The Instigator
ChosenWolff
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Raymond_Reddington
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Divinity is real in some form

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Raymond_Reddington
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/1/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,111 times Debate No: 58429
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

ChosenWolff

Pro

This is a continuation of another debate, where me and Raymond disagreed on the structure. I will be arguing that divinity is real. Note, this is a philosophy debate, and not a religious one. I intend on using the stoic argument for the existence of god, as it has been accepted by atheists, scientists, and the religious alike, and will keep this from turning into a "religion vs atheism" debate. This is a metaphysics debate, and should be argued from a secular POV, and from scratch. Arguments that are not started from scratch, shouldn't be considered in a real philsophy debate.

Like most philosophy debates, we will use science, reason, and logical anaylisis to determine what is true and not true. This debate should not be voted on if you are not going to read it carefully and in depth. If you have a tendency to want to skip over arguments, or not read things with focus, then I request that you do not vote. I would like to give a little background on what I'm arguing.

I have read quite a few stoic books regarding divinity upon death, and the one that made the most sense was the Tusculan disputations, do to it arguing not one, but several theories on what happens after death. Do to this influence the book had on me, I will be mostly deriving my arguments from Cicero. Just as a forewarning. I hope to have a good debate, and remember, the BOP resides on me proving that divinity more than likely exists. This is not an absolute assertion. Absolute assertions and philsophy can't coexist. First round is acceptance.

di·vin·i·ty (d-vn-t)
n. pl. di·vin·i·ties
 Godlike character.
char·ac·ter

kariktər/


noun

the distinctive nature of something.

god·like


G2;gädG6;līk/


adjective

resembling God or a god in qualities such as power, beauty, or benevolence.


soul


s!3;l/


noun

the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal. [Additionally, in greek, it literally means "breath"]
Raymond_Reddington

Con

Since Wolf has the BoP he can start. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
ChosenWolff

Pro

I) Augustinian Diostic Theory

The argument made by Augustine of Hippo on the existence of god, was very mathmatical and rational. The theory has been trasnlated to the Ontalogical argument, although not precisely in the same manner that Anselm argued. Augustine's confession stated that there are two basic truths, that support the reasoning behind the existence of god. There were, one, that humans exist. Two, is that if humans can argue their existence, then proof exists. Empirical evidence, according to Augustine, exists in everything that can be argued. Hippocrates then continued to point out, that if something exists, and can be argued to exist, then there is "reason". I will try to clarify this....

[P1] Humans arguably exist
[P2]If something can be argued, then there is proof
[C1] A man has reason if he can argue proof exists

: Arguabillity+Proof = Reason

Which led him to make a hiarchial contention. In laymans terms, he argued for existence as if it were a bio-system. An ecosystem is something comprised of living things. Plants,animals,humans, ect. Then there are biosystems, which comprise of both living and non living things, for example, water and fish. Augustines theory, takes a more rational look at natural connections. Called the Diosystem. He took the approach of proving divinity that both Naturalists and Bio Scientists did in identifying unknown components in a bio system. Augustines Diosystem was proven on three real life identifiers. The rock, the dog, and the human.

The lowest tier of the natural existence hiearchy was the rock, or beings without sentience, instinct, or feeling. They exist, but are without the traits needed for purpose, it is given lowest regard within the diosystem. Then, there is the dog, or beings that possess nearly all the traits rocks lack. Sentience, instict, and feeling foremost. This being is able to function, but unable to do one thing. Which leads us to the human. The human, is exactly like the dog. It has feeling, insticts, sentience, but there is one defining quality that differentiates humans from animals. We are able to use reason. We are able to anaylze morality, consequences, and nature itself to draw conclusions. Which lead Augustine to his final contention, that divinity must exist to explain that which cannot be reasoned. For example, if humanity cannot argue with proof on how the universe started (and don't say big bang theory, as there is no proof on what created matter), then there must be a higher tier in the social order. The philosophical definition of "divinity", created around 700 BC, was the greatest thing that can possibly be conceived.

[P1]
There are matters and subjects that humanity can not reason or conceive
[P2] All answers of life and nature have a reason or conceivable explanation behind them
[C2] That which humanity cannot reason or conceviably explain is of higher status than humanity
[P3] Whatever is of highest status is divine
[C3] Divinity must exist
: Reason(x) = Divinity

Augustinian's theory is built off of several others made before him, but the social hiearchy one will allow me to explain further theories. This will allow me to establish a basis for the following disputions.

II) Ciceric Humanist Theory

Cicero, the author of the Tusculan Disputations, believed the Xenoic and Aurellic theories for divinity. Or that god was the universe. I will get to that later, because Cicero published another theory on divine existence, which is accepted even by most atheists educated on the subject. During Cicero's time, Polygamy and Atheism were quite popular movements. They constantly shunned the idea of divinity, which led Cicero to make a fourth contention regarding divinity that even Atheists would accept. The idea was that humanity itself was divine. Or, once again in laymans terms, that humanity was the greatest thing possibly conceivable.

A lot of people make the argument that divinity couldn't be explained through science, and gods can't exist as humanity is able to solve most of the problems that are apparently inconceivable. Cicero's contention was overtly simple, and rhetoric struck the hearts of most men. If man is able to reason every problem, then humanity itself must be god like, aka, divine. This was a though that was expanded off of Plato, so I guess you can accredit him, although Cicero was the most vocal on this idea. Just like the other "theory", this is only denied as a truism as there are those, who frankly, still deny truisms. The contention looks like this.

[P1] Humanity is capable of conceiving all things
[C4] The Human life is the greatest possible thing that can be conceived
[P2] Divinity is the greatest possible thing that can be conceived
[C5] The Human life is divine

: Reason(x) < Humanity = Divinity Index
III) Xenoic and Aurrelic Universal Theory

The Xenoic and Aurrelic theories both derive off the same conclusions that the Ontalogical argument do. The greatest thing to possibly be conceived is divine. Xeno argued that there was one thing that humanity cannot argue. One evident truth. There is nothing that can be conceived greater than the universe itself. Even if as humans, we were able to understand and reason all spheres of existence, we can still never amount to what we reasoned with in the first place.

[P1] The Universe is the greatest, in that it encompasses all things
[C6] The Universe is the greatest possible thing that may be conceived
[P2] Divinity is the greatest possible thing that can be conceived
[C7] The Universe is Divine

IV) Conclusion

Rather than try to take one path of the ontalogical argument on this debate, I tried to take a more feasible approach that would appease both atheists, religious, and polytheists. I think I have done so quite well, and have proven that divinity, whether it be the universe, humanity, or a guy chilling in heaven, is a very real thing. Is it reasonable to assume that godliness isn't always intepreted religiously? I am religious myself, and I was originally going to give the Neeistic theory to the existence of god, but I decided to tread a safer path. Truisms cannot be debated.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

Note* Wolf and I have agreed to amend the definition of "divinity", to the definition stated by Wolf in round 2. "The philosophical definition of "divinity", created around 700 BC, was the greatest thing that can possibly be conceived."

Introduction

Before I start I will request that voters read over Pro"s sources for any needed clarification. There are several items about Pro"s argument that must be questioned, and I can effectively refute all of his points here.

Explanations, Rebuttals, and Failure to Fulfill Burden of Proof

Even if we had stuck with the previous definition of "divinity" Pro would have not come close to fulfilling his BoP. Luckily, the new definition will make it immensely easier for me to explain the numerous failures in my opponent"s argument. Basically the resolution is now the greatest thing that can possibly be conceived is real in some form. Pro"s rules stated "the BOP resides on me proving that divinity more than likely exists." It is up to all of us to determine the Burden of Proof. It is commonly accepted that a greatest possible being would be necessarily omnipotent and omniscient, since anything less would not be "greatest". Several more qualifiers could easily be added, but this should suffice. Anything Pro proposes as a greatest possible being should be questioned. If it is possible to conceive of a greater being, then the BoP is not fulfilled since Pro argued for a lesser being. Now let"s look at the conclusions Pro has reached. If we can conceive of a greater possible being, then Pro"s arguments are for the existence of the wrong thing, and irrelevant.

Augustinian Diostic Theory

Pro"s arguments are a weird combination of two different arguments, the first being Augustine"s argument which can be located fully in pro"s provided source. I highly advise that readers go over Pro"s sources so you can differentiate between the two arguments clearly. The second argument is basically that universal constants can only come from a divine being. I will be bolding my explanations with numbers to refute Pro"s arguments from both aspects (1, 2)

His first syllogism is not super clear so I will explain.

"[P1] Humans arguably exist

[P2]If something can be argued, then there is proof

[C1] A man has reason if he can argue proof exists"

All Pro is asserting here is that we exist, we are alive, and we have the ability to reason. (http://www.essortment.com... this is Pro"s first source, to confirm what I"ve said, see the opening paragraph)

For the rest of Pro"s argument, Pro claims the existence of a "diosystem" (by the way, not an actual word. It"s located nowhere in Pro"s source and a Google search yields no results), better termed a hierarchy of things. His argument goes from rocks to trees to humans. Then he makes an incredible and unjustified leap-

"Which lead Augustine to his final contention, that divinity must exist to explain that which cannot be reasoned. For example, if humanity cannot argue with proof on how the universe started (and don't say big bang theory, as there is no proof on what created matter), then there must be a. higher tier in the social order. The philosophical definition of "divinity", created around 700 BC, was the greatest thing that can possibly be conceived."

2. A simple look at Pro"s source reveals that this is not what Augustine was advocating. Augustine"s argument was that if he could show something greater than, or outside of human reason, then it was the equivalent of divinity. Pro basically claims that what science cannot explain can be attribute to a divine being. Notice how his formulated logic (below) presents Augustine"s version. The preceding paragraph (above) is supposed to contain support for the formulated logic, but argues for a distorted version! Pro"s supporting paragraphs make the argument that "divinity must exist to explain that which cannot be reasoned" which is an unsupported assertion and a god of the gaps fallacy. Resorting to divinity by default halts scientific thinking and is the equivalent of the ancient Greeks attributing lightning to Zeus. Methodological naturalism, or the scientific method "is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors"all hypotheses and events"are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events."[1] The fact is the Burden is on the one claiming divinity exists, so resorting to divinity by default is foolish and unjustified. Throughout history science has been presented with problems, and these problems are continually being solved by science. When science can"t yet conclusively solve a problem resorting to the supernatural is essentially giving up. We can reasonably say that science not yet having the answer is not the equivalent of the answer not existing. Until evidence is given the divine actually exists, we cannot justifiably say that a lack of an answer is evidence for that divine being. Pro uses the big bang as an interesting example. This undermines his case. The fact that the big bang is a possibility is yet another example of science providing possible solutions. When we are proposed with two solutions, a scientific possibility or a supernatural one, we don"t have to accept either! In fact the existence of the divine should not rest on the antithesis of scientific principles. Pro"s argument is a god of the gaps fallacy that has been effectively refuted.

Pro"s formulation of the logic (P1-C2 is Augustine"s version. P3 and C3 are not)

"[P1] There are matters and subjects that humanity cannot reason or conceive

[P2] All answers of life and nature have a reason or conceivable explanation behind them

[C2] That which humanity cannot reason or conceivably explain is of higher status than humanity

[P3] Whatever is of highest status is divine

[C3] Divinity must exist"

  1. After Augustine reached C2, he would claim that anything higher than humanity was divine. He would then point out a mathematical truth like 5+5=10 and call it divinity because it existed independent of humanity! Unfortunately all Augustine can show is that something is a "higher tier in the social order", not highest. Pro is utilizing a false equivalency here. Augustine"s definition of divinity is very different from the accepted definition. Augustine attempts to define anything above humanity and reason as divinity. This won"t work in this debate since we are using greatest possible being conceivable, and not Augustine"s distorted definition. We can test Augustine"s definition against ours. Conceive of a law that would exist regardless of human reason such as gravity. Gravity is constant regardless of humanity"s existence; therefore, according to Augustine gravity is divine. All voters can conceive of a greater being incredibly easily. Imagine an omnipotent, omniscient being that is responsible for creating the law of gravity. Such a being would be necessarily greater. This same test can be applied to any constant Augustine can throw at us, such as mathematics. Augustine"s definition fails every time.
  2. I will now be addressing P3 and C3. P3 rests on the assumption that Pro has proven the existence of this highest status, or greatest possible being, but if we look at C2 we see that he concluded with something that "is of higher status than humanity". There is a significant difference between higher and highest. We"ve already decided on several qualifications a greatest being conceivable must have, and universal constants do not meet these standards. C3 is negated.

Ciceric Humanist Theory

"[P1] Humanity is capable of conceiving all things

[C4] The Human life is the greatest possible thing that can be conceived

[P2] Divinity is the greatest possible thing that can be conceived

[C5] The Human life is divine"

P1: First of all this is not supported at all. This is also an enormous fallacy. By definition, everything that we can "conceive" would be considered "all things" to us. Assume for a second there was something we could not conceive. If we could not conceive it we would not be aware it existed, therefore not aware it was a thing. This would mean that "all things" does not necessarily mean "all things" since by definition we are only aware of what we conceive, so we would not be aware of what we don"t. From our perspective we might think we conceive all things but there is no reason to believe this. The logic is not sound.

C4: Pro"s only "evidence" for this is P1, but as we have already found out that P1 is not true. Even if we assume P1 is true the conclusion does not follow. Just because something is capable of conceiving all things does not mean it is the greatest thing conceivable. I refer you back to our qualifications of greatest possible being conceivable. A being that is capable of conceiving all things, and is also omnipotent and omniscient would necessarily be greater than humanity. C4 is not supported.

P2: Agreed. But Pro has not shown that this thing exists.

C5: This conclusion is unsupported.

Xenoic and Aurrelic Universal Theory

"[P1] The Universe is the greatest, in that it encompasses all things

[C6] The Universe is the greatest possible thing that may be conceived

[P2] Divinity is the greatest possible thing that can be conceived

[C7] The Universe is Divine"

P1: This point is important to address, because my opponent makes a large mistake here. Saying that the universe is the greatest is unsupported. We can conceive of a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and created the universe, which would be necessarily greater. Many religions conceive of beings like this, such as Christianity and Islam. The universe is not the greatest, and my opponent has not given evidence that it encompasses all things. An immaterial conscious god, such as the Christian god would not exist in the universe. We can also conceive of a universe that encompasses all things, plus one more planet, which would be necessarily greater.

C6: This conclusion is unsupported.

P2: True.

C7: There is no evidence to support this, since it is easy to conceive of something considerably greater.

Conclusion

None of my opponent"s arguments are sound, and none even come close to fulfilling the BoP. The majority of them address beings that aren"t even considered "divine" by the definition! I have successfully refuted all points. I"ll give it back to Pro in hopes that next round will be more difficult.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
ChosenWolff

Pro

I. Concession

My opponent has conceded the debate the moment he accepted my definition. I will try to explain, in case some of you didn't understand my arguments. His claim is that I didn't prove divinity exists, because I didn't prove that god is omniscient and omnipotent. He then goes on to say this claim is generally accepted, which is unsubstantiated, and even if it were, it is not what were debating or what I believe. My opponent is under the illusion that I need to prove "divinity", which he confuses with god several times throughout this debate. Additionally, the opposition made an argument that "divinity isn't real as their are things which are greater than what can be conceived". This is drabble, and the opposition should clarify upon this, as it didn't make sense. By making that contention, he conceded that divinity exists as well. My opponents arguments can be summarized like this....

- The BOP is failed as Pro didn't prove divinity is omnipresent or omnipotent (not the resolution, nonexistent bop, and my opponent made up this condition)(opponent conceded by basically admitting divinity exists)

- Pro has to prove that there is nothing greater than divinity (Which makes no sense given divinity is the greatest thing that can be conceived) (LMAO at the opposition's fallacy, which conceded the debate again).

- Pro has to prove what the greatest possible being is. (fallacy, not a part of the BOP, and debunked as this is conceding the greatest thing is)

Now, as I will restate, my opponent has already conceded that divinity exists as he accepted the definition. He outright told me over PM he agrees the terminology is legit, so there's really no point in continuing debate. Yet, I will push forward and persevere to stamp out the rhetoric and fallacious equations within an argument my opponent truly didn't understand.

II. Pro's understanding of conceivability

This is perhaps the biggest fallacy the opposition has commited himself towards, and the one I most fear the audience will buy. First of all, I must state, my opponent didn't read or have a clear understanding of the definition he affirmed too. The definition says the greatest thing that can be conceived. I am of the opinion that you can't conceive a omniescent and omniprescent god. He understands metaphysics all wrong if he thinks that. The Xenoic argument was that "divinity" was the solution to the problems we don't know. Or the "answers". If we can conceive a omniescient god (which my opponent said, once again conceding the debate), we can also conceive something much more moderate, such as nature being divine, reason being divine, or science being divine. Next time, my opponent should read and have an understanding of the word can. My opponent confused the word "greatest" possibility (which can be logically conceived), with "perfect" (which can't be logically conceived, as perfection is a sham).

This alone is enough to forfeit the debate. I would highly appreciate it if the opposition would stop making up BOP "rules" which don't exist. The only thing I must prove is that divinity (in some shape or form) exists, and I already have won by him conceding that there are conceivable things. The existence theory disputation made by Kant, a philosopher I reffered my opponent to when he investigated on to my arguments, wasn't even brought up by my opponent, which shows me he doesn't understand the Social Hiearchy theory made by Augustine.

III. Pro has to prove that there is nothing greater than the greatest thing we can conceive

Outrageous fallacy once again. I reffered him to all the works he needs to make his case, but he refused to read them, or is ommiting them from his arguments. The ontalogical argument resides on the fact that if something exists, then there is a reason upon why it exists. Which is funny, because what the opposition is saying, is that something can't be divine if there is something above it. Well, trying to make sense of this argument, one can easily conclude the explanation behind the highest conceivable thing at the moment is divinity. It's a hiearchy, and since all conceivable things have an answer behind them, all inconceivable things must have one as well. That "greatest" possible explanation is divine.

My opponent needs to be clear on his contentions, and once again, he conceded the debate by admitting to a greatest possible thing. Based on a definition he affirmed both here and in PM.

IV. Understanding of Augustines Argument

It's pretty evident that the opposition has failed to understand the theory, which makes this hard to contend, as I'm arguing points that don't relate to a contention I made. None the less, I will set the record straight. As for his statement that my contention was regarding "universal constraints can only be explained by the universe", he straw manned this, and this wasn't my point whatsoever. Let's start by looking at the first contention I made, which con dropped. All it said was there is an explanation behind all conceivable things, and whatever that is, is divine (reason, logic, man in the sky, universe itself). This is a truism, and well reasoned. The opposition responded to the text, but dropped the argument, making a claim that you can't jup from rock to tree (wtf!? This has no relevance).

Now, on to point two of my opponents refutation, which is claiming I didn't understand the Augustinian argument (one I studied days on end), and made a lot of baseless straw mans and said I took stances I didn't actually state. Alright, so let's look at what the opposition has wrote. Augustine was reffering, and no, he didn't say equal to divinity (straw man), that for something to exist beyond the bounds of human reason, it must be explained through something greater conceived than humans themselves, or divinity (which has 100's of possible solutions besides god). Which is a truism once again, and my opponent should refrain from twisting the entire theory into one large straw man.

Since the whole argument was one big block of blabber, based on one straw man made at the beggining of the stance, I feel no need to address it all. I advise my opponent to re-equate himself with the theory, as he has shown a lack of understanding regarding a very simple contention based on truths. Truths that went undisputed even after the straw man.

V. Ciceric theory

The opposition has denied the first premise, that humanity is capable of reasoning all problems eventually. Is he trying to say that humanity is incapable of reasoning with science and logic? That directly contradicts what my opponent said last round, where he straight up affirmed that nothing is above the bounds of human reason. I don't know whether to mark this as a concession or a mistake brought forward from not reviewing one's arguments. My opponent has affirmed that humanity isn't capable of scientifically explaining all problems, therefore, should provide a source on how science can't explain all things. Here's my source (I checked all links and mostly all agree with me) that science and reason can explain all things eventually.

https://www.google.com...

The opposition now has a BOP of his own to prove that humanity can't solve all problems with reason and logic. If he fails to do this, then he has definitely conceded the debate. As I said, if humanity can conceive all things, then humanity must be the greatest possible thing that can be conceived in the first place.

VI. Xenoic and Aurrellic Theory

Fallacy. His only contention was the one he made at the beggining, making an outrageous claim that we can conceive a omniescient and omnipotent god (which we can't, as one doesn't exist or can be conceived). Had my opponent given thought to the possibility of divinity existing within the universe itself? The Universe, in theory, encompasses all things, therefore is divine. The premise is affirmed.

VII. Conclusion

Throughout this debate, the opposition has made many concessions, affirmed to many things which unintentionally supported my case, and showed a lack of understanding to the theories put in front of him. There were dozens of scape goats on both my and the philosophers I used contentions, which built into large run on paragraphs built off of fallacies. Had my opponent put more effort and used the authors I gave him, he might of won this debate. Had he carefully read, and studied the books these authors wrote, he might not of argued on straw mans. Thank you for your time, and although we have one round to go, this debate is already over given you affirmed the definition.

My resolution is affirmed. Divinity can be a number of things from humans, souls, reason, logic, science, nature, the universe, a unrealistic and unproven man sitting in the sky, or even a life cell. What's been proven without doubt, is that it exists.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

  1. Concession

I will clarify on the issues of the first paragraph of this argument. My opponent"s BoP is to show that a greatest possible being conceivable (divinity) exists in some form. What is a greatest possible being conceivable? This is easy to clarify, and we only have to look at Anselm"s ontological argument for clarification. A greatest possible being would be greatest in every way. This means it would be necessarily omnipotent and omniscient, or greatest in power and knowledge. Such a being would easily meet the requirements for being classified as a god, so using the terms divinity and god interchangeably is not a problem. My opponent points out that we might not be able to conceive of such a being, but that is simply not true. Let"s look at the definition of conceive:

Conceive- Form a mental representation of; imagine. According to Oxford English Dictionaries

Now notice that to conceive something does not necessarily mean, to completely understand something. I can conceive of a flying unicorn being ridden by a leprechaun with fireballs for hands. Can I explain to you the anatomy of the unicorn or how it can fly? No. Can I tell you how the leprechaun works, and why it can shoot fireballs? No. Does this mean I haven"t conceived it? Of course not! If I can imagine it (in the definition of conceive) then I can conceive it. We don"t need to think of the greatest possible being, we just need to think of the greatest possible being conceivable. An omnipotent being would be able to take any form, so this should not be too difficult. You could just imagine an empty space, because the being could be immaterial, and then imagine that the empty space could do anything. It"s a simple idea. Now to prove that anyone can conceive of an omnipotent and omniscient being, I will refer you to a comic book. In DC comics, The Source is an all powerful and all knowing being, easily defined as the greatest possible being. "Known as the Consciousness of the DC Comics Multiverse, The Source is the source of all that exists."[1]. In the Marvel comics the One-Above-All "is omnipotent and omniscient meaning his powers are unlimited, incalculable, and immeasurable. As if that"s not enough, he is also Omnipresent and as such, there exists only one, in all realities at once."[1]

You could just look at most of the monotheistic religions and conclude that they conceive of a greatest possible being conceivable on a daily basis. It is clear that a greatest possible being conceivable would be omnipotent, and omniscient, and conceiving of such a being is not very difficult.

My opponent quotes something in his argument: "divinity isn't real as their are things which are greater than what can be conceived" and gives the impression that I said it, but I never did. He also horribly misrepresents my position.

Now let"s look at my opponent"s "summary" of my argument.

"- The BOP is failed as Pro didn't prove divinity is omnipresent [I actually said omniscient, not omnipresent] or omnipotent (not the resolution, nonexistent bop, and my opponent made up this condition)(opponent conceded by basically admitting divinity exists)

I never said anything like this. It is also a terrible misrepresentation of my position since it assumes he has already proven divinity exists, just not shown that it is omnipresent or omnipotent. Since divinity is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient, he must show that an omnipotent and omniscient being exists to show that divinity exists. He has yet to prove divinity exists.

- Pro has to prove that there is nothing greater than divinity (Which makes no sense given divinity is the greatest thing that can be conceived) (LMAO at the opposition's fallacy, which conceded the debate again).

I never said anything like this either. Could my opponent be completely straw manning me? Pro does not have to prove that there is "nothing greater than divinity". Divinity is the greatest thing we can conceive. He must prove that divinity exists, which he has not done.

- Pro has to prove what the greatest possible being is. (fallacy, not a part of the BOP, and debunked as this is conceding the greatest thing is)"

It"s confirmed everybody! My opponent has completely straw manned my arguments! I never said a greatest possible being exists, ever. Pro has to show that a greatest possible being exists, and I have adequately explained what that would entail.

These are completely pathetic. Each "summary" can be viewed as a concession, but I never said anything that he puts here! He doesn"t quote me once, but he does succeed in terribly straw manning my position. I"m confident that anyone who actually READS my argument would know that this "summary" is absolutes ridiculous. It occurs to me that he may be appealing to the low information voter, people who skim arguments, see his summary and assume I conceded. That makes it vital that all voters actually read the debate.

"Now, as I will restate, my opponent has already conceded that divinity exists as he accepted the definition."

The definition actually works in my favor, since it is incredibly easy to conceive of a greatest possible being that would be necessarily omnipotent and omniscient. My opponent keeps yelling "Concession!" but has failed to show how I conceded. I challenge my opponent to provide an actual quote of mine that would be a concession.

"He outright told me over PM he agrees the terminology is legit, so there's really no point in continuing debate. Yet, I will push forward and persevere to stamp out the rhetoric and fallacious equations within an argument my opponent truly didn't understand."

I absolutely agreed to the definition, that"s why I clarified last round, but again the definition works in my favor. As for the not understanding comment, I think I"ll let the voters decide that. I do find it ironic that you"ve made another claim without evidence though.

  1. What is the Greatest Being We Can Conceive?

I will clarify again, the definition of conceive is not to understand, it is to imagine or form a mental representation of. I can imagine a greatest possible being just like I can imagine Zeus throwing lightning bolts. For a greatest possible being to truly be greatest, it must be greatest in all aspects, including power and knowledge. An omnipotent being could assume any form, or be immaterial. So, to imagine one, just imagine an empty space, or your favorite pet, or the weird guy that lives across the street, and then imagine that they can do anything and know everything. It is quite easy. My opponent makes several faulty claims in this argument.

"The Xenoic argument was that "divinity" was the solution to the problems we don't know. Or the "answers"."

This operates under the faulty assumption that the "answers" are the greatest thing that we can conceive, but it is simple to conceive of a being that put the answers there in the first place. It"s also important to note that "answers" don"t fit the definition that my opponent thinks is so in his favor. A Greatest Possible Being Conceivable

Being- A real or imaginary living creature, especially an intelligent one- According to Oxford English Dictionaries.

So "answers" cannot fit this definition completely undermining Pro"s argument.

"If we can conceive a omniescient god (which my opponent said, once again conceding the debate), we can also conceive something much more moderate, such as nature being divine, reason being divine, or science being divine. Next time, my opponent should read and have an understanding of the word can. My opponent confused the word "greatest" possibility (which can be logically conceived), with "perfect" (which can't be logically conceived, as perfection is a sham)."

My opponent makes the point that we "can" conceive of something more moderate, but this fails to accomplish the goal of conceiving of the greatest possible being conceivable, so his point is useless and irrelevant. I also did not confuse "greatest" and "perfect". My point is that the "greatest" being we can conceive is about as close to perfect as it gets.

"This alone is enough to forfeit the debate."

Really? I sincerely doubt it.

I would highly appreciate it if the opposition would stop making up BOP "rules" which don't exist. The only thing I must prove is that divinity (in some shape or form) exists, and I already have won by him conceding that there are conceivable things."

Clearly you don"t understand the resolution. You must show the existence of a greatest possible being conceivable (I"ve already explained why that would have to be omnipotent and omniscient), and you have failed to do so. You are confusing any random thing you can conceive with the greatest possible thing you can conceive. This failure will probably cost you the debate.

The existence theory disputation made by Kant, a philosopher I reffered my opponent to when he investigated on to my arguments, wasn't even brought up by my opponent, which shows me he doesn't understand the Social Hiearchy theory made by Augustine."

My opponent did recommend I use Kant"s rebuttal, but Kant"s rebuttal was geared towards the typical ontological argument. My opponent"s argument was very different, and not even a correct representation of Augustine"s argument). It was simple for me to point the flaws in the argument without resorting to a rebuttal to a completely different argument. I recommend that readers look at Pro"s source about Augustine"s argument to see which one of us misunderstands it.

  1. Greatest thing conceivable

My opponent is required to show the existence of a greatest possible being conceivable. He pointed to science and truisms. I showed him that I could conceive of a much greater being quite easily. There is no fallacy here. My opponent refers to the ontological argument which he has not even used so that is irrelevant.

  1. Augustine"s Argument

My opponent claims that there is an explanation behind all things, and that explanation is divine. I already explained the huge flaw in this argument. First of all it ignores the possibility of brute facts. Second of all it assumes these explanations are the greatest thing we can possibly conceive, which is just not true, since I can conceive of a being that put those truisms in place. My opponent is not arguing for the right thing here. Then my opponent accuses me of straw manning him and apparently forgets to explain how. This problem is easily solved by voters looking at his source for his arguments, and everyone will see that my rebuttals have addressed his flimsy arguments accurately. He also says I failed to address his first point, but his first point only argued for humanities existence, which is clarified in his source.

  1. Ciceric Theory

Here my opponent claims that science can solve all problems and "proves" his point with a link to a Google search. He also tries to put the BoP on me to prove science cannot prove all things which is a faulty shifting of the BoP. I will do it anyway. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of an invisible immaterial undetectable pink unicorn godess. Point is proven. Also the ability to conceive all things (which is not proven) does not mean humanity is the greatest thing conceivable. We could easily conceive of something else, that could conceive of all things and be omnipotent. My opponents argument is weak and has been completely refuted.

  1. Xenoic and Aurellic Theory

I have already shown how incredibly simple it is to conceive of an omnipotent and omniscient being. My opponent has to fall back on saying the universe could contain a greatest possible being in theory. Unfortunately there is no evidence of this, and since I can easily conceive of a greatest possible being that the universe is not quite as great as, the entire argument is defeated.

Conclusion

I find it disheartening that my opponent must resort to pointing out nonexistent concessions. He has a large burden of proof that is completely unfulfilled. All of his arguments have been completely defeated since he formulated them incorrectly. He accuses me of not understanding his arguments, or straw manning him, when in reality the opposite is true. It is blatantly obvious that my opponents failure to properly deliver the arguments is due to a lack of understanding. He also makes several claims/summaries about my position, but does not quote me once. He has completely ignored my actual arguments and rebuttals and resorted to childish accusations of concessions and stupidity out of the realization that his position is untenable.

[1] http://list25.com...

Debate Round No. 3
ChosenWolff

Pro

I. Preface

My opponent has shown incapable of understanding what we're debating. Divinity is real in some form. Not that a omniprescent or omnipotent god exists. My opponent continues to state, that god can't exist because we can conceive a great and powerful god (which is a concession, as he's saying something greater can be conceived). My opponent, in making that contention, is once again conceding that divinity exists. I have never seen a debater concede so many times in one debate. He's trying to refute that the definition is not true. That's been his only contention so far. Let me rephrase. Divinity is the greatest thing that can be conceived. My opponent repeatedly states that we can conceive an omnipotent god, while I continue to tell him you can't. You cannot conceive something that doesn't have an answer behind it.

I'm going to directly cite from Zarrottes debate. All things in earth have an answer behind them. My opponent is continuing to state we can conceive a perfect god. Which means my opponent must explain HOW we can conceive him. How does he work? Where does his power come from? How was he created? What does he look like? These questions can't be answered, or can be conceived. We can't conceive where gods power comes from. We can't conceive how he was created. My opponents argument is entirely based on the fallacy that we can conceive an omnipotent and omniprescent god (again, conceding the debate). I'll ask my opponent this, and one more time, how can us, as humans, explain how god was created or how he has his powers?

Unless my opponent, who at this point, has absolutely no understanding of the Ontalogical argument, can explain how it's possible for an omniescent and omnipotent god can exist, then his entire argument is false. My opponent has this the other way around. It's HIM who has to prove a perfect god is conceivable. For something to be conceivable, you must explain every detail and how it can come to be. My opponent shouldn't of taken this debate without understanding the basic theory, which he admitted to me, and tried to build a case on such a large fallacy. Here is a PDF file explaining the exact same fallacy the opposition has commited.

http://www.princeton.edu...
http://www.debate.org...

Let's not forget, everytime he affirms the definition of divinty (greatest possible thing conceivable), he is conceding that divinity exists. I am sick of refuting fallacies, and I'll try to talk to my opponent in PM after this round on why they are fallacies.

II. Refutation of Fallacy

This contention is pretty much a restatement of what I said before. My opponent wrote a whole paragraph on for something to be conceivable, it must be explained. Which leads us back to the same conclusion, that I have explained that science can conceive all things, therefore is divine, and that the universe contains all things, therefore, is divine. These things can be explained. We can explain these things in one sentence. "Humanity is divine, because we can reason everything in the world". "The Universe is divine, because it is a proxy term relating to all things that exist".

My opponent, has been unable to prove that the definition is false. Unless my opponent, can argue against Oxford, that divinity isn't the greatest possible thing which can be conceived, he is conceding that divinity exists in some form. Which is why I am suggesting to my opponent, that he changes his course, and quick. This debate really comes down to whether there is a greatest conceivable thing on earth.

Unless my opponent can prove that there isn't a greatest conceivable thing, then he is conceding that divinity exists.

III. Straw Man Accusation

I am certain the opposition is confused now. He keeps stating that a perfect being can be conceived, yet he's saying it's up to me to prove it. Which led him to accusing me of strawman. Listen, you brought up the contention that a perfect god can be conceived. It is up to YOU to prove and explain how this being exists. I never even planned on bringing god into this debate. Whenever you make a premise, it is up to you to prove it. Not the other way around. Prove that your assertion is true. My opponents ENTIRE argument now resides on proving a perfect god exists (which is a concession)

So no, my statement isn't a straw man. You stated, not me, that we can conceive a perfect god (conceding the debate). If you make this claim, you must explain how a perfect god can possibly exist (which he can't), not me. There was so many fallacies in what my opponent said.

IV. Restatement of Ciceric Theory

This contention was completely dropped by my opponent, so I will restate what I said. Divinity is the greatest possible thing that can be conceived. I argued, that humans are capable of conceiving all things, therefore, are gods themselves. I asked my opponent, and very kindly, to prove that humans aren't capable of explaining all things. He hasn't, instead dropping this point. I provided a source and ample reasoning on why science is capable of proving all things, and my opponent simply could not refute this.

So it stands true, since it was dropped, and if my opponent is unwilling or unable to prove why science can't explain all things, which it can, then the resolution is affirmed. Humans are gods themselves. Science is divine. I scoured my opponents entire argument for just one rebuttal regarding "humanity isn't capable of conceiving all things" (which even if he refuted this, he is still conceding that something greater than humans is divine). My resolution holds true, which is why I'll restate my contention.

[P1]
Humans are capable of explaining (conceiving) all things
[P2] Divinity is the greatest thing that can be explained (conceived)
[C1] Humans are divine

Can my opponent prove that humans are incapable of explaining all things? He certainly hasn't so far. Therefore, the resolution is affirmed. Instead of doing this, my opponent has attempted to scapegoat the BOP. Everytime you make an assertion, and in this case, that humanity isn't capable of explaining all things, YOU are required to prove it.

This point was dropped because my opponent thinks it's my responcibility to prove assertions he makes. (it's called a premise BOP, FYI)

V. Reinstatement of the Xenoic Theory

This entire contention was dropped. I encourage the readers to go back to his contention, and you'll notice he didn't make a single refutation for this argument. Here, I'll restate once again. The universe contains all things. The universe, is essentially, the container for all things that exist. If a perfect god exists (which he doesn't), he would exist within the universe. Therefore, Xeno is right, and the universe is the greatest thing that can be conceived.

[P1] The universe contains all things that exist
[P2] All conceivable (explainable) things exist within the universe
[C2] The universe is the greatest possible thing in which can be conceived.

My opponent, has the responcibility of actually refuting this time. He must prove, to negate this contention, that the universe doesn't contain all forms of existence. If he fails to do this, as he already has, then the resolution is affirmed.

VI. Conclusion

I have cited 5 different philosophers over the course of the debate, all with different ideas on what divinity is. I attempted to prove that at least one of these theories holds true. My opponent, unwilling to use Kant (if he had used K ant, he might of won), has tried to fight all 5 philosophers with one fallacy. That a perfect god can be explained.

It's important my opponent understands that there is a difference between "conceive" and "imagine". People can imagine a perfect god. People can't conceive a perfect god, therefore, a perfect god doesn't exist (once again conceding the debate. I'm going to summarize each and every contention, and what my opponent needs to do to negate them.

What the opposition needs to do to negate the resolution

C1: Prove that a perfect god can be explained (The entire fallacy in which his arguments are rooted)
C2: Prove that science and reason aren't capable of explaining (conceiving) all things in the universe
C3: Prove that the Universe, the "entity" that contains all existence, isn't the greatest conceivable thing

My opponent has failed to negate any of my contentions, and on the off chance he actually makes a non-fallacious argument, then I'll be unable to refute them. So, by the rules of debating, my opponent may not switch his arguments at this state of the game.

VII. Video

I found a video on the Ontalogical argument, and it brings light to this debate. The opposition has made the same fallacy which the video describes. He attempts to prove that a impossible world can exist in the real world, which is a fallacy. I encourage votes (you don't have to) to watch this video if you didn't understand Con's fallacy or why it was a fallacy.

My favorite part was when the speaker says, "...you cannot use illogical arguments to disprove logical arguments for the existence of god". Which directly relates to when the opposition attempted to use a "perfect god" to disprove a logical argument on divinity, IE, a illogical argument attempting to disprove a logical one. I struck gold in finding this video.

Raymond_Reddington

Con

  1. Introduction

My opponent has failed to understand the resolution and this will cost him the debate. It was his job to show that divinity exists in some form. Divinity is defined as the greatest thing that can possibly be conceived. I explained that the greatest thing we can conceive is an omnipotent omniscient being. This is supported by philosophers, as well as the ontological argument. The video posted by my opponent supports my definition. I fully explained how it was possible to conceive of such a being, and my opponent offered no refutations. The only protest he voiced was "my opponent must explain HOW we can conceive him. How does he work? Where does his power come from? How was he created? What does he look like? These questions can't be answered, or can be conceived. We can't conceive where gods power comes from. We can't conceive how he was created. My opponents argument is entirely based on the fallacy that we can conceive an omnipotent and omniprescent god (again, conceding the debate). I'll ask my opponent this, and one more time, how can us, as humans, explain how god was created or how he has his powers?" Of course my argument the previous round completely nullifies this. Nowhere in the definition of "conceive" does it say "fully understand". It literally says "imagine". He would be immaterial, or able to take any form, so what he looks like isn"t a real problem. All of the other questions could be equally applied to unicorns, but that does not mean I can"t conceive/imagine unicorns. My opponent fails to provide actual reasons of why we couldn"t conceive of such a being, whereas I provided numerous examples and evidences of how easy it is.

Now that we are aware of exactly the type of being that can be classified as divinity, which Pro must show exists, it is up to him to meet that burden of proof. He has failed to do so. He does repeatedly reference the ontological argument, but he has not presented the ontological argument. His video does and I will address that separately.

He makes the bold claim that "My opponent has this the other way around. It's HIM who has to prove a perfect god is conceivable. For something to be conceivable, you must explain every detail and how it can come to be", and this is just dishonest debating. I"m not advocating a "perfect god", but a greatest possible being that is conceivable. I can conceive of a flying spaghetti monster, but can I definitively tell you every detail and how it can come to be? No. The definition of conceive easily validates my position. I"m curious if my opponent even read the definition of conceive. I also want to point out that the link after my opponent says "Here is a PDF file explaining the exact same fallacy the opposition has commited." is just a link to an explanation of the ontological argument. The funniest, most incorrect, and most dishonest thing he says is "Let's not forget, everytime he affirms the definition of divinty (greatest possible thing conceivable), he is conceding that divinity exists. I am sick of refuting fallacies, and I'll try to talk to my opponent in PM after this round on why they are fallacies." This is just not true. Maybe in that PM I can explain to my opponent why fake accusations of concessions are a dishonest debating tactic. He has failed to explain the nonexistent logic behind this claim.

  1. Fallacy?

My opponent has seriously confused the ability to conceive with the status of greatest possible being conceivable. I have refuted this several times. We can conceive of a being that is not only as smart as us, but omniscient and omnipresent. That is a greatest possible being conceivable, and that is the being my opponent must argue for.

The Universe argument is a little more difficult to explain but just as flawed. Basically my opponent says that since the universe theoretically contains everything the universe is divine. There is a false equivalency here. Two different universes, the actual universe, and the theoretical universe that contains a greatest possible being conceivable are being considered. The second one could be classified as existence, the first could not. My opponent seems to confuse the two. My opponent has made no progress giving evidence for a greatest possible being, so he cannot say he has shown the existence of the second type of universe. The BoP is unfulfilled.

Now, my opponents been talking a lot about fallacies, and I find it incredibly ironic that in his argument entitled "refutation of fallacy" he makes this claim- "Unless my opponent can prove that there isn't a greatest conceivable thing, then he is conceding that divinity exists." Any novice debater will notice the huge fallacy in this. He is shifting the BoP. In his round 1 rules he stated "the BOP resides on me proving that divinity more than likely exists." Remember that the definition of divinity is a greatest possible thing conceivable. He dishonestly states that I have to prove divinity is impossible, and if not it by default exists! This is just dishonest debating and downright shameful.

  1. Pro: I"ve Only Been Straw Manning Con If You Actually Read the Debate

ATTENTION: This quote is funny

"I am certain the opposition is confused now. He keeps stating that a perfect being can be conceived, yet he's saying it's up to me to prove it. Which led him to accusing me of strawman. Listen, you brought up the contention that a perfect god can be conceived. It is up to YOU to prove and explain how this being exists."

I actually only have to show that such a being is possible, which I have done several times. It is YOUR burden of proof to show that the being exists which has not been done. My opponent severely misunderstands the concepts of possible existence and actual existence. Again my opponent accuses me of fallacies "There was so many fallacies in what my opponent said." but provided no evidence. Saying fallacy a lot won"t make my argument fallacious. I suggest evidence next time.

  1. Ciceric Theory

I did not drop this contention. My opponent is completely lying. My opponent again makes the flawed claim that being able to conceive all things means you are divinity. I will give my third and exact same complete refutation of this point. By definition we think we are able to conceive all things because we are not aware of what we can"t conceive. Therefore we think we can conceive all things but this is not proven.

"[P1] Humans are capable of explaining (conceiving) all things

[P2] Divinity is the greatest thing that can be explained (conceived)

[C1] Humans are divine"

The logic is also flawed. Going off of P2 that means the "thing" being explained would be divinity, not the person doing the explaining. If I can explain a greatest possible being to you, that doesn"t make me divine, it makes the greatest possible being divine.

"Everytime you make an assertion, and in this case, that humanity isn't capable of explaining all things, YOU are required to prove it."

This is also incredibly flawed. My opponent is the one making the assertion, just look at P1. This requires support, which he has failed to give. I also gave an argument against P1 at the top of section 4.

  1. Xenoic Theory

"[P1] The universe contains all things that exist

[P2] All conceivable (explainable) things exist within the universe

[C2] The universe is the greatest possible thing in which can be conceived."

I"ve actually refuted this several times. See my rebuttal titled "Fallacy?" in this round, 2nd paragraph, as well as the rebuttals entitled "Xenoic and Aurrelic Theory" from the past two rounds. To summarize, a universe which contained an omnipotent and omniscient being would be greater than a universe that did not. Pro has not shown the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being, so he has not shown that the greatest possible thing exists. It is simply a fallacy of equivocation; he is attempting to make the actual universe and the greatest possible universe be the same thing. P2 is also unsupported since it is possible there are immaterial and nonphysical beings outside our universe.

"He must prove, to negate this contention, that the universe doesn't contain all forms of existence. If he fails to do this, as he already has, then the resolution is affirmed."

What?? He"s trying to shift the BoP again? He apparently things that if I don"t prove the opposite, then his claim is confirmed, which is an obvious fallacy.

My Opponent"s Requirements

Here is apparently what I have to do to win.

"C1: Prove that a perfect god can be explained (The entire fallacy in which his arguments are rooted)"

Again, I"m not arguing that a perfect being is possible. I"m saying that it is very easy to conceive of a greatest possible being which would necessarily omnipotent and omniscient.

C2: Prove that science and reason aren't capable of explaining (conceiving) all things in the universe

This is the positive claim in your argument, so you have the BoP. Either way I completely refuted this in round 3. "Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of an invisible immaterial undetectable pink unicorn godess. Point is proven." Did Pro actually read my arguments?

C3: Prove that the Universe, the "entity" that contains all existence, isn't the greatest conceivable thing"

Another shifting of the BoP. This is not even a proper syllogism since he concludes with a challenge.

"So, by the rules of debating, my opponent may not switch his arguments at this state of the game."

After carefully skimming over the rules provided by my opponent in round 1, I have concluded that this rule was invented in the last round by my opponent and does not stand. I never, and still do not intend to make new arguments, I just wanted to point out yet another flaw in my opponent"s arguments. He also breaks his own newly invented rule by introducing the ontological argument in the final round, so 7 point forfeit! Just kidding, I"ll give him a pass on that one.

The Video

Pro now apparently wants to give the ontological argument, which he has not yet used, in video form in the final round. I"m confident you aren"t allowed to make an argument solely through videos so this should be ignored. I will briefly address it for any of you picky voters out there though. This is for you.

Rebuttals:

  1. Existence is not a predicate- Existence adds nothing to the essence of the greatest possible being. IF a triangle exists it necessarily has three sides. You cannot say that IF a greatest possible being exists, then he necessarily exists.
  2. Equivocation- The term greatest possible being actually means two things here. 1. The idea of the greatest possible being and 2. The greatest possible being.

Then apparently Pro puts the last nail in the coffin with this quote! ""...you cannot use illogical arguments to disprove logical arguments for the existence of god". Which directly relates to when the opposition attempted to use a "perfect god" to disprove a logical argument on divinity, IE, a illogical argument attempting to disprove a logical one."

Basically he is saying that my argument is illogical, and his is logical. Next time he should consider explaining how his opponent"s argument is illogical and fallacious instead of just calling it illogical and fallacious, otherwise people might think he"s lying.

Conclusion

Throughout this debate, my opponent has lied, used numerous fallacies, and been a downright dishonest debater. He claims I"ve conceded numerous times but failed to ever quote me or provide actual evidence. His arguments are weak and completely unsupported. When you read his arguments, it almost seems like he is hoping voters will skim the debate and vote for him because he is accusing me of concession. It is important that people thoroughly read the debate before voting because his tactics have been shameful and dishonest. The only way to vote is Con.

Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
EDIT: (from part 2/2)

Thus, Pro did *NOT* show that we can't conceive of a tri-omni creator being which is greater than the universe, rendering this contention refuted.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
RFD (1/2)

I will be wholly ignoring Pro"s claims regarding Con's supposed concessions, as they are completely based in what seems to be cheap semantics, and his logic behind those claims is rather poorly presented. I will be evaluating the debate solely based on whether or not any of Pro"s three opening contentions affirmed the resolution (that a greatest conceivable being exists).

Con finished off Augustine"s argument regarding the "hierarchy" in the first round alone by pointing out that being "of higher status than humanity" (the term used in C2) is not the same thing as being "of highest status" (the term used in P3), thus making the argument inconsistent.
Pro did not even seem to address this rebuttal, even saying "I feel no need to address it at all". Thus, this contention is refuted.

Regarding Cicero's argument attempting to pin humans as divine, Con again does a great job of getting right to the heart of the argument, by pointing out that C4 does not follow from P1; just because humans can conceive of anything does not mean that they are the greatest possible beings. Pro completely ignores that rebuttal, instead focusing on other objections (such as Con"s rejection of P1) which were much less potent, meaning that this contention was successfully refuted.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
RFD (2/2)

Con's main objection to Xeno's Universal theory was that a greater being than the Universe can easily be conceived, such as the creator God that many religions believe in, thus refuting the possibility of it being "divine". Pro's only counter to this seemed to be straight up denial of a tri-omni creator God being conceived, which was aptly rebutted by Con, with his examples of such conceptions obviously existing (e.g. The Source, Abrahamic religions, etc.).

And, as Con clarified, just because we know nothing of what such a being would be like does not mean we cannot *conceive* it; it merely means that we cannot *understand* it, which is something completely different. Thus, Pro did show that we can"t conceive of a tri-omni creator being which is greater than the universe, rendering this contention refuted.

As for the random video Pro posted in the last round about the MOA, it shall not be taken into consideration, seeing that he did not bring it up at all prior to that...

In conclusion, I honestly think that Pro's arguments had a some good potential; unfortunately, his refusal to properly defend them led to his loss. Hence, I vote Con.
Very interesting debate! (Even though it got very off-topic at times with the concession business). A nice deviation from the standard "God Exists" debates on the site.

Feel free to contest my RFD. I will gladly defend it.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
Done reading the debate and determining who I'm voting for... I just need to write the RFD now...
Unfortunately, due to time constraints, I might end up having to post it tomorrow. Hopefully I'll finish it tonight, though.
Posted by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
I look forward to seeing your feedback Romanii.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
Both votes cast so far are absolutely sh*tty. I'll cast a real one sometime today.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
Sagey, I told you not to vote on this. One sentence RFD? Really?
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
Sagey, maybe it's best if you don't vote on this.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
I wonder whether Con will attack Pro's fallacies or simply create a conflicting argument/opinion.
Trouble when arguing against a Fallacy Soup argument, it is a decision of which fallacy to attack first.
People still keep thinking like Plato, Plato was a nutjob.
All Christianity's hero apologists all suffer from asserting Plato style fallacies, Anselm, Aquinas, Augustine, etc..
Though I'm certain Con is already aware of those, I'll not go further here.
Posted by Strycora 2 years ago
Strycora
Love this debate! Can't wait for Con's rebuttal...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
ChosenWolffRaymond_Reddington
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
ChosenWolffRaymond_Reddington
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: All of Pro's arguments were successfully refuted by con. Pro, instead of trying to refute the arguments given by con, incessantly tried to shift the burden and claim concession by con. Con won this debate by a fairly wide margin.