Dualism

[fr0d0]

you are really talking a different language and adding new conditions to your claim.

Well it's certainly a language foreign to you. Misinterpret that to your hearts content. I'm past caring with your games. I've tried to answer every single point you've made and all you've done is dodge and evade and make rude remarks.

This is a very clear case for anyone reading this thread of diversion from your original claim. And that while I have asked you over and over to be accurate in your phrasing. A good debater knows when he is wrong. Deal with it.

I'm trying to answer your direct questions. I'm sorry but your conduct is beyond idiotic. Go back and read what you're supposed to be talking about and address some points.

2. You asked for biblical affirmation and now you're criticising me for my limited sources!!! The statement holds true outside the bible like I said. This is one wildly fallacious statement. Please reign it in a bit.

I merely followed the leads you gave me. You claimed that god’s existence is unprovable by definition.

I claimed nothing, like I've said over and over again. How moronic of you. I have suggested that idea for people to challenge. That is all. I have made no final conclusion. Do you not read?

So I asked for your definition. You answered that the bible contains your definition.

No I didn't. Another unbelievably idiotic conclusion. I offered what I consider to be a statement of support.

So I asked where the bible says that god’s existence is unknowable and you answered that in Exodus 33 such is the case, not even being relevant if that really is what Exodus 33 says.

You talk complete mumbo jumbo. 1. you didn't bother to check out what you asked for. 2. you were unable to grasp what exodus 33 might be saying.

Now you want to escape to definitions outside the bible.

Now!! Now!!! LMAO

All I've ever done is used logic outside the bible. I've demonstrated that with this discussion with you now. You're either not paying any attention or you're completely blinkered to your already formed conclusions. Which is it?

The problem is you don’t see that the illogic starts with your assertion that god in unprovable by definition. No matter what definition you seek inside or outside the bible, if it states that god is unprovable or you assert that such is the case your reasoning becomes circular: god’s existence is unprovable because the definition of god says so.

You're being an utter twat. Go read what I've already said to you.. only this time try to work out what I meant ok?

So, don’t throw any claims of being “wildly fallacious” at me. Again a good debater should know when he is wrong. This is in no way an invalidation of you as a person or of your right to believe what you believe. It is end of story this time for your line of reasoning pursued in this thread. Clean up your logic and start over again.

LMAO. It is you my friend that has led us into this particular quagmire. Forgive me for trying to answer you concisely. I'll know in future that you are seriously not worth the effort.

I therefore strongly urge you to reconsider your attitude in this debate. When you show no clear signs of adhering to basic debating hygiene as suggested in the above then there is no reason for us to continue this debate any longer.

I seriously have no wish to indulge your verbal diarrhea any longer. I agree to cease.

---

God tells Moses in Exodus 33 that no one can see him, but only see where he has been. To me this is a definite statement regarding proof of God not being possible.

The Old Testament ,written by many persons as it is proved by the at last four styles of writing named E,J,P and D ,written and rewritten along history for many times, can by no means be quoted as proving something one way or another concerning the existence of God.

I never said it did. Rabbit asked for a quote of support from the bible and I offered this one. I never said I had biblical quotes of support. All I've ever said is that it seems to follow the logic and be a 'signature' of God.

In a serious debate it is ,in my opinion no place for quoting not a single sentence from the Bible unless the debate is of a theological kind just misplaced in an atheist forum.

I repeat, Rabbit made a direct request for an example of God's non provability from the bible.

Does it say in the bible that the existence of god is unprovable. If yes, in what verse?

Did you miss that?

Of course to anyone not accepting the bible as containing truths doesn't see any more validity to it's statements above any other book.

[Kyuuketsuki]

God tells Moses in Exodus 33 that no one can see him, but only see where he has been. To me this is a definite statement regarding proof of God not being possible.

There are two problems with that answer:

It ("only see where he has been") also quite clearly implies that god leaves a trail of evidence which is what I have been saying to you ad nauseum.

Kyu

[Purple Rabbit]

Some concluding remarks on this emotionally interesting yet intrinsically rather dull excercise in which my dear opponent finally chose to deny his own words:

1) You asserted that the existence of god is unprovable and that the definition of god is the basis for your claim

3) You told me that the best definition of god is the description of god in the bible and that you think that in the bible unprovability of god's existence is claimed

4) You acknowledged that belief in the christian god does not require proof and that belief in general does not require proof.

5) You hold that certain parts of the bible are not to be read literal yet you do not supply a clear line for this

6) You hold that excluding the parts in the bible where slavery is condoned is not cherry picking but some other process that is to easy to even explain to me

7) According to you when christians commit evil such as slavery it is always clear that this is because people are corrupt not because they have access to god's impeccable moral values as stated in the bible and which does not entail slavery

8) On the question how to choose from (4) what is true you stated that some beliefs are childish and other are not and that your choice was based on christian doctrine which is, quite remarkable, not childish

9) You hold that your faith is true because your faith says so and do not recognize its circular reasoning

10) You repeatedly failed to recognize the difference between the following two statements:
a) Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.
b) Theologian thinkers through the ages have conclusively proven the existence of the christian god.

11) Explicitly begged for an answer on (10) you denied it's importance for this debate and ignored my request to acknowledge the difference between (a) and (b)

12) You claim to be a natural born mind reader and according to you the most appropiate rebuttal in this debate contains the following qualifications for your opponent and his argument (not claiming to be complete on this): moronic, idiot, (utter) twat, pedant (with or without trousers), verbal diarrhea, complete mumbo jumbo, ridiculous, tram line of rhetoric, arrogant, waste of time, boring, pathetic, laughable, pure wordplay, ignorant, not being genuine.

Thank you, it has been most pleasant "aber leider nicht zu vollen Zufriedenheit".

[fr0d0]

You have no fucking opponent Rabbit. ~ This is a discussion thread not a serious debate.

Obviously from your list you have read none of my responses. Of course I summise you understand even less.

1. I assert that God, especially the Christian God is unprovable in the literal sense.

2. There is no point LOL

3. As I understand to some considerable depth the Christian definition of God, that's my point of reference, which you agreed to consider.

4. repeat point 1

5. I hold that the Bible is interpreted differently according to writing style

6. I reflect that the Christian faith was born out of slavery and that this is it's primary focus.

7. I observe that people are at fault and not the aim to follow Christ

8. I accurately told you what I believe.

9. I assert that faith in God cannot be based on hard fact but can be conclusively established.

10. Your non rebuttal of my assertion that God isn't provable was to say "Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god." Entirely missing the mark. You dragged out my misinterpretation and rudely ridiculed it.

11. I acknowledged the difference between the statements

12. You entered what you think was a 'debate' attempting to ridicule and insult without understanding what was being discussed, pursuing your own agenda on the "reason people believe in God".


Here's a summation of your excellent points:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

---

God tells Moses in Exodus 33 that no one can see him, but only see where he has been. To me this is a definite statement regarding proof of God not being possible.

It ("only see where he has been") also quite clearly implies that god leaves a trail of evidence which is what I have been saying to you ad nauseum.

Kyu

I think you're taking several steps back Kyu. You think this literally means that God left verifiable proof of his existence?

Please show me the evidence in the Bible that has eluded mankind since this statement was made.

[Purple Rabbit]

You're missing some points of me there...again. Don't worry, you will have time enough to read through all my posts once in a while.
And I'm very sorry you will have no fuck today.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I think you're taking several steps back Kyu. You think this literally means that God left verifiable proof of his existence? Please show me the evidence in the Bible that has eluded mankind since this statement was made.

No I just think it utterly undermines your claim that the bible explicitly says otherwise ... IOW you are interpreting (just like every other Christian does and each in their own silly unique way).

Kyu

[fr0d0]

You're missing some points of me there...again. Don't worry, you will have time enough to read through all my posts once in a while.
And I'm very sorry you will have no fuck today.

Like you I surmised there were none.

---

I think you're taking several steps back Kyu. You think this literally means that God left verifiable proof of his existence? Please show me the evidence in the Bible that has eluded mankind since this statement was made.

No I just think it utterly undermines your claim that the bible explicitly says otherwise ... IOW you are interpreting (just like every other Christian does and each in their own silly unique way).

Kyu

The text demands interpretation. This highlights the ludicrousy of forcibly literalist interpretation.

[Purple Rabbit]

You're missing some points of me there...again. Don't worry, you will have time enough to read through all my posts once in a while.
And I'm very sorry you will have no fuck today.

Like you I surmised there were none.

No fuck whatsoever?I? Don't get depressed. Maybe you'll have your fuck tomorrow.

[Kyuuketsuki]

The text demands interpretation. This highlights the ludicrousy of forcibly literalist interpretation.

Quite possibly but who is to say YOUR interpretation is right?

Kyu

[Purple Rabbit]

The text demands interpretation. This highlights the ludicrousy of forcibly literalist interpretation.

Quite possibly but who is to say YOUR interpretation is right?

Kyu

The Mighty Cherry Pecker??