Is Pope Francis Catholic?

[Yakuda]

10 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

“Convince me I’m wrong” is the opposite of “I will convince you I’m right”.  
 

Your words were in perfect context.  You want “those people” to disprove your god, which is a reversal of the burden of proof when you’re the one claiming God exists.  
 

 

No I dont want them to disprove my God. That's incorrect. I've challenged them to do something that would in turn require me to abandon my belief. The challenge is to show that others could what I believe only God can do. If you could do it then my belief would be irrational. 

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Yakuda said:

I've challenged them to do something that would in turn require me to abandon my belief.

Right….  Which is totally different than disproving your belief in God. 
 

I don’t want you to disprove Loch Ness monster, I just want you to change my mind about my belief in Loch Ness monster.  
 

Tedious word games, or a lack of English?  Is English your first language?  I think I’ve asked that before….   

[Yakuda]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Right….  Which is totally different than disproving your belief in God. 
 

I don’t want you to disprove Loch Ness monster, I just want you to change my mind about my belief in Loch Ness monster.  
 

Tedious word games, or a lack of English?  Is English your first language?  I think I’ve asked that before….   

It is different 

Yes tedious to those who lack the ability to creat an argument. I've given you the proofs of Gods existence which you rejected without out any explanation why it's bad but now you're you're whining. Ill give you credit though you know when to quit. 

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Yakuda said:

I've given you the proofs of Gods existence

You did?  Didn’t you say go read Aquinas for the proofs?   Those aren’t evidence.
 

I need good empirical evidence to believe something.  If you don’t have any, that’s fine.  We come by our beliefs differently.  I don’t do faith, and you do. 
 

5 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

you rejected without out any explanation

I gave the explanation above.  They’re not empirical evidence.  Your kind of evidence can be used to believe anything.  It’s the same level of evidence @blackbird uses to justify their beliefs, which you reject. 
 

Come back with some good empirical evidence.
 

 

[Yakuda]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You did?  Didn’t you say go read Aquinas for the proofs?   Those aren’t evidence.
 

I need good empirical evidence to believe something.  If you don’t have any, that’s fine.  We come by our beliefs differently.  I don’t do faith, and you do. 
 

I gave the explanation above.  They’re not empirical evidence.  Your kind of evidence can be used to believe anything.  It’s the same level of evidence @blackbird uses to justify their beliefs, which you reject. 
 

Come back with some good empirical evidence.
 

 

They are evidence. You dont like it. That's not the same 

I would reject everything offered to me to if I was you. In have give you the chance to empirically prove me wrong but you don't want to do. As I said before youre disingenuous at best but it's more like you're just straight kut duplicitous. You aren't to be taken seriously. I've noticed this site is full of blowhards. 

[TreeBeard]

20 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

They are evidence. You dont like it. That's not the same 

I didn’t say it wasn’t evidence.  I said I only believe something if there is good empirical evidence.  Just because you believe something for bad reasons doesn’t mean I will.  
 

22 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

empirically prove me wrong

As I said, the burden is not on me to prove Bigfoot isn’t true to someone who believes in Bigfoot. 

 

23 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

As I said before youre disingenuous at best but it's more like you're just straight kut duplicitous. You aren't to be taken seriously. I've noticed this site is full of blowhards. 

I’ve made myself clear. Maybe it’s a English language thing?

[Yakuda]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

I didn’t say it wasn’t evidence.  I said I only believe something if there is good empirical evidence.  Just because you believe something for bad reasons doesn’t mean I will.  
 

As I said, the burden is not on me to prove Bigfoot isn’t true to someone who believes in Bigfoot. 

 

I’ve made myself clear. Maybe it’s a English language thing?

Oh I see you think I care what you believe. Let me unburden you, I never have. 

So you will run away. Smart boy I'll give you that 

Only in your own head. 

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Yakuda said:

Oh I see you think I care what you believe. Let me unburden you, I never have. 

I never said you care what I think.   But I care what you, and others here,  think.  That’s why I’m here conversing with you.  
 

Why are you here conversing if you don’t care? 
 

3 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

So you will run away.

How am I running away?  
Are you claiming victory because I won’t play your game of disproving your claim?  That’s genuinely funny that you believe that!

 Disprove my belief in unicorns, or they exist!
 

[Yakuda]

16 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

I never said you care what I think.   But I care what you, and others here,  think.  That’s why I’m here conversing with you.  
 

Why are you here conversing if you don’t care? 
 

How am I running away?  
Are you claiming victory because I won’t play your game of disproving your claim?  That’s genuinely funny that you believe that!

 Disprove my belief in unicorns, or they exist!
 

That's your problem not mine. 

I do care about what I think not what you think unless why you think makes sense which it doesnt. 

AGAIN I'm not asking you to disprove my belief in God. I have told you the proofs I use to conclude there is a God. All you have done thus far is say you don't like the proofs. That's not a counter argument. 

Edited February 6, 2024 by Yakuda

[TreeBeard]

10 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

I have told you the proofs I use to conclude there is a God. All you have done thus far is say you don't like the proofs. That's not a counter argument. 

Yes, I mentioned  earlier that our standards of evidence are very different.  I would argue, based on what you consider evidence, that your standards are poor. 

I can replace Aquinas’ conclusion “therefore God” with literally anything.   “Therefore universe-creating Unicorns”   
 

Terrible evidence if you can just replace the conclusion with literally any supernatural belief.  “Therefore Allah”.  I believe things based on empirical evidence, not assertions.  
 

Do you believe anything, other than God, based strictly on arguments alone?

 

Edited February 6, 2024 by TreeBeard

[Yakuda]

6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Yes, I mentioned  earlier that our standards of evidence are very different.  I would argue, based on what you consider evidence, that your standards are poor. 

I can replace Aquinas’ conclusion “therefore God” with literally anything.   “Therefore universe-creating Unicorns”   
 

Terrible evidence if you can just replace the conclusion with literally any supernatural belief.  “Therefore Allah”.  I believe things based on empirical evidence, not assertions.  
 

Do you believe anything, other than God, based strictly on arguments alone?

 

As I've stated already as well thats irrelevant

Yes you can but you havent offered anything but an asinine comment. You haven't shown why the 5 proofs are bad you've just spouted your opinion. Actually the unicorn thing is more impressive than your opinion. 

Yes, just about everything that I haven't actually personally experienced. The same is true for you but you think you only believe things based on evidence. BS 

[TreeBeard]

8 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

You haven't shown why the 5 proofs are bad

Because an assertion “therefore God” can be dismissed out of hand.  Just like “therefore Allah” is dismissed out of hand by yourself.  
 

11 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Yes, just about everything that I haven't actually personally experienced. The same is true for you but you think you only believe things based on evidence. BS 

Name something, if you can, so we can examine it. 

[CrakHoBarbie]

10 hours ago, Yakuda said:

You don't really imagine that it matters to me what someone who calls themselves crack ho barbie thinks do you???? Really???

I gave you evidence. You don't like the evidence. Thats a you problem. Again I can't make you see the evidence anymore than I can make Stevie wonder see the color red. 

I asked for "tangible" evidence.

If your God exists, present him/her/them.

[Yakuda]

15 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

I asked for "tangible" evidence.

If your God exists, present him/her/them.

It is tangible. 

I have, you reject him.  But I must remember you're proud of calling yourself crack ho barbie. I should expect nothing less. 

16 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Because an assertion “therefore God” can be dismissed out of hand.  Just like “therefore Allah” is dismissed out of hand by yourself.  
 

Name something, if you can, so we can examine it. 

Because you say so. I'm not impressed 

Have you ever read an article in a "professional" journal? 

[TreeBeard]

2 hours ago, Yakuda said:

Because you say so. I'm not impressed 

If the argument was for Allah, you would reject it too.   Unimpressive evidence. 

[Yakuda]

12 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

If the argument was for Allah, you would reject it too.   Unimpressive evidence. 

Only because Allah is not the God of the bible. All you need to do is read the koran to know that 

[TreeBeard]

4 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Only because Allah is not the God of the bible. All you need to do is read the koran to know that 

In other words, an argument, like the one you’re pointing to for belief, isn’t really good evidence then, is it?  
 

If you can just dismiss an argument because the conclusion is the “wrong god”, then that argument did nothing.  

 

[Yakuda]

Just now, TreeBeard said:

In other words, an argument, like the one you’re pointing to for belief, isn’t really good evidence then, is it?  
 

If you can just dismiss an argument because the conclusion is the “wrong god”, then that argument did nothing.  

You ignored my example. Maybe you're smarter than I imagined. 

[TreeBeard]

Just now, Yakuda said:

You ignored my example. Maybe you're smarter than I imagined. 

Your example is irrelevant if you are talking about the argument being the proof of God.  Now you’re saying the bible is the evidence for God.   Which is it?  

[Yakuda]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

Your example is irrelevant if you are talking about the argument being the proof of God.  Now you’re saying the bible is the evidence for God.   Which is it?  

You wanted an example of something you take as true based on belief and I gave it to you now you're starting to whine. 

[TreeBeard]

45 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

You wanted an example of something you take as true based on belief and I gave it to you now you're starting to whine. 

No, that’s not what I asked.  That’s also circular.   What do I believe based on belief?  LOL

Your example also made no sense as an answer to my question.  
 

I said name something that you believe to be true, other than in God, that you believe because of an argument, and not evidence.  

Edited February 7, 2024 by TreeBeard

[Yakuda]

16 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

No, that’s not what I asked.  That’s also circular.   What do I believe based on belief?  LOL

Your example also made no sense as an answer to my question.  
 

I said name something that you believe to be true, other than in God, that you believe because of an argument, and not evidence.  

Are being purposely obtuse?

I asked if youve ever read a "professional" journal. If you have not personally verified everything you think is true then by definition you accept it by belief. 

[TreeBeard]

3 hours ago, Yakuda said:

Are being purposely obtuse?

I asked if youve ever read a "professional" journal. If you have not personally verified everything you think is true then by definition you accept it by belief. 

What do you accept that isn’t a belief?  Your language makes no sense. 
 

Professional journals don’t use formal philosophical arguments as evidence, like your “proofs of God” does.  They describe empirical evidence for the claim, how it was analyzed and people can replicate their findings.  Completely different than an argument. 
 

 

Edited February 7, 2024 by TreeBeard

[CrakHoBarbie]

12 hours ago, Yakuda said:

It is tangible. 

I have, you reject him.  But I must remember you're proud of calling yourself crack ho barbie. I should expect nothing less. 

 

What's your "tangible" evidence?

Scripture?

Scripture is just words on paper. Not tangible proof your God exists.

Or is it creation?

Well, creation is just proof that we exist. It's not proof we were created by your God.

So, you've got squat.

And you know it.

Now, what's my name again?

Say my name.....

 

 

Edited February 8, 2024 by CrakHoBarbie

[Yakuda]

2 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

What's your "tangible" evidence?

Scripture?

Scripture is just words on paper. Not tangible proof your God exists.

Or is is creation?

Well, creation is just proof that we exist. It's not proof we were created by your God.

So, you've got squat.

And you know it.

Now, what's my name again?

Say my name.....

 

 

No not Scripture. I hated talking to ignorant people