Debate Challenge

[Philosopher]

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.

+1

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

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

I've been called "Cool."
I'm sure Glen Beck has called everyone and their mother "Hitler" at some point.
I was called "God" while I was having sex.
Are these Attributes, or Names?

----------------

I'm a Philosopher. I love knowledge, and seek it out within the realms of both literature, metaphysics, and other mental pursuits of thought and wisdom. And this new keyboard is being a jack ass to me and my spelling.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

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.

If we're going to go that rout then I think this could be over with a link to ProfMTH. I suggest a topic that does not allow for scriptural evidence, it should be possible to decimate this on the grounds of the omnis themselves.

 

[/b/artleby]

Wait, when did God become prince of peace? Was there a memo... god dammit I never get God's memo's...

 

[Philosopher]

I've been called "Cool."
I'm sure Glen Beck has called everyone and their mother "Hitler" at some point.
Is that an attribute, or a name?

You're equivocating. When someone says "Hey! You're cool" they are referring to an attribute, they are not calling me by a name. And "Hitler" is just an umbrella term used to describe someone who is like a Nazi. In the same way, "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords" are terms that refer to God's attribute of being maximally excellent.

But seriously... can we get a topic established?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Wait, when did God become prince of peace? Was there a memo... god dammit I never get God's memo's...

You need to read His bestseller and subscribe to his fanbase in order to keep up with these things.


------------------

What's wrong about my initial Statement? It IS how the Christian God exists.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Wait, when did God become prince of peace? Was there a memo... god dammit I never get God's memo's...

Things were pretty peaceful after the flood....

 

[Philosopher]

The door is open, by the way, to anyone who wants to skip the theatrics of defining God and instead focus on his existence. And even then, they can still raise the issue in the debate.

 

[/b/artleby]

I have an idea, how about

"If a God falls in the forrest, but no one is around to hear it, can he still make a burrito so hot that even he cannot eat it?"
If you agree, I will start right now.

 

[Philosopher]

....

 

[/b/artleby]

I think we have a proposal! Can someone create it?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I propose the topic, "Ahriman is the one true god."

I define Ahriman as the second law of thermodynamics, and propose that he is timeless, immaterial (yet omnipresent), omnipotent (responsible for the creation and destruction of all systems of energy), but not omniscient as he is not described as such in the Avesta.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

The door is open, by the way, to anyone who wants to skip the theatrics of defining God and instead focus on his existence. And even then, they can still raise the issue in the debate.

I basically outlined your initial post with my statement, but then you shifted gears.

You HAVE to define which God, or which Attributes we are discussing (in the initial statement I offered up, you thought it was a bad idea for some reason to show exactly what we would be discussing in the title). There's countless numbers of Gods, and countless attributes for their existences.

It would be much like be debating the flavor of Fruit, but not coming to grips with the fact that the particular fruit we are discussing it is red, round, and has a waxy outside (an apple), thereas I would be discussing for hours on end about a round orange fruit that is tangy and counters scurvy (an orange).

 

[Philosopher]

I DID define God, look at the first post... If you want something more specific, then God as traditionally conceived by Christians.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I DID define God, look at the first post...

Then what was wrong with my initial statement - if it was EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID?

 

[/b/artleby]

I have an idea for a debate, entirely separate from this debate, if any one else is interested. the proposal is
"This debate is pointless"

I don't care what the actual rules are, but we still have to haggle over them for half a night for the sake of form.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I have an idea for a debate, entirely separate from this debate, if any one else is interested. the proposal is
"This debate is pointless"

Debate is never pointless.

 

[/b/artleby]

So do I have a taker?

 

[Philosopher]

You said.

The problem is that the divinity you describe is only given those attributes within Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

Yes, but why think that's a problem? That's the conception of God I'm arguing for.

The rest of the world has many gods and only a few given certain attributes - for example, Odin cannot see everything, but he has been granted Eternal Wisdom of the deeper inner workings of the Universe, so he can predict almost exactly how things will turn out with both the gods and Man.

The problem is that lesser gods such as Odin and the Hindu pantheon do not have the attributes I outlined in my opening post. So really this is a red herring.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

The statement:
"A being can exist within the confines of our perception of existence containing omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience."

I will be the negative.

Refer to this post for my proposed rules of conduct, if you would agree them to be acceptable:
http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&p=63545#p63545

Said it 20 minutes ago.