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.
- Login to post comments
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
Too bad neither of them had a fucking clue what they were talking about.
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
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
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
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
Presup,
Been a couple of days. Are you coming back? Just wondering.
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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
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.
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.
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.
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 !
Atheism Books.
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
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
That deserves a triple...
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.)
In a theological context, living = having the capacity to create change.
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.
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.
Explained infinite already.
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.
Most pure = purer than anything else. Pure = free from sin.
Easy: I didn't use infinite in a way that causes that contradiction.
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.
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.)
In this context Passion = Anger, not emotions in general.
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.
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.
We’re not talking about life in a secular context, but in a theological context. See definition of life above.
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.
Might is the degree of capacity to create change. To be almighty is to have the capacity to bring about any logically possible change.
Most wise = Wiser than any other being.
Most holy = Holier than any other being. Holiness = perfections, sinlessness, and inability to sin.
Subject to less coercion than any other being.
Existing in more contexts than any other being.
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.
It isn’t the case. God permits us free will, but HE moves our bodies in accordance with what we will.
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.
The paradoxes have been dealt with above, unless you’re referring to new paradoxes.
Righteous = moral purity.
Positive assessment of worth.
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.
Patient.
Not a problem on this definition of infinite.
Action in accordance with God’s nature.
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.
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.
Nope. We’re responsible for the actions that we will.
Seems to have been answered already.
Action that isn’t in accord with God’s nature.
But there is room for such deviance, as above.
He doesn’t control the will of man.
Because man has free will, as above.
It’s a traditional thing. God could equally well be called “She”. God does not have a gender.
Having greater respective capacities for bringing about justice and mercy than any other being.
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.
God isn’t defined as having infinite knowledge, only more knowledge than anything else.
Passion = anger, as above. Although hate and anger are related, they are not the same thing.
This doesn’t appear to be a problem under my use of the term infinite.
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.
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 ???
Atheism Books.
I give you full marks for bravery. Don't make yourself a fool.
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?
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.
So god cannot exist. Are we done?
Reference to an undefined scale is no reference.
Pure by what scale? Sin is incoherent.
And Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that girl.
Don't give me an analogy. Analogies are not definitions. What is god's body made of?
You should 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.
Passion and anger are emotions. Please explain what they precisely mean if they are not emotions.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
Reading comprehension anyone? Did you not understand the question?
Circular. Sin is incoherent.
Inability to sin = contradiction with all powerful.
Contradictory to the notion of all powerful. All powerful necessitates that coercion is meaningless.
Name them.
This is incompatible with complete knowledge.
Incompatible with immutable.
Incompatible with all knowledge.
Incompatible with all powerful/all knowing. Morality is undefined, since "God's Will" is contradictory.
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.
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.
Incompatible with all knowledge.
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?
Which part? How? We need to be infinite in order to be good?
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.
That is a change, and incompatible with immutable.
This is an assertion. Give me an explanation.
Incompatible with all powerful.
ditto
ditto
ditto
For the purposes of clarity, can we henceforth refer to god as "It"? I don't like imprecise definitions.
Incompatible with omni-justice/mercy paradox.
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.
Oh really? God doesn't know everything?
What doesn't he know?
What are they?
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
Uncle Phil is my god
XD
The convert to Islam
you've got nothing to lose
right????