And you are relying on the most desperate Sophistry in the history of this forum in order to pretend you have a point. You don't get much more in denial than that. I already used your method to "prove " Sasquatches exist. You can "prove" anything exists with standards this obscenely low.
LOL changing the subject to bigfoot............................ Again when we go to Mars we will have populated that planet with life, as God is said to have done here. Thus God is proven, no one knew this 2000 or 5000 years ago, but they were right anyway
Lol, if you think a counterexample is a change of subject, we have a long way to go. And Mars was around before we even so much as noticed it's existence. We didn't create Mars. Your definitions are meaningless.
If heaven is full of the insufferable Christians I encounter on the internet then I'd rather be in hell. If it actually existed.
Is he any less plausible than someone else who has been dead, or someone who hasn't died but has a belief?
I doubt I've read even 1% of all the NDE accounts out there; but IIRC, this is the only one I've seen where the witness presumes to say what death is like for anyone besides himself. Furthermore, what he experienced in that 6 minutes is hardly a reliable indicator of what he'll experience when he finally assumes Earth temperature.
Why do you think death is different for each person? And, how long do you have to be dead before you can be a reliable witness?
We will create life forms to live on Mars, this is what God did on the Earth. Once the first astronaut sets foot on Mars technically we have brought the most intelligent life form known (God) to Mars. From there we build habitats, then cities and the new people on Mars begin the process of adapting life to the new environment You lose, God is proven
Not if you are putting forth Pascal's Wager, which you are. The Wager is based on threats, not evidence.
What are you talking about? How did you get from point A to point Z there. You are skipping a bunch of steps. Your straw man has nothing to do with what was said which, as a reminder, was this: "I choose to make mine based on evidence, not threats. If there is a God and he is too evil and insane to resist the urge to torture all nonbelievers, he deserves neither respect nor praise."
Worms create life forms: more worms. According to your "logic", worms are Gods. Of course that is completely absurd and you are trying to "win" the argument by inventing a new language. There are so many holes in your argument that it is hard to know where to even begin. 1) You can't "win" an argument by redefining the terms. I've already provided counterexamples for why this is the case, which you have dodged. 2) Your definition makes no sense, and it keeps changing. It renders the term "God" completely meaningless since it can now apply to any living being. 3) You originally argued (and now have abandoned) that God is a verb. But you don't use "God" as a verb in any of your claims. You use "God" as a noun, rending your argument completely nonsensical. What is the past tense of the verb God? What is the future tense? If God is a verb, conjugate it for us. Try actually using it as a verb instead of pretending it is a verb when it is convenient but never using it as such. You are trying to "win" the argument by inventing a new language that has no relation to the English word "God" in the slightest. You aren't even using verbs the way that English speakers use verbs. You use the same squiggly lines as English speakers do, and they presumably have the same phonics, but they are not the same words. They have vastly different definitions and do not function the same way in sentences. You are making the exact same argument that I did when I "proved" Sasquatch by redefining Sasquatch as an overripe cantaloupe. The exact same argument. You don't even use the word "create" in the same way that we English speakers do, inventing your own new language that uses the same squiggly lines to mean something entirely different from what we English speakers mean by the term.
You put it forward as a basis for the belief of others. But when it comes to you, you think it is a silly argument? Yeah, makes total sense. You have contradictory beliefs here. I'll agree with the half of you that thinks this argument is a terrible one and that belief should instead be based on evidence and I will continue disagreeing with the other half of you that thinks threats are superior to evidence.
That's like saying a serial killer who lets people go if they will sing him Happy Birthday and kill anyone who doesn't has no moral culpability. It was their choice whether or not they sing! Of course, the serial killer is still evil and insane for coming up with such rules for the choice: just like the God you are proposing.
So you are so delusional that you believe that worms are capable of creating ships to fly to Mars? OKEEDOKEE if you say so I am right and you know it so you are resorting to the most inane arguments possible and in the process humiliating yourself. Then you actually babble about sasquatch. Grow up kid, come back when you do
If you read my post, you would know the answer to that. Lol, I love that building spaceships is now part of your definition of Godhood. Makes about as much sense as the rest. Yes, in logic in debate that is what is known as a counter argument. You use someone else's reasoning to show them how absurd it is. I can link you to articles if you would like to know more about counter arguments. Try getting through the next post by actually using logic and reasoning instead of relying on straw men and personal attacks alone.
You are babbling about sasquatch and clearly trying to be serious, I can't take that seriously. What you need to understand is that you can not counter my arguments, because I did not make ridiculous generalizations. When the human race populates life on Mars, initially inside habitats, experiments will determine the life forms with genetic engineered DNA that can live in the Martian environment, but even before this we will have populated life on Mars, as those who believe in God say he did here. God is proved in the future, he can't be proved or disproved in the past, so look to the future and get your head out of the dead past
I already have. Several times. And you have failed to address any of those arguments. By landing on a continent you have "created" it and anyone who can build a spaceship is God . . . but you don't make ridiculous generalizations? Really? I'm visiting Iceland for vacation this month. According to your logic, I will be creating Iceland. And you don't see how absurd that is? Nothing is proved for the future. We may not survive long enough to do any of these things, nor do any of these things have anything to do with God. You are making the assumption that anyone who does anything that any god has ever been described as doing is therefore a God, which is laughably absurd. The Bible says that God ordered the execution of children, therefore every child murderer is God in your book. They did something ascribed to God after all! The Bible says God spoke, and parrots speak, therefore parrots are God.
