Maynman:


The op said nothing, the characteristics he gave to this god how did he come up with it?
Why does he think a thing can transcend time and space?

You still haven't read the OP carefully because you are not relaxed, you are just interested in the argument.

Read it and address issues on it

Trollronaldo:
You still haven't read the OP carefully because you are not relaxed, you are just interested in the argument.

Read it and address issues on it

The op said nothing, the characteristics he gave to this god how did he come up with it?
Why does he think a thing can transcend time and space?

The concept of “god” where did he get it from?

Maynman:


How did you come with a deistic theos?

I am not a deist.
I am telling you that you cannot disprove deists.

Diests and atheists are both wrong

Maynman:

The op said nothing, the characteristics he gave to this god how did he come up with it?
Why does he think a thing can transcend time and space?

The concept of “god” where did he get it from?

If no one created the universe then how did it come into existence?

Trollronaldo:
I am a deist.
I am telling you that you cannot disprove deists.

Diests and atheists are both wrong

Deists from deus.
Atheist rejects all deities.
All the attributes you think of this deistic god is gotten from monotheists, they use those attributes to honor their various deities.

Trollronaldo:
If no one created the universe then how did it come into existence?

How did you know the universe was “created”?

Maynman:


Deists from deus.
Atheist rejects all deities.
All the attributes you think of this deistic god is gotten from monotheists, they use those attributes to honor their various deities.

Diests and atheists are both wrong.

Atheists are wrong because they don't know as well.

Trollronaldo:
Diests and atheists are both wrong.

Atheists are wrong because they don't know as well.

Athiests rejects all gods.

Maynman:


How did you know the universe was “created”?

I don't know, that's why I am asking deist and you atheists how they know it was and it wasn't.

So atheist ls, how did you know the universe wasn't created?

I don't know

Trollronaldo:
I don't know, that's why I am asking deist and you atheists how they know it was and it wasn't.

So atheist ls, how did you know the universe wasn't created?

I don't know

Atheists doesn’t claim they know how the universe came to be, atheists just reject all gods. Simple

Maynman:


Athiests rejects all gods.

So how did you know that the universe wasn't created then if you reject a creator?

Maynman:

Atheists doesn’t claim they know how the universe came to be, atheists just reject all gods. Simple

So if don't know how the universe was created and then you reject a creator, is that not a fallacy of appealing to ignorance?

Trollronaldo:
So did you know that the universe wasn't created then if you reject a creator?

I don’t know how a universe came to be, I can’t say it was created or not, i have no idea.
If i see a car, I know it can be “created” by humans. But universe I don’t know if we even have the correct English to qualify how it came to be.

Trollronaldo:
So if don't know how the universe was created and then you reject a creator, is that not a fallacy of appealing to ignorance?

Because I don’t have an answer to a thing, doesn’t mean I should accept someone else answers without evidence.

Maynman:


I don’t know how a universe came to be, I can’t say it was created or not, i have no idea.
If i see a car, I know it can be “created” by humans. But universe I don’t know if we even have the correct English to qualify how it came to be.

So you dont know how the universe came about but you reject the possibility of a creator.

Fallacy of appealing to ignorance

Maynman:


Because I don’t have an answer to a thing, doesn’t mean I should accept someone else answers without evidence.

So literally you conclusion was reached because of unavailability 9f evidence which is a classical example of appealing to ignorance

Trollronaldo:
So you dont know how the universe came about but you reject the possibility of a creator.

Fallacy of appealing to ignorance

Because I don’t have an answer to a thing, doesn’t mean I should accept someone else answers without evidence.

I hope you are consistent with your fallacy of appealing to ignorance, as long as it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.

Maynman:


Because I don’t have an answer to a thing, doesn’t mean I should accept someone else answers without evidence.

So what's wrong in just saying that you don't know and wait until we find out?

Do you now see how flawed atheism is?

Trollronaldo:
So literally you conclusion was reached because of unavailability 9f evidence which is a classical example of appealing to ignorance

Exactly, I hope you are consistent with your fallacy of appealing to ignorance, as long as it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.

Trollronaldo:
So what's wrong in just saying that you don't know and wait until we find out?

Do you now see how flawed atheism is?

Of course I don’t know, and i reject all gods, i also reject claims that a Dog could have created the world.

Maynman:

Because I don’t have an answer to a thing, doesn’t mean I should accept someone else answers without evidence.

I hope you are consistent with your fallacy of appealing to ignorance, as long as it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.

No one is saying you should accept it.

I am not accepting it myself. But I a reaching a conclusion from ignorance, I just prefer to say that I don't know and then remain neutral to avoid a fallacy

Trollronaldo:
No one is saying you should accept it.

I am not accepting it myself. But I a reaching a conclusion from ignorance, I just prefer to say that I don't know and then remain neutral

There are billions of explanation, i reject the explanation of gods, the same way i reject explanation of a dog being a creator.
I’m neutral.

Maynman:


Of course I don’t know, and i reject all gods, i also reject claims that a Dog could have created the world.

But you don't know how the universe was created.
So you don't know if a creator actually did it.

Fallacy of appealing to ignorance

Trollronaldo:
But you don't know how the universe was created.
So you don't know if a creator actually did it.

Fallacy of appealing to ignorance

How did you know it was “created”?

I hope you are consistent with your fallacy of appealing to ignorance, as long as it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.

Maynman:


There are billions of explanation, i reject the explanation of gods, the same way i reject explanation of a dog being a creator.
I’m neutral.

There are just two explanations. It's either a creator did it or not.

You reject on and accept the other without evidence and knowledge

Fallacy of appealing to ignorance

Maynman:

How did you know it was “created”?

I hope you are consistent with your fallacy of appealing to ignorance, as long as it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.

I don't know if it was created or not because there no evidence.

Reaching a conclusion without evidence is fallacy of appealing to ignorance

Trollronaldo:

There are just two explanations. It's either a creator did it or not.

You reject on and accept the other without evidence and knowledge

Fallacy of appealing to ignorance

That explanation is only gotten in theism.
That’s why atheists mean godless.

Trollronaldo:
I don't know if it was created or not because there no evidence.

Reaching a conclusion without evidence is fallacy of appealing to ignorance

Exactly, so we should not use the world “created”. Those that use it should explain how they came to know it was created.

I hope you are consistent with your fallacy of appealing to ignorance, as long as it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.

Maynman:


Exactly, so we should not use the world “created”. Those that use it should explain how they came to know it was created.

I hope you are consistent with your fallacy of appealing to ignorance, as long as it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.

You also do know, but you reached a conclusion.

That's fallacy of appealing to ignorance

Maynman:

That explanation is only gotten in theism.
That’s why atheists mean godless.

if you conclusion without evidence for against, it's a fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

Atheisms is as fallacious as deism

Trollronaldo:
You also do know, but you reached a conclusion.

That's fallacy of appealing to ignorance

I do not know, and I didn’t reach any conclusions.
If you want me to accept your conclusions then prove it.

Trollronaldo:
if you conclusion without evidence for against, it's a fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

Atheisms is as fallacious as deism

Yes.

I hope you are consistent with your fallacy of appealing to ignorance, as long as it also goes into Santa, bigfoot, flying lion, pegasus, talking cockroaches, you must be consistent and not reject the possibility of them existing because there’s no evidence.