Debate Challenge

[Commander Eagle]

Sounds good.

 

[Philosopher]

Alright, I'll let you know when we can start -- either by post or PM.

 

[Deleted member 619]

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.

Bzzz. Thank you for playing. I would have committed the genetic fallacy if I had said that your argument could be dismissed on the basis that it had come from you. In this instance, I am not saying that gods do not exist (nor would I ever say that), but that your god is imaginary, regardless of the actual existence of a deity. Your god began as an idea in the minds of men., This says nothing about how good, bad or indifferent the idea is based on the source, only that that is the source, and it is therefore imaginary.

Ironic username strikes again. Dude, learn your fallacies.

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?

What is there to debate? Tell you what: You show me anything ever that began to exist,. other than as a re-arrangement of pre-existing stuff, and I'll take youor challenge. The cosmological 'argument' is a pathetic bit of reasoning that bears no resemblance to reality. Both premises are unsupported blind assertions. The conclusion, I have little problem with, except that when given a properly rigorous treatment of the word 'universe' the whole thing falls apart.

You haven't even begun to see what I have to offer. So, some openness please...

On the contrary. You have demonstrated that all you have is the usual apologetic excrement that the regulars here have seen time and time again. What, do you really think you're the first? I've been dealing with the fuckwitted arguments of the terminally credulous for years, and even the highly successful professional liars for doctrine have nothing new to offer.

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

Exactly. Theology. Fuckwittery by any other name. Any branch of philosophy with theological leanings is not philosophy, because it doesn't constitute a love of knowledge, but vacuous attempts to find justification for believing really fucking stupid things. Philosophy my arse. Fucking navel-gazing.

 

[Aught3]

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

I don't understand the inclusion of simplicity on this list, wouldn't god be the most complex thing imaginable?

 

[Philosopher]

I really don't want to have a debate on this thread, so this is the last question I'll answer.

God isn't complex -- he has no physical parts. Complexity is only understood in reference to something material. There is no such thing as "immaterial complexity."

 

[Thrasymachus]

You are argumentatively over-booked, but I'm up for talking about the PoE in particular, or Theism in general.

 

[Philosopher]

Well, I'm not going to plan too far ahead, lest I bite off more than I can chew, but I'll put you down for a possible debate.

 

[Aught3]

God isn't complex -- he has no physical parts. Complexity is only understood in reference to something material. There is no such thing as "immaterial complexity."

Are you sure this isn't just a problem with immaterial existence?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

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."

Well fuck I guess I can't - CommanderEagle stole my thunder.

 

[Philosopher]

Sorry, he didn't put up much of a fuss

 

[Commander Eagle]

Well fuck I guess I can't - CommanderEagle stole my thunder.

Commander Eagle: Professional Thunder-Stealer

Your Rumbling Noises Taken Without Your Notice Or Your Money Cheerfully Refunded

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Well fuck I guess I can't - CommanderEagle stole my thunder.

Commander Eagle: Professional Thunder-Stealer

Your Rumbling Noises Taken Without Your Notice Or Your Money Cheerfully Refunded

AND I THOUGHT WE WERE FRIENDS.

 

[Commander Eagle]

Commander Eagle: Professional Thunder-Stealer

Your Rumbling Noises Taken Without Your Notice Or Your Money Cheerfully Refunded

AND I THOUGHT WE WERE FRIENDS.

It's nothing personal, Hytegia, old pal. It's just business.

 

[/b/artleby]

I really don't want to have a debate on this thread, so this is the last question I'll answer.

God isn't complex -- he has no physical parts. Complexity is only understood in reference to something material. There is no such thing as "immaterial complexity."

Wait, philosopher, let me get this straight. Problems don't have complexity? Mathematical systems don't have complexity, algorithms don't have complexity? Ideas and concepts are incapable of complexity? Wow Philosopher, I guess you're right, complexity only applies to material things, stupid computer scientists and their whole P vs NP problem and countless classes of complexity based on abstract and immaterial concept, I'm sure if they were as good at philosophy as you they would see that right away! If only all the world's mathematicians and computer scientists were as smart as you!

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

All Commander really has to do is prove that a single attribute that Philosopher listed and the entire debate is over.

I'd start with the "Omni-" set.

 

[Philosopher]

Commander Eagle, my debate with Joe has concluded. How about we start Friday?

 

[Commander Eagle]

Commander Eagle, my debate with Joe has concluded. How about we start Friday?

Fine by me, but I may not be able to post on Saturday. The Eagle household has both haircuts and movies scheduled for that day. I'll probably be able to post, but there's a chance that I may have to ask for a twelve-hour extension or some such.

Alternately, we could start on Monday.

 

[Philosopher]

No problem -- how about we move it to Sunday? Friday is a bit stuffed for me, anyway.

EDIT: Monday is fine

 

[Commander Eagle]

Sunday or Monday is fine for me. Monday is slightly better, but I can do either. Whichever one you find easier.

 

[JustBusiness17]

I already said a being who has properties such as omnipotence and omniscience. If you want to know what those terms mean, then omnipotence means the ability to do anything that is metaphysically possible, while omniscience is knowledge of every true proposition.

Ummm...

A) Provide evidence. I've never heard of anything except logically flawed apologetics for explaining these things.
B) If he's talking about the god of the bible, then he can't be omniscient since he had to send 2 angels to investigate Sodom and Gamorah. Not very all knowing, is he?