Debate Challenge

[Aught3]

I might use the ontological argument though It's stronger than what the popular literature portrays it to be.

I doubt that. Even Plantinga's version makes me despair for the fate of humanity. Anyway, I guess I'm out but I'm sure you'll have no shortage of takers.

I don't want to be mean, but your response has boiled down to "I don't like your argument, therefore it is irrelevant because I'm right and you're wrong." You've constricted an omnipotent being into the confines of mortal limits and within mortal constraints - MORTALS cannot contradict themselves because we have limits. We are not Omni-Potent. We are simply Potent.
If you confine an omnipotent being into mortal limits, it is no longer "ALL - POWERFUL."

Actually, I think it's more like an all-purpose out. It defeats all possible disproof by contradiction based on omnipotence because if you manage to find something that it is logically impossible for an omnipotent being to do, it's no longer a problem thanks to the out. To me it starts to make the idea of omnipotence incoherent but that's possible a topic for another thread.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I agree to the terms, but not to the proposition being debated. How about "The attributes of God are not contradictory"

It's rather dubious to include omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence in the title because their very definitions are up for grabs.

That's silly. Of course Odin's attributes are not contradictory. He's simply all-wise.

-_-
You must define the attributes of God, or define which God you're discussing - or else I'm going to assume that we're discussing his noodliness, the FSM.

 

[nasher168]

I would strongly suggest you get through the debate with ImprobableJoe on abortion before any other debate begins.

 

[Philosopher]

Don't be smug here... You know what I'm referring to. How about God as traditionally conceived by Christians?

Nasher: Read the first post of this thread.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I agree to the terms, but not to the proposition being debated. How about "The attributes of God are not contradictory"

It's rather dubious to include omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence in the title because their very definitions are up for grabs.

Oh and...

Great! Where is it? What is it?

Any introduction to the philosophy of religion text. I recommend the Cambridge Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. The definition of God is the greatest possible being.

You know, unlike when someone asks me to explain the entirety of evolution to them, this really is an instance in which a proper description could encompass no more then a few sentences...

Is it so very much to ask that I not be redirected to a source which you know I do not possess, and simply accommodate me by means of a direct answer?

If it is indeed so well understood then I don't see the point in your evasiveness.

 

[Philosopher]

Well, you asked where is it, so I directed you to a book... How about if I link you to an article?

 

[nasher168]

Dammit!
People keep going back in time and changing what they said to make me appear inobservant, I swear!

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Don't be smug here... You know what I'm referring to. How about God as traditionally conceived by Christians?

Nasher: Read the first post of this thread.

Proposed Statement:
"The existence of the Christian God cannot contradict itself."

 

[Philosopher]

Well nasher, it was there to begin with

Proposed Statement:
"The existence of the Christian God cannot contradict itself."

How about "The attributes of the Christian God cannot be self-contradictory"

 

[/b/artleby]

Shouldn't it be "are not" ?

 

[Philosopher]

That, or "is not" would work just fine.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Well nasher, it was there to begin with

Proposed Statement:
"The existence of the Christian God cannot contradict itself."

How about "The attributes of the Christian God cannot be self-contradictory"

How is that any different from my original statement? The initial statement simply outlined the attributes of the Christian God-

Proposed Statement:
The attributes of the Christian God are not self-contradictory to His existence.

 

[/b/artleby]

That makes no sense, "self contradictory to his existence" is grammatically incorrect it should be "do not contradict his existence"

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Don't be smug here... You know what I'm referring to. How about God as traditionally conceived by Christians?

Sure.

Manichean?
Gnostic?
Cult of the Martyrs?
Ascetic? (pushing it with the 4th century I know...)
Docetic?
Ebionite?
Arian?
Trinitarian?
or
Paulician?

My sincere appologies if I'm forgetting a few.

 

[Philosopher]

I'm not sure what "To his existence" even means.

How about this... "The attributes of the Christian God are not self-contradictory"


EDIT: I will only respond to debate queries from this point on. I'm not going to risk being overwhelmed in a regular debate by the lot of you.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I'm not sure what "To his existence" even means.

How about this... "The attributes of the Christian God are not self-contradictory"


EDIT: I will only respond to debate queries from this point on. I'm not going to risk being overwhelmed in a regular debate by the lot of you.

Coward!

 

[/b/artleby]

Wait, when the hell did philosopher become bugs bunny?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

That makes no sense, "self contradictory to his existence" is grammatically incorrect it should be "do not contradict his existence"

It's 2 A.M.
Don't nag over snippits when they possibly make sense. Or could you refine the statement for us, please?

The statement that Philosopher is proposing could do with any one of the Bible's many statements that it attributes to God and has nothing to do with His existence (All-Loving, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Prince of Peace, etc.) - this has the possibility of leading to major problems and has nothing to do with existence. This is why it is imperative that we outline that point.

this is a debate query.

 

[Philosopher]

I'm not sure what "To his existence" even means.

How about this... "The attributes of the Christian God are not self-contradictory"


EDIT: I will only respond to debate queries from this point on. I'm not going to risk being overwhelmed in a regular debate by the lot of you.

Coward!

Well then, how about we have our own debate after I get this one done with?

The statement that Philosopher is proposing could do with any one of the Bible's many statements that it attributes to God and has nothing to do with His existence (All-Loving, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Prince of Peace, etc.) - this has the possibility of leading to major problems and has nothing to do with existence. This is why it is imperative that we outline that point.

Those aren't attributes... those are names.

Wait, when the hell did philosopher become bugs bunny?

Ever since I changed my avatar

 

[/b/artleby]

That makes no sense, "self contradictory to his existence" is grammatically incorrect it should be "do not contradict his existence"

It's 2 A.M.
Don't nag over snippits when they possibly make sense. Or could you refine the statement for us, please?

The statement that Philosopher is proposing could do with any one of the Bible's many statements that it attributes to God and has nothing to do with His existence (All-Loving, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Prince of Peace, etc.) - this has the possibility of leading to major problems and has nothing to do with existence. This is why it is imperative that we outline that point.

this is a debate query.

It may not seem important, but trust me, grammar is important with philosophers. They have mind tricks or something, one time I accidentally used its instead of it's in a debate with one and he managed to turn it into an argument for existentialism. You can't trust philosophers.