#PrayforIstanbul

[EnderEssence]

I HAVE THINGS TO DO. I HAVE A LIFE.

I'll get to it when I have a good amount of time on my hands.

You better be careful with those llamas, mate.

Thirty more llamas please. I do not approve of your exploitation of one of my rightfully-given llamas in that sadistic, communist tone of yours.

Back to the debate...

Proof God exists, gentlemen? Oh, I have your "proof". Assuming you'll read all of it.

Let's cover a few basic laws of nature that we all know and love. Take the Law of Conservation of Matter. It essentially states that matter can neither be created or destroyed. We again know that matter is what makes up planets, galaxies, trees, the universe, etc. Please tell me how one can get the universe (clearly made up of matter), or even the Big Bang (still made up of matter) to exist if the matter needed to compose them to begin with cannot even be created (Law of Conservation of Matter). One cannot simply create or naturally have the conditions to make matter out of nothingness, can they?

Unless you're God. An almighty deity that is an (and most probably the only) exception to this rule. Since we both know that God (whether you choose to believe in Him or not) can basically create whatever, it's blatantly obvious that without some sort of Creator to actually "create" something out of nothing, the universe, which most scientists believe came from the Big Bang (What came from that again? Did that too "magically" come from nothingness and break the Law of Conservation of Matter too?), cannot have existed to begin with. Modern-day scientists themselves have no idea what caused the "sudden" explosion of light and matter known as the Big Bang.

This is only my first argument.

There'll be more coming. Seeing your impatience, I've decided that I'll do this bit by bit.

I'll talk to you gentlemen later.

[Akomine]

Your argument sounds awfully similar to the infamous Cosmological Argument (or more specifically, the Argument from the Big Bang). Here's some very basic problems with this argument:

1- You are assuming the universe began to exist at the Big Bang. There is no scientific model that makes this prediction, so you must be misunderstanding something, or you haven't done enough reading on the subject, because that isn't the claim. If you were to ask a theoretical physicist (the people who study this stuff) if the universe started at the big bang, they'd say they don't know.
2- Why do you assume the universe/big bang was created by a god?
3- If your god created it, who or what created your god?
4- If you're going to reference science, and specifically the matter that makes up the universe, then how do you suppose your god exists if not in the form of matter?

Since we both know that God (whether you choose to believe in Him or not) can basically create whatever...

No we don't both know that. Don't put words in my (or Air's) mouth again, you've done it too many times in this thread. You can speak on behalf of yourself, but you do not speak on behalf of me (or Air). This is an assumption that you have made, not me, not air. You.


Now, evidence please. You haven't provided any evidence that your god exists. Or even any evidence for any of the claims you made in this post.
Cheers.

[Airbongo]

We waited for like a month and you give us this generic reply? "We don't know what created the universe so let's just call it god." Just because we don't know something, it doesn't mean a magical entity is responsible for it. And who created your god?!?! He just appeared out of thin air or was he created by another god. I try to put my muslim thinking hat on and look at things from your perspective and it is hard. How can you settle for "we don't know how it was made so god surely made it". I don't even want to get into the whole matter of how do you go from "god created it all" to writing whole books about how god expects you to live your life.  It's just all so void of logic.

Also, if there is a god out there, why would it be your god? Why not Cthulhu or the spaghetti monster? Do you have evidence, beside faith, that your god is that powerful being that created the universe?

[EnderEssence]

We waited for like a month and you give us this generic reply? "We don't know what created the universe so let's just call it god." Just because we don't know something, it doesn't mean a magical entity is responsible for it. And who created your god?!?! He just appeared out of thin air or was he created by another god. I try to put my muslim thinking hat on and look at things from your perspective and it is hard. How can you settle for "we don't know how it was made so god surely made it". I don't even want to get into the whole matter of how do you go from "god created it all" to writing whole books about how god expects you to live your life.  It's just all so void of logic.

Also, if there is a god out there, why would it be your god? Why not Cthulhu or the spaghetti monster? Do you have evidence, beside faith, that your god is that powerful being that created the universe?

Again, I have things to do, but with your impatience, I thought I might as well make the argument piece by piece instead.

I'll get to other arguments when I have time. First, answer my question using the "logic" you claim contradicts the Law of Conservation of Matter that, at the same time, is also founded upon the very same principles.

Please read the whole post. I clearly said I was doing this bit by bit. I have a life. I've had things coming up you don't need to know about. Now answer this before I move on to other arguments.

Thanks.

[Lividup64]

I just wanted to raise awareness about the attack in Istanbul ...

[Akomine]

First, answer my question using the "logic" you claim contradicts the Law of Conservation of Matter that, at the same time, is also founded upon the very same principles.

Answer which question? I responded to your post pointing out the problems with your argument, did you read it?

I just wanted to raise awareness about the attack in Istanbul ...

Lol #Hijacked
I could actually split the post

[EnderEssence]

First, answer my question using the "logic" you claim contradicts the Law of Conservation of Matter that, at the same time, is also founded upon the very same principles.

Answer which question? I responded to your post pointing out the problems with your argument, did you read it?

I just wanted to raise awareness about the attack in Istanbul ...

Lol #Hijacked
I could actually split the post

Sorry, I must have posted this right before you have and didn't see it for some reason.

Your argument sounds awfully similar to the infamous Cosmological Argument (or more specifically, the Argument from the Big Bang). Here's some very basic problems with this argument:

1- You are assuming the universe began to exist at the Big Bang. There is no scientific model that makes this prediction, so you must be misunderstanding something, or you haven't done enough reading on the subject, because that isn't the claim. If you were to ask a theoretical physicist (the people who study this stuff) if the universe started at the big bang, they'd say they don't know.
2- Why do you assume the universe/big bang was created by a god?
3- If your god created it, who or what created your god?
4- If you're going to reference science, and specifically the matter that makes up the universe, then how do you suppose your god exists if not in the form of matter?

Since we both know that God (whether you choose to believe in Him or not) can basically create whatever...

No we don't both know that. Don't put words in my (or Air's) mouth again, you've done it too many times in this thread. You can speak on behalf of yourself, but you do not speak on behalf of me (or Air). This is an assumption that you have made, not me, not air. You.


Now, evidence please. You haven't provided any evidence that your god exists. Or even any evidence for any of the claims you made in this post.
Cheers.

1. What I'm pointing out is that one cannot "magically" have a "sudden" explosion of light and matter out of nothing (the Big Bang). I never said I was an advocate of that theory.

If you were to ask a theoretical physicist (the people who study this stuff) if the universe started at the big bang, they'd say they don't know.

Why can't they know? You seem to think that logic and reasoning that leaves God out of the picture suffices to explain the universe, so why can't you give me an answer?

2. Why do I claim that the universe was created by God? There's a lot of depth to this one, and I may get more into it later, but please do tell me how you can create something out of nothing if you do not have some form of omnipotency. Doesn't science (yeah, I'm bring up the Law of Conservation of Matter again, deal with it) state that matter cannot be created from nothingness. Seriously, stop evading the question and tell me, from an atheist's perspective, how to create something from nothing from a "scientific" standpoint (yet science states that it isn't possible to begin with).

3. I'm going to clear up something for a second. Not "my God". There are different interpretations and perspectives of God (through Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc., why else do you think there are contradicting arguments about God and His ways?), but it's the same God mentioned in the Bible, Quran, etc., but differing writings about Him, (Allah, Christian God, Yahweh, same deity). We'll leave that argument for another day for the sake of not derailing the debate.

Oh and also:

Since we both know that God (whether you choose to believe in Him or not) can basically create whatever...

No we don't both know that. Don't put words in my (or Air's) mouth again, you've done it too many times in this thread. You can speak on behalf of yourself, but you do not speak on behalf of me (or Air). This is an assumption that you have made, not me, not air. You.

We don't believe in Thor (the Norse god), but we both know he can summon lightning. We don't believe in vampires, but we both know they provide sustenance for themselves via the blood of others. And finally, we both know that a god of any sort is omnipotent, but knowing about it =/= believing. It's not putting words in people's mouths.

Back on topic.

Being an omnipotent divine being, one could argue that "God" exists outside of time and space, for since "creating whatever" falls into omnipotence, this would mean that God created time and space itself too. It would additionally mean that having created time, cause and effect do not apply to His existence. Either that or He exists in more than one dimension of time. Two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.

4. I think I just answered that in the process too.

Best of luck, fellas.

[Akomine]

1. I just corrected you that the Big Bang theory does not claim at any point that something was created from nothing. It deals with the singularity and rapid expansion that it claims to have occurred 13.8 billion years ago, it does not deal with what happened prior, just like the theory of evolution does not deal with how life started or what happened beforehand (it only deals with what happened after). You saying it claims that something came from nothing is a misunderstanding on your part.

Secondly, you seem to say that you can't have the Big Bang "magically" happen, yet apparently your god can "magically" happen. What's with the double standard?

Lastly, I didn't say that scientists can't know, I said they will tell you they don't know, because they honestly don't know. They don't want to make claims that aren't based on evidence, so they won't. This is an emerging field of science that is rather incomplete, and we're learning more every day. We don't know, yet. How's that?


2. I never said you can create something from nothing (stop putting words in my mouth!). If it could happen, why would it require a being to do it? I don't understand why a being makes this prospect possible.


3. Yes, your god. I don't believe in any gods. You believe in one god, many other people believe in multiple gods. When you speak, I assume you're speaking about YOUR god that you believe in. I'm sure the ancient Egyptian polytheists would not consider Allah to be a "different interpretation and perspective of God", that barely makes sense. They didn't have "God", they had many gods. I say "your god" because you don't speak on behalf of me, and I don't believe in things without evidence, such as your claim of god.


Okay, I understand the concept of Thor and vampires and things, but I don't know that they actually exist. You said we both know god can just create anything, and I said I don't know that, because I don't see any evidence of that being the case. I understand the concept and the claim, but I reject it, which is what I mean by I don't know it. I don't know god exists = I don't claim to have knowledge that god exists. Do you understand? This gets into gnosticism (having or claiming knowledge) and agnosticism (not having or claiming of knowledge). It's distinct from simply understanding a concept. That's what I meant. I'm agnostic towards the omnipotent god claim, you're gnostic towards the omnipotent god claim. Please let me know if you understand.


Back on topic:

4. Are you claiming something can exist outside of time and space? Evidence please.

[luisc99]

You can actually create mass (matter), from energy (via E=mc^2), which was semi-infinite in the Big Bang's pre-expansion singularity. Things are still conserved here, just in a loser state where more things can come out of it at the end. Plus, there are mathematical models which show that quantum fluctuations can cause a large amount of energy, and therefore mass, to be created for a short period of time, and enough of it could suddenly expand into the universe we have today. There are theories too that the quantum field the fluctuations were on are not necessarily bound to our, or any, universe. But that's more philosophy than physics.

I'm not getting involved in this debate, just sharing some science. If you want to know more, there are plenty of papers on the subject avaliable online

Sources:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/a-mathematical-proof-that-the-universe-could-have-formed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3#.eg5081rcc

[Akomine]

Thanks Luis, that's awesome. I just want to say that something that takes up space and has mass (exists) is matter, while energy is slightly more abstact and has to do with the ability to do work (to affect changes on matter). They are directly related, just to be clear.

Also, Ender, you should just look up the Big Bang theory, because you need to do more reading on it. You clearly show a lack of understanding right from the get-go. I'm not trying to be rude.

[EnderEssence]

4. Are you claiming something can exist outside of time and space? Evidence please.

Being an omnipotent divine being, one could argue that "God" exists outside of time and space, for since "creating whatever" falls into omnipotence, this would mean that God created time and space itself too. It would additionally mean that having created time, cause and effect do not apply to His existence. Either that or He exists in more than one dimension of time. Two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.

You apparently pulled a tl;dr there, didn't you. Please read my whole post next time.

I understand that you're not trying to be rude, but please do not act as the authority figure in this debate. Not to be offensive, but that's kind of what's radiating off of your arguments at this point. Moving on.

@luisc99 Yes, it's possible that the matter that formed the "Big Bang" (if it's even a thing at all) came from energy. Please tell me where this energy came from then. Otherwise, it's contradicting science (Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy) with more science (Quantum Fluctuation). Thanks for sharing info regardless.

Could you please look up how having multiple dimensions, and even planes, of time work?

Lastly, I didn't say that scientists can't know, I said they will tell you they don't know, because they honestly don't know. They don't want to make claims that aren't based on evidence, so they won't. This is an emerging field of science that is rather incomplete, and we're learning more every day. We don't know, yet. How's that?

Seeing that atheistic science has no way of proving anything in this regard (at least yet, as you claim), I'd like you to come with a theory that somehow disowns both having an omnipotent being create the universe and atheistic science. Good luck. Otherwise, that kinda leaves your argument at a stub (no offense).

[luisc99]

The energy came from the quantum fluctuations which, as they are quantum, can temporarily create energy for extremely short amounts of time. If a large enough fluctuation happened, the exponential expansion of the early universe can happen. This isn't really theoretical, as quantum fluctuations can be used to explain virtual particles. And without these, you wouldn't be able to see the light coming from your screen, and every atom in your body would fall apart...

I didn't mention anything about multiple time dimensions, but they work similar to how spartial dimensions work. Our brains have difficulty understanding it as we evolved and grew up in s 3+1D universe, and anything else is beyond comprehension for most people. That's why it's difficult for you to imagine a 4D or 5D object.

http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/06/q-what-would-the-universe-be-like-with-additional-temporal-dimensions/
http://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html

[Akomine]

4. Are you claiming something can exist outside of time and space? Evidence please.

Being an omnipotent divine being, one could argue that "God" exists outside of time and space, for since "creating whatever" falls into omnipotence, this would mean that God created time and space itself too. It would additionally mean that having created time, cause and effect do not apply to His existence. Either that or He exists in more than one dimension of time. Two dimensions of time form a plane of time, which has no beginning and no end and is not restricted to any single direction. A being that exists in at least two dimensions of time can travel anywhere in time and yet never had a beginning, since a plane of time has no starting point. Either interpretation leads one to the conclusion that God has no need of having been created.

You apparently pulled a tl;dr there, didn't you. Please read my whole post next time.

So apparently responding to your entire post, point by point, is somehow not reading your whole post. What the hell man? Just answer my points, what is this strange deflection? This comes across as a very dishonest way of having a debate on your part.

Interestingly, you've decided not to respond to the vast majority of my post. It's almost as if you pulled a tl;dr! Funny how that works.

I understand that you're not trying to be rude, but please do not act as the authority figure in this debate. Not to be offensive, but that's kind of what's radiating off of your arguments at this point. Moving on.

I'm not in any way trying to act as an authority figure. We're both presenting arguments and ideas. How am I acting as an authority figure?

@luisc99 Yes, it's possible that the matter that formed the "Big Bang" (if it's even a thing at all) came from energy. Please tell me where this energy came from then. Otherwise, it's contradicting science (Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy) with more science (Quantum Fluctuation). Thanks for sharing info regardless.

The Laws of Thermodynamics do not contradict the theory of Quantum Fluctuation. Furthermore, Luis is not making any claim of what created matter and energy in the first place (if it was created), he was just adding some info about how energy and matter can convert.

And again, the Big Bang theory at no point claims that anything was magically created. It only deals with the explosion and expansion of our universe that started 13.8 billion years ago. It does not go beyond that or make any claim of what might have brought this on. By arguing as if it does make this claim (it doesn't!), you are arguing a straw man.

Could you please look up how having multiple dimensions, and even planes, of time work?

Look up what exactly? There are various debated multiverse hypotheses, do you specifically believe in one of them? It's totally interesting that you don't seem to believe in the Big Bang theory, yet you seem to believe in a multiverse hypothesis. Please tell us which one, I'm interested.



-------



THE INTERESTING PART OF THE POST:

Lastly, I didn't say that scientists can't know, I said they will tell you they don't know, because they honestly don't know. They don't want to make claims that aren't based on evidence, so they won't. This is an emerging field of science that is rather incomplete, and we're learning more every day. We don't know, yet. How's that?

Seeing that atheistic science has no way of proving anything in this regard (at least yet, as you claim), I'd like you to come with a theory that somehow disowns both having an omnipotent being create the universe and atheistic science. Good luck. Otherwise, that kinda leaves your argument at a stub (no offense).

This is, annoyingly, the only part of your post that actually responds to one of my points. By the way, no, I'm not going to "come up with a theory that somehow disowns both having an omnipotent being create the universe and atheistic science". I don't know why I have to make that claim, and to honest I'm very comfortable in not making evidence-devoid claims. I'm very comfortable with not knowing.


So here's your binary way of looking at this:
Either science (or me apparently) must explain how the universe came into existence... or god did it.

Problems with this argument:
A) The Big Bang theory or Science (or me) not having the answer to this is not proof of your god. All claims require evidence. When one claim gets refuted (or was never even claimed), it's not like the other claim just gets to be the correct one. It still needs evidence too.

B) You claim the universe came into existence, yet you provide no evidence that it came into existence. Strangely you keep talking about the Big Bang theory, which doesn't even claim this. Even stranger, you don't seem to agree with the Big Bang theory, so why are you talking about it so much? Oh, right, because you think refuting it somehow makes your god claim true (it doesn't! see A!).

C) You claim that your god has always existed. For some reason the universe always existing isn't acceptable, but your god always existing is apparently perfectly acceptable. Double standard.

D) You provide no evidence that a god created the universe. You wrote some information about how two dimensions form a plane of time, and how you think your god exists in a plane of time, and that a being that exists in a plane of time can time travel freely, and that a plane of time has no starting point, and that your god is omnipotent, and that your god created time, and a bunch of other things. And yet... you provide no evidence of any of this actually being reality. You got annoyed with me for apparently TL;DRing over this part of your post (which I read), because it's apparently your evidence (how can this be considered evidence?). So, uh, where's the evidence for your evidence? (lol)

E) You claim your god exists outside of space and time, yet you provide no evidence that things can exist outside of space and time. What exactly is "outside of space and time" anyways? What does that even mean? Everything we understand to be reality exists in space and time. That's what existing is. Oddly, you also argue your god travels time freely in a plane of time or something, which would mean he exists in space and time, so I don't quite understand. He exists in space and time, he doesn't exist in space and time, he's a male, he can do anything. All these interesting things you say, all these claims you make, no evidence for any of them.

F) You provide no information as to why a god must have done it. You never explain why it must have been a singular being. You just seem to have decided this must be the case. Why? Why must it have been a being?


Every time you say something I have so many more questions, and I'm so curious what your evidence is. It sounds like you have all the answers to the biggest mysteries, and I just want to learn... but... evidence is so much more reliable than faith, and you said you have evidence. So where's your evidence man? Or are you really just using faith?

Why is refuting the Big Bang so important to your provision of evidence? What does it have to do with anything? We never even mentioned it. Sure, the Big Bang is false. Or it's true. I don't care. Prove your god exists.

[EnderEssence]

The Laws of Thermodynamics do not contradict the theory of Quantum Fluctuation.

You seem to be critical of "lack of evidence" on my part, yet could you at least provide solid proof on this then?

Very well. Since we obviously can't come to an agreement from all this bantering, shall we move on to something else?

Let me just state something extremely elementary. Still universe related.

Say you have a cake. You know what's in a basic cake, right? Flour, sugar, eggs, etc.

I go to you and tell you that a bowl just happened to fall out of a cupboard and onto the floor due to an earthquake happening at the time. As a result, the sugar and flour happen to come out of a pantry, eggs somehow get out of a refrigerator that was somehow opening at just the right time. From there, all the ingredients manage to get projected directly and perfectly onto the bowl. Just then, a hurricane happens to be on a trajectory straight into the house the kitchen is in and the gush of water and wind get the bowl (with the ingredients mixed in perfectly from all that wind) directly into the oven. A spoon then falls from the cupboard and happens to turn the temperature to 360 degrees Fahrenheit. After 25 minutes, the winds suddenly disappear, but not before managing to somehow turn the temperature knob of the oven off and open the oven again.

Sounds absolutely ridiculous, right? You clearly need someone to bake that cake. You can't just expect to have a cake by chance with that absurd story. Someone has to make that cake.

Let's look at this from a bigger scale. How do you expect for energy and matter to suddenly appear from nowhere. From there, how do you just happen to have a star (the Sun) that just so happens to be the perfect size for and distance away from Earth for life, due to collisions in a giant disc-shaped cloud of various material that all happened by chance? Speaking of Earth, how is it that it just happens to be at the right tilt degree for a stable climate for life to occur, and that a few degrees off in either direction would cause all life on earth to either freeze away or be incinerated? From there, how does an organism (in the form of microbes) just happen to start existing?

See the analogy? How do you know, and what proof do you have, that none of this was made by someone too?

It's absolute nonsense when put on a small scale, but put on a large scale, things happening by absolute chance just happen to be passed off as legitimate?

Cheers.

[luisc99]

The Milky Way alone contains 200-400 billion stars. And at least 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, where light has been able to reach us in the time the universe has existed. Even if you assume the minimum, that's still 20000000000000000000000 stars in the observable universe. There's a common phrase in physics where if something can happen, it will happen. I'd expect with 2E22 stars, at least one of them would have conditions suitable for life to start. I think the more interesting question is why haven't we found more?

Also there was a source and mathematical proof for quantum fluctuations not violating the laws of energy conservation in one of the Wikipedia articles I linked, which you must not have read. Maybe you took my post as a tl;dr. Either way, it's here again for your convenience.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

Oh, and these are a nice read:
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whatpowered.htm
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm

[Airbongo]

I still wanna know how "universe was created by god" = The quran/bible/whatever is the word of god. How about we get some evidence about the existence of god that isn't just related to making the universe. Let's see some EARTHLY evidence about the existence of god.

[Akomine]

The Laws of Thermodynamics do not contradict the theory of Quantum Fluctuation.

...
See the analogy? How do you know, and what proof do you have, that none of this was made by someone too?
...

Thanks for your random analogy. For the 50th fucking time, you're arguing a strawman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
All we want is proof of your god. I never made a claim, I just requested evidence for your god.

For a guy who accuses me of TL;DRing his post, you seem to have ignored all but one line of mine. Did you read this part?:

The Big Bang theory or Science (or me) not having the answer to this is not proof of your god. All claims require evidence. When one claim gets refuted (or was never even claimed), it's not like the other claim just gets to be the correct one. It still needs evidence too.

So let me be clear:
I never made a claim about a god. You did make a claim: you've claimed that a god exists. I have not even claimed your god doesn't exist; I've just requested that you provide evidence for your claim.

The burden of proof is on you to back up your claim with evidence. It's not my responsibility to refute every random claim every random person makes. They can provide evidence to convince me their claim is true.

So at the end of the day, all I want is for you to provide evidence of your god. Where is it? Let's hear it. We can talk about our thoughts on theoretical physics another day. Refuting theoretical physics doesn't suddenly mean your god exists. That would be ridiculous.


-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  - 


Here, to simplify things, I made a little chart. I've highlighted, in yellow, the part that you're supposed to fill in:


Please take the time in your next post to fill that part in.
Thanks!

[gerrit70]

    Godslasterlijk varkens, Ako is the only true god.

[Akomine]

    Godslasterlijk varkens, Ako is the only true god.

I haven't seen any evidence that I'm not the only true god, therefore I'm the only true god.

[gerrit70]

Plus you have other powers to prove that you are god. Such as the mighty ban-hammer

[Airbongo]

Ender lost this debate.

[gerrit70]

HEIL AKO!

[EnderEssence]

Ender lost this debate.

Stop rushing to conclusions. I've had important things coming up over the past few weeks.

Be patient, Air the Pleb.

HEIL AKO!

We'll see about that...

@Akomine I'll add to this debate, just not immediately. Please be patient as I have things IRL.

[gerrit70]

 Ender I do not think you understand Ako is god, if you want to be convinced then you can come to service at the church of Ako.

[Lividup64]

Ender I do not think you understand Ako is god, if you want to be convinced then you can come to service at the church of Ako.

go away plss this was a nice debate before the equivelent to the grey liquid at the bottom of a trash can which are your comments came along.

[Akomine]

Ender I do not think you understand Ako is god, if you want to be convinced then you can come to service at the church of Ako.

go away plss this was a nice debate before the equivelent to the grey liquid at the bottom of a trash can which are your comments came along.

Jeeeez, your comment is the scummy one Livid.

And I don't think this has been a nice debate, Ender has been conducting his side of the debate in a totally dishonest manner, avoiding answering to the points I raise, putting words in my mouth, demanding that I prove claims that I never made, and just generally avoiding answering. This is one of the most dishonest debates I've engaged in, it's quite frustrating. I actually took time and care with my responses.

[luisc99]

You don't have to put aside five hours to write a post you know. It can easily be a quick response to our questions, rather than an essay on something different. You can't be that busy you can spare 5-10 mins can you?

[EnderEssence]

Ender I do not think you understand Ako is god, if you want to be convinced then you can come to service at the church of Ako.

go away plss this was a nice debate before the equivelent to the grey liquid at the bottom of a trash can which are your comments came along.

Jeeeez, your comment is the scummy one Livid.

And I don't think this has been a nice debate, Ender has been conducting his side of the debate in a totally dishonest manner, avoiding answering to the points I raise, putting words in my mouth, demanding that I prove claims that I never made, and just generally avoiding answering. This is one of the most dishonest debates I've engaged in, it's quite frustrating. I actually took time and care with my responses.

Frankly, you've been putting words in my mouth too.

Dishonest? This is assuming your and your argument only is correct?

Answer this single question before putting forth all those times I was "dishonest". Let's start anew, since your salt levels are obviously above the legal safety limit.

If a cake can't bake itself, why do you believe that the universe can exist from nothing?
Take the time to actually respond to all of my points in the previous post. You haven't, and your only response is an "I don't know." Provide some sort of counter-argument before rushing to the conclusion that I'm pulling a strawman.

Ender I do not think you understand Ako is god, if you want to be convinced then you can come to service at the church of Ako.

@gerrit70 I'd ask that you kindly leave before any cancer spreads. Thaaaaanks.

@Lividup64 You might want to contribute some stuff too before @Airbongus Van Winkledorf rushes to any more inaccurate conclusions. You know, actually help out. I'm only one person and have time for only so much.

[Akomine]

Ender I do not think you understand Ako is god, if you want to be convinced then you can come to service at the church of Ako.

go away plss this was a nice debate before the equivelent to the grey liquid at the bottom of a trash can which are your comments came along.

Jeeeez, your comment is the scummy one Livid.

And I don't think this has been a nice debate, Ender has been conducting his side of the debate in a totally dishonest manner, avoiding answering to the points I raise, putting words in my mouth, demanding that I prove claims that I never made, and just generally avoiding answering. This is one of the most dishonest debates I've engaged in, it's quite frustrating. I actually took time and care with my responses.

Frankly, you've been putting words in my mouth too.

Dishonest? This is assuming your and your argument only is correct?

Answer this single question before putting forth all those times I was "dishonest". Let's start anew, since your salt levels are obviously above the legal safety limit.

If a cake can't bake itself, why do you believe that the universe can exist from nothing?
Take the time to actually respond to all of my points in the previous post. You haven't, and your only response is an "I don't know." Provide some sort of counter-argument before rushing to the conclusion that I'm pulling a strawman.

Name one time I put words in your mouth. Name one.

And then the rest of your post goes on to repeat the strawman argument yet again that I've pointed out to you like 4 times now. I've put it in bold.

How many times do I have to tell you that:
a) The Big Bang Theory does not claim "the universe can exist from nothing".
b) I never claimed "the universe can exist from nothing".

You are arguing a strawman.

And you accuse me of not reading your posts? Good grief. Respond to some of my points before acting like I haven't bothered to present any! How rude of you. How dishonest.

Dishonest? This is assuming your and your argument only is correct?

NO - Dishonest as in, you keep putting words in my mouth, like you literally just did again, which I've pointed out above.
You've been dishonestly conducting this debate in other ways as well, which I've also pointed out several times, though you seem to ignore most of what I say.





Reminder, please fill in the yellow box of this chart:

[Airbongo]

It wasn't an inaccurate conclusion, any non biased person would say you lost m8. You don't read what Ako says, you keep arguing a point no one claimed, you keep putting words in Ako's mouth and you have failed to contribute with any evidence.

[EnderEssence]

Fine. I'll provide some more "earthy" evidence, to quote Air.

Give me a few days. I'll get back to you.