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.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
jmm wrote:Well, if I'm

jmm wrote:
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.

=(0.o)=

Pleeeeeeeeeease tell me that was a joke.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Eight Foot Manchild
Eight Foot Manchild's picture
Posts: 144
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Jerud1711 wrote:Greg Bahnsen

Jerud1711 wrote:
Greg Bahnsen and Cornelius Van Till popularized preuppositional apologetics.

Too bad neither of them had a fucking clue what they were talking about.

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
For those interested in the

For those interested in the RRS Smackdown 08, check out this thread:

Taking on "the best." Dr. Greg Bahnsen critiqued. ATTN: Jerud1711

 

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

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


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Well, if I'm wrong,

Quote:

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.

I swear... I'll give you the asshat... I'll do it!!   Don't provoke me!!!

 

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

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


Bulldog
Superfan
Bulldog's picture
Posts: 333
Joined: 2007-08-04
User is offlineOffline
jmm wrote:Hambydammit

jmm wrote:

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. 

 

What is it with you theists?  Every time you guys debate and hit a wall, which is every time you debate, you always come up with some inane response like this.

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


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
psst...It's humor...you see,

psst...

It's humor...

you see, he wants us to see that he recognizes how ridiculous these arguments are, cause then, maybe we won't notice that his are no better.

 

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
Presup,Been a couple of

Presup,

Been a couple of days. Are you coming back?  Just wondering.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15768
Joined: 2006-02-14
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.

And all the gods who we know are myth today have had similar motifs. "I am because I say so" is about as stupid as buying as when a used car salesmen says, "Hey this cream puff is blue, would I steer you wrong?"

This long diatribe is nothing new. It proclaims ambiguity and then backs it up with ambiguity. The wise person says, "There certainly is tons I don't know, but magic is a gap answer that will retard the possibility of finding a real answer."

Pantheists claim that the universe is either a giant brain or a giant computer, which is just as rediculous a claim that Thor makes lighting or that Allah picks the sex of the baby. Your "one true god" is merely a utopia of a super hero someone sold you. It is your own "Dawkins moth" that leads you to the lightbulb instead of the moonlight.  If you have no clue what I am talking about, you are out of your league here.

I am not claiming to be more moral or better than you. I am merely saying that there is tons of things that believers of all labels never think about.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


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

Presuppositionalist wrote:

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.

Presup, You said this a few days ago. I understand having a job 'and stuff', but you haven't even been back to say boo or howdy or still working on my debate or how vastly smarter you are or anything.

It does appear to me, however, that you are slightly confused with the use of the terms; "my", "mine" and "mind". They all do look and sound somewhat similar, don't they. 

No need to thank me but I've taken the liberty of cleaning up the all-caps title you wrote for this thread. It is shown below....

I WISH TO DEBATE YOU AND MY VICTORY SHALL BE IN MY MIND.

Graciously awaiting your return.

 


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Pantheism

Brian37 wrote:

Pantheists claim that the universe is either a giant brain or a giant computer, which is just as rediculous a claim that Thor makes lighting or that Allah picks the sex of the baby. Your "one true god" is merely a utopia of a super hero someone sold you. It is your own "Dawkins moth" that leads you to the lightbulb instead of the moonlight.  If you have no clue what I am talking about, you are out of your league here

On a side note: Brian, I've never seen the Pantheism you're describing. Pantheism basically replaces the standard definitions of "god" with "material universe". It makes no claims outside reality or scientific theory.

I believe you are describing Panentheism. That is the one that thinks the universe is kind of a hat for an uber-being.


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
1- Ok fine. You are

1- Ok fine. You are resolved.

2- As has been pointed out this "definition" is no such thing. Is incoherent nonsense.

3- Your format is irrelevant if your definition is bullshit

4- If your counter arguments rely on your "definition" of God then they are irrelevant because, as has been pointed out, the definition is not even internally logically consistent.

5- If your case is based upon your eronious, incoherent and inconsistent definition of God then it really ain't as bullet proof as you think. All one needs to do is point out the inconsistencies in your base definition and the argument falls apart. This has already been done and so before you even write one word of your argument you have lost the debate. Thats got to be some kind of world record. To loose the debate before it even starts is a pretty staggering feat of stupidity even by theist standards!

6- Ahahhahahahahahahhahah no seriously.... mwahahahahahhahaah. Your the worst kind of idiot, the kind that actually thinks they are smart.

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, as if there is a

Yeah, as if there is a debate ! Definition popularity contests mean shit, dangerous shit.

        What a mind funk this word spelled G _ O _ D 

         "Translation"  improvement        G _ A _ W _ E _ D

                       next religious word   !!!  

        Atheists can re-define and make them idol worshipers words laughable  ....

     Pick any one of them , as I AM atheist GOD atheist SAVED atheist HOLY .... etc

                          Chromatic Scales -  Using Every Note !   

 

                                    

 


bodhi smith
Posts: 63
Joined: 2008-07-05
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.

1. resolution?

2. circuitous logic; self re-enforcing.

3. you need to start with a supposition first.

4. If you have developed counterarguments why do you need "spare time" to come up with them.

5. um... you need a case first.

6. not bloody likely.

bodhi


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
A small tumbleweed enters

A small tumbleweed enters stage left, rolls langourously, pausing only momentarily as if having heard an approaching presupposition, shrugs its tumbleweed shoulders and so rolls gently to exit stage right

 

(SFX: Low murmuring wind ... silence)

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:A small

Nordmann wrote:

A small tumbleweed enters stage left, rolls langourously, pausing only momentarily as if having heard an approaching presupposition, shrugs its tumbleweed shoulders and so rolls gently to exit stage right

 

(SFX: Low murmuring wind ... silence)

That deserves a triple...

 


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

Sorry this is so late. I finished up to #38 on this list a while ago, but, just as I was about to finish, my computer, which I hate with the fire of a thousand suns, spontaneously shut down the window. So if my responses are a little terse, it's because I've typed most of them once already at length. (I don't expect anyone on this website to believe that, since I'm a theist, but it's the truth.)

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.

In a theological context, living = having the capacity to create change.

Quote:
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.

God is infinite in that he is bound by neither time nor space. When I say he is not bound by time, I mean that his nature, personality, and character do not change over time. When I say that he is not bound by space, I mean (a) that he is able to cause any logically possible state of affairs to obtain at any point in space AND (b) that he is aware of the present state of affairs obtaining in each points in space simultaneously.

As we shall see, this concept of "infinite" subsumes a couple of God's other qualities as well.

Quote:
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.

Since God is immaterial, he "occupies" no specific place. To ask where an immaterial thing is is to commit a category error, unless the question is asked in a highly metaphorical sense.

Quote:
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.

Explained infinite already.

Quote:
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.

Perfection is determined by degree of separation from God's nature. Ergo, it is referential but your demand for a set of verifiable scales is misplaced.

Quote:
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?

Most pure = purer than anything else. Pure = free from sin.

Quote:
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.

Easy: I didn't use infinite in a way that causes that contradiction.

Quote:
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.

When we say that God does not have a body, we mean that he does not have a body as we do. He has neither arms nor legs. He is not made of matter. What he IS made of is something of a mystery to us. This is not a problem, however, since we can know that God exists without knowing what he is composed of. An analogy: Gregor Mendel knew that genes existed without knowing that genes were in fact molecules.

Quote:
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.

I'm sure they "can be described" as parts, since anything "can be described" as anything else if you're vague enough. I would point out that the terms father, son, and holy ghost don't refer to different beings, but to different persons that coexist as the same being. (If you're unfamilliar with the theological concept of a "person", just let me know.)

Quote:
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.

In this context Passion = Anger, not emotions in general.

Quote:
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.

A thing is immutable when no change can be imposed upon it from without. This answers all your objections, I think. And the infinity stuff is, again, addressed above.

Quote:
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.

It emphasizes part "b" in the concept of the infinite (see above). In that sense, it is both a repetition and an entirely new quality.

Quote:
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.)

We’re not talking about life in a secular context, but in a theological context. See definition of life above.

Quote:
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?

Some aspects of God are knowable by man, and others are not. To call God “incomprehensible” is to emphasize the latter, not to deny the existence of the former.

Quote:
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.

Might is the degree of capacity to create change. To be almighty is to have the capacity to bring about any logically possible change.

Quote:
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.

Most wise = Wiser than any other being.

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

Most holy = Holier than any other being. Holiness = perfections, sinlessness, and inability to sin.

Quote:
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.

Subject to less coercion than any other being.

Quote:
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.

Existing in more contexts than any other being.

Quote:
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.

The confession was written a few hundred years ago, and it uses a couple of words oddly as a result. This is one of them. Working = causing to change.

Quote:
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."

It isn’t the case. God permits us free will, but HE moves our bodies in accordance with what we will.

Quote:
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?

This is another weird phrasing. When the confession says God works everything according to the counsel of his will, it’s basically saying God does what he chooses to do.

Quote:
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.

The paradoxes have been dealt with above, unless you’re referring to new paradoxes.

Righteous = moral purity.

Quote:
23. Please define "glory"

Positive assessment of worth.

Quote:
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.

I think these have all been dealt with, except the mercy/justice thing, the answer to which is: God is merciful and just in accordance with his nature.

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

Patient.

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

Not a problem on this definition of infinite.

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

Action in accordance with God’s nature.

Quote:
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.

The infinite thing is not problematic given my definition. Your objection about “truth” needs to be clarified, as it’s not clear in what sense that should be a problem.

Quote:
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.

Forgive means the same thing it usually does. We can forgive a person for doing something that we knew they would do. The immutable thing is not a problem, since an immutable thing need only be impervious to changes imposed from without.

Quote:
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.

Nope. We’re responsible for the actions that we will.

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

Seems to have been answered already.

Quote:
34. Define sin.

Action that isn’t in accord with God’s nature.

Quote:
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.

But there is room for such deviance, as above.

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

He doesn’t control the will of man.

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

Because man has free will, as above.

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

It’s a traditional thing. God could equally well be called “She”. God does not have a gender.

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

Having greater respective capacities for bringing about justice and mercy than any other being.

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

The punishment is terrible for the person receiving it, in that it is very unpleasant to receive. But the fact that the punishment is unpleasant does not make it evil, ergo there is no contradiction.

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

God isn’t defined as having infinite knowledge, only more knowledge than anything else.

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

Passion = anger, as above. Although hate and anger are related, they are not the same thing.

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

This doesn’t appear to be a problem under my use of the term infinite.

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

All men sin, ergo all are at some point guilty. But through salvation in Christ, we can become innocent. God is merciful simply because he made it possible for there to be any innocent men at all. The men who remain - those who are still guilty - may be punished without negating the fact of God’s mercy, which is secured already.

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
Presuppositionalist ... and

Presuppositionalist

 ... and so ? Do you suggest some kind of worship ritual thing ???? A dance around the fire or something ?  Seriously, I don't get your idol worship thing ....

BTW, What ain't gawed ???  What about that Holy Bible book ????  What it's tell ya ???


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I give you full marks for

I give you full marks for bravery.  Don't make yourself a fool.

Quote:
In a theological context, living = having the capacity to create change.

So, anything with potential energy is alive, which is to say everything is alive.  Really awesome definition, there.

Or, perhaps, when you say "create" you mean act upon the universe through an act of will.  Fine.  Define "will" or "consciousness" or "mind" or anything like that, only make sure not to steal from the material, since you've already asserted that god is not bound by all of that.  What is the exact positive definition of "mind" absent the physical processes that give rise to consciousness in animals?

Quote:

God is infinite in that he is bound by neither time nor space. When I say he is not bound by time, I mean that his nature, personality, and character do not change over time. When I say that he is not bound by space, I mean (a) that he is able to cause any logically possible state of affairs to obtain at any point in space AND (b) that he is aware of the present state of affairs obtaining in each points in space simultaneously.

As we shall see, this concept of "infinite" subsumes a couple of God's other qualities as well.

Uh huh.  So, you're just using the word because it sounds nice.  Define his nature, don't just assert it.  None of this is a definition.  It's a naked assertion.  Do you understand what a definition is?  I've already explained to you the problem inherent in "infinite."  You have not addressed it.  You have only reasserted your original position, which, as I have already shown you, is necessarily incoherent.

Quote:
Since God is immaterial, he "occupies" no specific place. To ask where an immaterial thing is is to commit a category error, unless the question is asked in a highly metaphorical sense.

So god cannot exist.  Are we done?

Quote:
Perfection is determined by degree of separation from God's nature. Ergo, it is referential but your demand for a set of verifiable scales is misplaced.

Reference to an undefined scale is no reference.

Quote:
Most pure = purer than anything else. Pure = free from sin.

Pure by what scale?  Sin is incoherent.

Quote:
Easy: I didn't use infinite in a way that causes that contradiction.

And Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that girl.

Quote:
When we say that God does not have a body, we mean that he does not have a body as we do

Don't give me an analogy.  Analogies are not definitions.  What is god's body made of?

Quote:
I'm sure they "can be described" as parts, since anything "can be described" as anything else if you're vague enough.

You should know.

Quote:
I would point out that the terms father, son, and holy ghost don't refer to different beings, but to different persons that coexist as the same being. (If you're unfamilliar with the theological concept of a "person", just let me know.)

Person refers to a unique individual.  The theological concept of a "person" is incoherent.  It simply asserts that each "part" of the "trinity" is whatever it needs to be so the definition isn't contradictory.  However, that is inherently contradictory, so it's just shifting the error around, not correcting it.  A thing must be something to be defined.

Quote:
In this context Passion = Anger, not emotions in general.

Passion and anger are emotions.  Please explain what they precisely mean if they are not emotions.

Quote:
A thing is immutable when no change can be imposed upon it from without. This answers all your objections, I think. And the infinity stuff is, again, addressed above.

So far, you have given me no indication of what is "without" and what is "within" because you have not given me a coherent explanation of what god is and where he is, so this explanation fails.  Please define that which is outside of god.  When you have done this, please reconcile this with god's quality of infinite existence.

Quote:
It emphasizes part "b" in the concept of the infinite (see above). In that sense, it is both a repetition and an entirely new quality.

No.  It contradicts part b.  You don't just get to say it emphasizes if it doesn't.  Immense is different from infinite.  Which is he?

Quote:
We’re not talking about life in a secular context, but in a theological context. See definition of life above.

Telling me what it is not does not tell me what it is.  What is the ontology of life as it applies to god?  All of the words that describe life are necessarily dependent on material physical processes, so none of the words can be used to describe something that is not material.  Analogies are not definitions.

Quote:
Some aspects of God are knowable by man, and others are not. To call God “incomprehensible” is to emphasize the latter, not to deny the existence of the former.

Why?  How?  How do you know?  If something is unknowable, how do you go about proving that it is unknowable?  You keep talking about emphasis when what you're clearly dealing with is contradiction.

Quote:
Might is the degree of capacity to create change. To be almighty is to have the capacity to bring about any logically possible change.

You keep mentioning that god can bring about any logically possible change, but I've already shown you that god itself is logically impossible.  Please show me the proof for this concept (and I do mean logical proof.)

Quote:
Most wise = Wiser than any other being.

Reading comprehension anyone?  Did you not understand the question?

Quote:
Most holy = Holier than any other being. Holiness = perfections, sinlessness, and inability to sin.

Circular.  Sin is incoherent.

Inability to sin = contradiction with all powerful.

Quote:
Subject to less coercion than any other being.

Contradictory to the notion of all powerful.  All powerful necessitates that coercion is meaningless.

Quote:
Existing in more contexts than any other being.

Name them.

Quote:
The confession was written a few hundred years ago, and it uses a couple of words oddly as a result. This is one of them. Working = causing to change.

This is incompatible with complete knowledge.

Quote:
It isn’t the case. God permits us free will, but HE moves our bodies in accordance with what we will.

Incompatible with immutable.

Quote:
This is another weird phrasing. When the confession says God works everything according to the counsel of his will, it’s basically saying God does what he chooses to do.

Incompatible with all knowledge.

Quote:
Righteous = moral purity.

Incompatible with all powerful/all knowing.  Morality is undefined, since "God's Will" is contradictory.

Quote:
Positive assessment of worth.

Glory is someone thinking you're awesome?  So god didn't have any glory before he made man?  That's a change, and contradicts immutable.

Quote:
I think these have all been dealt with, except the mercy/justice thing, the answer to which is: God is merciful and just in accordance with his nature.

And chocolate milk is the same as turds in seawater.

Answer the question with a yes or no.  Is god either all merciful or all just?  If so, which one?  If so, define mercy and justice such that they are not mutually exclusive, or give up the claim.

Quote:
Patient.

Incompatible with all knowledge.

Quote:
Not a problem on this definition of infinite.

You have not defined infinite.  You've just put words together, but the words do not have coherent meaning.  You know what meaning is, right?

Quote:
Action in accordance with God’s nature.

Which part?  How?  We need to be infinite in order to be good?

Quote:
The infinite thing is not problematic given my definition. Your objection about “truth” needs to be clarified, as it’s not clear in what sense that should be a problem.

No, an infinite being is incoherent, given your definition.  My objection to truth is that it is part of a dichotomous system, which cannot exist in an omnimax paradox.

Quote:
Forgive means the same thing it usually does. We can forgive a person for doing something that we knew they would do. The immutable thing is not a problem, since an immutable thing need only be impervious to changes imposed from without.

That is a change, and incompatible with immutable.

Quote:
Nope. We’re responsible for the actions that we will.

This is an assertion.  Give me an explanation.

Quote:
Action that isn’t in accord with God’s nature.

Incompatible with all powerful.

Quote:
But there is room for such deviance, as above.

ditto

Quote:
He doesn’t control the will of man.

ditto

Quote:
Because man has free will, as above.

ditto

Quote:
It’s a traditional thing. God could equally well be called “She”. God does not have a gender.

For the purposes of clarity, can we henceforth refer to god as "It"?  I don't like imprecise definitions.

Quote:
Having greater respective capacities for bringing about justice and mercy than any other being.

Incompatible with omni-justice/mercy paradox.

Quote:
The punishment is terrible for the person receiving it, in that it is very unpleasant to receive. But the fact that the punishment is unpleasant does not make it evil, ergo there is no contradiction.

Define punishment.  On planet earth, punishment serves two purposes:  Training and isolation.  Either we want someone to change their behavior or we want to keep them away from other people.  Once you're dead, you can't be trained, and there's no need for isolation because... well... you're dead anyway.  What purpose does punishment serve?

Good is incompatible with the lack of scale I exposed previously.  With no referent, it is incompatible with the normal definition of good, and without a referent, is meaningless.  Since god is incoherent, good is also incoherent.

Quote:
God isn’t defined as having infinite knowledge, only more knowledge than anything else.

Oh really?  God doesn't know everything?

What doesn't he know?

Quote:
Passion = anger, as above. Although hate and anger are related, they are not the same thing.

What are they?

Quote:
This doesn’t appear to be a problem under my use of the term infinite.

Uh huh.  I'm not going to repeat myself.  Go back to my original rebuttal and read it again.  Read it as many times as you need to until it makes sense.  I don't do shouting matches.

Quote:
All men sin, ergo all are at some point guilty. But through salvation in Christ, we can become innocent. God is merciful simply because he made it possible for there to be any innocent men at all. The men who remain - those who are still guilty - may be punished without negating the fact of God’s mercy, which is secured already.

We haven't gotten near enough to a definition of sin, mercy, or justice for you to start claiming things like this.  Define mercy, justice, sin, and good without referring them to an incoherent concept.

 

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

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


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist wrote:In

Presuppositionalist wrote:
In a theological context, living = having the capacity to create change.

I stopped reading here, as the term "theological context" appears to me to be an oxymoron. How can there be such a thing as context relating to what in itself is pure nonsense? Theology, i.e. the "study" of a figment of imagination, the "knowledge" of what the proponents can't show to exist or even define properly. It's as valid as tooth fairyology.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
KSMB

KSMB wrote:

Presuppositionalist wrote:
In a theological context, living = having the capacity to create change.

I stopped reading here, as the term "theological context" appears to me to be an oxymoron. How can there be such a thing as context relating to what in itself is pure nonsense? Theology, i.e. the "study" of a figment of imagination, the "knowledge" of what the proponents can't show to exist or even define properly. It's as valid as tooth fairyology.

"having the ability to create change" aka "to evolve".

 

So to Presup, the living God is the evolving God....wait...He claims God is immaterial. Immaterial things can't evolve so they can't live.

*Presup pulls gun from holster - blasts hole in foot a la Barney Fife*

"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


Wonko
Wonko's picture
Posts: 518
Joined: 2008-06-18
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:KSMB

jcgadfly wrote:

KSMB wrote:

Presuppositionalist wrote:
In a theological context, living = having the capacity to create change.

I stopped reading here, as the term "theological context" appears to me to be an oxymoron. How can there be such a thing as context relating to what in itself is pure nonsense? Theology, i.e. the "study" of a figment of imagination, the "knowledge" of what the proponents can't show to exist or even define properly. It's as valid as tooth fairyology.

"having the ability to create change" aka "to evolve".

 

So to Presup, the living God is the evolving God....wait...He claims God is immaterial. Immaterial things can't evolve so they can't live.

*Presup pulls gun from holster - blasts hole in foot a la Barney Fife*

KSMB.... I'm with you. But I didn't stop reading cause I have this fetish for watching theists get spanked....besides Hamby is a master logician and an interesting read.

jcgad.... Barney Fife is a hero by comparison. Please don't pick on Mr. Knotts like this.

Presup.... Although I'm sure you have more to say, I stand by my previous post 59.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
You're right, Wonko. I

You're right, Wonko. I should have far more respect for Don Knotts' work in the creation of that character. I humbly apologize - it was simply the first image I generated.

"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


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
He should have stuck with

He should have stuck with the tumbleweed persona.

 

At what point does a theist realise that assertion is not demonstrable fact? Never, perhaps? It's just beyond them to do so?

 

But it does raise an interesting question about gullibility and how christians appreciate that quality to the point that they will exploit it. Why is it exactly that christian apologists get their rocks off by suckering stupid people (especially themselves) even to the point where their efforts show them up as fools in the eyes of their intellectual superiors? I've never figured that one out!

 

Is "the message" so "to die for" that they will all abandon reason? What have they got against reason (and a tradition of philosophy stretching back way before their particular superstition and which looks durable enough to outlive it)?

 

All these answers (and more) with tumbleweed's riposte, I'm sure ...

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Wonko wrote:KSMB.... I'm

Wonko wrote:
KSMB.... I'm with you. But I didn't stop reading cause I have this fetish for watching theists get spanked....besides Hamby is a master logician and an interesting read.

Oh I am with you on this, I read Hamby's dissection of the nonsense. Always nice to see someone layeth the smacketh down on theists' candy asses.

Speaking of smacketh, I miss todangst Sad


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Once again: God is outside

Once again: God is outside of time and immutable. Both of these say that he cannot change. Things that cannot change can't do anything.

I also say that God is immaterial: my dictionary gives the definition: not important, not relevant.

 

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


astro
astro's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Uncle Phil is my god XD

Uncle Phil is my god

 

XD


astro
astro's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-02-04
User is offlineOffline
jmm wrote:Hambydammit

jmm wrote:

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. 

 

The convert to Islam

 

you've got nothing to lose

 

right????