Debate Challenge

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

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?

If that definition is true, any Wiccan has Omnipotence - a simple invocation of any Spirit I choose and I possess the ability to do anything metaphysically possible.

 

[JustBusiness17]

If that definition is true, any Wiccan has Omnipotence - a simple invocation of any Spirit I choose and I possess the ability to do anything metaphysically possible.

If omnipotence is that ability to imagine the impossible then everyone is omnipotent :geek:

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

If that definition is true, any Wiccan has Omnipotence - a simple invocation of any Spirit I choose and I possess the ability to do anything metaphysically possible.

If omnipotence is that ability to imagine the impossible then everyone is omnipotent :geek:

I rest my case.
I have just destroyed divinity concept with a metaphysical concept such as Magick.

 

[JustBusiness17]

I rest my case.
I have just destroyed divinity concept with a metaphysical concept such as Magick.

Oy... I'm getting Niocan flashbacks :?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I rest my case.
I have just destroyed divinity concept with a metaphysical concept such as Magick.

Oy... I'm getting Niocan flashbacks :?

We both know my stance on such things - but at least I'm not a conspiracy nut, and am an avid believer in the fact that copypasta links are bullshit.

 

[Deleted member 619]

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!

 

[JustBusiness17]

AND I THOUGHT WE WERE FRIENDS.

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

Hey! Don't bring me into your little quarrel! :evil:

=====

Finished reading the thread...

This debate is another fail because there is an obvious problem defining god. You're trying to apply attributes to something in your imagination... errr.. something thats invisible... errr.. something thats outside of reality... errrr... something thats unobservable. Yeah, unobservable. Anything that you try to attribute to god is inherently unfounded!

Further to what hack said about the cosmo argument, to say that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is unknowable. In science it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It may seem illogical that something could begin to exist without a cause, but nothing in quantum mechanics is immediately logical either. Certainly, if we discovered that existence did have an intentional cause, there's no good reason to believe that the Christian doctrine is true. In fact, your god wouldn't even be on the scientific list of possible contenders despite all the unyielding pleas from your brethren.

To assume anything prior to the expansion of the Universe would be as dogmatic as the belief in a flat-earth and geocentrism.

My advice to you is to either adopt the perfectly acceptable intellectual position of "I don't know and we may never know" or enjoy your unjustified delusions among your own. To try and push your unsupported truth claims on other people is a selfish act. Selfish in that you are doing it to buy your way into "heaven" and selfish in that you are wasting other people's time in order to justify the beliefs that give you comfort.

PS: I'd like to see god even push the start button on a microwave let alone heat a bloody burrito.

 

[Deleted member 619]

^^ Indeed. There's a massive difference between 'cause' and 'causal agent'.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

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."

Yes, because "God" is an imaginary cartoon character. Bugs Bunny has no physical parts either.

 

[Deleted member 619]

This still sounds like a complete misunderstanding of what 'complexity' means. Specifically, something is complex if it displays emergent behaviour that is not displayed by the constituent parts. So, a car is complicated, but not complex. The behaviour displayed by the combination of human and car together is complex.

Oh, and please demonstrate that the Mandelbrot set is material.

 

[masterjedijared]

God isn't complex

Wait wait wait...

You understand exactly how to replicate omniscience or omni- anything?!

Beans!

 

[Philosopher]

You guys look awfully overconfident... the debate hasn't started yet. :shock:

 

[australopithecus]

You guys look awfully overconfident... the debate hasn't started yet. :shock:

It's hard to argue with a consistently good track record.

 

[JustBusiness17]

You guys look awfully overconfident... the debate hasn't started yet. :shock:

Well, you are trying to start another debate built around a flawed proposition :lol:

Ignosticism, or igtheism, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of god and many other theological concepts. The word "ignosticism" was coined by Sherwin Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure in Humanistic Judaism.

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of god:

1.The view that a coherent definition of god must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of god (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of god is not considered meaningless; the term "god" is considered meaningless.
2.The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'god'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does god exist?" as meaningless.

Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that they cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.

 

[Deleted member 619]

You guys look awfully overconfident... the debate hasn't started yet. :shock:

Oops. Yet another lapse in your woefully pathetic thinking skills. How can we seem overconfident? We may seem confident, but overconfidence can only be determined by the outcome.

Logic: You have't got the first fucking idea what it looks like. The forum cat could embarrass you in a debate.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Interesting juxtaposition of a cat (independent thinking) in the photo and a dog (pack/tribal thinking) in your signature, hackenslash.

Maybe a thread on whether it's better to a cat or a dog...

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Philosopher]

I'll be ready to start in a few hours, a moderator can unlock the thread.

 

[Commander Eagle]

I'm good to go as well. I assume that you're going first?

 

[Philosopher]

Yes, since I'm affirming.

 

[Commander Eagle]

All right, Philosopher. Thread's open. You know the rules. Ten paces, turn, and fire.