God is a Fake

[SurveyMack10]

My choice to place my faith and belief in something does not means I am claiming it is a fact.
As I have stated SO many times and you choose to ignore.

Then the converse must be the case; that you choose to place your faith and belief in something non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, nonextistent - by definition).

Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
That the earth is round was once not considered a fact.

[falcon9]

My choice to place my faith and belief in something does not means I am claiming it is a fact.
As I have stated SO many times and you choose to ignore.

Then the converse must be the case; that you choose to place your faith and belief in something non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, nonextistent - by definition).

Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
That the earth is round was once not considered a fact.

Your example supports my contention, rather than yours since a previous "belief" that the earth was flat did not change the fact that it is round, (or, oblate spheriod).  To extrapolate upon that; if a fact contradicts a belief, that belief is non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, etc.).

[SurveyMack10]

My choice to place my faith and belief in something does not means I am claiming it is a fact.
As I have stated SO many times and you choose to ignore.

Then the converse must be the case; that you choose to place your faith and belief in something non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, nonextistent - by definition).

Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
That the earth is round was once not considered a fact.

Your example supports my contention, rather than yours since a previous "belief" that the earth was flat did not change the fact that it is round, (or, oblate spheriod).  To extrapolate upon that; if a fact contradicts a belief, that belief is non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, etc.).

Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.

[Falconer02]

I have read those stories in the Old Testament and there is no denying that from the surface it appears that God is cruel and vindictive. However, look more closely at the stories. I believe the Bible cannot contradict itself. All through the Bible, God is shown to be loving and compassionate. How can love and justice be combined? In every instance where someone was killed or a nation was destroyed, God was not acting out of anger. He was acting out of love for He knew that if those people were allowed to stay alive, they would not change. (It is similar in many ways to an honest judge today. If the judge allowed a murderer to go free, they would likely only go out and do it again and teach others to do it.) They would only spread their wickedness and disbelief of God and grow harder and harder in their sins. If God were to slaughter innocent people for no reason, that would not be love and I would not want to serve a God like that. But that is not the kind of God I serve. You are totally misunderstanding the big picture in the Bible.

1.) A loving god shouldn't have to (order the) murder (of) lesser beings. That's a huge contradiction in itself.

2) You established that he already knew that those people he slaughtered would not change. If that's the case, he knows every thought and action before it happens. So how is anyone able to make a free choice when your god already knows the outcome? The illusion of choice is there, but ultimately everything is pre-known by your god and therefore the outcome is incapable of changing. Considering you believe that there is a heaven and hell and that since he already knows who's going and who isn't due to their choices...explain to me how it's not a contradiction when it comes to the whole free will thing. With that, explain to me how that's not malevolence.

That is not representative of the God I have learned to love. He does not hang threats of death over them. Rather, He gives everyone a choice. One misunderstanding here is that God does not have an eternally burning hell. The Bible teaches that everyone who dies sleeps in the grave until Jesus comes. Then, those who have chosen to not follow God will be destroyed by fire. That fire will burn forever--until it goes out and sin is totally destroyed. My evidence stated here is perhaps not conclusive, but there is plenty to back my belief in the Bible. Would it be fair for Cain to suffer 4000 years longer for murder than someone who commits the same crime? Back to the question at hand, God does not coerce people; rather He gives them the choice of life or death. It is their choice. If God were to force anybody to do anything, God would not be the loving God He says He is.

This contradicts itself due to my previous 'illusion of free will' point. And again, this does not explain how it's not Godfather-like coercion. All you've done here is say "Follow him or burn!" in a more technical and positive manner.

[falcon9]

My choice to place my faith and belief in something does not means I am claiming it is a fact.
As I have stated SO many times and you choose to ignore.

Then the converse must be the case; that you choose to place your faith and belief in something non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, nonextistent - by definition).

Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
That the earth is round was once not considered a fact.

Your example supports my contention, rather than yours since a previous "belief" that the earth was flat did not change the fact that it is round, (or, oblate spheriod).  To extrapolate upon that; if a fact contradicts a belief, that belief is non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, etc.).

Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.

Repetition of your arrival at a false conclusion based upon a false premise is unneccesary.

[jcribb16]

My choice to place my faith and belief in something does not means I am claiming it is a fact.
As I have stated SO many times and you choose to ignore.

Then the converse must be the case; that you choose to place your faith and belief in something non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, nonextistent - by definition).

Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
That the earth is round was once not considered a fact.

Your example supports my contention, rather than yours since a previous "belief" that the earth was flat did not change the fact that it is round, (or, oblate spheriod).  To extrapolate upon that; if a fact contradicts a belief, that belief is non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, etc.).

Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.

Repetition of your arrival at a false conclusion based upon a false premise is unneccesary.

Good grief!  Your technicality of words going around and around in a circle is making me carsick!  Please, prove it's "a false conclusion based upon a false premise" already.........  And why, indeed, is it unnecessary?  Sounds one-sided, for sure.

[falcon9]

Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
That the earth is round was once not considered a fact.

Your example supports my contention, rather than yours since a previous "belief" that the earth was flat did not change the fact that it is round, (or, oblate spheriod).  To extrapolate upon that; if a fact contradicts a belief, that belief is non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, etc.).

Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.

Repetition of your arrival at a false conclusion based upon a false premise is unneccesary.
[/quote]
Good grief!  Your technicality of words going around and around in a circle is making me carsick!  Please, prove it's "a false conclusion based upon a false premise" already.........  And why, indeed, is it unnecessary?  Sounds one-sided, for sure.
[/quote]

These are neither technicalities nor circular reasoning examples; they illuminate what happens when someone bases a conclusion upon an initially false premise. The stated premise, (that "just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue"), is inherently false because the factual or non-factual nature of that premise is not dependent upon what it is "considered" to be.  The premise is either factual or, it is not.  In the instance pertaining to that premise, the earth never was flat despite it being "considered" to be flat.  This means that determing that asserting something which has a non-factual basis as a conclusion, (i.e., that it isn't untrue when based upon an untruth), constitutes arriving at a innaccurate conclusion based upon a false premise according to the form of logical reasoning being replaced by the sophistry replied to.  

In other words, it is far more likely that a conclusion which is based upon something which is untrue will be untrue as well, (as opposed to somehow transforming itself into a 'truth' based upon a lie).

Her repetition of the same unsupported conclusion was unnecessary since she'd posted the same previously.  What seems even more "one-sided" is the specious way in which you and a few others expect your unsupported opinions and assertions to go unchallenged.  Further, that you appear to have similar expectations that your dissembling, when challenged, constitutes a reasoned rebuttal.

[SurveyMack10]

My choice to place my faith and belief in something does not means I am claiming it is a fact.
As I have stated SO many times and you choose to ignore.

Then the converse must be the case; that you choose to place your faith and belief in something non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, nonextistent - by definition).

Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
That the earth is round was once not considered a fact.

Your example supports my contention, rather than yours since a previous "belief" that the earth was flat did not change the fact that it is round, (or, oblate spheriod).  To extrapolate upon that; if a fact contradicts a belief, that belief is non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, etc.).

Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.

Repetition of your arrival at a false conclusion based upon a false premise is unneccesary.

Good grief!  Your technicality of words going around and around in a circle is making me carsick!  Please, prove it's "a false conclusion based upon a false premise" already.........  And why, indeed, is it unnecessary?  Sounds one-sided, for sure.

It is CONSTANT- he refuses to answer any question and dodges them by attacking the wording of everyone else's statements. Abrupt proved this many times while debating with him

[falcon9]

It is CONSTANT- he refuses to answer any question and dodges them by attacking the wording of everyone else's statements. Abrupt proved this many times while debating with him

Your accusations and contentions are blatantly false.  Unlike you, I do reply to questions without dodging them.  For instance, when are you going to produce that quote where I allegedly claimed that 'god doesn't exist'?  *crickets chirping*

As to Abrupt, he "proved" no such thing as you allege without substantiation.  Merely claiming that he "proved" it isn't the same as providing evidence that he did so.  As it happens, an objective perusal of those portions of the threads where we debated various points clearly show Abrupt conceding several points to my arguments.  Therefore, you are merely blowing smoke.

[SurveyMack10]

Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.
That the earth is round was once not considered a fact.

Your example supports my contention, rather than yours since a previous "belief" that the earth was flat did not change the fact that it is round, (or, oblate spheriod).  To extrapolate upon that; if a fact contradicts a belief, that belief is non-factual, (i.e., unreal, untrue, false, etc.).

Actually just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue.

Repetition of your arrival at a false conclusion based upon a false premise is unneccesary.

Good grief!  Your technicality of words going around and around in a circle is making me carsick!  Please, prove it's "a false conclusion based upon a false premise" already.........  And why, indeed, is it unnecessary?  Sounds one-sided, for sure.
[/quote]

These are neither technicalities nor circular reasoning examples; they illuminate what happens when someone bases a conclusion upon an initially false premise. The stated premise, (that "just because something is not considered a fact does not mean it is untrue"), is inherently false because the factual or non-factual nature of that premise is not dependent upon what it is "considered" to be.  The premise is either factual or, it is not.  In the instance pertaining to that premise, the earth never was flat despite it being "considered" to be flat.  This means that determing that asserting something which has a non-factual basis as a conclusion, (i.e., that it isn't untrue when based upon an untruth), constitutes arriving at a innaccurate conclusion based upon a false premise according to the form of logical reasoning being replaced by the sophistry replied to.  

In other words, it is far more likely that a conclusion which is based upon something which is untrue will be untrue as well, (as opposed to somehow transforming itself into a 'truth' based upon a lie).

Her repetition of the same unsupported conclusion was unnecessary since she'd posted the same previously.  What seems even more "one-sided" is the specious way in which you and a few others expect your unsupported opinions and assertions to go unchallenged.  Further, that you appear to have similar expectations that your dissembling, when challenged, constitutes a reasoned rebuttal.
[/quote]

Just because something is not considered a fact by 'falcon9' on the fusioncash forum does not mean it is untrue- Also, just because the existence of God is not considered a fact by some people does NOT make it untrue, you cannot show proof that God is not real...When something is actually not a fact it can usually be disproven (for example- it can be disproven that the world is flat) (it can be disproven that a brick is a liquid) (it can be disproven that 5 is not more than 4) ...Now, I am not claiming that God's existense is factual, but it is not considered untrue either- more of an unknown. This is why there is so much disagreement about it all over the world.

Now, do not respond to this and say that I admitted to not knowing if God exists because my opinion of his existense has nothing to do with this statement.

[falcon9]

Also, just because the existence of God is not considered a fact by some people does NOT make it untrue, you cannot show proof that God is not real...When something is actually not a fact it can usually be disproven (for example- it can be disproven that the world is flat) (it can be disproven that a brick is a liquid) (it can be disproven that 5 is not more than 4) ...

The burden of proof rests with those who make the initial claim, (in this instance, that 'god exists'), and not shifted to those who challenge that initial claim, (by insisting that challengers prove "god does not exist").  Your examples of demonstrating a false claim do not extend to the metaphysical realm of non-physical deities and invisible unicorns because they are not verifiable in the same manner as physical proofs.

Now, I am not claiming that God's existense is factual, but it is not considered untrue either- more of an unknown. This is why there is so much disagreement about it all over the world.

This 'argument' is tantamount to asserting that since the hypothetical existance of invisible unicorns cannot be 'proven' as factual, those unicorns must exist.  This is sophist and not logical reasoning since the initial claim defaults to one where the 'believer' believes in unreal invisible unicorns. The default deduction is _not_ 'you can't prove they don't exist, so they could exist'.

Now, do not respond to this and say that I admitted to not knowing if God exists because my opinion of his existense has nothing to do with this statement.

That's hilarious since your "opinion of his existance" is your unsupported claim.  However, we've been around and around on this and your bland denials belie your false claims.

[jsuderc]

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. (No offense, whatsoever, meant.)

This debate/discussion is going in an infinite loop!

[falcon9]

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. (No offense, whatsoever, meant.)

An unsupported opinion is not equivalent to a substantiated opinion.

This debate/discussion is going in an infinite loop!

Yep, you can accurately attribute that to Surveymack10's evading repeated requests for her to quote the claim she alleges I made and her tedious repetition of previously refuted evasions.  I'll take partial responsibility for fencing with an unarmed opponent.  That's terrible of me.

[jsuderc]

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. (No offense, whatsoever, meant.)

An unsupported opinion is not equivalent to a substantiated opinion.



To whom is your opinion substantiated? Is it possible that your opinion is just as unsupported as you claim our opinions are?

This debate/discussion is going in an infinite loop!

Yep, you can accurately attribute that to Surveymack10's evading repeated requests for her to quote the claim she alleges I made and her tedious repetition of previously refuted evasions.  I'll take partial responsibility for fencing with an unarmed opponent.  That's terrible of me.

Surverymack10 has not been evading your requests. She has stated her opinion quite clearly and has repeated it at your request many times. Your assumption that she is an unarmed opponent is not a fair one. She has plenty of evidence on her side. Just because you do not see that the evidence a Christian can give is logical and realistic does not mean that that evidence is insufficient. There will always be people in this world that will do all they can to lead people to believe that there is no God. Belief in God takes faith. And that faith grows with experience.

Debate accomplishes nothing except stir up the ire of people. That attitude is not Christ-like nor becoming to a Christian. As a Christian, I believe that everything I post must be polite and respectful to the person I am writing to and I endeavor to do that. However, I cannot disguise what I believe to be true. If I do not share what I believe as a Christian, than I am responsible in a way for the people that I could have helped but didn't. Please stop attacking anyone who states that they believe differently then you do.

[falcon9]

Surverymack10 has not been evading your requests.

Incorrect.  She has been asked several times to provide a quote wherein I claimed that "god does not exist", (as she initially claims I alleged).  This has not been forthcoming, therefore she has evaded the repeated requests.
 

She has stated her opinion quite clearly and has repeated it at your request many times.

Not precisely; her repeated opinion, (one without substantiation), has consisted of her trying to redirect the emphasis of her claim onto her "belief" itself instead of upon _what_ she claims to believe.  That wasn't the only request she's been evading, (as mentioned in the first reply above).

Your assumption that she is an unarmed opponent is not a fair one.

That conclusion was arrived at after several exchanges where she goes around and around evasively, rather than actually debating with reasoning. (what she has attempted to use in lieu of reasoning falls under the definition of sophistry instead)

She has plenty of evidence on her side.

On the contrary, neither she nor you have provided anything remotely resembling "evidence" to support the contentions made, (hint: unsupported opinions do not constitute evidence).

Just because you do not see that the evidence a Christian can give is logical and realistic does not mean that that evidence is insufficient.

Oh, it isn't just me or my 'opinion' which evaluates the veracity of evidence.  If the "evidence" consists of unfounded hearsay, unsupported opinion and plain old irrationality then it isn't evidence by definition.  From Mirriam-Webster:
"Definition of EVIDENCE (noun):
1
a: an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically: something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter"

 

Debate accomplishes nothing except stir up the ire of people.

Be that as it may, this forum is entitled "Debate + Discuss", not 'Dodge + Dissemble'.