All Abrahamic religions are equally bad
Debate Rounds (4)
First round for acceptance.
This is clear: treating equivalent things differently means basing one's treatment of the things not on any of their actual qualities, but rather on nothing, for no qualities are different between the things so as to give rise to a basis for these different treatments. If, then, one thing is judged as bad, then all equivalent things are equally bad.
I must, then, show that all Abrahamic religions are equivalent in every way. This is incredibly easy to do and takes little time.
The concept of any God is a contradiction in terms, for omnipotence and infinite power in general cannot be defined; the infinite cannot be grasped by the finite, for, to grasp the nature of the infinite, one must be able to transcend it and look at it in its totality, which requires an escape from the grasp of the infinite. Any professed knowledge of the infinite must, then, be nonsense. The proposition "An omnipotent God exists," then, is impossible to uphold.
All tenets of Abrahamic religions follow from God. If their common basis is irrational, so too must everything which follows from it. For it does not matter how true a conclusion is if its justification is nonsense; a conclusion is only meaningful if it is tied to reality at its root.
1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
C. Socrates is mortal
1. All ducks are red
2. Socrates is dead, and we have killed him
C. Socrates is mortal
The conclusions of both rely on and are inexorably linked to their premises, and it can hardly be said that they both hold the same relation to reality. For when a conclusion is spoken, all prior groundwork is implied.
If everything which follows from the premiss of an omnipotent God is nonsense, and if all Abrahamic religions follow from the premiss of an omnipotent God, all Abrahamic religions must be nonsense.
What is nonsense? Nonsense is that which has no sense, sense being what a proposition pictures. If, then, a nonsensical proposition pictures nothing, it cannot be distinguishable from other nonsensical propositions. Nonsense is simply the lack of sense; there are no other qualities which can be ascribed to it, for, if there were, the nonsense would be sense. Therefore, all propositions of nonsense are equally empty and have no differences except in arbitrary linguistic form.
If the totality of Abrahamic religions is, then, nonsense, then they must all be judged equally; there is nothing which sets any individual nonsensical proposition apart from the others. Ergo, all are equally bad. Q.E.D.
The resolution of this debate can be interpreted in two ways. The first is the interpretation my opponent has decided to focus on, namely the accuracy of the religions. The other interpretation, which is the one I thought we would be debating, pertains to the influence the Abrahamic religions have had on humanity and are likely to have in the future. I will show that in both cases, it is unreasonable to think that all Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) are equally bad. In order to prove that all Abrahamic religions are equally "bad for humanity", my opponent must first quantify "badness" e.g. the amount of human suffering, the number of rights violated. Then he must show that all Abrahamic religions are responsible for an equal amount of it. That's not going to happen, as everyone knows.
My opponent's first mistake is to assume that if humans cannot grasp something, it cannot exist. This merely elevates the human mind to god-like status, thus undermining his own argument. Indeed, if nothing is allowed to escape our mind's grasp, then by what right do we have to say that our mind is NOT infinite? Infinite means without limits. If our mind is able to understand EVERYTHING that could exist, then it has no meaningful limits. Moreover, if anything can be comprehended by the human mind, then omnipotence is limited to only those actions that we can understand, which again, undermines my opponent's already feeble argument.
His argument also fails for the simple reason that it refers to omnipotence in the course of declaring it meaningless. That is problematic for obvious reasons. My opponent doesn't understand that omnipotence, although it permits an infinite range of behavior, does not itself require an infinite description. It is therefore possible to talk about "the ability to do anything" (omnipotence) without specifying all that it enables, just as it's possible to talk about Pi without writing it all out (which is impossible anyway).
We live in a highly complex world. Religions are huge, intricate social structures, involving sometimes billions of people. It would be quite a miracle if any two were exactly the same in any respect. Religions are not just the God concept. All have a rich history and lore that could have strains of truth even if they were not divinely inspired. My opponent must prove that all religions are historically inaccurate to the same degree. That isn't going to happen, as he knows.
My opponent is truly a catastrophic spider.
"My opponent has decided to focus on [...] the accuracy of the religions."
This is a fundamental mischaracterization of my case. I have focused on the nonsensical nature of the religions in order to eliminate the notion that distinctions could be drawn between them. This directly refutes my opponent: if all Abrahamic religions are fundamentally identical, then they must be identical in all relevant aspects, including their "influence [...] on humanity." I do not have to quantify badness at all, for, no matter what standard I choose, the religions will, a priori, have the same amounts of badness.
"My opponent's first mistake is to assume that if humans cannot grasp something, it cannot exist."
Quoting a reputable scholar: "A little reflection should reveal that no matter how “objective” (non-mental) one tries to get, one is ultimately dealing with cognition. Something independent of mind is not theoretically meaningful, for if it were truly independent of mind it would lack meaningful definition. Insofar as it is intelligible, the property “independent of mind” is itself mental by cognitive embedment. There is no escape." 
The concept of "existence" only makes sense if we have some idea of what existence implies. The proposition "X exists" only has sense if "exists" holds meaning, and "exists" can only hold meaning if we are able to grasp the existence of the thing in question. Therefore, saying "The proposition 'X exists' is true" while having no idea of what "X exists" means is idiotic. My opponent is blindly asserting possibilities, but he cannot say what it is that he is claiming to be possible (i.e. an infinite).
"Indeed, if nothing is allowed to escape our mind's grasp, then by what right do we have to say that our mind is NOT infinite? Infinite means without limits."
"Infinite" can only have meaning when juxtaposed with "finite." It is only the concept of a limit which can give infinity meaning. Therefore, if, as my opponent claims, minds have no limits, then there is no basis for a distinction between the finite and infinite - the finite would be unintelligible in the first place, and the divide could not be spoken of.
If the mind does have limits, then transcending those limits would obviously be impossible, so grasping something which is limitless (e.g. God) would be absurd.
Either way, my opponent's argument crumbles under the weight of his own pompous and pretentious bile.
"If our mind is able to understand EVERYTHING that could exist, then it has no meaningful limits."
Again, if this is so, the very dualism of limits vs the limitless is untenable, making an "infinite being" impossible - the question is "infinite - as opposed to what?)
"For an answer which cannot be expressed the question too cannot be expressed.
The riddle does not exist.
If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered." 
"Moreover, if anything can be comprehended by the human mind, then omnipotence is limited to only those actions that we can understand, which again, undermines my opponent's already feeble argument."
"Omnipotence" and "limited" are clearly contradictory terms. Whenever you feel like you are facing a contradiction, check your premisses. You will find one of them to be wrong, child. You have refuted your own pet theory by showing how it leads to a paradox. Try harder, please.
"His argument also fails for the simple reason that it refers to omnipotence in the course of declaring it meaningless."
Tell me: what do I mean when I say "omnipotence?" The answer is simple: I am not referring to anything but the symbol you are using to denote nothing. I am not adopting a conception of omipotence - I am doing the opposite. I am simply not adopting such a conception, because I cannot even say what that conception is.
"My opponent doesn't understand that omnipotence, although it permits an infinite range of behavior, does not itself require an infinite description."
Give it, then, without relying on an empty concept of infinity.
"it's possible to talk about Pi without writing it all out (which is impossible anyway)."
Pi is a nonexistent void. The burden of proof is on my opponent to posit anything but the obviously correct doctrine of extreme mathematical finitism.
"It would be quite a miracle if any two were exactly the same in any respect."
Then, I must say, Hallelujah.
"Religions are not just the God concept."
I spent half of my first round preempting this response. My opponent has ignored that section of my case in full.
I must leave my opponent with a description of immanence (a concept he best learn quickly) by the great Gilles Deleuze:
"Absolute immanence is in itself: it is not in something, to something; it does not depend on an object or belong to a subject. In Spinoza, immanence is not immanence to substance; rather, substance and modes are in immanence. When the subject or the object falling outside the plane of immanence is taken as a universal subject or as any object to which immanence is attributed, the transcendental is entirely de-natured, for it then simply redoubles the empirical (as with Kant), and immanence is distorted, for it then finds itself enclosed in the transcendent. Immanence is not related to Some Thing as a unity superior to all things or to a Subject as an act that brings about a synthesis of things: it is only when immanence is no longer immanence to anything other than itself that we can speak of a plane of immanence. No more than the transcendental field is defined by consciousness can the plane of immanence be defined by a subject or an object that is able to contain it." 
 Prop 6.5, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: https://www.gutenberg.org...;
 Deleuze, Immanence - A Life: http://braungardt.trialectics.com...;
dylancatlow forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.