Red Nemesis
Umm... that was the first volley. The debate then degenerated to you saying 'YOU CANT DO IT' and me saying 'OK BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING' and you saying 'BUT U CANT DO IT' and me saying 'WUT NO' more and more angrily.
No, the debate consisted of me telling you that neither you nor DS will ever get anywhere because you haven't the means to prove or disprove the existence of a God.
The idea that one cannot provide a cogent argument in favor of God was never in question.
[I win!]
haermm
Originally posted by mattatom
It's because you suck Red. 😉
Gideon:
*sigh*
You believe in God. (Presumably Yahwe.)
You acknowledge that there is no cogent argument for the existence of God.
You believe in God in spite of the lack of evidence.
Rational thought suggests that an assertion is not true by default. One cannot prove a negative and so the burden of proof is upon the one making a positive assertion.
Your support an assertion without evidence.
Your thought is irrational.
You demand that the probabilities be treated as equal.
This is antirational.
You are antirational.
Anyway, your religious views aren't so much in question here but your ability to restrain yourself from using moderator privilege as an asset in a debate.
One wonders how I managed to get by all these years here.
Nemesis
Your support an assertion without evidence.
Easy, killer. The correct word is "You." The sentence should read "You support an assertion without evidence."
Your mistake is stupid.
Ergo, you're stupid.
(Moral of the story: be careful when throwing pejoratives out.)
Edit: I still win.
[Yoda]Much to learn, you still have.[/Yoda]