RE: Here's why Creatards might be right
October 29, 2015 at 9:41 pm
(This post was last modified: October 29, 2015 at 9:43 pm by Simon Moon.)
(October 29, 2015 at 9:16 pm)jenny1972 Wrote:(October 29, 2015 at 8:57 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Yep.
Jenny is so far off, she's not even wrong.
Not only does she fail to make valid points, but she fails to understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things (especially basic logic) that need to be understood to even participate.
i understand what we are debating . i believe an intelligent being created the universe and you guys disagree . what you have is an opinion without facts and what i have is my opinion without facts .
See, this is an example of what I mean. You are passing the burden of proof.
Your opinion requires an entity that is not in evidence. Your opinion adds unexplainable things that are not necessary to explain existence or biology. And they have no explanatory power.
All our opinion really needs, is for you not to be able to provide demonstrable evidence to support yours. You are the one making the claim. You are the one that has the burden of proof.
But the thing is, we do have facts that point to the universe and biology arising from purely natural means. It is not just opinion.
All you have is, "I don't understand how the universe could have come into being via natural means, so there must be a god".
Quote:we are both arguing our opinions and both giving reasons why we have these opinions that is what we both have been doing listing the reasons why we believe as we do . im an expert at my own opinions and i know why i have them thats all that is needed in an opinion debate , and ive been listing those reasons . that is the " nature of the discussion " everyone giving reasons why they have an opinion and thats what weve been doing
Your opinion is based on what you are unable to explain, 'therefore god' . Our opinion is based on the lack of evidence for yours, and evidence for ours.
You continue to provide logically flawed arguments, and no demonstrable evidence.
We continue to point out your logical flaws, and you fail to learn from them. The fact that your arguments are logically flawed is not an opinion, it is provable fact.
[/quote]
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
