The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
The Contender
RoderickChinaski
Con (against)

God-realization is Intellectually Superior to the Belief in atheist Dogma

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Purushadasa has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 946 times Debate No: 103460
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (0)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

Regarding the atheistic inability to apprehend certain facts about God's position as the source for existence, it is impossible for any entity to be the source for any quality unless it possesses that quality itself. No food that contains no iron, for example, can possibly be a source of iron. Similarly, no entity that contains no personal characteristics, no intellectual phenomena such as logic or reason, no love, and no life of its own, three qualities that the believer in atheist Dogma believes the universe lacked at some point, could possibly be the source of such qualities in any other entity, regardless of how comparatively small or large that entity is.

The believer in atheist Dogma believes that the universe is the source, however, and that belief is 100% illogical.

We are faced with the following two mutually exclusive world-views:

1. We Theological Realists understand that God is the Original Archetype, or source, for all observable phenomena, including intellectual phenomena, such as reason and logic, and emotional phenomena, such as love. He is infinitely complete with eternal life of His own, and He possesses both personal and impersonal characteristics, as well as love, eternally. This is a logically sound account for life, for logic and reason, for love, and for all personal and impersonal observable phenomena.

2. The believer in atheist Dogma believes that God is not the original personal archetype. Instead, the believer in atheist Dogma attributes this role, using varying semantic constructs, to "the universe." Unfortunately, the universe that the believer in atheist Dogma claims supposedly gave rise to life, logic, reason, love, and all personal characteristics was, according to the believer in atheist Dogma, supposedly devoid of all these phenomena at some unspecified time that he theorizes is prior to the hypothetical advent of such phenomena. The atheistic claim is logically unsound when it comes to accounting for clearly observable life, clearly observable intellectual phenomena such as logic and reason, clearly observable love, and clearly observable personal phenomena.

CONCLUSION:

Therefore, we Theological Realists' world-view is logically superior to that of the believer in atheist Dogma, and any truly unbiased and logically savvy party must necessarily accept this fact. Lack of scriptural or logical refutation of these facts shows acceptance by any and all who post in this thread.

Proof is different from persuasion, and I have posted proof here, not persuasion.

No proof will ever persuade the believer in atheist Dogma of anything, as he has already come to his unscientific and premature conclusion (that God somehow doesn't exist), without even engaging in the first step of the scientific method in regards to God, what to speak of the other steps. The believer in atheist Dogma's irrational obsession with his premature conclusion precludes his ability to assess the facts in an honest and unbiased manner, which is something that I, unlike the believer in atheist Dogma, have managed to accomplish.

I do not expect to persuade the believer in atheist Dogma, just as I do not expect to persuade the pig, the fruit-fly, the pile of feces, or the slime-mold, but the proof is conclusive regardless of the mental handicaps of such unfortunate parties. The mental inability of the lower animal and the believer in atheist Dogma to apprehend the proof does not change the fact that it is conclusive proof. I know beforehand that the believer in atheist Dogma will cling to his premature, unscientific, and untrue conclusions about God, and I have no problem with that. None of it changes the fact that I have posted conclusive proof here.
RoderickChinaski

Con

The world surely does present us with many incomprehensible phenomena, but one of the most striking ones must be the modern theists" inability to accept the scientific method, and the findings thereof as realities, instead of simply writing them off as either confusion of the nonbelievers, or as further proof of "the true genius of God". Indeed, since the entry of the modern sciences, arguments for the existence of any religion"s god have rested solemnly on a frail philosophical foundation. All of the major religions are losing ground even in the historical aspects of the debate, a field previously dominated by the theists and used as one of their strongest points. Thus, the great and almighty God has been reduced to nothing more than a mere thought experiment, but if this shall indeed be his final resting place, so be it!
In this particular endeavor to defeat all scientific research by thoughts of "logic" alone, the main argument goes as follows:

1. It is impossible for any entity to be the source for any quality unless it possesses that quality itself.

2. Personal characteristics such as logic, reason, and love exist.

3. In atheist dogma, the universe must have lacked logic, reason, and love at some point.

4. Therefore, it would be illogical to claim, within the limits of atheist dogma, that the universe could have been the source of logic, reason, or love.

As stated before, the argument for God (who is nothing more than a philosophical thought experiment) must once again take the form of a thought experiment itself - an experiment claiming to be based on logic. However, this so-called "logic" is poorly researched and as a result hereof very flawed. The very premise of the argument, that no entity can possibly be the source of any quality unless it is already in possession of that quality, does not comply with the observable world around us. Take for example water (H2O) which consists, as the chemical formula suggests, of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Neither oxygen nor hydrogen is in any way in "possession" of water, and yet when combined water is indeed created.
Now, the quick thinker might reason that the previously stated "source for quality" argument was simply implying that no personal or psychological quality, such as love or logic, could possibly be passed on by an entity lacking either quality. This would indeed make the "water argument" useless, even ridicules, if it wasn"t for the fact that the presenter of the "source for quality" argument gave the following example to support his claim: "No food that contains no iron, for example, can possibly be a source of iron". As iron is neither a psychological nor a personal quality, the argument must also include physical objects, such as water.
Now, let"s pretend for a minute that the "source for quality" argument is still standing strong. More holes are still to be found in its weakening shell. The very premise of the argument was logically fragile, but the third part (In atheist dogma, the universe must have lacked logic, reason, and love at some point) is quite simply based on poor research. The atheist dogma is not claiming that the universe has ever lacked logic. It must indeed have lacked logical thought at some point, of course, as the very concept of thoughts has not always existed, but the universe certainly never lacked logic itself. In fact, natural science, upon which atheist dogma is based, explains how the natural laws of the universe are, and always have been dictated by logic. This logic of natural principles would thus be the reasoning of everything within the universe, including love. This today most basic human emotion is, in reality, an evolutionary mechanism, a chemical reaction in the brain. The feeling of being in love can be boiled down to neurotransmitters and hormones, such as dopamine, oxytocin, and a closely related neuropeptide called vasopressin, mixing in the brain. As Abigail Marsh, a professor at Georgetown University puts it: "Nature"s imperative is that we reproduce and love is one of the mechanisms nature has put in place to make sure that we do that."
Hormones, like water, are chemical compounds consisting of atoms. Atoms and the molecules that they form are, like everything else, subject to the laws of physics, which, once again, are dictated by the logic of the universe. Thus, love is a product of the logic that has always existed in the universe, and therefore, even if the premise of the "source for quality" argument should be widely accepted, the remainders of the argument would still fail to deliver an acceptable conclusion.

As it should now be clear, the so-called "Theological Realists" still have not produced a single shred of scientifically acceptable evidence for the existence of God. Now, some might argue, that I, along with every other atheist have also failed to deliver a convincing argument that ultimately disproves the existence of God, at least of the vaguely described and rather abstract idea that God has been reduced to. Of course, they would be right in this claim, but as many have hopefully realized on their own; very few atheists have actually tried to produce such an argument. This is because atheists believe in the scientific method, and when a new concept (such as the existence of God) is introduced to a scientific community, it is up to the presenters to provide sufficient proof of their concept, instead of simply expecting the observers to disprove it. This is a key part of modern science, for which the reasoning should be easily understandable to most individuals.
It is, therefore up to the theists to prove the existence of their god, whichever god it might be, and not up to the atheists to disprove the existence of all supreme beings. How would we even do that?
Realizing these facts and key concepts of logical, scientific thought, would most likely lead one to the conclusion that the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven. Understanding and agreeing with this, would by the technical definition make one an agnostic. This is a term that compromises between science and theology and that should satisfy most people believing in the former, as the existence of God cannot be disproven, in the same way, that the existence of the ancient Greek gods cannot be disproven either.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"disingenuous enough"

Without God, being disingenuous could not be objectively wrong.

"I see you as objectively wrong"

That is your own personal, subjective opinion, though: You don't know what the word "objective" means! LOL SMH =)

" if god did not come first then nothing makes sense"

I never made that statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"dishonest "

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between honesty and dishonesty.

"Then yes you did state you know that a god exists"

No I didn't -- that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"No, actually, I know that God exists"

That is true.

" lie"

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between truth and lies.

" a logical fallacy."

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between valid logic and fallacies.

"Have I said I claim to know god does not exist? No"

Then you are not an atheist.

"I may believe god does not exist"

Your belief is wrong and has no evidence in its support.

" it is because I have lack of evidence to support a god claim"

Lack of evidence cannot logically be used to support or refute any claim.

". The default position is...."

No, the default position is God's factual existence: Without God, nothing at all could be proven or disproven.

"gods (roman, greek,"..)"

There is only one God, and he is neither Roman nor Greek.

" (impossible to prove a negative)."

If it were actually impossible to prove a negative, then you would be on the less intelligent side of the God debate (the side that cannot be proven). However, it is easy to prove a negative anyway, so you are actually a liar and very bad at logic.
Posted by shannon83 11 months ago
shannon83
@purushadasa- well thank you for proving my point for me. Very nice of you to do.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"disingenuous enough"

Without God, being disingenuous could not be objectively wrong.

"I see you as objectively wrong"

That is your own personal, subjective opinion, though: You don't know what the word "objective" means! LOL SMH =)

" if god did not come first then nothing makes sense"

I never made that statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"dishonest "

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between honesty and dishonesty.

"Then yes you did state you know that a god exists"

No I didn't -- that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"No, actually, I know that God exists"

That is true.

" lie"

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between truth and lies.

" a logical fallacy."

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between valid logic and fallacies.

"Have I said I claim to know god does not exist? No"

Then you are not an atheist.

"I may believe god does not exist"

Your belief is wrong and has no evidence in its support.

" it is because I have lack of evidence to support a god claim"

Lack of evidence cannot logically be used to support or refute any claim.

". The default position is...."

No, the default position is God's factual existence: Without God, nothing at all could be proven or disproven.

"gods (roman, greek,"..)"

There is only one God, and he is neither Roman nor Greek.

" (impossible to prove a negative)."

If it were actually impossible to prove a negative, then you would be on the less intelligent side of the God debate (the side that cannot be proven). However, it is easy to prove a negative anyway, so you are actually a liar and very bad at logic.
Posted by shannon83 11 months ago
shannon83
@purushadasa - you have yet to make a point or to refute anything I have said. It is almost comical if you where not so dense.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"disingenuous enough"

Without God, being disingenuous could not be objectively wrong.

"I see you as objectively wrong"

That is your own personal, subjective opinion, though: You don't know what the word "objective" means! LOL SMH =)

" if god did not come first then nothing makes sense"

I never made that statement, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"dishonest "

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between honesty and dishonesty.

"Then yes you did state you know that a god exists"

No I didn't -- that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"No, actually, I know that God exists"

That is true.

" lie"

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between truth and lies.

" a logical fallacy."

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between valid logic and fallacies.

"Have I said I claim to know god does not exist? No"

Then you are not an atheist.

"I may believe god does not exist"

Your belief is wrong and has no evidence in its support.

" it is because I have lack of evidence to support a god claim"

Lack of evidence cannot logically be used to support or refute any claim.

". The default position is...."

No, the default position is God's factual existence: Without God, nothing at all could be proven or disproven.

"gods (roman, greek,"..)"

There is only one God, and he is neither Roman nor Greek.

" (impossible to prove a negative)."

If it were actually impossible to prove a negative, then you would be on the less intelligent side of the God debate (the side that cannot be proven). However, it is easy to prove a negative anyway, so you are actually a liar and very bad at logic.
Posted by shannon83 11 months ago
shannon83
@Purushadasa " you are disingenuous enough to say someone wrote when I pulled that from your post below? Then to say that is true?

Then you state: without God having a God complex could not be objectively wrong " well I tend to disagree as I see you as objectively wrong and I do not believe a god exists.

As predicted you resort to if god did not come first then nothing makes sense without even attempting to show this to be true. Typical ploy of someone that would show himself to be a dishonest debater.

Then yes you did state you know that a god exists, 3 days ago you stated "No, actually, I know that God exists", So enough is enough sadly you cannot even be spoken too as you flat out lie at this point. Also because you did state it, it is not a logical fallacy.

Have I said I claim to know god does not exist? No I have said no such thing. I may believe god does not exist it is because I have lack of evidence to support a god claim. The default position is that something does not exist until proven to exist. Reason being is consistency. If I would assume things are real and must be proven false then I would be required to believe Santa, fairies, and all possible gods (roman, greek,"..) was also real as I cannot prove they are not real (impossible to prove a negative).

Well weather you are a creationist or not it seems very dishonest to resort to a presuppositional argument that you presented, that I might add without any evidence.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
The belief in atheist Dogma is a belief system, not a lack of belief.

Someone wrote:

"In order to be an actual atheist, someone would have to believe that God actually does not exist. Nobody actually believes that. Therefore there is no such thing as an actual atheist in reality."

That is true.

"Seems like you think you have a God complex? "

Without God, having a God complex could not be objectively wrong.

Also, all human beings -- including you -- are obsessed with God.

"Can you prove"

Without God, nobody could prove anything.

"unjustifiable claims"

Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between justifiable claims and unjustifiable claims.

"You also stated you know a God exists."

No I didn't -- that is just a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

" Well if you know can you provide the method used to make this determination? "

I used way more than one method for that -- see my posted debates (I have approximately 45 of them posted) on this site for more complete answers to that question. Almost all of them include a different method that can be used to determine the undeniable fact that God exists in reality and that the belief in atheist Dogma (your religion) is a false belief system.

"circular reasoning"

Without God, using circular reasoning could not be objectively wrong.

Also, your religion, the belief in atheist Dogma, is the epitome of circular reasoning: You claim to know that God doesn't exist, but how could you possibly know such a thing? Actually you can't, you liar, because God does exist.

"any creationist"

I am not a creationist.
Posted by shannon83 11 months ago
shannon83
First off stating atheist dogma is a contradiction as atheism is the lack of a belief in a god/gods. Second from your comments below you state that you know what others think and believe? This is some claim to state that an atheist does not exist "In order to be an actual atheist, someone would have to believe that God actually does not exist. Nobody actually believes that. Therefore there is no such thing as an actual atheist in reality."

Seems like you think you have a God complex? Can you prove what you state or are you in the business of only making unjustifiable claims? You also stated you know a God exists. Well if you know can you provide the method used to make this determination? My guess is it is the same presuppositional argument of circular reasoning I would get from any creationist would be the same thing you present.
Posted by backwardseden 11 months ago
backwardseden
All atheists, no exceptions, are smarter, more educated, more intelligent than the self appointed prophet and HIS god in which he cannot even prove exists, because WE as atheists would NOT create man to f--k up the planet and thus give man to rape this planet and leave it as his dumpling ground and toilet. Indeed the self appointed prophet has no intelligence nor education to know that HIS god does not exist.
Posted by backwardseden 11 months ago
backwardseden
There is no such thing as god realization because the self appointed prophet Purushadasa cannot even prove that HIS god even exists.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.