I WISH TO DEBATE YOU AND VICTORY SHALL BE MINE

Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
I WISH TO DEBATE YOU AND VICTORY SHALL BE MINE

Here's why:

1. I have a resolution all lined up: "Resolved: God exists." I'll be the affirmative.

2. I have my the definition of God all lined up. I shall use the Westminster Confession of Faith:

I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long- suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.


II. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

3. I have a format all lined up: Three rounds, simultaneously posted on prearranged dates by a moderator. Namely Opening, Rebuttal, and Closing Statements. 1000 word upper limit on each post.

4. I have developed counterarguments to important parts of the anticipated negative case, namely: that terms like supernatural and immaterial are incoherent. These counterarguments shall be revealed at the time of the debate, to whosoever engages me. (If they turn out to be relevant, of course.)

5. I have a bullet-arrow-and-grenade-proof affirmative case, which shall be revealed at the time of the debate, to whosoever engages me.

6. I am vastly, vastly smarter than you.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Ok.  I'm game.  Waiting on

Ok.  I'm game.  Waiting on your clarification of your definition so that we can start debating.  Please define all pertinent words.  Thank you.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Here's why:

1. I have a resolution all lined up: "Resolved: God exists." I'll be the affirmative.

2. I have my the definition of God all lined up. I shall use the Westminster Confession of Faith:

I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long- suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.


II. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

3. I have a format all lined up: Three rounds, simultaneously posted on prearranged dates by a moderator. Namely Opening, Rebuttal, and Closing Statements. 1000 word upper limit on each post.

4. I have developed counterarguments to important parts of the anticipated negative case, namely: that terms like supernatural and immaterial are incoherent. These counterarguments shall be revealed at the time of the debate, to whosoever engages me. (If they turn out to be relevant, of course.)

5. I have a bullet-arrow-and-grenade-proof affirmative case, which shall be revealed at the time of the debate, to whosoever engages me.

6. I am vastly, vastly smarter than you.

Ooooooh...a challenge that ends(6.) with a bold assertion to get us crafty atheists off our couches.

Presupper

1) I've never actually met anyone who can presup as well as you.

(And I've met thousands upon thousands of xians, take as a compliment)

2) Westminster will get you virtually nowhere.

3) Your counterarguments must be more than just relevant.

4) If I had the time, I'd take your "challenge"

5) I seriously doubt you are smarter than every atheist at RRS.

6) Good luck, IMO you will need it.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist Define

Presuppositionalist

  Define God ... There is no such possible "Debate" ... You are making shit up. Yeah "gawed done it" ... shezzz , everyone knows that. Does science philosophy interest you? Know something do ya! 

Does your dogma bite? I meant Godma.   Word Games are popular ..... I like them too !    

    yeah the "AWE" !   I meant GAWED !

   Okay, I got one infallible truth. "I am god as you" !  Care to object ?

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infallible

        It all boils down to " gawed done it" No religion required.

    Okay, YOU win !    Gezzz, just don't lie about it !  

 

 

                                             

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
              

                                                            

                                                           

                                

                                                            

                                                            

                                                            

                                                           

                                                           

                                                           

                                                            

                                                           

                                                            


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I. There is but one

Quote:
I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long- suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. 


II. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them. 
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

 

Love is a passion. God is a spirit without passion. God is a spirit without love. Contradiction with the definition of God as a spirit with love. Therefore, God does not exist.

 

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
OZ, has he lost his mind ,

Prophet OZ,  "has he lost his mind" , wait, what is mind ?     Life Death 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6L_BKySZ8s&feature=related

                    *
                    *
                    *

Black Sabbath-War Pigs (set to political footage)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GRR_n_yQGA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEABsKGOCCI&feature=related

    Got Religion, Patriotism ..... FUCK YOU DEVIL'S SHEEP , all is ONE.

             

   

    

 


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist wrote:6.

Presuppositionalist wrote:

6. I am vastly, vastly smarter than you.

Proverbs 29:23 A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit.

Even if you are right, your attitude does little to endear me to christians

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Well, it's all more

Well, it's all more descriptive than an actual definition.

Presuppositionalist wrote:

I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long- suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

"working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will" - that's funny, Moses made him change his mind a few times, or was God just pretending and is actually a lying bastard?

"most loving" - don't forget jealous and vengeful.

"merciful, long- suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin" - "and who will by no means clear the guilty." - so he will forgive sin, but not clear the guilty? Sounds like your 'definition' is contradicting itself.

Presuppositionalist wrote:

II. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

"is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them" - so why does he demand worship again?

"To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them." - but he doesn't need any glory from us?

"the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father" - the father didn't beget anyone but the son was begat by the father? I think they were tripping when they wrote this crap.

Presuppositionalist wrote:

6. I am vastly, vastly smarter than you.

Ah, if you were smarter than me, you would be an atheist too.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Ok.  I'm

Hambydammit wrote:

Ok.  I'm game.

Wicked!


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

                                                            

                                                           

                                

                                                            

                                                            

                                                            

                                                           

                                                           

                                                           

                                                            

                                                           

                                                            

Extra Wicked! Iam you irreverent heathen! This is really cool.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Here's why:

1. I have a resolution all lined up: "Resolved: God exists." I'll be the affirmative.

2. I have my the definition of God all lined up. I shall use the Westminster Confession of Faith:

I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long- suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.


II. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

3. I have a format all lined up: Three rounds, simultaneously posted on prearranged dates by a moderator. Namely Opening, Rebuttal, and Closing Statements. 1000 word upper limit on each post.

4. I have developed counterarguments to important parts of the anticipated negative case, namely: that terms like supernatural and immaterial are incoherent. These counterarguments shall be revealed at the time of the debate, to whosoever engages me. (If they turn out to be relevant, of course.)

5. I have a bullet-arrow-and-grenade-proof affirmative case, which shall be revealed at the time of the debate, to whosoever engages me.

6. I am vastly, vastly smarter than you.
I am afraid kind sir that you are not smarter then we.   Your deffinition of god is of course bigotted unto your own self belief.

   Athiests are not biggoted, we disbelieve all mythical creatures, weather there is a religion buildt around them or not.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist wrote:I.

Presuppositionalist wrote:

I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long- suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

How do you even begin to measure this?  For one you already list it as "incomprehensible" but then contradict yourself by labeling it with numerous measured attributes.  For someone claiming to be a lot smarter than everyone else you already lost the debate.


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Quote:and is alone in and

Quote:
and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them

and then...

Quote:
To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.

I'll ignore this little contradiction if you'll be so kind as to tell me where exactly I can learn about this god of yours.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:1. I have a resolution

Quote:
1. I have a resolution all lined up: "Resolved: God exists." I'll be the affirmative.

Before we can even hope to begin, you need to clarify your definition.  I don't debate without agreed upon definitions of terms.  So, given this statement:  "I have my the definition of God all lined up. I shall use the Westminster Confession of Faith:" I have a few problems which must be cleared up before I know if you even have a coherent resolution.

1. Explain in detail the exact meaning of "living" you wish to use for God.  The word, "life" refers to biological organisms which exhibit homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.  In order to posit a "living" being which does not exhibit any or all of these qualities, you must give "life" a positive definition within a universe of discourse.  You have not yet done so.  Please remedy this situation so I know what you propose to prove.

2. The word "being" is philosophically problematic in your definition.  Existence is positively defined by its boundaries.  That is to say, a thing without limits is nonsensical and contradictory.  Please give an acceptable definition of "being" as it applies to an infinite being.

3. Infinite is problematic in your definition.  You have given no universe of discourse for your claim.  Without knowing what substance god(sic!) is made of, it is impossible to discuss the possibility of his "being"(sic!) encompassing an infinite amount of that substance.  Furthermore, as science has clearly demonstrated that the universe is not infinite in scope, we must be given an ontologically sound description of the space that "god" occupies.  If god does not occupy space/time in this universe, please provide a description of the place in this or any other universe which god occupies.  Any descriptions should be accompanied with in depth scientific explanations of how the existence of this place is justified. 

Furthermore, infinite causes omni paradoxes.  Is god infinite in all characteristics?  If this is so, please explain in detail how god avoids the axiom of identity.  For instance, if god simultaneously exhibits the qualities of being infinitely powerful and infinitely powerless, his existence is incoherent.  If, however, god is not either of those qualities, than he cannot be described as "infinite" in the traditional sense of the word.  Either reconcile this paradox or provide a new ontology for the word "infinite" that does not cause paradox.

4. "Perfection" is problematic in your definition.  Is this perfection self referential?  If so, then it ought to be impossible to verify this perfection, for lack of a scale.  If this perfection is referential, please provide a complete list of verifiable scales by which every aspect of his perfection is measurable.

5. The words, "Most pure spirit" are problematic.  What is spirit?  What measure of purity are you using?  Most pure in reference to what scale?

6. The word, "invisible" is problematic.  Is god always invisible?  If so, then he is limited by his invisibility, and not infinite in scope, as previously asserted.  Please rectify this apparent contradiction in your definition.

7. The assertion, "without body" is problematic.  Is god always without body?  if so, then he is limited by his lack of body.  If God is not matter, nor is he energy, he must be something.  What substance is he made of, and how is it possible for this substance to both A) compose a coherent existence and B) not have "body," which I am taking to mean a discrete and cohesive set of parameters within the heretofor undescribed paradigm of this undescribed alternative to space/time?  Please provide a coherent ontology for the word, "body" such that it is applicable to your description.

8. The assertion, "without parts" is problematic.  Am I to assume that you wish to assert that your God is the god of the christian bible?  If so, please reconcile the contradiction inherent in the trinity, which asserts discreet existences as the father, son and holy spirit.  If these cannot be described as parts, we will need a new ontology for parts which necessarily excludes creatures such as god.  Please provide this ontology.

9. The assertion, without passions" is problematic.  If god is limited by his lack of passion, then he is not infinite.  If god is not moved by emotion, does not have material limits, and does not occupy space/time in the normal way, please incorporate your answers from the previous 8 questions into a cohesive description of how and why god is moved to action in any way, given the inherent contradiction in the concept of infinite beings being able to "do" anything.  In other words, if god is truly infinite, then everything is already done.  If this is true, then god is limited by the fact of his own infinite existence, and is not truly infinite.  Please provide a coherent definition of "passion" which fits into your description.

10. The word, "immutable" is problematic.  The traditional definition is, "not subject to change."  If this is so, then god is limited by his inability to change, and is therefore not infinite.  Furthermore, immutability necessitates the inability to control actions in any way when combined with the quality of infinite knowledge.  Please resolve this paradox by providing a definition for "immutable" which fits coherently in your definition.

11. The word, "immense" is problematic.  The definition of immense can either be, "boundless" or "very big."  If boundless, then it is a repetition of the claim "infinite" and suffers all the problems inherent in that word.  If it means very big, that implies limits to his size, and is contradictory to your previous claim.  Please clarify.

12. The word, "eternal" is problematic.  Life, as we know it, is based on material processes, and due to the finite distribution of matter and energy in the universe, cannot be eternal in the traditional sense.  Please provide either a new definition of eternal which does not conflict with this observation, or describe in detail the derivation of the observation that god's existence can defy these limits.  (I'm sure this will be obvious once you've successfully explained what god is made of, but I must be thorough and point this out while we're agreeing on definitions.)

13. The word, "incomprehensible" is problematic.  You have described this being in great (if incoherent) detail.  Please reconcile the obvious paradox.  Do you know anything at all about god?  If so, he is not incomprehensible.  If not, why are we talking?

14. The word, "almighty" appears to be included in "infinite" and so suffers the same problems.  Please explain the scale of "might" as it can refer to many measures, including physical strength, mental acuity, and many other qualities.

15. The phrase, "most wise" is problematic.  Please define wisdom such that it is compatible with possession of all knowledge, which negates the traditional understanding of the word "wise," namely, possessing the ability to make sound decisions.  The concept of decision making is incompatible with all knowledge, since all knowledge includes knowledge of all future actions, and this renders the term "decision" meaningless.

16. The phrase, "most holy" is problematic.  Please define "holy" coherently.

17. The phrase, "most free" is problematic in light of your claim of infinite nature.  Please provide a definition of free that is not contradictory.

18. The phrase, "most absolute" is problematic in light of your claim of infinite nature.  Please provide a definition of "absolute" that is not contradictory.

19. The word, "working" is problematic given the aforementioned contradictions inherent in the concept of decision making.  Is god an automatic process?  If so, he cannot be most free.   Please provide a definition of working that avoids this contradiction.

20. The phrase, "all things" is problematic.  If god works all things, then that includes controlling every aspect of material existence, which includes the sum of all life processes, including thought.  This would seem to indicate that humans have no control over any aspect of their existence.  Is this the case?  If not, please clarify the meaning of "all things."

21. The phrase, "to the counsel" is problematic.  If god is infinite, the concept of counsel is meaningless, as advice would necessarily be known to him prior to its being given and would either already conform to what he knows is going to happen anyway, or wouldn't, in which case it would be false.  Does god tell himself false things?  If not, why does he advise himself on how to act when action is clearly paradoxical for an infinite being who is bound by his own nature?

22. The phrase, "His own immutable and most righteous will" is problematic.  Please rectify the paradox of immutability and complete freedom in your definition.  Please define righteous.

23. Please define "glory"

24. Please define "loving" as it applies to a being without passion.

25. Please define "gracious" as it applies to a being without passion.

26. Please define "merciful" as it applies to a being without passion.  Furthermore, please explain the apparent inconsistency inherent in a being capable of mercy who has been described as infinite.  Is god infinitely merciful?  If so, how can god ever execute justice?  If not, then why has he been described as infinite?  Please reconcile this contradiction in your definition.

27. Please define "long suffering" as it applies to a being who knows the outcome of every action.

28. Please define "abundant" as it applies to an infinite being.  Abundant implies limits according to the standard definition.

29. Please define "goodness" as it applies to a being who is apparently without external reference.

30. Please define "truth" as it applies to a being for which there is no possibility of falsehood, and resolve the apparent contradiction with your description of god as infinite.

31. Please define "forgive" as it applies to a being who knows the outcome of all actions prior to their existence.  In the traditional meaning of forgiveness, a change has occurred in the forgiver, yet god has been defined as immutable.

32. Please define iniquity.  As defined, god is controlling all matter and energy in the universe, and so is responsible for all actions.  If he is all good, iniquity should be impossible.  Please resolve this paradox by clarifying your definitions.

33. Likewise, please reconcile the apparent paradox inherent in the concept of transgression.

34. Define sin.

35. Please describe in detail how the concept of reward can have meaning in a system for which there is no possible deviance from design.

36. Please describe in detail how diligence can apply to a being who controls everything.

37. Please explain in detail how an immutable extension of an infinite being can "seek" anything.

38. Please explain the indication of sex inherent in the word "Him."  Male and female are descriptions given to sexually reproducing biological organisms.

39. Please reconcile the contradiction inherent in "most just" and "most merciful," which are mutually contradictory.

40. Please define "terrible" as it applies to an outcome that is controlled by god, who has been described as most good.

41. Please define "judgment" such that it is compatible with a being who has infinite knowledge.

42. Please define "hate" as it applies to a being without passion.

43. Please reconcile "hating" "sin" as it applies to an infinite being.

44. Please reconcile this claim -- "who will by no means clear the guilty. " -- with this one: "merciful"

 

In the interest of brevity, I'll refrain from asking for clarifications on paragraph two until paragraph one is coherently defined.  Perhaps the reconciliation of these questions will shed light on the apparent problems with the rest of your claim.

 

Again, it is impossible for me to debate something that is incoherently defined, so please make all due haste to provide me with a coherent definition of god, such that I know what you wish to propose as existing.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:15. The

Hambydammit wrote:

15. The phrase, "most wise" is problematic.  Please define wisdom such that it is compatible with possession of all knowledge, which negates the traditional understanding of the word "wise," namely, possessing the ability to make sound decisions.  The concept of decision making is incompatible with all knowledge, since all knowledge includes knowledge of all future actions, and this renders the term "decision" meaningless.

Omniscience itself disproves an omniscient god.  For the person making the claim that someone is omniscient, or in this case, most wise, must be more wise or more knowing to know that someone all-knowing truly does have knowledge of all things. 

Therefore Presuppositionalist is arguing that he is the most wise or omniscient.  As a result, in order to disprove his argument one has only to disprove that Presuppositionalist is all-knowing and the debate is over (again).


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Wonko

Wonko wrote:

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Here's why:

1. I have a resolution all lined up: "Resolved: God exists." I'll be the affirmative.

2. I have my the definition of God all lined up. I shall use the Westminster Confession of Faith:

I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long- suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.


II. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

3. I have a format all lined up: Three rounds, simultaneously posted on prearranged dates by a moderator. Namely Opening, Rebuttal, and Closing Statements. 1000 word upper limit on each post.

4. I have developed counterarguments to important parts of the anticipated negative case, namely: that terms like supernatural and immaterial are incoherent. These counterarguments shall be revealed at the time of the debate, to whosoever engages me. (If they turn out to be relevant, of course.)

5. I have a bullet-arrow-and-grenade-proof affirmative case, which shall be revealed at the time of the debate, to whosoever engages me.

6. I am vastly, vastly smarter than you.

Ooooooh...a challenge that ends(6.) with a bold assertion to get us crafty atheists off our couches.

Presupper

1) I've never actually met anyone who can presup as well as you.

(And I've met thousands upon thousands of xians, take as a compliment)

2) Westminster will get you virtually nowhere.

3) Your counterarguments must be more than just relevant.

4) If I had the time, I'd take your "challenge"

5) I seriously doubt you are smarter than every atheist at RRS.

6) Good luck, IMO you will need it.

I didn't say I was smarter than every atheist at RRS. I said I was smarter than *you*, the person reading the post. The really smart atheists here won't even bother trying, so I'm not addressing them.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Visual_Paradox

Visual_Paradox wrote:

Quote:
I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long- suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty. 


II. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them. 
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

 

Love is a passion. God is a spirit without passion. God is a spirit without love. Contradiction with the definition of God as a spirit with love. Therefore, God does not exist.

 

Are you accepting? Well? I'll gladly slap that puerile argument around for a few rounds.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Loc

Loc wrote:

Presuppositionalist wrote:

6. I am vastly, vastly smarter than you.

Proverbs 29:23 A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit.

Even if you are right, your attitude does little to endear me to christians

What a tragedy. I can tell from your previous posts that you used to have a real love for us.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:Well, it's

ronin-dog wrote:

Well, it's all more descriptive than an actual definition.

I'm sorry, did you just imply that a definition shouldn't describe the thing it defines?

Quote:
Presuppositionalist wrote:

I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long- suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

"working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will" - that's funny, Moses made him change his mind a few times, or was God just pretending and is actually a lying bastard?

What, I'm supposed to ask him? I don't know what this is supposed to prove.

Quote:
"most loving" - don't forget jealous and vengeful.

Again, there's no impact here. Why did you feel it necessary to write this?

Sir, a good argument has data, warrant, and impact. Without the latter, I have nothing to respond to. Look up the Toulmin model of argument, please.

Quote:
"merciful, long- suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin" - "and who will by no means clear the guilty." - so he will forgive sin, but not clear the guilty? Sounds like your 'definition' is contradicting itself.

Before men. As in, he will forgive you, but he won't keep you out of jail.

Like many atheists, you take great pains to read unsympathetically. You assume that the author of any protheistic document is an idiot, and interpret from that premise. Try reading as if the author has, at least, a ten-year-old's ability to analyze his own argument, especially when reviewing something published after long contemplation by intelligent, successful, philosophically educated men.

Quote:
Presuppositionalist wrote:

II. God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

"is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them" - so why does he demand worship again?


Why do I need to be able to answer that? This definitely isn't a contradiction. There is a difference between "X is difficult to understand" and "X is contradictory".

You really have a problem with impact, don't you?

Quote:
"To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them." - but he doesn't need any glory from us?

See above.

Quote:
"the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father" - the father didn't beget anyone but the son was begat by the father? I think they were tripping when they wrote this crap.

The father was not BEGOTTEN BY ANYONE. Again, the document is very easy to understand if you take off your "all theists are idiots" goggles.

Quote:
Presuppositionalist wrote:

6. I am vastly, vastly smarter than you.

Ah, if you were smarter than me, you would be an atheist too.

So you accept? Bring it on. Based on this post, it would be very very fun for me.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

 

Wonko wrote:
Ooooooh...a challenge that ends(6.) with a bold assertion to get us crafty atheists off our couches.

Presupper

1) I've never actually met anyone who can presup as well as you.

(And I've met thousands upon thousands of xians, take as a compliment)

2) Westminster will get you virtually nowhere.

3) Your counterarguments must be more than just relevant.

4) If I had the time, I'd take your "challenge"

5) I seriously doubt you are smarter than every atheist at RRS.

6) Good luck, IMO you will need it.

Presuppositionalist wrote:

I didn't say I was smarter than every atheist at RRS. I said I was smarter than *you*, the person reading the post. The really smart atheists here won't even bother trying, so I'm not addressing them.

If you'll feel better I'll add the words "reading this post" after the word "atheist" in 5)

BTW....Hamby has a to-do list for you.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
You're going to get PWNED.

You're going to get PWNED.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Quote:1. I

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
1. I have a resolution all lined up: "Resolved: God exists." I'll be the affirmative.

Before we can even hope to begin, you need to clarify your definition.  I don't debate without agreed upon definitions of terms.  So, given this statement:  "I have my the definition of God all lined up. I shall use the Westminster Confession of Faith:" I have a few problems which must be cleared up before I know if you even have a coherent resolution.

1. Explain in detail the exact meaning of "living" you wish to use for God.  The word, "life" refers to biological organisms which exhibit homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.  In order to posit a "living" being which does not exhibit any or all of these qualities, you must give "life" a positive definition within a universe of discourse.  You have not yet done so.  Please remedy this situation so I know what you propose to prove.

2. The word "being" is philosophically problematic in your definition.  Existence is positively defined by its boundaries.  That is to say, a thing without limits is nonsensical and contradictory.  Please give an acceptable definition of "being" as it applies to an infinite being.

3. Infinite is problematic in your definition.  You have given no universe of discourse for your claim.  Without knowing what substance god(sic!) is made of, it is impossible to discuss the possibility of his "being"(sic!) encompassing an infinite amount of that substance.  Furthermore, as science has clearly demonstrated that the universe is not infinite in scope, we must be given an ontologically sound description of the space that "god" occupies.  If god does not occupy space/time in this universe, please provide a description of the place in this or any other universe which god occupies.  Any descriptions should be accompanied with in depth scientific explanations of how the existence of this place is justified. 

Furthermore, infinite causes omni paradoxes.  Is god infinite in all characteristics?  If this is so, please explain in detail how god avoids the axiom of identity.  For instance, if god simultaneously exhibits the qualities of being infinitely powerful and infinitely powerless, his existence is incoherent.  If, however, god is not either of those qualities, than he cannot be described as "infinite" in the traditional sense of the word.  Either reconcile this paradox or provide a new ontology for the word "infinite" that does not cause paradox.

4. "Perfection" is problematic in your definition.  Is this perfection self referential?  If so, then it ought to be impossible to verify this perfection, for lack of a scale.  If this perfection is referential, please provide a complete list of verifiable scales by which every aspect of his perfection is measurable.

5. The words, "Most pure spirit" are problematic.  What is spirit?  What measure of purity are you using?  Most pure in reference to what scale?

6. The word, "invisible" is problematic.  Is god always invisible?  If so, then he is limited by his invisibility, and not infinite in scope, as previously asserted.  Please rectify this apparent contradiction in your definition.

7. The assertion, "without body" is problematic.  Is god always without body?  if so, then he is limited by his lack of body.  If God is not matter, nor is he energy, he must be something.  What substance is he made of, and how is it possible for this substance to both A) compose a coherent existence and B) not have "body," which I am taking to mean a discrete and cohesive set of parameters within the heretofor undescribed paradigm of this undescribed alternative to space/time?  Please provide a coherent ontology for the word, "body" such that it is applicable to your description.

8. The assertion, "without parts" is problematic.  Am I to assume that you wish to assert that your God is the god of the christian bible?  If so, please reconcile the contradiction inherent in the trinity, which asserts discreet existences as the father, son and holy spirit.  If these cannot be described as parts, we will need a new ontology for parts which necessarily excludes creatures such as god.  Please provide this ontology.

9. The assertion, without passions" is problematic.  If god is limited by his lack of passion, then he is not infinite.  If god is not moved by emotion, does not have material limits, and does not occupy space/time in the normal way, please incorporate your answers from the previous 8 questions into a cohesive description of how and why god is moved to action in any way, given the inherent contradiction in the concept of infinite beings being able to "do" anything.  In other words, if god is truly infinite, then everything is already done.  If this is true, then god is limited by the fact of his own infinite existence, and is not truly infinite.  Please provide a coherent definition of "passion" which fits into your description.

10. The word, "immutable" is problematic.  The traditional definition is, "not subject to change."  If this is so, then god is limited by his inability to change, and is therefore not infinite.  Furthermore, immutability necessitates the inability to control actions in any way when combined with the quality of infinite knowledge.  Please resolve this paradox by providing a definition for "immutable" which fits coherently in your definition.

11. The word, "immense" is problematic.  The definition of immense can either be, "boundless" or "very big."  If boundless, then it is a repetition of the claim "infinite" and suffers all the problems inherent in that word.  If it means very big, that implies limits to his size, and is contradictory to your previous claim.  Please clarify.

12. The word, "eternal" is problematic.  Life, as we know it, is based on material processes, and due to the finite distribution of matter and energy in the universe, cannot be eternal in the traditional sense.  Please provide either a new definition of eternal which does not conflict with this observation, or describe in detail the derivation of the observation that god's existence can defy these limits.  (I'm sure this will be obvious once you've successfully explained what god is made of, but I must be thorough and point this out while we're agreeing on definitions.)

13. The word, "incomprehensible" is problematic.  You have described this being in great (if incoherent) detail.  Please reconcile the obvious paradox.  Do you know anything at all about god?  If so, he is not incomprehensible.  If not, why are we talking?

14. The word, "almighty" appears to be included in "infinite" and so suffers the same problems.  Please explain the scale of "might" as it can refer to many measures, including physical strength, mental acuity, and many other qualities.

15. The phrase, "most wise" is problematic.  Please define wisdom such that it is compatible with possession of all knowledge, which negates the traditional understanding of the word "wise," namely, possessing the ability to make sound decisions.  The concept of decision making is incompatible with all knowledge, since all knowledge includes knowledge of all future actions, and this renders the term "decision" meaningless.

16. The phrase, "most holy" is problematic.  Please define "holy" coherently.

17. The phrase, "most free" is problematic in light of your claim of infinite nature.  Please provide a definition of free that is not contradictory.

18. The phrase, "most absolute" is problematic in light of your claim of infinite nature.  Please provide a definition of "absolute" that is not contradictory.

19. The word, "working" is problematic given the aforementioned contradictions inherent in the concept of decision making.  Is god an automatic process?  If so, he cannot be most free.   Please provide a definition of working that avoids this contradiction.

20. The phrase, "all things" is problematic.  If god works all things, then that includes controlling every aspect of material existence, which includes the sum of all life processes, including thought.  This would seem to indicate that humans have no control over any aspect of their existence.  Is this the case?  If not, please clarify the meaning of "all things."

21. The phrase, "to the counsel" is problematic.  If god is infinite, the concept of counsel is meaningless, as advice would necessarily be known to him prior to its being given and would either already conform to what he knows is going to happen anyway, or wouldn't, in which case it would be false.  Does god tell himself false things?  If not, why does he advise himself on how to act when action is clearly paradoxical for an infinite being who is bound by his own nature?

22. The phrase, "His own immutable and most righteous will" is problematic.  Please rectify the paradox of immutability and complete freedom in your definition.  Please define righteous.

23. Please define "glory"

24. Please define "loving" as it applies to a being without passion.

25. Please define "gracious" as it applies to a being without passion.

26. Please define "merciful" as it applies to a being without passion.  Furthermore, please explain the apparent inconsistency inherent in a being capable of mercy who has been described as infinite.  Is god infinitely merciful?  If so, how can god ever execute justice?  If not, then why has he been described as infinite?  Please reconcile this contradiction in your definition.

27. Please define "long suffering" as it applies to a being who knows the outcome of every action.

28. Please define "abundant" as it applies to an infinite being.  Abundant implies limits according to the standard definition.

29. Please define "goodness" as it applies to a being who is apparently without external reference.

30. Please define "truth" as it applies to a being for which there is no possibility of falsehood, and resolve the apparent contradiction with your description of god as infinite.

31. Please define "forgive" as it applies to a being who knows the outcome of all actions prior to their existence.  In the traditional meaning of forgiveness, a change has occurred in the forgiver, yet god has been defined as immutable.

32. Please define iniquity.  As defined, god is controlling all matter and energy in the universe, and so is responsible for all actions.  If he is all good, iniquity should be impossible.  Please resolve this paradox by clarifying your definitions.

33. Likewise, please reconcile the apparent paradox inherent in the concept of transgression.

34. Define sin.

35. Please describe in detail how the concept of reward can have meaning in a system for which there is no possible deviance from design.

36. Please describe in detail how diligence can apply to a being who controls everything.

37. Please explain in detail how an immutable extension of an infinite being can "seek" anything.

38. Please explain the indication of sex inherent in the word "Him."  Male and female are descriptions given to sexually reproducing biological organisms.

39. Please reconcile the contradiction inherent in "most just" and "most merciful," which are mutually contradictory.

40. Please define "terrible" as it applies to an outcome that is controlled by god, who has been described as most good.

41. Please define "judgment" such that it is compatible with a being who has infinite knowledge.

42. Please define "hate" as it applies to a being without passion.

43. Please reconcile "hating" "sin" as it applies to an infinite being.

44. Please reconcile this claim -- "who will by no means clear the guilty. " -- with this one: "merciful"

 

In the interest of brevity, I'll refrain from asking for clarifications on paragraph two until paragraph one is coherently defined.  Perhaps the reconciliation of these questions will shed light on the apparent problems with the rest of your claim.

 

Again, it is impossible for me to debate something that is incoherently defined, so please make all due haste to provide me with a coherent definition of god, such that I know what you wish to propose as existing.

 

I will do this when I have more spare time. I think everyone here can see why that's necessary.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed wrote:Hambydammit

D-cubed wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

15. The phrase, "most wise" is problematic.  Please define wisdom such that it is compatible with possession of all knowledge, which negates the traditional understanding of the word "wise," namely, possessing the ability to make sound decisions.  The concept of decision making is incompatible with all knowledge, since all knowledge includes knowledge of all future actions, and this renders the term "decision" meaningless.

Omniscience itself disproves an omniscient god.  For the person making the claim that someone is omniscient, or in this case, most wise, must be more wise or more knowing to know that someone all-knowing truly does have knowledge of all things. 

Therefore Presuppositionalist is arguing that he is the most wise or omniscient.  As a result, in order to disprove his argument one has only to disprove that Presuppositionalist is all-knowing and the debate is over (again).

In other words: "If I can't see it, it's not there."

Let me ask you something: isn't it just possible that we could show that a thing has a property indirectly, without actually observing the property? Like we can gather good reasons to believe that the sun is made of hydrogen, without actually travelling to the sun and scooping up a sample?

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist wrote:In

Presuppositionalist wrote:

In other words: "If I can't see it, it's not there."

Let me ask you something: isn't it just possible that we could show that a thing has a property indirectly, without actually observing the property? Like we can gather good reasons to believe that the sun is made of hydrogen, without actually travelling to the sun and scooping up a sample?

So you are saying that you are simply assuming something without having any evidence whatsoever.  You seriously plan on debating someone without actually presenting a case?  Looks like you have lost the debate a third time.


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
As a believer,

As a believer, I would like the presuppositionalist's arguments to be sufficient. That would make things a hell of a lot easier. But I don't even see how they would convince anyone. You can argue it with another person who holds your presupposition. But thats not much of a debate.

Unfortunately, I think Presuppositionalist just wants air time. As far as the philosophy goes, I do believe internal consistency is good and that knowledge should be defined as belief in approximate truth.  What makes knowledge justified can be argued forever without any answers.

Ironically, after having listened ad nauseam to the anti-logical postivist religious brainwashing, I lean toward logical positivism now but not strong empiricism. Science trumps myth. But besides complaining that I would do it better if I were God, what else would I do differently to make myself provable? Everything I think of would backfire and be worse for people than it is now. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

D-cubed wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

15. The phrase, "most wise" is problematic.  Please define wisdom such that it is compatible with possession of all knowledge, which negates the traditional understanding of the word "wise," namely, possessing the ability to make sound decisions.  The concept of decision making is incompatible with all knowledge, since all knowledge includes knowledge of all future actions, and this renders the term "decision" meaningless.

Omniscience itself disproves an omniscient god.  For the person making the claim that someone is omniscient, or in this case, most wise, must be more wise or more knowing to know that someone all-knowing truly does have knowledge of all things. 

Therefore Presuppositionalist is arguing that he is the most wise or omniscient.  As a result, in order to disprove his argument one has only to disprove that Presuppositionalist is all-knowing and the debate is over (again).

In other words: "If I can't see it, it's not there."

Let me ask you something: isn't it just possible that we could show that a thing has a property indirectly, without actually observing the property? Like we can gather good reasons to believe that the sun is made of hydrogen, without actually travelling to the sun and scooping up a sample?

 

And those properties are...?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

                                                            

                                                           

                                

                                                            

                                                            

                                                            

                                                           

                                                           

                                                           

                                                            

                                                           

                                                            

I AM, you have way too much fun w/those. Smiling

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
GAWED has a song for us

GAWED has a song for us ..... cause you're mine! We are ONE.
"I Put A Spell On You" - CCR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R6nmKjcSeU
 

.... ohh to make teacher Eloise mine, look into my mind's eye pretty goddess....

    Hey wait, I have 6 billion eyes ..... (((( not counting the aliens *

 


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
D-cubed

D-cubed wrote:

Presuppositionalist wrote:

In other words: "If I can't see it, it's not there."

Let me ask you something: isn't it just possible that we could show that a thing has a property indirectly, without actually observing the property? Like we can gather good reasons to believe that the sun is made of hydrogen, without actually travelling to the sun and scooping up a sample?

So you are saying that you are simply assuming something without having any evidence whatsoever.

 

Only if my belief that the sun is made of hydrogen is also an assumption. You clearly made little to no effort to understand my post.

Quote:
You seriously plan on debating someone without actually presenting a case? 

Was this intended to be a response to me? I mean, you quoted my post, but now you're attacking somebody else. I clearly said in the OP that I had a case.

Quote:
Looks like you have lost the debate a third time.

What were the first two?

Maybe you're referring to some of the unanswered replies to this thread. I haven't answered those because I haven't had time. I have a job and stuff. I'll get around to it.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
BMcD , "I AM, you have way

BMcD , "I AM, you have way too much fun w/those.  [smileys]   Smiling   "

 -  They are my very fun friends, I want lots more smiley friends ! Come here all you little smileys, so adorable,   ..... no no, don't be afraid, I won't hurt you !

 


TomJ
atheist
TomJ's picture
Posts: 112
Joined: 2008-01-20
User is offlineOffline
The ROFL cross

I AM GOD AS YOU, The ROFL cross is brilliant. Kudos on this innovation!


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist wrote:I

Presuppositionalist wrote:

I will do this when I have more spare time. I think everyone here can see why that's necessary.

Yes. It's called being prepared. Which you clearly weren't when you posted your challenge.

 

What's with the flurry of debate requests this week?

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
geirj, "What's with the

geirj, "What's with the flurry of debate requests this week?" ~~~    

  Well the rising heat of the atheist light, creates a circler current, stimulating the dark cloud, which then approaches from beneath the "light source" causing movement, clearing the air above as the particles of darkness are further burned and transformed.

Turn up the light .... speed up the vertical vortex, to better see the light above, to then better see every where !  Arsons of Darkness ! ....

Add more "fuel" to RRS, being a member helps, keep posting, spread the good news.

We are all teachers and students.    


Bulldog
Superfan
Bulldog's picture
Posts: 333
Joined: 2007-08-04
User is offlineOffline
Who's Dog are you

Who's Dog are you describing?  Certainly not the Abrahamic Dog, he/she/it's a murdering bastard who approves of incest, slavery, infanticide, homicide and genocide but condemns homosexuality, an imbecilic jackass who can't make up his mind flip-flopping (to borrow a term from self-righteous repugnicans) like a fish out of water, who is subject to childish tantrums, destructive and boorish behavior, is ignorant of life and science (Pi = 3 and insects have four legs?!), who created evil, misery, death, repression, disability, pain, hatred, greed, envy, sex (and then discourages it), who promotes war, torture, rape, theft, ignorance, and who is anything but forgiving, wise, righteous, loving, merciful, holy, truthful and just, and is hypocritical, arrogant, controlling, judgemental, bigoted, cruel, conniving, terrible, vainglorious and delusional.  And, you may or may not be smarter than me, if you are, you are not "vastly" smarter by any stretch of your delusional imagination. You lost before you began.

"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson
www.myspace.com/kenhill5150


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Bulldog wrote:Who's Dog are

Bulldog wrote:

Who's Dog are you describing?  Certainly not the Abrahamic Dog, he/she/it's a murdering bastard who approves of incest, slavery, infanticide, homicide and genocide

Now, that's not fair. Approves of slavery, infanticide, genocide? Nonsense... ol' YHVH didn't approve of those things... that'd imply they were someone else's plan and He just ok'd it. Ol' Jehovah ordered those things... not even 'encouraged', mind you, but pointedly and specifically ordered them.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I AM adding lover Bulldog to

I AM adding lover Bulldog to my special list of prized, "Arsons of Darkness"! Hail the Fire!    

(disclaimer: please don't set property and land on fire)  No to "burning churches", which is a metaphor ....    

“If you love god, burn a church”  ~ J Biafra

      Or if you hate ....

 

   


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

I'm sorry, did you just imply that a definition shouldn't describe the thing it defines?

Description: a statement, picture in words, or account that describes; descriptive representation.

Definition: 1. the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear.

                 2. the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc.

 

 I'm saying that your waffling post was a description, not a definition.

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Sir, a good argument has data, warrant, and impact. Without the latter, I have nothing to respond to. Look up the Toulmin model of argument, please.

Never said I would debate you, I leave that for people who like formal debates. I am just pointing out the stupidity in your "definition". May not impact on you, but it will on some.

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Quote:
"merciful, long- suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin" - "and who will by no means clear the guilty." - so he will forgive sin, but not clear the guilty? Sounds like your 'definition' is contradicting itself.

Before men. As in, he will forgive you, but he won't keep you out of jail.

How about Hell? Doesn't sound merciful and forgiving to torture someone for eternity for failing to believe that you exist.

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Like many atheists, you take great pains to read unsympathetically. You assume that the author of any protheistic document is an idiot, and interpret from that premise. Try reading as if the author has, at least, a ten-year-old's ability to analyze his own argument, especially when reviewing something published after long contemplation by intelligent, successful, philosophically educated men.

Really, I didn't go to that much effort, it seems pretty self evident.

What argument?

I don't care about how intelligent etc the author was. It just proves that religion is a delusion disorder if such a successful man can write such tripe.

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Quote:
"the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father" - the father didn't beget anyone but the son was begat by the father? I think they were tripping when they wrote this crap.

The father was not BEGOTTEN BY ANYONE. Again, the document is very easy to understand if you take off your "all theists are idiots" goggles.

"the father is of none" HE IS NO-ONE'S FATHER. See, I can use capitals too. I honestly don't believe all theists are idiots, I have family who are vary smart and yet very religious, I'm just responding to the ridiculousness of the text.

Your description was written by a Christian, yet it does not describe the god in the bible. Christians always pick and choose what they want to believe.

Presuppositionalist wrote:

6. I am vastly, vastly smarter than you.

Ah, if you were smarter than me, you would be an atheist too.

Quote:

So you accept? Bring it on. Based on this post, it would be very very fun for me.

No, I don't like formal debate. Never tried it so I don't know all the rules. Try Hamby.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:
Visual_Paradox wrote:
Love is a passion. God is a spirit without passion. God is a spirit without love. Contradiction with the definition of God as a spirit with love. Therefore, God does not exist.
Are you accepting? Well? I'll gladly slap that puerile argument around for a few rounds.

Nice showmanship, but there's no need for formalities. I haven't the inclination to put on a show, as you've come to do. I must say, though, that if my argument were as peurile as you claim, you would've responded by dismantling it, rather than casting mere aspersions. Have fun with your show, Presupp.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Just realized there is

Just realized there is another contradiction:

God is immutable, always right, never changes his mind? God commanded that people not work on Sunday or be stoned to death (a trifle harsh), Jesus (who is God, kindof) said not to worry about it - working on Sunday is ok. He changed the rules, not very immutable.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog , Damn we

ronin-dog   ,  Damn we Atheists have some cool capable dogs ....

      I declare "The separation of Gawed and Dogma" throughout the land. 

   FYI - Toulmin Model of Argument

http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/rgass/toulmin2.htm

   Whatever .... me 100% god as you.  There is nothing on a GODLY level to debate. "How and Why", are obviously relevant PROOF that such gawed debates are only a functional method of knowing dogma, and a sense of what god in NOT

To "study" gawed is much different, it's Science, and all it's reasons for being.  Maybe "Eternity is our best yet, definition of gawed ..... and a buddha laughed, when asked to debate gawed .....  and INSTEAD, as awoken to the eternal Oneness, accepted Life and Death, the yin yang, and focused on the human causes and problems creating unnecessary human suffering ....  Are there wise ones? Indeed.

 


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Only if my belief that the sun is made of hydrogen is also an assumption. You clearly made little to no effort to understand my post.

Was this intended to be a response to me? I mean, you quoted my post, but now you're attacking somebody else. I clearly said in the OP that I had a case.

What were the first two?

Maybe you're referring to some of the unanswered replies to this thread. I haven't answered those because I haven't had time. I have a job and stuff. I'll get around to it.

As expected another theist presents a challenge and fails miserably.  No doubt if I waste my time further all I'll get is the typical dodges and denials that all self-proclaimed apologists present.  Maybe you should invade a Disney Kids discussion forum and find people more your education level to argue with.


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Leave it to a presupper to

Leave it to a presupper to think a couple paragraphs of vacuous obscurantism constitutes a "definition".


Bulldog
Superfan
Bulldog's picture
Posts: 333
Joined: 2007-08-04
User is offlineOffline
My bad.  You're quite

My bad.  You're quite correct, Dog did order those things, I stand corrected.  Not only did he order them he created humans with the ability to do them any time the notion takes them even when not ordered.

"Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson
www.myspace.com/kenhill5150


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Quote:1. I

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
1. I have a resolution all lined up: "Resolved: God exists." I'll be the affirmative.

Before we can even hope to begin, you need to clarify your definition.  I don't debate without agreed upon definitions of terms.  So, given this statement:  "I have my the definition of God all lined up. I shall use the Westminster Confession of Faith:" I have a few problems which must be cleared up before I know if you even have a coherent resolution.

1. Explain in detail the exact meaning of "living" you wish to use for God.  The word, "life" refers to biological organisms which exhibit homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.  In order to posit a "living" being which does not exhibit any or all of these qualities, you must give "life" a positive definition within a universe of discourse.  You have not yet done so.  Please remedy this situation so I know what you propose to prove.

2. The word "being" is philosophically problematic in your definition.  Existence is positively defined by its boundaries.  That is to say, a thing without limits is nonsensical and contradictory.  Please give an acceptable definition of "being" as it applies to an infinite being.

3. Infinite is problematic in your definition.  You have given no universe of discourse for your claim.  Without knowing what substance god(sic!) is made of, it is impossible to discuss the possibility of his "being"(sic!) encompassing an infinite amount of that substance.  Furthermore, as science has clearly demonstrated that the universe is not infinite in scope, we must be given an ontologically sound description of the space that "god" occupies.  If god does not occupy space/time in this universe, please provide a description of the place in this or any other universe which god occupies.  Any descriptions should be accompanied with in depth scientific explanations of how the existence of this place is justified. 

Furthermore, infinite causes omni paradoxes.  Is god infinite in all characteristics?  If this is so, please explain in detail how god avoids the axiom of identity.  For instance, if god simultaneously exhibits the qualities of being infinitely powerful and infinitely powerless, his existence is incoherent.  If, however, god is not either of those qualities, than he cannot be described as "infinite" in the traditional sense of the word.  Either reconcile this paradox or provide a new ontology for the word "infinite" that does not cause paradox.

4. "Perfection" is problematic in your definition.  Is this perfection self referential?  If so, then it ought to be impossible to verify this perfection, for lack of a scale.  If this perfection is referential, please provide a complete list of verifiable scales by which every aspect of his perfection is measurable.

5. The words, "Most pure spirit" are problematic.  What is spirit?  What measure of purity are you using?  Most pure in reference to what scale?

6. The word, "invisible" is problematic.  Is god always invisible?  If so, then he is limited by his invisibility, and not infinite in scope, as previously asserted.  Please rectify this apparent contradiction in your definition.

7. The assertion, "without body" is problematic.  Is god always without body?  if so, then he is limited by his lack of body.  If God is not matter, nor is he energy, he must be something.  What substance is he made of, and how is it possible for this substance to both A) compose a coherent existence and B) not have "body," which I am taking to mean a discrete and cohesive set of parameters within the heretofor undescribed paradigm of this undescribed alternative to space/time?  Please provide a coherent ontology for the word, "body" such that it is applicable to your description.

8. The assertion, "without parts" is problematic.  Am I to assume that you wish to assert that your God is the god of the christian bible?  If so, please reconcile the contradiction inherent in the trinity, which asserts discreet existences as the father, son and holy spirit.  If these cannot be described as parts, we will need a new ontology for parts which necessarily excludes creatures such as god.  Please provide this ontology.

9. The assertion, without passions" is problematic.  If god is limited by his lack of passion, then he is not infinite.  If god is not moved by emotion, does not have material limits, and does not occupy space/time in the normal way, please incorporate your answers from the previous 8 questions into a cohesive description of how and why god is moved to action in any way, given the inherent contradiction in the concept of infinite beings being able to "do" anything.  In other words, if god is truly infinite, then everything is already done.  If this is true, then god is limited by the fact of his own infinite existence, and is not truly infinite.  Please provide a coherent definition of "passion" which fits into your description.

10. The word, "immutable" is problematic.  The traditional definition is, "not subject to change."  If this is so, then god is limited by his inability to change, and is therefore not infinite.  Furthermore, immutability necessitates the inability to control actions in any way when combined with the quality of infinite knowledge.  Please resolve this paradox by providing a definition for "immutable" which fits coherently in your definition.

11. The word, "immense" is problematic.  The definition of immense can either be, "boundless" or "very big."  If boundless, then it is a repetition of the claim "infinite" and suffers all the problems inherent in that word.  If it means very big, that implies limits to his size, and is contradictory to your previous claim.  Please clarify.

12. The word, "eternal" is problematic.  Life, as we know it, is based on material processes, and due to the finite distribution of matter and energy in the universe, cannot be eternal in the traditional sense.  Please provide either a new definition of eternal which does not conflict with this observation, or describe in detail the derivation of the observation that god's existence can defy these limits.  (I'm sure this will be obvious once you've successfully explained what god is made of, but I must be thorough and point this out while we're agreeing on definitions.)

13. The word, "incomprehensible" is problematic.  You have described this being in great (if incoherent) detail.  Please reconcile the obvious paradox.  Do you know anything at all about god?  If so, he is not incomprehensible.  If not, why are we talking?

14. The word, "almighty" appears to be included in "infinite" and so suffers the same problems.  Please explain the scale of "might" as it can refer to many measures, including physical strength, mental acuity, and many other qualities.

15. The phrase, "most wise" is problematic.  Please define wisdom such that it is compatible with possession of all knowledge, which negates the traditional understanding of the word "wise," namely, possessing the ability to make sound decisions.  The concept of decision making is incompatible with all knowledge, since all knowledge includes knowledge of all future actions, and this renders the term "decision" meaningless.

16. The phrase, "most holy" is problematic.  Please define "holy" coherently.

17. The phrase, "most free" is problematic in light of your claim of infinite nature.  Please provide a definition of free that is not contradictory.

18. The phrase, "most absolute" is problematic in light of your claim of infinite nature.  Please provide a definition of "absolute" that is not contradictory.

19. The word, "working" is problematic given the aforementioned contradictions inherent in the concept of decision making.  Is god an automatic process?  If so, he cannot be most free.   Please provide a definition of working that avoids this contradiction.

20. The phrase, "all things" is problematic.  If god works all things, then that includes controlling every aspect of material existence, which includes the sum of all life processes, including thought.  This would seem to indicate that humans have no control over any aspect of their existence.  Is this the case?  If not, please clarify the meaning of "all things."

21. The phrase, "to the counsel" is problematic.  If god is infinite, the concept of counsel is meaningless, as advice would necessarily be known to him prior to its being given and would either already conform to what he knows is going to happen anyway, or wouldn't, in which case it would be false.  Does god tell himself false things?  If not, why does he advise himself on how to act when action is clearly paradoxical for an infinite being who is bound by his own nature?

22. The phrase, "His own immutable and most righteous will" is problematic.  Please rectify the paradox of immutability and complete freedom in your definition.  Please define righteous.

23. Please define "glory"

24. Please define "loving" as it applies to a being without passion.

25. Please define "gracious" as it applies to a being without passion.

26. Please define "merciful" as it applies to a being without passion.  Furthermore, please explain the apparent inconsistency inherent in a being capable of mercy who has been described as infinite.  Is god infinitely merciful?  If so, how can god ever execute justice?  If not, then why has he been described as infinite?  Please reconcile this contradiction in your definition.

27. Please define "long suffering" as it applies to a being who knows the outcome of every action.

28. Please define "abundant" as it applies to an infinite being.  Abundant implies limits according to the standard definition.

29. Please define "goodness" as it applies to a being who is apparently without external reference.

30. Please define "truth" as it applies to a being for which there is no possibility of falsehood, and resolve the apparent contradiction with your description of god as infinite.

31. Please define "forgive" as it applies to a being who knows the outcome of all actions prior to their existence.  In the traditional meaning of forgiveness, a change has occurred in the forgiver, yet god has been defined as immutable.

32. Please define iniquity.  As defined, god is controlling all matter and energy in the universe, and so is responsible for all actions.  If he is all good, iniquity should be impossible.  Please resolve this paradox by clarifying your definitions.

33. Likewise, please reconcile the apparent paradox inherent in the concept of transgression.

34. Define sin.

35. Please describe in detail how the concept of reward can have meaning in a system for which there is no possible deviance from design.

36. Please describe in detail how diligence can apply to a being who controls everything.

37. Please explain in detail how an immutable extension of an infinite being can "seek" anything.

38. Please explain the indication of sex inherent in the word "Him."  Male and female are descriptions given to sexually reproducing biological organisms.

39. Please reconcile the contradiction inherent in "most just" and "most merciful," which are mutually contradictory.

40. Please define "terrible" as it applies to an outcome that is controlled by god, who has been described as most good.

41. Please define "judgment" such that it is compatible with a being who has infinite knowledge.

42. Please define "hate" as it applies to a being without passion.

43. Please reconcile "hating" "sin" as it applies to an infinite being.

44. Please reconcile this claim -- "who will by no means clear the guilty. " -- with this one: "merciful"

 

In the interest of brevity, I'll refrain from asking for clarifications on paragraph two until paragraph one is coherently defined.  Perhaps the reconciliation of these questions will shed light on the apparent problems with the rest of your claim.

 

Again, it is impossible for me to debate something that is incoherently defined, so please make all due haste to provide me with a coherent definition of god, such that I know what you wish to propose as existing.

 

Damn. 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Hamby has a bazooka too, he

Hamby has a bazooka too, he occasionally uses !  I got a BB gun, next I need ammonition. Yeah BB's , me gonna be BAD, you wait and see.  

                 


Mr. XC
High Level DonorSpecial AgentWebsite AdminPlatinum Member
Posts: 237
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Smiley cross

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

BMcD , "I AM, you have way too much fun w/those.  [smileys]   Smiling   "

 -  They are my very fun friends, I want lots more smiley friends ! Come here all you little smileys, so adorable,   ..... no no, don't be afraid, I won't hurt you !

 

Thank you for the smiley cross.  That was the funnest thing that I have seen all week.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson


Jerud1711
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-05-24
User is offlineOffline
 Greg Bahnsen and Cornelius

 

Greg Bahnsen and Cornelius Van Till popularized preuppositional apologetics.  Bahnsen pulverized [i.e., pwned] every atheist he ever debated. Listen to his Bahnsen / Tabash debate and Bahnsen / Stein debate. Also his debate on radio with George Smith. You can find some of this stuff on Youtube.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Have you watched the

Have you watched the debates?  If so, don't you understand the arguments he used?  If so, why don't you just debate one of us?

 

In any case, if you aren't up to it, why don't you just link us some transcripts from his debates, and we'll critique them.  I, for one, am sick and tired of the same old arguments.  I'd love to hear something original.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Yes i would be very very

Yes i would be very very curious to see if there is some new argument for god that we haven't seen on these very forums what at least 10s of times if not hundreds?


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Have you

Hambydammit wrote:

Have you watched the debates?  If so, don't you understand the arguments he used?  If so, why don't you just debate one of us?

 

In any case, if you aren't up to it, why don't you just link us some transcripts from his debates, and we'll critique them.  I, for one, am sick and tired of the same old arguments.  I'd love to hear something original.

 

 

Well, if I'm wrong, I've lost nothing.  If you're wrong, you've lost everything. 

Also, there had to be a first cause.  Must've been God.