The Instigator
kNOwJESUSkNOwPEACE
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
AaronDIJ
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God cannot be defined by human reason ALONE

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 1 vote the winner is...
kNOwJESUSkNOwPEACE
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 800 times Debate No: 43082
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

kNOwJESUSkNOwPEACE

Pro

To limit the context, my opponent and I should stick to the context that God exists. For if not, we'll have to argue first if God exists or not; which is time consuming and is a real notorious issue. Also, the existence of God is not the issue here as well.I'm not saying, though, that atheists (those who don't believe in God's existence) cannot join here Anyone can join here! :D What I'm trying to say is that, we'll concede on that matter for the sake of removing possible confusion.

Second, we are talking about the Christian God.

Rules:
1) No troll, no plagiarizing (not citing of source automatically means that you say that you own the idea. If discovered that you plagiarize, this should result to the loss for votes)

2) For clarification and verification, please use the comment section :) This is for using our "argument textbox" (or whatever we call it) for arguments alone. Also, so that we can use them efficiently and effectively, at the same time, avoid vague and ambiguous terms, terms that result to the confusion in the arguments.

Rounds:
1) Arguments
2) Rebuttal and Argument again
3) Counter Rebuttal from Round 2 and Rebuttal for Arguments from Round 2
4) Summary (NO rebuttals and arguments allowed)

My Argument:

We know that only an inventor can "perfectly" know his invention. He technically knows it better than the others.

In creation, only the creators, then, could define (know) his creation. To simplify, I'll put it in this proposition "Whoever create something is the one who can define (know) that something".

Argument:
If you create something, therefore, you can define it (Note: the word "something" there is not limited to objects in this case)
You did not create God
Therefore, you cannot define God
AaronDIJ

Con

God. A term that 9 out of 10 Americans use and believe in, and one that 3.9 billion people on our planet have their faith in. God, to many, have many names , to Christians, he is Jehovah, to the Muslims, he is called Allah, and to the Jews he is known as Tetragrammaton (YHVH) or Adonai. How can one God, have many names, in the Bible and Quran, God calls upon both the Israelites and the Arabians, his chosen people. How is it possible than for one not to insinuate that God is gracious , kind, and almighty if he can communicate both to the Christians, Jews, and Muslims, through the same angel Gabriel; all with the smae purpose, if not varied slightly.
Debate Round No. 1
kNOwJESUSkNOwPEACE

Pro

Rebuttal:

I think, I cannot rebut my opponent since he didn't shown an argument, rather, try to prove his point by showing that he can define God. Thanks anyway :) Hmm...

To define, one limits that term. To say that God is loving, for example, means to limit God as loving. But God is not just loving, He is also merciful, just, and so on. In relation to my opponent's statements, I'll not try to show that he's wrong with the statements he proposed; rather, to show that the descriptions he made is not enough to define God.

"God. A term that 9 out of 10 Americans use and believe in, and one that 3.9 billion people on our planet have their faith in. God, to many, have many names , to Christians, he is Jehovah, to the Muslims, he is called Allah, and to the Jews he is known as Tetragrammaton (YHVH) or Adonai. How can one God, have many names, in the Bible and Quran, God calls upon both the Israelites and the Arabians, his chosen people. How is it possible than for one not to insinuate that God is gracious , kind, and almighty if he can communicate both to the Christians, Jews, and Muslims, through the same angel Gabriel; all with the smae purpose, if not varied slightly."

Again, I won't argue whether the propositions stated is true or false; rather, it is the definition of God? To say "yes", it means, this is it. This is God. That God is a term used by 9 out of 10 Americans and believe in... that God is called in many names. Again, this is not just about God. Therefore, we still fail to define Him. What my opponent did is that, he just described some of God's characteristics.

Back to my argument,
"If you create something, therefore, you can define it (Note: the word "something" there is not limited to objects in this case)
You did not create God
Therefore, you cannot define God"

If I am to create a machine, I already define it. I set its limits. The machine, however, cannot define me as who I am. It may describe me, but cannot define it. If the machine tells you that I am good (or bad) in inventing it, it is just a portion of it - a mere description; but failed to define me. Of course, machines can't really define since in the first place, they are not living things.

To associate it with God, we are created by God. We believed that God created us, even when Jesus Christ came down here. Even those who don't believe in the Christian God believed that they are created by God. In other words, they know the concept of "God", but fail to define Him. People can say that God is good or bad, moral or immoral, and so on. Regardless of the truthfulness or falsity of their statements, these were not enough to define God :)

It is only when Jesus came here that we come to know who God is. We fail to define Him, but He knows who is He and knows who are we.

To put it on other way:

If A creates B, therefore, A can define B
A creates B
Therefore, A can define B

If B is a creation of A, therefore, B cannot define A
B is a creation of A
Therefore, B cannot define A

When you create, you give characteristics to it. You may know it or not, but you do. In the process, you set limits about it; which in turn, you do the definition. But if you are the created, there is no way that you define your creator. You did not give his characteristics; which you mean you don't give the limits. In turn, you don't and can't define your creator. :)

To summarize for this:
Description differs from definition. To describe is to list the characteristics; to define means to limit that term or concepts.

Thanks and God bless! :)
AaronDIJ

Con

AaronDIJ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
kNOwJESUSkNOwPEACE

Pro

kNOwJESUSkNOwPEACE forfeited this round.
AaronDIJ

Con

AaronDIJ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
kNOwJESUSkNOwPEACE

Pro

kNOwJESUSkNOwPEACE forfeited this round.
AaronDIJ

Con

AaronDIJ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Coltephilos 3 years ago
Coltephilos
Moreover, by claiming that humans can not define god, you are defining god as undefinable -- thus, you are nullifying your own argument.
Posted by Coltephilos 3 years ago
Coltephilos
No, I was referring to "kNOwJESUS".
Posted by AaronDIJ 3 years ago
AaronDIJ
To Coltephilos: Are you asking me ?
- If you are I never did claim that one cannot define GOD.
Posted by Coltephilos 3 years ago
Coltephilos
You claim that we cannot define god, but you define him as the creator. How do you know that he was the creator if human reason can not define "god"?

Does not seem very logical to me, honestly.
Posted by Cygnus 3 years ago
Cygnus
Dang. I was going to take this debate. :/
Posted by Timeworn 3 years ago
Timeworn
You said that only a creator can define what he has created right? However Benjamin Franklin was the guy who created electricity, he die in 1790, his work is far pass where he had imagine it, today our knowledge of electricity is far pass that of his own, even if you bring him back to life he will need to learn allot from us about his own creation, how do you explain this case?
Posted by AaronDIJ 3 years ago
AaronDIJ
I am trying to use human reason and events in the past that are used by human belief to support the faith and the definition of God by the billions of people that rejoice and have faith in him
Posted by kNOwJESUSkNOwPEACE 3 years ago
kNOwJESUSkNOwPEACE
To AaronDIJ,

What are you trying to argue? ... Hmm... :) That God is use and believed by 9 out of 10 Americans? Or what? ... Hmm... The debate is about if you can define God in using human reason alone... (or are you trying to show that you are using your reasoning alone to define God?) :)
Posted by kNOwJESUSkNOwPEACE 3 years ago
kNOwJESUSkNOwPEACE
To AaronDIJ,

... Yes :) ... Something like that. Just remember, we are in the context of defining God using human reason alone. :) Which means, not relying on the Bible or any source. Or using the Bible or any source like History and Philosophy without relying on them. :)
Posted by AaronDIJ 3 years ago
AaronDIJ
So just to clarify, what is the purpose of this debate to argue whether we, as the creations of God, can unbiasedly define God as he is?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
kNOwJESUSkNOwPEACEAaronDIJTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument went un-answered and Pro is also correct.