lordofawesome Posted:

As an omnipotent being that created the universe.

If he is beyond human comprehension, how do you know that? Further, how do you know he exists? Also, how do you know he created the universe?

Fingerz Posted:

Faith is the belief in something that cannot be known.

You cannot battle faith with logic.

If you want to win this, you’ll have to find another tactic.

I put forth that one cannot believe in something they don’t understand.

Furthermore, I posit that logic is the only shield with which to defend against faith.

Fingerz Posted:

I do not UNDERSTAND Quantum Physics,

You could gain a fair understanding of its premises if you took the time to study it.

Fingerz Posted:

...American Idol. I just don’t get it. But I believe in it, too.

Totally different variety of belief. We can agree that American Idol exists, and failing that, we can conclusively demonstrate that it exists.

Fingerz Posted:

Just because you don’t understand something it doesn’t mean you can’t believe in it.

I’m not so sure. See if you understand the following: Asjdajh, sdfisuhdewerwe. Urfngjzkdrfgs, faubfaerf, and I irehfserfosaerf.

Do you believe it?

Fingerz Posted:

Besides, who are you to say whether or not someone understands God/the concept of a God?

I’m not saying that, I’m asking it.

Fingerz Posted:

Your logic appears to be a fallacy. Do you have anything better?

Log in to see images!

Moniker Posted:

I put forth that one cannot believe in something they don’t understand.

I think a clearer statement would be that it’s impossible to believe in an incomprehensible concept, because you don’t know what it is that you’re believing in unless you comprehend it.

It’s like a triangle with 4 sides – you can’t imagine it or believe that it exists because the concept is inherently contradictory and hence incomprehensible.

If that was not what you meant, then never mind… although I still think this is a valid point too.

Hobart Bliggity Posted:

lmao yep the most logical and scientific thing to do when you can’t explain somethings origin is to go “welp that musta just always been there

Only if you like strawmen. Which, oddly enough: you do. And you got banned for whining and crying about a thread like this quite a while ago. One wonders if you’ll go off the deep end again and end up in the same predicament.

Only time will tell.

OverclockedJesus Posted:

if you like strawmen.

I did say something that led him to make that statement. You’re right, but so was he, and I corrected myself in response.

MC Banhammer Posted:

There’s no onus on me, because there’s no penalty on me for NOT proving it. However, theoretically, there could be a penalty on you for not believing it. Which is the more logical course of action?

Re-wording of Pascal’s Wager? Seriously?

As to the OP: I already destroyed it by noting the fallacy therein. You might want to take note of that.

Fingerz Posted:

You seem to be operating ITT based on the bumumption that the people who subscribe to an organized belief system don’t actually understand what it is they believe in.

I’m making no bumumptions. However, if someone understands something, they ought to be able to explain it to me. If they cannot, I’m perfectly well within my rights to say so. Do you disagree?

Moniker Posted:

I’m making no bumumptions. However, if someone understands something, they ought to be able to explain it to me. If they cannot, I’m perfectly well within my rights to say so. Do you disagree?

Moniker Posted:

I put forth that one cannot believe in something they don’t understand.

Are you retracting this statement? I’m getting confused now and that’s not fun.

PS a triangle with 4 sides is called a tricangle Log in to see images!