The list isn't complete.   

Hey you wanted to make a list of fallacies in that link? You dont need to, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

You can find them all.

Yet the qualities of the finite system can strongly suggest that there is an infinite system.

𝑘 ∶ *0 = 𝑘 ⁄ *0 = 𝑘(1 ⁄ *0) = 𝑘*0⁻¹ = 𝑘(0 + ⅟₀)⁻¹ = 𝑘⅟₀⁻¹ = 𝑘(0⁻¹)⁻¹ = 𝑘0⁻¹⁽⁻¹⁾ = 𝑘0¹ = 𝑘0 = 0

Don't worry. We are on the verge of finding the cure for old age, so that people can live a lot longer... maybe never die.

Now, you are probably asking, How is that ever going to solve the overpopulation problem? Here's how.

Scientists, engineers and inventors die. New scientists, engineers and inventors come to take their place. The new guys (and gals) have to learn all the stuff over, and they never get to the point of expanding their thinking far enough to make tremendous strides in new science.

If scientists, engineers and inventors could live a lot longer, they would have the chance to mature their knowledge and thinking into methods for safely taking us to the stars. Would there ever come a time when we would out-populate the universe? Yes, and it would be in our lifetimes... if we lived forever.

If we take away their ability to tax, they fail.

probably you should add the "incident" of the suicidal plane crash too.. when "someone" kill 150 people they are just someone, probably without any religion.
when someone with a muslim name does the MASS KILLING of 12 people they are terrorist.

This is an interesting thought. Perhaps complex combinations of certain sounds could do the same thing. Like somebody reading the Quran out loud.

I could agree with you that disease has no good (but it might have some good that we are not aware of).

Since I didn't say that God created disease, why are you trying to say that I essentially said that God is evil? (Thank you for agreeing with me that God exists. People need to know that God exists so that they have reason to seek Him for their salvation.)

All proof for anything is based on the fact that the elements of that proof exist. So, if you attempt to prove that those elements of proof exist, you need other elements of proof to prove them. But what about those elements of proof? How far do you have to go before you get to some elements that are so foundational that they don't need proof of existence. So far, the only two things that we can possibly come up with are God and the supernatural.



God created many elements, all of them good, but some that could be manipulated into evil if someone had a mind to do such. God's enemy, the devil (a formerly good angel who corrupted himself), did exactly that. In his desire to create something, he created the only thing that was not created by God... destruction. That's why his name is Destroyer in the Revelation in the Bible.

You are finally starting to understand that the only understanding of why things exist, and the only proof for their existence, is the fact that they do exist. We have no other proof.

This means, that as far as our understanding goes, all of nature is supernatural. This points at the existence of God more than ever.

We are willing to pay any individual *$250,000 if they can produce empirical evidence which proves that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Creation Science Evangelism founder Kent Hovind has a cool quarter of a million smackers on the line for “anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.”

This is a Biblical argument - off-topic - except for the last paragraph at http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/outro.html where the author expresses that he believes God exists:

Not sure what this has to do with proving the existence of God, except that, as a widely-held religion, Christianity (along with many of the other religions) is strong evidence that God exists, simply because this many people believe that He does.


Number 1 is wrong, "1. The Supernatural Does Not Exist," because the whole of nature is supernatural. In addition, simply because one decides that the supernatural doesn't exist, thereby ignoring it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thus, God can exist.

And simply because someone says it exists doesnt mean it exists right? Right. Mine wasn't a claim of existence or non-existence. Mine was a claim countering the absolute impossibility of existence.

Number 2 is wrong, "2. Miracles Didn’t Happen Then, And Don’t Happen Now." Doctors in hospitals all over the place can't explain why some people get well overnight, and others die for no known reason. Thus, miracles are not proven to NOT exist, and seem to. Since miracles can exist, so can God.

Not being able to explain something doesnt make it supernatural or a miracle, we just simply dont know some things Exactly! My point entirely with regard to scientific observation. I was countering a definitive statement.

Number 3 is questionable, "3. Dependence Of Consciousness On The Physical Brain, Makes Life After Death Unlikely." Simply because consciousness seems to disappear as the brain deteriorates, doesn't mean that the elements of consciousness dissipate at the same time. In other words, consciousness may easily be held outside of the brain, and simply uses the brain for operating, just like you use your computer to get your post up on the forum. This leaves lots of room for the possibility that God exists, and doesn't prove He doesn't.

consciousness doesnt just seem to dissapear, it dissapears because we only have consciousness when we have a brain, chop your head off and write something and i will believe you. We don't know this. We don't know for a fact that conscious doesn't go elsewhere.

Number 4 is wrong, "4. Existence Of Evil In The World, Both Human-Created And Natural, Is More Likely In A Godless World," because in most of the big evil, wars, there are opponents. And the same is true for lots of the little evil - fights between people one way or another. Number 4 simply brings to light the evidence that God has an opponent who is evil. The religions often call the evil one the devil.

God is supposed to be a supernatarul and omnipotent therefore he shouldnt have any enemies That might seem logical. But because we are so extremely limited in our observation and knowledge of things around us, why are we so bold that we try to outguess something as great as God?

Number 5 doesn't really even fit, "5. Evolution Is More Likely In A Godless World," since, while I and others haven't debunked evolution at all, we have shown that there are so many holes in the evolutionary process as we know it, that there is no way to show that evolution produces anything other than a variety of changes, if that. In addition, even if science could come up with a viable evolutionary inanimate-to-life process, there is no way to tell if that is what really happened, because there are too many unknown variables that could have happened in the past. This shows the likelihood that God created it all.

Yeah because its easier to believe God created it all than believing evolution is just an incomplete theory? That has some holes but also has overwhelming evidence Evolution by some parts of its definition has been proven to exist. Evolution by its inanimate-to-life process definition not only has not been proven, but doesn't even have a plausible process in place whereby it could have happened. This means that it is a fiction in this way. Even if we had a plausible inanimate-to-life process in place for evolution, we would still need a time-viewer to be sure that this is the way it happened.

Number 6 is just goofy, "6. Divine Hiddenness: A Personal God That Wanted Loving Relationship With Human Beings Wouldn’t Be So Hidden," because it doesn't take into account the idea of a loving God giving our human machine bodies, and the whole of nature that supports us. There is no way to get anything like what we have in our bodies and nature if it hadn't been given to us. We enjoy life. It is a gift from Wherever. Because that "Wherever" is as great as it is, it fits the definition for the word "God."

I dont know wtf are you saying here What is a loving relationship with God like? Lots of religious people act like they have it. All of life is a gift, even though there is some bad in life. You have gifts from God, not because He hates you, but because He wants a loving relationship with you.

Number 7 is inconclusive, "7. The Religious Confusion In The World Is Incompatible With A God That Wants Us To Get It Right," because it doesn't take into account the religious ideas of an enemy fighting against God and man. Number 7 is a religious argument that suggests that the author has examined and expresses all the possibility of why a "God" would or would not do something. Thus, the author is holding himself/herself up as God, by expressing that he/she knows enough about this to conclude that God doesn't exist. Thus, the author is self-contradictory, as well.

God shouldnt let any enemy posion us then. God gave us greatness in that He gave us part of Himself. We are God's children. When you continue to fight against the existence of God, it is you who are poisoning yourself. God is trying to keep you from it.

Number 8 is completely wrong, "8. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming The Need For A First Cause," because, even though the Big Bang might have been shown to be plausible, there are too many variables that could have existed in the distant past to absolutely KNOW that Big Bang is what happened for real. In addition, electric cosmos theory is proving far more practical than popular cosmological theory - http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm. Thus, the idea of the Great First Cause stands stronger than ever.

No it doesnt, the idea of God being the first cause is something that has absolutly no proofs or evidence other than some philosophical thoughts Standing alone, cause and effect doesn't prove God. But when combined with the machine-like qualities of nature in the presence of the entropy that is all around us, there is absolutely no other explanation than God, the Great First Cause.

Number 9 is not even in the race, "9. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That Life Is So Improbable That It Could Only Come About If The Universe Were Fine Tuned By A Supernatural Force," because the odds are the fundamental thing that shows that the universe as we know it can't exist without a Great Something to have guided it all. Quantum math shows that there are countless probabilities behind everything, and in every direction. When quantum thinking is applied to the dimensions, dimensions that might be infinite but that we recognize only less than 30 of, the absolute NEED for something like God makes itself apparent.

You are saying that there are countless possibilities yet you want to believe just one of them, why? Simply because the countless possibilities don't allow anything to exist by probability. The only thing left is God.

Number 10 is wrong, "10. God’s Existence Cannot Be Rescued By Claiming That The Emergence of Life On Earth Demonstrates An Underlying Intelligent Design," because the author is admitting intelligent design. Even if it is nature that is the Intelligent Designer, nobody gets design without a designer. This points to the existence of God more than ever.

How do you know nothing gets a design without a designer, do you know everything that is in the universe and you know that everything has a designer? Take man out of the universe, and the question is irrelevant. Put man in the universe, and we see man design things, even something simple like the wheel. All man's designs are taken out of nature one way or another. There is design in nature. Man has proven that it takes intelligence to design.

This is a mishmash of ideas that are at times religious, and at times on-topic. Some of these ideas overlap with what is written above.



No, there YOU go.

 

Number 1 is wrong, "1. The Supernatural Does Not Exist," because the whole of nature is supernatural. In addition, simply because one decides that the supernatural doesn't exist, thereby ignoring it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thus, God can exist.