How to debate a Christian

[NoGodaloud ?]

That is called Special Pleading. You say nothing exists without a cause, then make a special case of your god, sorry, but this is poor argumentation. Repeating bold assertions afterwards, and citing scripture hardly constitutes evidence.

I didn't say nothing exists without a cause. I said, everything that begins to exist, has a cause. Since God lived in a timeless eternity, he had no beginning, and has no end. He simply exists.

And I claimed that? Infact no reputable scientist will make any claim to that, no one knows what happened before the big bang, and saying it was god, its simply an empty assertion.

Of course not. we are dealing with philosophical questions, not scientific ones.

It adds nothing to our knowledge, it answers nothing.

actually , no. I think it answers what most probably was the origin and cause of our universe.

It Is my honest to me to simple answer: I don't know what happened, perhaps we should investigate?.

you can say that rationally, if not everything, that begins to exist, needs a cause.

Instead you posit that god was there without any real proof, this is not an ad-hom, but I find that a dishonest stand.

Thats just inductive reasoning. Why whould that be dishonest ?

If you stand on ignorance when your arguments are nothing but bullshit...

I don't feel you have demonstrated these to be so......

And when you regurgitate things that were fed to you in church or evangelical sites like "Fine Tuning", "Irreducible Complexity"

how do you know, i learned these terms in my church ?

you show you know very little about Evolution and Biology.

Non sequitur. Why should i know about one issue, but could not about another ?

And when you speak about evidence you disregard the scientific method, that shows you know nothing on how science operates.

why do i disregard it exactly ?

Science does not fear to say "We don't know yet", while your religion claims absolute truth, with no regard for evidence, ultimately falling to "faith".

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god...t5.htm#171

the presupposed atheism of the naturalist is sharply challenged by numerous features of the natural, moral, and probationary orders, all of which point to the existence, activity, and character of an unknown god. That is, they point to an infinite personal Spirit who acts as the creator, sustainer, moral governor, and tester of all. Additional evidence—largely (but not exclusively) found in the Bible—indicates that this unknown god and the LORD God of Israel are one.

What? Were is your evidence of this, yet another, bare assertion? Still you answered nothing... Keep running away little rabit...

If you insist name calling me, and adhom attacks, i will stop answering you.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronom...m-t180.htm

Unique stabilization of the inner solar system

The presence of Jupiter is required to allow advanced life to exist on the Earth. However, Jupiter's large mass (along with the other gas giants) has a profound destabilizing effect upon the inner planets. In the absence of the Earth-moon system, the orbital period of Jupiter sets up what is called resonance over the period of 8 million years. This resonance causes the orbits of Venus and Mercury to become highly eccentric, so much so, that eventually the orbits become close enough so that there would be a "strong Mercury-Venus encounter." Such an encounter would certainly lead to the ejection of Mercury from the Solar System, and an alteration of the orbit of Venus. In doing the simulations, the scientists learned that the stabilizing effect of the Earth-moon requires a planet with at least the mass of Mars and within 10% of the distance of the Earth from the Sun.

What the? Atheists are the credulous? You believe in a magical sky-daddy, that was a murderous genocidal maniac, that after sacrificing himself to himself to save us, turn all good with no evidence!! Atheists only say that there is no evidence of god or gods and we are credulous? Are you serious? You surely must be mocking me, because even if all you know from life is the indoctrination you had, no serious person would say that!

yes. You are credulous of a atheistic world view, which is not based on reason.

http://creationwiki.org/Argument_from_incredulity

The religion of naturalism, which is the basis of evolution, can properly be rejected by a biblical theist. The evolutionist system may be dominant in the world, but that says nothing about whether it is true. Many have looked at it and found it inadequate; they have found good reasons to be sceptical of it, especially since the account in Genesis better explains very many features of the natural world.

We are talking about evolution, a theory that tries to tell us what happened in an unseen, unobservable, unrepeatable past. The fact that someone invents a natural "explanation" for something that is unseen, unobserved — and hence unscientific — does not mean that that explanation has any basis in reality. Without supporting evidence, it is a mere suggestion, a speculation. The fact that someone can devise a natural explanation in the context of this "theory", which makes unscientific claims about a hidden past, says nothing about the truth

You are free to believe in whatever you want, but when your view as no evidence, then its wothless, so do not expect others to believe. Subjective views have nothing to do with science.

You fail to note the difference between normal science, and historical science. Operational science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to make educated guesses about origins in the past.

An ad hominem? How is that? I am purely saying to use your mind, your thoughts, not old used arguments, or do you think you are the only apologetic we have debated before? And post links to peer reviewd scientific articles, not evangelical ones please. I know from the beginning this is worthless, because I know I wont deconvert you, you have to do it yourself. I only thought you could bring something original, but no.

If you are not satisfied with my debate skills, please just search someone else to debate, but don't start attacking me. That will be just a sign of unpoliteness, missing behavior education, and missing intelligence to express yourself, without insulting the counterpart ( which should be basic to a fruitful and gratifying discussion for both parts ) even, if we disagree on the debated issues.

[Minimalist]

I didn't say nothing exists without a cause. I said, everything that begins to exist, has a cause. Since God lived in a timeless eternity, he had no beginning, and has no end. He simply exists.

Hey, it's your fairy tale....you can make your boy do whatever you want him to. Just don't expect to convince anyone.

[lrh9]

Before you respond to me, Louie, please consider the points from my earliest reply in this thread.

1) Stick to the facts. (Things that can be observationally or historically proven.)
2) Be prepared to defend self and enforce policy with force if necessary.
3) Keep interactions brief, but no less than necessary or desirable.
4) Control the interaction. It is your right and responsibility to walk away in public or leave their home or business whenever you want to, and it is your right and responsibility to make them leave your home whenever you want to.

That being said, one of your major hangups is your misunderstanding of the 'big bang'. You think that the universe came into existence with the big bang. (At least, you think that we think the universe came into existence with the big bang.) That is a falsehood perpetuated by ignorance about the big bang. The big bang only explains that according to scientific evidence and observations about the universe and its natural laws that the universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and it began expanding 13.3 to 13.9 billion years ago, expanded to its current state, and it continues to expand today. There would be no controversy about the "big bang" if people used a name that wasn't so misunderstood, like "the theory of cosmic expansion".

The big bang does not attempt to determine whether or not there was an origin for the cosmos or what that origin was. Your arguments are like trying to argue against evolution to disprove abiogenesis. Falsifying one does not falsify the other.

[The Omnissiunt One]

I didn't say nothing exists without a cause. I said, everything that begins to exist, has a cause. Since God lived in a timeless eternity, he had no beginning, and has no end. He simply exists.

'Everything which begins to exist has a cause' is a principle based on empirical evidence from our universe, operating against a background of laws within the universe. It is not true a priori, so you cannot say that it applies outside the universe. Your incredulity as to how something could come from nothing doesn't place any restraints on what is actually possible. Besides, we may as well say that the universe existed eternally in some form. If you think this is impossible, then an eternal god must also be impossible.

you can say that rationally, if not everything, that begins to exist, needs a cause.

No. See above.

the presupposed atheism of the naturalist is sharply challenged by numerous features of the natural, moral, and probationary orders, all of which point to the existence, activity, and character of an unknown god. That is, they point to an infinite personal Spirit who acts as the creator, sustainer, moral governor, and tester of all. Additional evidence—largely (but not exclusively) found in the Bible—indicates that this unknown god and the LORD God of Israel are one.

We've already dealt largely with the Kalam and Contingency arguments. Ontological arguments generally fail because they don't prove that there is something which instantiates the definition of a perfect being. Moral arguments presuppose objective moral values, which is dubious. Personal experience is invalidated by competing claims from other religions, and can be explained in neurological terms. All others are variations on design arguments, which are flawed for various reasons, depending on the version employed.

The presence of Jupiter is required to allow advanced life to exist on the Earth. However, Jupiter's large mass (along with the other gas giants) has a profound destabilizing effect upon the inner planets. In the absence of the Earth-moon system, the orbital period of Jupiter sets up what is called resonance over the period of 8 million years. This resonance causes the orbits of Venus and Mercury to become highly eccentric, so much so, that eventually the orbits become close enough so that there would be a "strong Mercury-Venus encounter." Such an encounter would certainly lead to the ejection of Mercury from the Solar System, and an alteration of the orbit of Venus. In doing the simulations, the scientists learned that the stabilizing effect of the Earth-moon requires a planet with at least the mass of Mars and within 10% of the distance of the Earth from the Sun.

Of course Earth is just right for life! If it weren't, we wouldn't be here to speculate about it! With billions of planets in the universe, it was fairly likely one would be right for life.

Many have looked at it and found it inadequate; they have found good reasons to be sceptical of it, especially since the account in Genesis better explains very many features of the natural world.

Yes, like the existence of dinosaurs and the age of the Earth.

We are talking about evolution, a theory that tries to tell us what happened in an unseen, unobservable, unrepeatable past. The fact that someone invents a natural "explanation" for something that is unseen, unobserved — and hence unscientific — does not mean that that explanation has any basis in reality. Without supporting evidence, it is a mere suggestion, a speculation. The fact that someone can devise a natural explanation in the context of this "theory", which makes unscientific claims about a hidden past, says nothing about the truth

As Richard Dawkins says, we can determine evolution's truth like a detective on the scene of a crime can determine what happened.

[Super Cynic]

I find that a lot of Christians tend to be obstinate in their belief; they either want to hear none of it or stick by their one basic argument, which is, when you boil down to it: 'You're wrong.' The few who are willing to engage in intellectual discussion are, while open-minded, probably not going to be persuaded to give up their beliefs. If you want to debate with a Christian, choose your opponent wisely (AKA someone who will not be too sensitive), but don't expect them to be convinced by what you have to say. I'm speaking from personal experience, and, I do find, you end up going in rather tedious circles.

It can be rather frustrating.

[fr0d0]

Same the other way around Supe

[Gooders1002]

I am an atheist who has read the Bible and written several books on the topic. Now if you want a 20 second soundbite to win any debate, okay here goes. Start with the OT story of creation. Either the snake talked or it didn't. Either the earth is 6,000 years old or it isn't. Pretty simple. If they claim the snake talked and a young earth, you should be able to laugh them out of the room. If they claim it is just a parable, then use the fundie debate. If there was no real fall of man, if it was just a parable, then why does man need to be redeemed? There is no need for Jesus. It is a lose-lose situation for any Christian.

that's epic I am stealing that, really enough stayed.

[Minimalist]

Same the other way around Supe

Permit me to introduce, frods.


(He thinks his 'god' is real.)