjustly saying that there is no God. Simple as that.
I suspect at this stage you may take another option and bury your head in the sand by not participating. I hope not. But that would leave us with a Stu who goes around saying that there is no God and he is sure about it, yet doesn't know which of the remaining ludicrous options are true, and therefore ran away from the argument because he knew his foolishness would be exposed.
If it appears at this stage that every which way, you lose, I hope you don't go all cowardly and not participate, but will step up to the plate and stand up for what you believe. After all, you have been very vocal every where else you are able to post, so I am giving you the chance to prove yourself, your science, your belief, your character, and your reasons for saying that there is no God or creator.
Thanks.
Please rephrase your question. I am not sure that I understand it.
moot1 [moot] Show IPA
–adjective
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.
–verb (used with object)
4. to present or introduce (any point, subject, project, etc.) for discussion.
5. to reduce or remove the practical significance of; make purely theoretical or academic.
6. Archaic. to argue (a case), esp. in a mock court.
–noun
7. an assembly of the people in early England exercising political, administrative, and judicial powers.
8. an argument or discussion, esp. of a hypothetical legal case.
9. Obsolete. a debate, argument, or discussion.It is sense 8.
Traditionally a debate will centre on a statement that is affirmed or negated. There are examples of moots here:
http://www.ada.org.nz/factmoot.php
# THAT 'law and order' is a euphemism for the defence of privilege
# THAT 'New Zealand-made' is the answer
# THAT 90210 is the perfect score
# THAT a good wife makes a good husband
# THAT actions speak louder than words
# THAT advertising is necessary
# THAT affirmative action negates its purpose
# THAT all play and no work makes jack a dull jerk
# THAT all sporting contacts should be encouraged
# THAT america can be proud of New Zealand
# THAT america is an evil empire
# THAT an asian or pacific language should be a compulsory requirement for all university courses
# THAT antarctica should be a world park
# THAT anything will do for a quiet life
# THAT ANZUS is no longer necessary
# THAT apartheid is alive in New Zealand
# THAT art is nonsenseStuart
Quote that you are not in a position to say that there is no God and that deleting one of the 3 options on bias alone is bad science or just plain ignorant.
I am not sure why this was not good enough, but I will rephrase/simplify it.Statement that I affirm:
That your argument 'there is no God' is based on bias and is therefore dishonest, unreasonable, and foolish.NOTE: My affirmation for this statement uses my argument made in the first post of this debate, which gives some evidence toward supporting the claim in scripture that says, 'the fool has said in his heart that there is no God'. I am hoping that you will attempt to refute my argument which is partially the reason I have made this so-called factual moot.
The problem with the statement in the quote box is that I am in just as much of a position to say there is no god as you are to say there is such a thing, because that is just assertion against assertion.
I appreciate your effort in trying to come up with a tangible moot, but isn't this a bit of hypocrisy on your part? Before you have even begun, already you are prejudging what will be turned up in terms of what would appear to be YOUR bias.
I'm not interested in debating this moot.
Thanks anyway.
Stuart
There is nothing wrong with my statement. You could if you had a good rebuttal easily prove the following statement to be wrong:
That your argument 'there is no God' is based on bias and is therefore dishonest, unreasonable, and foolish.
But you obviously cannot refute what I am saying. OK, so I will give you another chance to step up to the plate and prove your stance.
How about refuting what I have written in the first post. If not, then I can conclude that you couldn't and therefore I am likely correct in that you are not qualified or justified in saying that there is no God. I will then open the debate up for others to comment on your loud silence.
Will you step up? After all, you argue in other posts against other people's posts, so why not this one?
Actually before I open the debate up, if you refuse to disprove my post (the first one) by running away, then I will extend the argument to any other atheist who is willing to stand up and debate it, before opening it up for general comment.
It is disingenuous for you to accuse me of 'running away' or 'refusing' or not 'having a good rebuttal'. We have been round the mulberry bushes on this subject countless times in other threads, and I have never 'run away' or 'refused' or not had an excellent rebuttal every time.
So good luck finding an atheist to debate with you in this thread. It will not be this one.
Stuart
Stu, you have never given me an answer or rebuttal to my argument because you cannot. Therefore I am right in that you are running away and you do not have any ground with your statement that there is no God.
If you truly answered me or gave a worthy rebuttal to my argument as you say, then simply copy it from where you posted it and paste it here. How easy is that?
Is this not the perfect time and place to put my argument to rest. But your non-participation will leave doubt that you actually have ever had an answer and therefore your statement that there is no God is likely based on your bias alone which shows how shallow your atheist belief really is.
Like I said early on, and I quote:
Quote I suspect at this stage you may take another option and bury your head in the sand by not participating. I hope not. But that would leave us with a Stu who goes around saying that there is no God and he is sure about it, yet doesn't know which of the remaining ludicrous options are true, and therefore ran away from the argument because he knew his foolishness would be exposed. So one more chance for you to rebut my first post.
If not, I will open it up for any other atheist who is secure enough in his stance to take up this offer.
I guess you could say that we already knew that your atheist belief was a shallow one based more on bias than reason, so it comes as no surprised that you give this one a no-show. I suppose from now on, when you rant on about there being no God, we can always post a link back here to show that you have no basis for that statement.
So I now officially open this discussion to any other atheist. If you are interested, you can quote my first post in this discussion and dissect each statement and try to disprove them as wrong. Similar to what Stu does with other posts, (but not this one of course).
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 24 2010,03:42) To all. Feel free to comment on why you think Stu didn't participate in this debate?
Because your “something from nothing” comments have worn thin on him? Seriously, it is your stock response to 90% of Stu's posts.No one was there billions of years ago, get over it. No one truly knows the origins of the universe, get over it. Science offers alternatives to theism, but both could be wrong. Does it truly matter?
The problem with the various theisms is that they claim a certain creative force and then go about trying to describe this entity. Odd that since none of them seem to agree about this character (or characters).
Maybe some force or being created the universe. If this is the case, where is the evidence that this force or being is still involved?
KJ.
If Stu cannot answer that, then all his rants about there being no God are irrelevant because they are based on a biased belief only. He attackes faith and belief and is guilty of the same thing. This is the point. I guess you missed that.
So 'wearing thin' means nothing regarding the point of the debate. I have a point KJ, and there is no reason to debating the finer points with Stu, if he hasn't even got a platform to place them on. He obviously basis his statements on either of the last 2 options of the ludicrous belief possibilities.
BTW, if you are critical of my point about Stu's biased deletion of one of the three options that are the first cause for the universe's existence, then please step up to the plate. I would love to debate you regarding this. Feel free to put my argument about this to rest, rather than a weak 'wearing thin' flyby comment.
Do you accept this debate or are we just going to get more fluffy comments from you regarding this?
I responded to one post addressed “To all”. That is all I will care to do because I simply feel that debating the origin of the universe is a monumental waste of time.
Good going T8,
They don't want to answer your post because they cannot meet the challenge, they don't even have the imagination to argue it.
But it's interesting because why would an Atheist be on the site at all except to debate or find belief? Since they have given up on debate maybe their ready to be conveyed the message of God?
Yes, it does make you wonder why an atheist with no alternate theory spends so much time attacking the idea of a creator. I suggested once that it could be the whole darkness and light thing. The darkness hates the light, and hate can make a man obsess about his enemy.
Quote (kejonn @ Feb. 25 2010,12:53) I responded to one post addressed “To all”. That is all I will care to do because I simply feel that debating the origin of the universe is a monumental waste of time.
I don't think you have been paying attention KJ.It's not so much about debating that, but that knowing all three options are ludicrous, you cannot just write off one of the three options because you don't like it. Especially when one of them has to be true and given that alone, that is a whopping 33% chance being thrown away due to bias or arrogance.
If you write off the existence of a creator then you better have a good reason or alternate theory, otherwise if you don't have a clue, then it is unreasonable to go around saying that you know for sure there is no creator and ridiculing any mention of it as Stu seems to spend his time doing.
Comprehendo?
So if the wind is blowing your boat over to atheism which wouldn't actually surprise me, then I expect that you too will give a full reason why or a feasible theory that shows that it was nothing or something non-living that caused the universe.
Otherwise I can take it that you won't be unreasonable as to write off the creator option. Unless of course you are happy to be just outright and straight up unreasonable and prove that it is just a plain dislike for God or the idea of a God that makes you write it off. At least that way you remain honest and then we can all move on.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
