Dinosaurs.... Did they exist?

[Ripster42]

So you cant debate the points then?

Just like every other conversation ive had over the years.

You are not able to.

Debunking God won again.

So you can't either? Because your points were already refuted.

[LiiLoSNK]

So you cant debate the points then?

Just like every other conversation ive had over the years.

You are not able to.

Debunking God won again.

You're being too obvious, man. Why even bother making a new throwaway account if you're going to troll this poorly?

[Garnier Fructis]

Ok.

Well debate them then.

The only 'debate' that needs to take place is what numerous people have pointed out, which is that you're making extra assumptions in your argument. Until you can justify why those other assumptions are true, your logic is faulty.

[spinner981]

I've never seen any religious person argue that dinosaurs never existed. I've never seen anyone period argue that dinosaurs never existed. Denying their existence is akin to a belief in a flat earth at this point.

The debate is when they existed, not whether or not they existed.

[Ripster42]

Easy.

Religion states God has moral authority and is ruler of the Universe.

My sentences debunk both.

Religions are not god. Your sentences don't mean shit.

[kail]

Nope. Fossils were obviously created and planted by ancient civilizations to troll us.

[Garnier Fructis]

Easy.

Religion states God has moral authority and is ruler of the Universe.

My sentences debunk both.

If God has moral authority, then morality is whatever God wants it to be, so saying that God is wicked or cruel is essentially wrong by definition. So your logic, which purports to debunk this notion, is doing so using a different notion of right and wrong. Which means that you've disproved your 'modified' version of God, and not the God they're talking about.

[Ripster42]

The notion of God is described in religion.

At the very least, the 2 sentences debunks all religionst hat state God is all powerful and God is moral.

Which is pretty much all of them.

So doesn't debunk god. Which is what you said they did, which means you lost the debate. You're now on to moving goal posts.

[Garnier Fructis]

Disagree.

To inflict pain and suffering is to be wicked and cruel.

It is fact that growing old and consuming life inflicts pain and suffering, therefore wicked and cruel. Therefore not moral.

Either morality is subjective, in which case the truth of your argument only works for some moralities, or morality is objective and your argument is incomplete as you've not identified where this morality comes from.

- - - Updated - - -

Because free will doesnt exist, and is an illusion.

Choose not to breath. You cant.

The very fact you are hardwired to ensure your own survival debunks the concept of free will too.

Presenting the fact that you can't do a physically impossible task (choosing not to breath) isn't evidence that free will doesn't exist.

Mind you, I don't believe in free will. But I don't believe in faulty arguments, either.

[zephid]

Yes, of course they existed.

[Endus]

Between religious discussion and conspiracy theories, this isn't going anywhere productive. Locking this here.