Debate Challenge

[Deleted member 619]

That just begs the question, since you're presupposing that God isn't already real.

Not true. I can absolutely guarantee that your conception of god is not real, and is therefore imaginary. This is trivial to do. All I have to do is ask how you heard about it. That says nothing about the existence of a deity as a general principle. Yet another fucking philosopher who couldn't reason his way out of a paper bag.

 

[Philosopher]

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.

I can show why it would have these properties... with evidence! And, if you want a full list of properties, here's a pretty exhaustive one:

-Omnipotence
-Omniscience
-Omnipresence
-Necessity
-Aseity
-Immutability
-Simplicity
-Eternity
-Goodness
-Incorporeality

So, any takers?

Not true. I can absolutely guarantee that your conception of god is not real, and is therefore imaginary. This is trivial to do. All I have to do is ask how you heard about it. [Emphasis mine]

That just commits the genetic fallacy -- basing the falsity of an idea on how I came to believe it.

~~
Seriously though, these issues are much more complex and deeper than you imagine....

 

[Philosopher]

Oh, one more thing. I think I'll amend the topics I'm open to debate. I'm also willing to debate issues within theism/atheism such as the problem of evil, the success of the cosmological argument, the fairness of hell, the coherence of divine attributes, etc..

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Not true. I can absolutely guarantee that your conception of god is not real, and is therefore imaginary. This is trivial to do. All I have to do is ask how you heard about it. That says nothing about the existence of a deity as a general principle. Yet another fucking philosopher who couldn't reason his way out of a paper bag.

You know, I've always said that philosophy was a way for smart-but-lazy people to avoid having to get real jobs. Since it is all imaginary from beginning to end, you can't tell the legitimate made-up stuff from the illegitimate made-up stuff. Add in a little post-modern nonsense and you've got a way to keep thousands of enterprising young folks off their parents' couch and away from the hacky sack.

Until someone produces an actual god for us to examine, all we have to talk about is the concept of one, built from people's imaginations and nothing else.

 

[Philosopher]

You think philosophy is meaningless, Joe?

 

[Deleted member 619]

No it isn't. Well done for committing the fallacist's fallacy. I'm not basing my conclusion about whether or not god exists on how you came to believe it, but it is trivial to demonstrate that everybody who ever heard about it heard form somebody else. Nobody can present any robust evidence for any experience of god. Not only that, the vast array of hugely contradictory attributes, along with the very human characteristics that this preposterous entity that is supposed to be somehow transcendent, demonstrate beautifully that it's a man-made concept. Your cretinous magic man is a made-up fucking masturbation fantasy. If any deity does exist, it isn't yours.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Oh, one more thing. I think I'll amend the topics I'm open to debate. I'm also willing to debate issues within theism/atheism such as the problem of evil, the success of the cosmological argument, the fairness of hell, the coherence of divine attributes, etc..

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :? :? :| :facepalm:

There's never been a cosmological argument that is anything but a heaping pile of fail. But hey, if someone wants to argue for it, I'll pop some popcorn and watch.

 

[Deleted member 619]

You think philosophy is meaningless, Joe?

Not remotely, although what you are doing isn't philosophy, it's theology, and it's operating on the mistaken principle that the umbilicus is a source of information.

Science is philosophy, but it has an advantage over other formulations, for the very simple reason that, in science, your axioms actually have to be true.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

If any deity does exist, it isn't yours.

Not quite right... but it IS likely impossible to ever demonstrate it.

 

[Deleted member 619]

such as the problem of evil,

What problem of evil? Evil is anothe rimaginary concept, and entirely without utility, except for frightening children.

the success of the cosmological argument,

 

[Deleted member 619]

If any deity does exist, it isn't yours.

Not quite right... but it IS likely impossible to ever demonstrate it.

Nope. I'm confident that if any such thing as a deity exists, it isn't any of the conceptions dreamt up by the terminally fucking credulous.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You think philosophy is meaningless, Joe?

I think it is too easy for clever-not-wise people to engage in meaningless speculation and call it philosophy. For instance, people who try to use fancy combinations of words to hide the fallacies in their argument, and to define things into existence that otherwise only exist in their head. William Lane Craig for example, has made an entire career for himself of exploiting the forms of philosophy and logic in order to camouflage his fundamentally unsound and unfounded positions.

 

[Philosopher]

Hackenslash, you said earlier:

"Not true. I can absolutely guarantee that your conception of god is not real, and is therefore imaginary. This is trivial to do. All I have to do is ask how you heard about it."

The bolded part implies that you're using the origin of my belief to disprove it. That's the definition of the genetic fallacy.

But really, I'm not here to debate, I'm here to discuss debate terms. If you want to debate me about a certain topic, then challenge me to a 1 vs 1. I would love to debate anyone, but I prefer a setting where I won't get ganged up (Since I'm quite outnumbered here). Of course you're going to think "Hahah, the cosmological argument fails! You're a fool!" Why not have a debate over it instead of ridiculing it? You haven't even begun to see what I have to offer. So, some openness please...

Not remotely, although what you are doing isn't philosophy, it's theology, and it's operating on the mistaken principle that the umbilicus is a source of information.

No... it's called philosophical theology (A legitimate discipline that uses philosophy to analyze what God is).

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Nope. I'm confident that if any such thing as a deity exists, it isn't any of the conceptions dreamt up by the terminally fucking credulous.

Hey, sometimes people make a lucky guess. :lol:

 

[Commander Eagle]

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

I can show why it would have these properties... with evidence! And, if you want a full list of properties, here's a pretty exhaustive one:

-Omnipotence
-Omniscience
-Omnipresence
-Necessity
-Aseity
-Immutability
-Simplicity
-Eternity
-Goodness
-Incorporeality

So, any takers?

Depends. Are you trying to debate on whether or not these properties are contradictory? If so, probably not, because a) they might not be, depending on how much you allow people to stretch the definitions and b) it's a moot point anyway, since merely proving that these properties are not contradictory does not prove that a being with those properties exists.
However, if you wish to debate on whether or not a being with these properties exists, and plan to back up your position with evidence, I'm game. I'd be happy to see whatever it is that you have to offer. After all, I'm a skeptic first, and if someone thinks they have evidence, I listen.

 

[Philosopher]

Depends. Are you trying to debate on whether or not these properties are contradictory? If so, probably not, because a) they might not be, depending on how much you allow people to stretch the definitions and b) it's a moot point anyway, since merely proving that these properties are not contradictory does not prove that a being with those properties exists.

Well, I would much rather argue that a being with those properties (God) exists... But some people here are refusing to accept that a coherent definition of God can be given and thus want to debate me over that.

 

[Commander Eagle]

Depends. Are you trying to debate on whether or not these properties are contradictory? If so, probably not, because a) they might not be, depending on how much you allow people to stretch the definitions and b) it's a moot point anyway, since merely proving that these properties are not contradictory does not prove that a being with those properties exists.

Well, I would much rather argue that a being with those properties (God) exists... But some people here are refusing to accept that a coherent definition of God can be given and thus want to debate me over that.

I can go with the first. I don't see any point in arguing over whether or not it's contradictory, for the simple reason that it's a moot point. If you think that a being with these properties exists, you should be allowed to present your evidence for it, whether or not the properties appear to be contradictory.

By the way, I don't think that the list of properties you gave is necessarily contradictory in and of itself. A case could be made that it is contradictory with the image of God which is given in Christian texts, but on its own, I see no problem with it, and I'm not inclined to attempt to make a case for Biblical contradiction.

 

[Philosopher]

Great! Would you agree to this proposition then: "There is good evidence for the existence of God"

By God, I mean a being with those properties that I outlined earlier.

 

[Commander Eagle]

Great! Would you agree to this proposition then: "There is good evidence for the existence of God"

By God, I mean a being with those properties that I outlined earlier.

Sure. It may be a little broad, but hey, I've got time.

 

[Philosopher]

Alright! For terms, we can use the ones proposed by Hytegia here:

http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&p=63545#p63545

The debate wouldn't start now though, just when my current debate with Joe ends.