Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Metacrock vs Pixie

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I want to thank Pixie for debating. He did a good job he's a worthy opponent in terms of the vitality and challenge that he took to it. He had some good arguments. I appreciate his debating me.

    Due to my personal loss I don't feel like answering all of the points. these are the high lights.


    Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
    [SIZE=4]Conclusion[/SIZE]

    Thanks to Metacrock for the debate. I was not at all familiar with the subject of mystical experiences, and it has been interesting learning about it, though it has slowed me down somewhat.

    As a general point, I came to this debate assuming Metacrock was trying to prove something. As I said earlier, he has admitted he cannot do that, so we do agree there!
    What I proved is that it's rational to believe in God. He has no come back. he didn't even address the pages on why alts to big bang are no good, he dropped it twice.

    The most he did on argument 1 (temp beginning) was merely to argue that alternatives are possible.

    He and the other atheists just assume if an alternative is possible then it must be case. It doesn't even stop them for a second to realize that is faith! the are placing faith in their view.

    when Chrsitians believe based upon faith the mock and ridicule and say it's stupid. then they do it themselves and they act they are intellectually superior for doing so.

    all of those alternatives were knocked down. twice I knocked them down with the same page from Odenwald and Pixie ignored it never said a word about it. So he lose that way back at the end of constructive speeches when he did not answer it.

    [SIZE=3]Argument from Temporal Beginning[/SIZE]

    Metacrock's whole argument turns on there being a law of physics "no change beyond time is possible", and yet a web page he cited from a world-famous physicist, Stephen Hawking, shows that that is not true. If there is no such law, then his claim that only God can break the law collapses and his rational warrant to believe dissolves away.
    that is clearly and obviously not true. this is just another example of how selectively he reads. [SIZE=3]Quote from Hawking from Brief History of Time:[/SIZE]

    "[SIZE=3]As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe. [/SIZE]This was first pointed out by St. Augustine. When asked: What did God do before he created the universe? Augustine didn't reply: He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe. [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 8]

    what does he say? the concept (that is the concept of time) has no meaning before the begin of the universe. [SIZE=4]that says it right there, no time before the universe began.[/SIZE]


    It was a shame Metacrock could not explain how something that is not intelligent could be considered a god; his argument seemed particular incoherent on this issue, and I wonder if he was setting his sights lower, merely hoping to show that it was likely something started time. In the end this did not impact the discussion, as the web page he found showed that actually we do not need anything at all to kick-start the universe.
    I suspect he knows he got his *** kicked because here he resorts to total dishonesty. nothing of the kind of was said. No one said about God not being intelligent. that's just bolder dash. if anything I may have intimated that God's knowledge can't be compared with ours. We would not measure our intelligence on a scale with a single cell organism. We would not say that we are not intelligent.



    [SIZE=3]Argument from Epistemic Judgement[/SIZE]

    Here his argument relies on showing that mysical experiences are all very similar and that there is good reason to suppose they come from God.
    that's a total distortion. how can he pretend that he won when he clearly doesn't' know what the argument is about.

    like always atheists just totally ignore the importance of the criteria. we decide reality by that criteria that means if something fits it, then it should be understood as real. he says nothing about it.


    The reality is that mystical experiences can vary wildly, with some (albeit only a few percent) being bad, some involving delusions and so on. While they do show some commonality, that may be attributed to the filtering process of what actually counts as a mystical experience.

    no evidence in this debate said anything about it varying wildly he just made that up and it's is a lie. I presented tons of evidence that say it's the same. I pointed to a scholarly article in the McNamara book by Ralph Hood that shows it with numbers and he doesn't even talk about a single time. he clearly never clicked on the link to read about it. just another example of atheists refuse to check the facts.

    Further, it is apparent that induced mystical experiences are very similar (when we consider how much variation there is anyway), and can have similarly positive and long-lasting effects. Thus there would seem to be no reason to suppose God was involved in a spontaneous experience either.
    I had several arguments that explained why that is not a disproof, one was the receptor argument, which he never mentioned or talked about. so he lost that arguemnt. take that out because he lost it. He didn't answer my answer so he lost it.
    Last edited by Metacrock; 02-09-14, 12:13 PM.
    Lord what fools these mortals be.
    Puc, Mid Sumer Night's Dream, A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Act III. Scene II

    President Roosevelt to Rich republicans: "I welcome your hatred."

    Comment


    • #32
      I originally agreed to give Metacrock the last word as he was, in his words "proving the affirmative", which is far more difficult that disproving something. Once the debate was started, he declared he was not "proving the affirmative", but merely claiming he had rational warrant. That is fine, but hardly justifies his claim to the last word. Nevertheless, I was willing to let him have it, as it seemed so important to him.

      Now on another thread he has said:
      http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...-of-my-brohter

      "Look at the debate with Pixie. The most he did on argument 1 (temp beginning) was merely to argue that alternatives are possible.
      He and the other atheists just assume if an alternative is possible then it must be case. It doesn't even stop them for a second to realize that is faith! the are placing faith in their view.
      "

      It appears to me as though Metacrock is under the impression it was I who should be proving something, not he. I have never claiming that any particular hypothesis is the correct one on this thread. Let me quite clear:

      Metacrock and I both agree that the existence of a creator-god cannot be proven.
      Both of us agree that the existence of a creator-god is a possibility.


      What we disagree on is how likely we consider this possibility. If Metacrock wants to paint that as me losing, that is no surprise, but if he continues to pretend that I am claiming a particular alterative is true or has been proven would be just plain honest.

      Comment


      • #33
        you said you made your last speech. you don't believe in debate. you have to get the last word.

        this is lame:

        I originally agreed to give Metacrock the last word as he was, in his words "proving the affirmative", which is far more difficult that disproving something. Once the debate was started, he declared he was not "proving the affirmative", but merely claiming he had rational warrant. That is fine, but hardly justifies his claim to the last word. Nevertheless, I was willing to let him have it, as it seemed so important to him.

        you don't to rewrite the rules just because you don't want to lose. The notion that proving god's existence is intrinsically affirmative is a huge mistake in logic. Affirmative means you affirm the resolution. the resolution was that belief is warranted not that God can be proved.

        you are letting your ego get in the way becuase you can't stand to lose.

        do you think if you lose to a Chrsitians it's proves you are stupid? relay I happen to be extremely intelligent and I was college debate and beat major teams.
        Last edited by Metacrock; 02-09-14, 05:07 PM.
        Lord what fools these mortals be.
        Puc, Mid Sumer Night's Dream, A Midsummer-Night's Dream. Act III. Scene II

        President Roosevelt to Rich republicans: "I welcome your hatred."

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Metacrock View Post
          you said you made your last speech.
          Then you started to misrepresent me what I had said here on another thread.

          I will tell what, Metacrock, you admit that I was not claiming to prove any particular alternative on both this thread and that other thread, and I will let you have the last word.

          Comment

          Working...
          X