The Instigator
popculturepooka
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
gizmo1650
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points

God Exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 10 votes the winner is...
popculturepooka
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,453 times Debate No: 11395
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (48)
Votes (10)

 

popculturepooka

Pro

I've finally decided to make one of these cliche debates. (^_^)

Introduction:

The following argument is an argument from contingency and is, basically, Thomas Aquinas' "Third Way" for demonstrating the existence of God. [1] Robert Maydole slightly tweaked the argument but it follows the same general form and argumentation so I will be using his formulation. It can be thought of as a sort of hybrid ontological/cosmological argument couched in the terms of modality. This means that this argument relies heavily on the notions of contingency, [2] necessity, [3] and possible worlds. [4]

"God" will simply mean "supreme being" in this debate and the terms may be used interchangeably; the same with the terms "being" and "thing".

Definitions and clarifications:

Supreme being - A being of which "none greater can be conceived" as Anslem thought. Or, alternately, "a being with the greatest possible array of com possible great-making properties." [5] A great-making property is also called a "perfection".

Perfection - "A property that it is necessarily better to have than not." [6]

Exist - "To have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not." [7]

An argument from contingency:

(1) Every temporally contingent being possibly fails to exist at some time.
(2) If all things possibly fail to exist at some time then it is possible that all things fail to exist at some past time.
(3) It is necessarily the case that possible truths are explicable.
(4) It is necessarily the case that something is explicable only if there was not a time when nothing existed.
(5) Whatever is temporally necessary might be unlimited.
(6) Whatever might explain itself is unlimited.
(7) Nothing which is unlimited can be explained by anything else.
(8) Everything which is unlimited is supreme.
(9) Something is temporally necessary if and only if it is not temporally contingent.
.: There exists a supreme being. [8]

Brief defenses of the premises:

P1 - It's obvious that it's *possible* that any temporally contingent thing can possibly not exist in some possible world. Something is temporally contingent if it is possible that it can begin to exist or go out of existence.

P2 - This premise relies on the assumption (for a reductio) that everything is temporally contingent, and if we accept the first premise, then it is possible that everything does not exist (either by not coming into existence or going out of existence) at some specific point of time in the past.

P3 - By "explicable" I mean possible to have an explanation. There is nothing wrong with saying that in some possible world something that is true has an explanation even if in the actual world there is no explanation of that truth.

I will even agree, for the sake of argument, with a popular objection against the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. [9] Namely that virtual particles pop into existence, with no cause, unexplained, out of nothing, in the actual world. [10] Even granting that dubious proposition there is nothing suspicious with saying that it is *possible* that virtual particles be explained or have a cause.

P4 - The ability to be explained, explicability, is a dispositional property. [11] In the sense I mean it a disposition would refer to something like the laws and structure of nature. To explain this better take an example of a sugar and hot water; sugar is soluble in hot water. This means that there is something about laws of nature and about the structure of sugar and hot water that when the some specific conditions are met the sugar will dissolve.

Considering the above point - if there are laws of nature then there *must* be, in principle, complete explanations for something. A complete explanation would be possible because what it means to have an explanation is to describe something in terms of it's antecedent conditions. If complete explanations aren't possible, in principle, than explanation loses it any meaning it normally has ascribed to it.

For example, I will agree with a popular atheist objection and say that if theists posit a God as an explanation for the existence of the universe, but, if in turn that God itself needs an explanation for *it's* existence (ad infinitum) theists haven't really explained anything in the first place.

However, explanations always have to be made in terms of something else that already is in existence (the laws of nature or something else). If there are such things as complete explanations then it follows that there needs to be something that has already existed to explain that something. So, anything that might to begin to exist from nothing, inexplicably, like virtual particles, would make complete explanation impossible. But that is absurd as I showed earlier. So, if complete explanation is possible then there being a "time" in which nothing "existed" is impossible.

P5 - By "temporally necessary" it's meant that it's not possible that a temporally necessary being begin to exist or go out of existence - the exact opposite of temporally contingent, of course. Something "unlimited" does not depend on anything else for existence or properties. If something was dependent on another thing, in any way, it would be limited. Surely it's *possible* that something that is temporally necessary is unlimited.

P6 - This means that anything that is limited (dependent on something else for either it's existence or properties) can't explain it's own existence in and of itself as something limited would have to have it's existence or properties explained in terms of something else. Of course, something that is temporally contingent is limited. So for something explain *itself* it'd have to be unlimited.

P7 - Something that is unlimited can be explained only in terms of itself. After all, if something is unlimited then it depends on nothing else; it's existence or properties CAN'T be explained in terms of anything other than itself!

P8 - By "supreme" it's meant "the property that a thing has if and only if it is impossible for something to be greater and impossible for there to be something else than which it is not greater." [12] Going by what unlimited means then there is nothing that would prevent the supreme from having all com possible perfections as it is not dependent on anything else. So an unlimited being must have all com possible perfections ("supreme") because if it didn't than it would be limited in some way making it not unlimited. Examples of perfections would be omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, eternally existent, etc. Therefore, if something is unlimited then it *must* be supreme as well.

P9 - Obvious if you take a look at the definitions of temporal contingency and temporal necessity. Again, temporal contingency simply means possible to begin to exist or possible to go out of existence, and temporal necessity is neither. A temporally necessary thing can't be temporally contingent.

.: - Conclusion: God exists.

Rules:

*NO SEMANTICS!*

Sources:

[1] http://www.sacred-texts.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://books.google.com...
[6] William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pg 593
[7] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[8] http://www.bu.edu...
[9] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[10] http://science.jrank.org...
[11] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[12] Same place as source [6]
gizmo1650

Con

You define God as a supreme being and a supreme being as one which "non greater can be conceived" Given these definitions it seems evident that God, as you define him, can not exist. Take the classic stone paradox, 'can God create a stone so heavy not even he can lift it'. This scenario leaves leaves to possibilities, one God can create the stone but can not lift it, in this case it is conceivable that another being would be able to lift it, and therefore i conceived a greater being. Or God cannot create the rock, in which case it is conceivable that an even more powerful force could, once again allowing me to conceive a stronger force.
Using a more abstract example of my own, i will prove that by your definition God cannot exist. Assume for a moment that he does exist. Is it not conceivable that there could be another entity capable of destroying 'God', and would it not then be conceivable that an even more powerful entity could destroy that one and so on.
Your arguments only support the idea of a being existing beyond our three-dimensional space, which does not meet your definition of God. If i misunderstood your arguments please further explain them, and i will not counter argue those now because a) i disproved God using your definitions and my own argument, b) they are either irrelevant or c) i misunderstand them in which case arguing over them would be pointless.
Debate Round No. 1
popculturepooka

Pro

Thanks, Con, for accepting the debate.

Con seems to have no problem with my argument except for the possibility of there existing a God (as he did not raise any objections with it).

So I will get to refuting Con's objections against my definition of God.

Con brings us back to a familiar problem with the concept of omnipotence - can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift? Normally this argument is considered enough by itself but Con supplements it with a sort of additional argument about greater conceivable beings. It runs roughly as: since God cannot create a rock too heavy for him to lift (which would outright disprove the concept of an omnipotent being if right in any case) Con can conceive of a being greater than God that can do the task. This would make it so that God is *not* the greatest conceivable being. I admit I've never heard of this supplement to the stone paradox but I am confused at what it's supposed to do. Which part of argument is supposed to disprove God? The classical stone paradox or the argument from greater conceivable beings? If it's the first part then that would render Con's second argument from greater conceivable beings superfluous. Unfortunately, there are several problems with both of Con's arguments.

First, I will tackle the second part of Con's disproof. Con ignores the definition of supreme: "the property that a thing has if and only if it is impossible for something to be greater and impossible for there to be something else than which it is not greater." What this means is that it is *impossible* by definition that anything be conceived of that is greater in some way than God. If Con can conceive of a more powerful force than God then Con wasn't conceiving of God in the first place. The most "powerful force" is by definition God. There can no forces more powerful than God. What Con is essentially saying is that he can conceive of force that is more powerful than an *OMNIPOTENT* being. That makes no sense. An omnipotent being, by definition, is all-powerful.

Assuming I have misunderstood his argument and the classical stone paradox is meant to disprove God I will refute that objection as well.

Typically, omnipotence is defined in two ways:

1) The ability to do absolutely anything (including logical impossibilities).
2) The ability to do anything logically possible.

From my understanding of omnipotence it really means (roughly) what number 2 is stating. I will answer the paradox from both definitions of omnipotence for posterity, however.

Take the first definition of omnipotence - God can do absolutely *anything*. Notice what this does, though. This makes it that God can make logical contradictions true. So, let's say that Con presents an airtight sound logical argument showing that no such omnipotent being as God can exist. I mean an argument that absolutely disproves God and no rational person could think otherwise. Well, if God can do absolutely anything he can make it that he exists even though Con's sound logical argument shows that he doesn't! I don't think Con wants to take this option.

Take the second definition of omnipotence - God can do anything logically possible. This is the position I actually hold. Creating a stone that is too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift must be nonsense then. A logical contradiction isn't a task. It isn't any"thing" in fact. Is a square circle a thing? No, of course not. It's not even a possibility. It's an incoherent "concept" if I may even call it that. Saying that God doesn't have omnipotence (and therefore can't exist) because he can't create a logical contradiction like creating a stone too heavy for him to lift is absurd. In essence Con is asking a meaningless question akin to this: "Green remaining Japanese sky cat? Ha! Can God do that? No?! Well, then God doesn't exist; furthermore, I can conceive of a more powerful force that can do that!"

Even if Con were to take the more traditional route with the stone paradox Con's argument would still fail.

Now, much of what I have said above applies to his second abstract example.

I quote Con: "Assume for a moment that he does exist. Is it not conceivable that there could be another entity capable of destroying 'God', and would it not then be conceivable that an even more powerful entity could destroy that one and so on."

The short answer: no.
The longer answer: no, it is not conceivable that another entity destroy God or even be capable of such an act. That would make that other entity more powerful than an *OMNIPOTENT* being (God). Absurdity. Again, you can't have a being be more powerful than an omnipotent being - that is logically impossible.

I'm a bit confused by Con's last part. What does Con mean when Con says that a being existing beyond our three-dimensional space doesn't meet my definition of God? What does "not meet [your] definition of God" even mean? Ignoring that; assuming that the universe had a beginning - and all of physical reality with it - would necessarily make God "beyond" our three-dimensional space. Assuming that the universe is eternal and arguing that God is not part of the universe, because otherwise God would be contingent (making him not supreme), that would necessarily make God "beyond" our three-dimensional space. What part of that doesn't meet the definition of God?
gizmo1650

Con

Pro countered my argument by saying "If Con can conceive of a more powerful force than God then Con wasn't conceiving of God in the first place." He is entirely correct, I was not conceiving God, in fact that is the very point I was trying to make, for any being that could be called God an even more powerful one could be conceived, thereby making his definition theoretically impossible.
Pro also says "Well, if God can do absolutely anything he can make it that he exists even though Con's sound logical argument shows that he doesn't! I don't think Con wants to take this option." I can not argue against this point because it is challenging the very nature of logic itself, I will however remind the voter that Pros argument is that God must exist, and this only explains how it is theoretically possible for God to exist against logic. Which does not mean he must exists which Pro has the burden of proving.
" [con is] Saying that God doesn't have omnipotence (and therefore can't exist)" I said that an omnipotent being cannot exist and therefore your definition of god cannot exist.
" I can conceive of a more powerful force that can do that!" yes I can conceive a force that can create a boulder God cannot move, I however cannot call this omnipotent because it falls into the same paradox.

Pro seems to be arguing under the assumption he is right. "no, it is not conceivable that another entity destroy God or even be capable of such an act. That would make that other entity more powerful than an *OMNIPOTENT* being (God). Absurdity. Again, you can't have a being be more powerful than an omnipotent being - that is logically impossible." This too is precisely the point I was trying to make, it is logically impossible to have an omnipotent being because a more powerful one can always be conceived.
I apologize if any of my points were unclear and I hope I have explained them fully.
"I'm a bit confused by Con's last part. What does Con mean when Con says that a being existing beyond our three-dimensional space doesn't meet my definition of God?" I mean that your original argument doesn't show that God is the most powerful thing conceivable, it just shows that it must be more powerful than anything in the universe as we perceive it (our three-dimensional universe) I recognize the possibility that an entity could exist in a different dimension or a different universe and would be able to influence our perceivable universe in any way he wishes but that does not making omnipotent, another being could exist in his level of existence more powerful than the supposed "God" or even another dimension/universe that would give the post-'God' being seemingly omnipotent powers in 'God's' level of existence and so on. (In this paragraph Not all mentions of God show him as omnipotent, I started under that setting then introduced a post God being, proving that I can conceive a more powerful being")

I would like to remind the voters again that it is pros burden to prove that God by his definition must exist, not my Burden to prove that their is no chance of his definition of God existing, (although I believe I did that anyway)
Debate Round No. 2
popculturepooka

Pro

Thanks, Con, for responding.

Unfortunately, Con has not only grossly misunderstood most of my points but provided toothless objections; he has let my syllogism go unchallenged.

Con: "He is entirely correct, I was not conceiving God, in fact that is the very point I was trying to make, for any being that could be called God an even more powerful one could be conceived, thereby making his definition theoretically impossible."

That wasn't Con's point. Con's point was that since there was a task that a supposedly omnipotent God could not do (I showed how that argument failed in round 2 using BOTH definitions of omnipotence) Con could conceive of a more powerful force doing that task which would refute my definition of God. Again, I have to point out how *absurd* this line of argumentation is. Think about it. Con is suggesting that if God, an *omnipotent* being, can't complete the task of creating a stone too heavy for him to lift that he can conceive of a force more powerful than an *OMNIPOTENT* being doing that task. An omnipotent being is by definition is most powerful and all powerful. How exactly is Con conceiving of a being more powerful than an omnipotent being? Answer: Con is not. It is utterly impossible due to the definition of omnipotence.

Con ignores the definition of God given by Anslem: "the greatest conceivable being". What Con is arguing is that Con can conceive of a being greater than the *greatest* conceivable being. No. That is impossible by definition. This brings me back to my original contention; if Con is conceiving of a being who could possibly be surpassed in any way then he wasn't conceiving of God in the first place! This relates directly to his second argument about greater conceivable beings than God. There are none by definition. I'm not sure how to make this any more clear.

Con: "I can not argue against this point because it is challenging the very nature of logic itself, I will however remind the voter that Pros argument is that God must exist, and this only explains how it is theoretically possible for God to exist against logic. Which does not mean he must exists which Pro has the burden of proving."

That part of my refutation to Con's counterargument was simply to show how using any definition of omnipotence the stone paradox does not disprove God. Either way the paradox fails.

Con: "I said that an omnipotent being cannot exist and therefore your definition of god cannot exist."

Con said it, sure. But Con's arguments are a long way from backing up that assertion. In fact, I believe I have utterly refuted his arguments.

Con: "yes I can conceive a force that can create a boulder God cannot move, I however cannot call this omnipotent because it falls into the same paradox."

I really am trying to make this as clear as humanly possible. Con is saying that he can conceive of a force that could do a "task" that an omnipotent being couldn't do but this force is not omnipotent itself. This force would then be not omnipotent making it by definition less powerful than God. Yet, mysteriously, it is able to do a "task" that the most powerful being conceivable couldn't do. Seriously? This contention strains credulity past it's breaking point.

Con: "This too is precisely the point I was trying to make, it is logically impossible to have an omnipotent being because a more powerful one can always be conceived."

At this point I'm worried that Con doesn't understand what logical impossiblity is. Even if an omnipotent being *didn't* exist it would still be logically impossible to have a being more powerful than an omnipotent being. That is analytically true. That would be like Con saying that Con can conceive of a being who knows more than an omniscient being.

Con: "I mean that your original argument doesn't show that God is the most powerful thing conceivable, it just shows that it must be more powerful than anything in the universe as we perceive it (our three-dimensional universe)..."

Yes. It does. Take a careful look at the definitions, Con. Specifically the definitions of "supreme being" and "supreme". A supreme being necessarily has all perfections (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc) making it the greatest conceivable being. The argument is specifically is designed to show how God is *not* part of the universe of contingent things as God is necessary. If Con thinks that the argument implies God is in the universe Con is sadly mistaken. It's intended to explain the existence of the universe.

Con: "...I recognize the possibility that an entity could exist in a different dimension or a different universe and would be able to influence our perceivable universe in any way he wishes but that does not making omnipotent, another being could exist in his level of existence more powerful than the supposed "God" or even another dimension/universe that would give the post-'God' being seemingly omnipotent powers in 'God's' level of existence and so on."

I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this. There *CANNOT* be a being that is more powerful than an omnipotent being! If there is a being more powerful than the god Con is conceiving then it is not the supreme being. Simple.

Con: "(In this paragraph Not all mentions of God show him as omnipotent, I started under that setting then introduced a post God being, proving that I can conceive a more powerful being")"

I specifically stated that any mention of God in this debate is as the supreme greatest conceivable being. So, with Con admitting that he wasn't referring to God in my sense with his argument(s) from greater conceivable beings he is basically admitting that his objection fall flat.

Con: "I would like to remind the voters again that it is pros burden to prove that God by his definition must exist, not my Burden to prove that their is no chance of his definition of God existing, (although I believe I did that anyway)"

By letting my argument go unchallenged my burden of proof has been met. All Con has presented has been refuted. Thanks for reading. Vote Pro.
gizmo1650

Con

Unfortuanlly this did not become the intelligent debate i hoped as Pro continues to misunderstand me, and, according to him, I misunderstand him.
Looking at Pros 4th paragraph (starting with "That wasn't Con's point) i see many horrible misunderstandings.
1. that was my point.
2.Pro continues under the assumption i am using the classical stone paradox, which i admit is not true, my argument is that i can conceive a being that can create a stone heavy enough, which the first being could not or conceive a being capable of lifting the stone the first could not.
3. Pro is upset that i am conceiving a being more powerful than an omnipotent being, he fails to realize that my ability to do so proves that it was not an omnipotent being and that for any being i can conceive a greater being and therefore an omnipotent being is impossible.
Going into the next paragraph (starting with "Con ignores") i would respond, but for any being i can conceive a greater being therefore, once again, an omnipotent being is impossible

I said "yes I can conceive a force that can create a boulder God cannot move, I however cannot call this omnipotent because it falls into the same paradox"
to which pro responded: "I really am trying to make this as clear as humanly possible. Con is saying that he can conceive of a force that could do a "task" that an omnipotent being couldn't do but this force is not omnipotent itself. This force would then be not omnipotent making it by definition less powerful than God. Yet, mysteriously, it is able to do a "task" that the most powerful being conceivable couldn't do. Seriously? This contention strains credulity past it's breaking point."
In response to this i would like to apologize i should have said supposed God instead of god, and once again the fact i was able to conceive a greater being proves that the first being was not God and that greater being fails to be God for the same reason. As do all beings.

Pro: "At this point I'm worried that Con doesn't understand what logical impossiblity is. Even if an omnipotent being *didn't* exist it would still be logically impossible to have a being more powerful than an omnipotent being. That is analytically true. That would be like Con saying that Con can conceive of a being who knows more than an omniscient being."
my argument was that an omnipotent being is impossible because i can always conceive a more powerful one.

Pro: "I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this. There *CANNOT* be a being that is more powerful than an omnipotent being! If there is a being more powerful than the god Con is conceiving then it is not the supreme being. Simple."
i think that all of my other responses this round address this.

Pro:"I specifically stated that any mention of God in this debate is as the supreme greatest conceivable being. So, with Con admitting that he wasn't referring to God in my sense with his argument(s) from greater conceivable beings he is basically admitting that his objection fall flat."
that is why i made the note saying that my use of God changed but for the sake of semantics replace the word God with flying spaghetti monster i re-read the paragraph, the argument still holds value.

I apologize for writing the same thing countless times but i had to clear up misunderstanding from every angle. I would like to remind voters that Pro has the burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 3
48 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
Glad you found it interesting at least. ;)
Posted by infam0us 6 years ago
infam0us
this argument is fascinating. it doesn't do much to strengthen my faith in any sort of religious deity but i like its grounding in logic.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
Rodriguez, luckily your opinion doesn't make reality. ;)
Posted by Rodriguez47 6 years ago
Rodriguez47
In my opinion, its a Monopoly in modern times. I'm sorry to offend anyone but the idea of a god, supreme, omniscient being....Seems preposterous. Humanity is simply too predictable.
Posted by mattrodstrom 6 years ago
mattrodstrom
lol.. Thanks for that nice tidbit :)
And no kidding. I think I basically said that a couple of times already....

It gets you to the most reasonable and most operative "knowledge" available. :p

We naturally conceive of things and we naturally care to act.

Having a Pragmatic, "Scientific"/experimental, approach; Giving only limited, and contingent (upon their continued evidence), affirmations to concepts, Not as True in themselves; but rather only treated as such because doing so apparently allows you to more predictably accomplish what you "care" to, and to have a corpus of ideas to refine when new "action", and new experience, allow you to see new patterns which may also be stable enough to be relevant to acting in a 'satisfactory' manner.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
Matt - pragmaticism doesn't necessarily get you to truth. ;)
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
I like how gizmo didn't even understand the argument yet he gets 6 points?! LOL
Posted by mattrodstrom 6 years ago
mattrodstrom
"Congratulations on making everything we can ever try to say about external reality useless. You can't just turn on hyper-skepticism only on propositions you disagree with; it has to apply to everything."

I wouldn't claim any knowledge as absolute beyond "I exist in some manner" but... I'd certainly say that it appears as though I can act and that certain "knowledge/conceptions" allow me to act in ways that I appreciate. Like finding/eating "food" Apparently makes it so I don't have horrible Hunger... Does it ABSOLUTELY... how could I say that??

But There's no reason at all for me to say that Touching my toes from biggest to smallest and then Patting my head makes it so I don't have hunger. That is not apparent given the patterns that I've observed, and really doesn't fit with the general conceptions of Physical reality and hungers place in it that I've built up.

Knowledge of Physical reality, ethics, and other such things aren't absolute, but I assume them in practice because they appear to help me to act in a satisfactory manner (one resulting in satisfaction). They are subject to change when they don't fit the patterns of experience best, and I'll test out new theories drawn from the patterns to see if they do better at Satisfying.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
*sigh*

Unlimited = not dependent on anything else for it's existence or properties.

"I understand "that which nothing greater can be thought" is your definition of GOD(/Supreme being) BUT who's to say OUR Valuations as to what's "great" has any meaning whatsoever in Ultimate Reality?"

Lol at absolute skepticism. Who's to say your valuations of anything, including my argument, has any meaning in ultimate reality? Congratulations on making everything we can ever try to say about external reality useless. You can't just turn on hyper-skepticism only on propositions you disagree with; it has to apply to everything.

"What if Our Conscious assertions are thanks to Our limited nature? IN FACT: How could they not be??"

You continue to hamstring yourself. How exactly are you making assertions the "eternal present" of nature if they are product of our limited nature?

"I'm Rejecting your assertion that "Ultimate" means Omniscient, benevolent and the like."

1. I never used ultimate.
2. It's not an assertion; it's a definition.
3. You have yet to provide a better definition.
4. Unlimited means exactly that. NOT LIMITED. If anything is NOT LIMITED what else would it mean? You surely haven't said what it would mean. If there's no limit on knowledge that would mean omniscience. If there's no limit on knowledge that would mean omnipotence.

"Why should one accept it?"

Because it makes sense.
Posted by mattrodstrom 6 years ago
mattrodstrom
Where'd you come by the idea that Unlimited means Omni-benevolent and omni-conscious??

What if Benevolence, and Consciousness are just aspects of our own limited being?

I understand "that which nothing greater can be thought" is your definition of GOD(/Supreme being) BUT who's to say OUR Valuations as to what's "great" has any meaning whatsoever in Ultimate Reality?

What if Our Conscious assertions are thanks to Our limited nature? IN FACT: How could they not be??

I'm Rejecting your assertion that "Ultimate" means Omniscient, benevolent and the like.

Why should one accept it?
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Raziel 6 years ago
Raziel
popculturepookagizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jdizzle 6 years ago
jdizzle
popculturepookagizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TheUncredibleHallq 6 years ago
TheUncredibleHallq
popculturepookagizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by Rodriguez47 6 years ago
Rodriguez47
popculturepookagizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 6 years ago
InquireTruth
popculturepookagizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 6 years ago
TheSkeptic
popculturepookagizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kingofslash5 6 years ago
kingofslash5
popculturepookagizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Pulling_The_Brad 6 years ago
Pulling_The_Brad
popculturepookagizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by SirColton 6 years ago
SirColton
popculturepookagizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
popculturepookagizmo1650Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50