Debate Challenge

[Philosopher]

Except I do not accept the proposition you posed.

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

1. What is "confines of our perception" supposed to mean? It's unnecessary.
2. There are more attributes than just those three, I just used them to give a general idea. I mean the full range of theistic attributes.

Really, your statement just seems to be unnecessarily verbose.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Except I do not accept the proposition you posed.

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

1. What is "confines of our perception" supposed to mean? It's unnecessary.
2. There are more attributes than just those three, I just used them to give a general idea. I mean the full range of theistic attributes.

Really, your statement just seems to be unnecessarily verbose.

I'm sorry, could you provide us with, "the full range of theistic attributes?"

I don't mean to be dense, but it would be unfortunate if )O( Hytegia )O( were to strawman you with a belief you do not hold because you failed to clearly outline your position, I'm sure you agree.

Perhaps you should keep it simple?

 

[/b/artleby]

How about you just reverse it.
"There is no logical reason to believe in a God."
Short, simple, and applies to any type of God you throw at it.

 

[Philosopher]

I can't believe we're having this trouble o_0 By the full range of theistic attributes, I mean everything that Christians believe that God has and can do.

I'm going to bed now, however. I'll be back later. Keep throwing around ideas.

/b/artleby: That would work

 

[/b/artleby]

Ok, Hytegia, is that good with you? It means you would be defending instead of him obviously, but it makes it harder for him to bullshit. And "logical reason" is alot easier to define than "the christian God"

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I can't believe we're having this trouble o_0 By the full range of theistic attributes, I mean everything that Christians believe that God has and can do.

I'm sorry, but this consensus you imagine in the minds of christians simply does not exist.

 

[Philosopher]

*Sigh* I'll just type up a list tomorrow.

 

[/b/artleby]

Why type up a list? You can just do
"There is no logical reason to believe in a God"
and you don't have to worry about it...

 

[Anachronous Rex]

*Sigh* I'll just type up a list tomorrow.

Righto, again I don't mean to be cruel, but we as rhetoricians must be precise.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Except I do not accept the proposition you posed.

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

1. What is "confines of our perception" supposed to mean? It's unnecessary.
2. There are more attributes than just those three, I just used them to give a general idea. I mean the full range of theistic attributes.

Really, your statement just seems to be unnecessarily verbose.

The "Confines of Perception" refers to Logic and Reality - I would say our Universe, but we haven't observed the whole Universe. If you are arguing the Christian God, then you've argued that he has entered our perception of reality at some point in time in the state of being Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent.
And, no, these three are the three traits that define the Christian God's existence -
He exists at all places (Omnipresence) at all times (Omniscient) and is capable of doing all things (Omnipotent). That defines both the place and the time at which YHWH exists, and declares He has authority over anything He wants to do.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Guys, this thread isn't supposed to be a debate. I'll respond, but I would like you to remain on topic.

Destroying Omnipotence:

"Can God microwave a burrito so hot that he cannot eat it?"

This just attacks a gross strawman. Omnipotence is the ability to do only what is logically possible. God cannot make square circles, God cannot make married bachelors, he cannot make rocks so large that he can't lift -- these are all logical impossibilities. This is how omnipotence has been historically understood (All the way back to Boethius). Omnipotence is the ability to do all that power can do. No amount of power can actualize a logical contradiction.

Err, except that I am perfectly capable of microwaving a burrito so hot that I can't eat it. Therefore it's logically possible to do so. Ergo; I am capable of something that your cretinous magic man is not, therefore he is not omnipotent.

As for your definition of omnipotence, what you are describing is not omnipotence. Look up the word in any dictionary, and you will not find the words 'logically possible' anywhere. So what you are doing here is what piss-poor navel-gazers do all the time, namely attempting to redefine words to suit your own discoursive convenience.

Here's a tip for you: The umbilicus is not a source of information.

 

[australopithecus]

Omnipotence is the ability to do only what is logically possible.

Could you please tell this to creationists? Thanks.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Err, except that I am perfectly capable of microwaving a burrito so hot that I can't eat it. Therefore it's logically possible to do so. Ergo; I am capable of something that your cretinous magic man is not, therefore he is not omnipotent.

As for your definition of omnipotence, what you are describing is not omnipotence. Look up the word in any dictionary, and you will not find the words 'logically possible' anywhere. So what you are doing here is what piss-poor navel-gazers do all the time, namely attempting to redefine words to suit your own discoursive convenience.

Here's a tip for you: The umbilicus is not a source of information.

That's the whole point.

If Yes, God CAN microwave a burrito that hot (but can't eat it) - He's Mortal.
If No, God CAN'T microwave a burrito that hot (and can eat it) - He's Mortal.

This entire perception is going to be my opening statement in the debate. For the Christian God to be plausible, His existence must be plausible. For Him to be God, and interact within the confines of our own Universe as the Bible says, then he must be able to EXIST HERE. Because, you see, in the Universe there are certain rules that must be followed - firstly, you cannot exist if your existence is paradoxical. Secondly, you cannot divide by zero (the Universe will explode if your math problem came out to be infinity, along with any test grades you have).

Hells, if we're discussing the Christian God, I could just quote Epicurus and be done with the whole thing (but that would be cheating. I like to serve my ownage fresh and original-flavor).

 

[InvisibleStain]

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.

This is it, people, that's the statement that shows you how the debate will end up... you cannot debate about something so ambiguous... A definition is always needed, for if you don't have one, anyone could change the definition of "God" at any point of the debate. I define God as the keyboard in front of me, therefore God exists.

Why type up a list? You can just do
"There is no logical reason to believe in a God"
and you don't have to worry about it...

I like the idea for the title... but I'm the greatest fan of Knowing what we are talking about... So let him type that list...

And I want to ask a brief definition of the terms omni-something, so the debate don't end up about God lifting stones or eating burritos... I think that would be boring...
Also, when Saying "God is the greatest possible being", you should definitely say what standard of greatness you are using... Are sequoia trees gods? Then I would believe in that God... But I would say then, that Gods are not omnipotent, mi guess is that Gods cannot walk
See why defining things is so important?
And finally, the basis... Would this debate be "God exists vs. Gos doesn't exist" or "There are reasons to believe in God vs. There aren't any"?

 

[Thrasymachus]

I'll be happy to answer the challenge. The conception of God being offered here seems clear enough to me.

 

[Philosopher]

Note to everyone: I'm only responding to debate queries as of now.

Thanks, Thras, but as of right now I'm keen on debating Hytegia since he seems overconfident.

If you are arguing the Christian God, then you've argued that he has entered our perception of reality at some point in time in the state of being Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent.
And, no, these three are the three traits that define the Christian God's existence -

No, there's more. There's aseity, incorporeality, metaphysical necessity, timelessness, omnibenevolence, etc.... I just mentioned those three as an umbrella term.

So, could you agree on this proposition: "The attributes of the Christian God are not logically contradictory."

 

[ImprobableJoe]

It would work better if you were debating something real. Since it is something imaginary, the goalposts are pretty much made to be shifted.

 

[Philosopher]

That just begs the question, since you're presupposing that God isn't already real. Besides, even working from that supposition, we can still formulate at least a rough definition of what he is.

 

[Commander Eagle]

No, there's more. There's aseity, incorporeality, metaphysical necessity, timelessness, omnibenevolence, etc.... I just mentioned those three as an umbrella term.

So, could you agree on this proposition: "The attributes of the Christian God are not logically contradictory."

I think you need a full list of all the properties which you believe the Christian god to have before this debate can really begin.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think you need a full list of all the properties which you believe the Christian god to have before this debate can really begin.

You'd also have to show why it would have those properties, and how you could possibly know without evidence.