When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife!

Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshippers of a different god in their very own church.

The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16) and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9)

Yes, Big Pawn 1 - Mort a big zero.

However, I can't honestly take any credit for the win. It's not fair. All I'm doing is defending the truth while Mort CHOOSES to take on the impossible burden of defending the lie.

Big Pawn: In the interest of honesty and fairness I will summarize the debate with <refused>. He was going to mop the floor with me - intellectually!

<Refused: <<The famous deductive moral argument regarding the ontology of objective moral values (OMV): 1. If God does not exist then OMV do not extist 2. OMV do exist

3. Therefore God exists >>

lol.

Circular reasoning for the win. >

He claims <circular reasoning> for the "win". It's all or nothing now, but is he arrogant about it? Let's see...

<Refused: Put forward an argument that is not circular, and I might consider mopping the floor with you, intellectually.>

Doubling down on circularity - he's going to "mop the floor with me". Intersting and arrogant, but can he back up his arrogance? Let's see.

<Big Pawn: Well, since this is your counter argument all I have to do is show that the argument is not circular. Then we are finished.

The argument takes this form:

1. If not A then not B
2. B
3. Therefore A

This is a valid deductive argument. As such it is not circular by definition. >

Calling him out on the circular claim. Does he triple down? Let's see.

<refused: Since I am too lazy, to elaborate. Copy and paste from wikipedia. <Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as paradoxical thinking[1] or circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.>

that's exactly what you did. >

Yep he triples down on circularity "for the win". He's going to "mop the floor with me". Let's see what happens...I simply stated the truth about the argument not being circular - again.

< Big Pawn: Refused,

Again, the form of this valid deductive argument is this:

1. If not A then not B
2. B
3. Therefore A

That is a textbook example of a valid deductive argument. This is unarguable. If you continue to say that this is invalid and circular then you'll only reveal that you don't know the first thing about philosophy.>

Does <refused> quadruple down on circularity? Let's see...

<Refused: Circularity and formal logic do not rule each other out.> and <Thus your argument is <valid on a formal level>. As is any circular argument.>

He admits my argument is valid (in terms of formal logic) but claims it's STILL CIRCULAR!! Let's see what happens (he's going to mop the floor with me)

Big Pawn putting is simply:

<Big Pawn: Let it be known that <refused> is saying that after

1. If not A then not B
2. B

It is CIRCULAR reasoning to follow

3. Therefore A>

Is <refused> going to mop the floor with me, intellectually? Let's see if he will quintuple down on circularity.

<Refused: Fine I will retract my claim of circularity>

LOL! Wow, talk about "pride comes before the fall". This is a very satisfying debate indeed; very satisfying. I guess he mopped the floor with himself (circularity...lol)

Moral values are not physical, therefore there can be no physical evidence. Since there is no physical evidence then there is no observable data in the naturalistic, materialistic sense.

As I said..

"If God does not exist then OMV do not extist"

quod erat demonstrandum

You have yet to make the case for the premise i.e. OMV exist AND in order for them to exist, God has to exist.

1. <Refused: Circular reasoning for the win. >

2. <Refused: Put forward an argument that is not circular, and I might consider mopping the floor with you, intellectually.>

3. <Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as paradoxical thinking[1] or circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.>

that's exactly what you did.>

4. <Refused: Circularity and formal logic do not rule each other out.> and <Thus your argument is <valid on a formal level>. As is any circular argument.>

*****Capitulation*****

Mort, I agree that I didn't address the truthfulness of the premises. But that's not my fault - <refused> objected to the fundamental form of the argument i.e. being circular, thus preventing or making moot the need to actually dig in to the argument.

I will defend the premises as I've done before but first it's very important for <refused> to know that I've put his fire out. He's drenched in cold water right now, drying out as we speak.

Mort, it's true that the premises need to be defended but only if they are attacked. In this case <refused's> objection came before the truth of the premises were attacked.

By claiming that the argument was circular he was claiming that after:

1. If not A then not B
2. B

It would be circular to claim:

3. Therefore A.

In order to really snuff this out I refused to go off in many directions chasing this or that objection. One thing at a time. Please note in fairness that he claimed it was "circularity for the win" and that if I put forth an argument that wasn't circular he "might consider mopping the floor with me, intellectually".

Since he was arrogant and made a big deal about "circularity" I had to refute him on the spot, without enjoying the interesting points regarding the premises.

There is time to debate the premises.

Video

Islam vs Christianity

1. What would the world be like if everyone (and I mean *everyone*) was generous?

2. What would the world be like if everyone (and I mean *everyone*) was thoughtful, polite and kind.

3. What would the world be like if everyone (every last person) was honest?

4. What would the world be like if everyone (down to the very last person) was happy?

Personally, I enjoy debating on the KR page very much. My usual routine is to maybe brew a cup of tea, turn on some Mozart and enjoy a relaxing evening of lively debate.

I find it very entertaining but also it's very serious. As you can see, many of our friends have no clue at all about God and the intellectual reasons that support his existence. Many think that belief in God is ONLY about faith.

Faith, as you know, is what is required by Jesus and we should put our faith in him. But that doesn't mean that there aren't good reasons to believe that God exists apart from faith.

The fact of the matter is, and I hope you agree, that theism is an intellectual position while atheism is just absolutely NOT a tenable, intellectual position. When pressing atheists on THEIR belief they come to realize that they have no good reasons to believe that atheism is true - and they get very angry when this happens!

I understand their anger because I used to get angry too, but now I never get even a little angry during a debate. I remain serene and at peace.

I wish they could do the same but I understand their weakness.

Seriously, you didn't recognize that as sarcasm? Whew.

Here's the statement you're referring to:

<DEA: And why are there birds that can't fly?>

Because it was advantageous for them to not fly, hence they evolved into nonflying birds.

To prove that, here's a later point, one you lost big time, though you seem oblivious to that. DEA in orange, OCF in black:

<DEA: They evolved because they found an abundant food supply on the ground and, having no natural predators to chase them, they stayed on the ground, their wings eventually evolving into something useless (ostriches) or evolved into something useful (penguins).>

This is wonderful ex post facto reasoning. Instead of evolving into something useless, why didn't they evolve into something more useful?

<Where did I say that they (the animals) evolved into something less than ideal? I didn't. >

You admit they evolved from useful appendages to useless appendages. It's reasonable to say that is evolving away from the ideal.

<Did I say that man had evolved into something less than ideal? Nope.>

Nor did I. So what?

< Did I imply that evolution is a downward process? >

No, but it's a logical conclusion from your arguments. I am sitting here amazed you don't recognize that even now.

<The fact that flying birds evolve into walking birds does not mean that birds evolved into a less desirable condition and I never said it nor implied it.>

"The fact"? Really now. Please set forth the evidence for that claim.

< They evolved.>

Evidence?

< "Less than ideal" is your phrase not mine. You are attaching value statements to a natural process. I don't.>

You are denying the logical conclusion of your timeline.

<They evolved because they found an abundant food supply on the ground and, having no natural predators to chase them, they stayed on the ground, their wings eventually evolving into something useless (ostriches) or evolved into something useful (penguins).>

Great. If they have some useful appendages, that proves evolution. If they have some useless appendages, that proves evolution. What if they had like one useful wing and one useless wing?

Thanks for your comment <deus>. This is a very popular retort on the popular level. However, it is not one that is usually taken by leading philosopher, including atheist philosopher. Why is that?

To say that atheism is true is to say that you know something about the universe. As such it is a positive claim and positive claims need arguments.

For instance, if you say "there is not an elephant in my refrigerator" you lack the belief that there are any elephants in your fridge. But, this is a claim to know some truth about the universe i.e. that there is, truthfully, no elephant in your refrigerator.

Using the word evolution in that way is to equivocate. The word evolution is kind of an according word; people make it mean bigger things and smaller things. For instance, looking at how bacteria might "evolve" in a petri dish over the course of 2 months is micro evolution. This is observable.

But to extrapolate that to a grand scale is a leap into macro evolution. There is no evidence of macro evolution; it's all "long ago and far away" - all the evidence is imagined, literally.

Evolutionists believe that their ancestors are rocks. So if you think it sounds silly that "God created Adam and Eve" just pause for a moment and consider how foolish it sounds to say that your ancestor is a rock.

It rained on the rock for a long, long time and the rock came to life, and then evolved into people - and everything else.

May I recommend the following book?...

"Can a Darwinian be a Christian?: The Relationship between Science and Religion" by Michael Ruse

http://www.amazon.com/Can-Darwinian...