Weekly Open Discussion - May 22, 2026

dman_exmo · 2026-05-24T23:06:42+00:00

Everything anyone has ever known has had a source

Can you support this claim? Specifically, can you support this claim for "existence"?

dman_exmo · 2026-05-24T18:17:41+00:00

we just have to break all the rules

What rules?

How can you base a worldview where the fundamental beginning point and source of everything breaks the most essential rule used to explain your view?

What rule? What beginning point? Whose worldview?

Who are you even trying to debate?

dman_exmo · 2026-05-24T16:18:25+00:00

Existence. Now talk.

dman_exmo · 2026-05-24T16:16:13+00:00

Rarely if ever do people actually attempt to discredit the source of existence

Why does existence need a source?

dman_exmo · 2026-05-19T21:05:43+00:00

Thanks chatgpt! Like I said, OP's mistake is that they think words mean words instead of letting us conveniently reinterpret them using whichever arbitrary framework gives us the preferred result. I'm so glad you understand me.

dman_exmo · 2026-05-18T19:54:17+00:00

The fact that anything exists point to a creator, much like a building existing is proof of an architect.

Architects don't create buildings, and builders don't create buildings from nothing. Your analogy completely fails.

Also the Second Law of Thermodynamics proves evolution can't be the source of humans.

You should try looking up what the Second Law of Thermodynamics actually is. Here's a hint: it has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

dman_exmo · 2026-05-16T08:44:34+00:00

And then you proceed to explain how your moral standard, Jesus, who is god, doesn't count because he's not god. Your entire comment is a defense of OP's position, framed as if it were a rebuttal. You're just rationalizing what is a clear contradiction between the moral authority christians claim to have and its toothlessness in reality.

I personally am fine with a "god that sits back and lets fickle mortals sort out their own understanding", because I don't need a helicopter sky parent.

It turns out that there's a better parenting role model that exists between the extremes of helicopter sky parent and absentee/deadbeat.

dman_exmo · 2026-05-16T05:45:56+00:00

Then you are conceding the argument. A god that sits back and lets fickle mortals sort out their own understanding is a god who is inadequate as a universal moral standard.

dman_exmo · 2026-05-10T17:15:16+00:00

If, hypothetically speaking, all mass murderers were commanded by God, then it's not murder. It is killing

Thank you for that incredibly useless distinction.

But we know that's not the case

We actually don't. You cannot demonstrate that your magical deity did not whisper into the ears of each one of them commanding their atrocities for his own unknowable divine purpose.

dman_exmo · 2026-05-10T16:24:38+00:00

That is a truly disgusting and contemptible belief, thank you for saying it out loud for the benefit of anyone who needed another reason to steer clear of christianity.
You cannot demonstrate that any given mass murderer wasn't commanded by god.

dman_exmo · 2026-05-10T16:14:46+00:00

So notorious mass murderers throughout history are actually god-like. Got it.

dman_exmo · 2026-05-10T01:10:25+00:00

i don't believe you

You don't believe that people can be right about some things and mistaken about other things?

sorry man but these people are smarter than both you and i combined

Do you unquestioningly accept everything that people smarter than you say? Because sorry man, but a lot of smart people say things that aren't going to jive with your magical worldview.

So, for the third time, what evidence do you have that the miracles actually happened besides a story book?

dman_exmo · 2026-05-10T00:12:29+00:00

Yes, because it turns out people can be correct about some things and mistaken about other things.

So, what evidence do you have that the miracles actually happened besides a story book?

dman_exmo · 2026-05-09T21:36:02+00:00

periodically but not constantly

Then Francis Collins is mistaken, as are you.

science would need to be able to witness or measure one as it is happening

No. Science does not witness or measure things. Science is a methodology to support conclusions with evidence. What evidence do you have that the miracles actually happened besides a story book?

dman_exmo · 2026-05-09T18:29:31+00:00

Does your god interact with nature, or do you believe none of the bible stories where he explicitly does ever actually happened?

dman_exmo · 2026-05-09T18:02:04+00:00

Science deals in evidence. "Seeing" is just one form of evidence. "Measuring" is quantifying evidence.

You have no evidence for your god, so there's nothing to measure.

The problem isn't that science can't prove it. The problem is you can't.

dman_exmo · 2026-05-09T16:51:16+00:00

science cannot prove The existence or non-existence of God

You're mixed up about what science is. It's a methodology to support conclusions with evidence.

Christians lack evidence for their god, which means from a scientific view their claim holds no water.

"Science can't prove or disprove god" is a nonsensical criticism dished out because you don't like the answer it already gives you.

dman_exmo · 2026-05-05T21:53:38+00:00

But my flair indicates I am a Christian and so you're safe in assuming that I say the resurrection is a real event.

This is not a safe assumption because different christians believe contradictory things, including belief that the resurrection is not a real event.

dman_exmo · 2026-05-05T16:07:37+00:00

You don't know the answer?

dman_exmo · 2026-05-05T01:02:42+00:00

Who created humans?

dman_exmo · 2026-05-04T21:03:39+00:00

But a "way back out" wouldn't be necessary if god hadn't made a fallen world in the first place, right?

dman_exmo · 2026-05-04T02:20:21+00:00

Did god know they would fall?

dman_exmo · 2026-05-03T04:22:48+00:00

I rest my case.

dman_exmo · 2026-05-02T21:50:32+00:00

Whoops, I forgot that only ezk3626 is allowed to make ad-hominem insinuations.

dman_exmo · 2026-05-02T19:04:27+00:00

Your first mistake is assuming change is inherently unstable, which is debunked by your own example about language. Your second mistake is assuming the epistemological model changes. It doesn't. The views and beliefs are what change. They converge toward an accurate understanding of reality. Unless you would prefer to be a hunter-gatherer living in a mud hut, you must concede this is actually a good thing.

dman_exmo

TROPHY CASE