The Instigator
vorxxox
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Nobody can discredit Pantheism

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 966 times Debate No: 6983
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (7)

 

vorxxox

Pro

Hello, and I thank whoever for excepting this debate. This debate is open for any person of any belief or culture. Now, in taking this debate, I will defend, and you will attempt to discredit, the god I define, and advance what YOU believe as an alternative.

Definition of God - God is all, all is God. God is the universe. Though God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, God is not sentient, conscious, or personal. Though PARTS may SEEM imperfect, (ie: ignorance, destruction), such is necessary to create a whole, and God remains holy and beautiful as a whole.
Puck

Con

"Definition of God - God is all, all is God. God is the universe. Though God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, God is not sentient, conscious, or personal. Though PARTS may SEEM imperfect, (ie: ignorance, destruction), such is necessary to create a whole, and God remains holy and beautiful as a whole."

Your pantheism is not a standard pantheism argument, but no matter.

A is A, A cannot be non A.

1. Required definitions
i. Omnipotent: Provide a definition of what you mean in your pantheist context next round. That includes the limits if any of ablility.

ii. Non personal: (a) Non intervention or (b) non entity - i.e. the 'seat ofpower' of said god?

iii. Holy.

2. Omniscient: - All knowing.
Being the universe (matter/dimensions) does not equate to knowing the universe, or given as one part knowledgeable by default of all others, as being, therefore your god is not omniscient, therefore non existent.

3. Omniscient + non sentience.
All/any knowledge without perception of contructs (non sentience) is a contradiction in terms. To have knowledge is to be aware of the nature of any given facet of reality. Clearly this is not possible without perception of those components that make up any given fact; therefore non existent.

4. Omniscient + non consciousness.
Consciousness is awareness, to have knowledge one would need to be aware of said knowledge. Contradiction; therefore non existent.

5. Neccesary ignorance.
Your god requires essential lack of knowledge, which either implies design - contradiction of sole matter/dimension; or purpose - contradiction of non personal (a) i.e. design for those capable of having knowledge.

That will do for now. :)
Debate Round No. 1
vorxxox

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate Puck. First, to refute your arguments.

"2. Omniscient: - All knowing.
Being the universe (matter/dimensions) does not equate to knowing the universe, or given as one part knowledgeable by default of all others, as being, therefore your god is not omniscient, therefore non existent."

Ah, but if my God contains all knowledgeable beings, doesn't that make Him all knowing?

:)

"3. Omniscient + non sentience.
All/any knowledge without perception of contructs (non sentience) is a contradiction in terms. To have knowledge is to be aware of the nature of any given facet of reality. Clearly this is not possible without perception of those components that make up any given fact; therefore non existent."

No, to have knowledge is to have knowledge. I didn't define God as INTELLEGENT, I just said He was all 'knowing'. Sentience is not necessary to have knowledge. It's like you being unconscious; does that mean your brain doesn't have any knowledge? It's just like machinery; though it processes loads of information, that doesn't mean it's self aware.

"4. Omniscient + non consciousness.
Consciousness is awareness, to have knowledge one would need to be aware of said knowledge. Contradiction; therefore non existent."

What did I just tell you. knowledge = knowledge. consciousness = consciousness.

You say unconsciousness /= knowledge. I showed you that's untrue.

"5. Neccesary ignorance.
Your god requires essential lack of knowledge, which either implies design - contradiction of sole matter/dimension; or purpose - contradiction of non personal (a) i.e. design for those capable of having knowledge."

I can't believe I'm hearing this from an Atheist. First of all, how does that imply design? Does your whole theory of evolution or the big bang involve any intellegent design? Do all of our interdependent, purposeful organs require design? No? Wha... I thought you said...

This is why I'm winning this debate. My opponent has made some very clever attempts to discredit my God... but he didn't. I defended my arguments, and that's all I really need to do to win.

Thank you. As Puck would say:

That will do for now. :)
Puck

Con

"Ah, but if my God contains all knowledgeable beings, doesn't that make Him all knowing?"

These beings being? Proof be needed. You have already asserted IGNORANCE IS NECESSARY. Ignorance being the lack of knowledge -therefore omniscient beings cannot exist.

"No, to have knowledge is to have knowledge. I didn't define God as INTELLEGENT, I just said He was all 'knowing'. Sentience is not necessary to have knowledge. It's like you being unconscious; does that mean your brain doesn't have any knowledge? It's just like machinery; though it processes loads of information, that doesn't mean it's self aware."

To have knowledge one must have the capability to posess knowledge. Without perception of an concepts, concrete or abstract, the capacity for knowledge is null. Knowledge is the awareness of a fact of reality. You are trying to assert knowledge as an entity of itself removed from those that possess it. Sentience is not in and of itself intelligence - intelligence is a possibility from the basic forms of sentience of which perception of concepts is one. Contradiction remains.

"What did I just tell you. knowledge = knowledge. consciousness = consciousness."

Knowledge is awareness of a fact of reality. One can not have awareness without the capability of awareness. Asserting knowledge is something which is unrelated to a knower is a contradiction. Awareness without awareness is a contradiction.

"You say unconsciousness /= knowledge. I showed you that's untrue."

I said unconsciousness can not have knowledge. That is somewhat different. Asserting blindly that having the knowledge of any one thing is not knowing the knowledge of any thing is a rather obvious contradiction.

"I can't believe I'm hearing this from an Atheist. First of all, how does that imply design? Does your whole theory of evolution or the big bang involve any intellegent design? Do all of our interdependent, purposeful organs require design? No? Wha... I thought you said..."

It is design because you asserted ignorance was necessary. Those capable of ignorance and its opposite, knowledge therefore are limited by this stricture. As you asserted its necessity, it follows then that the capabaility of ignorance must be designed in those capable for the opposing to not occur.

Asserting bold contradictions does not a god make. Asserting A is non A is not the way to go about proving existence.

Please be providing asked for definitions.
Debate Round No. 2
vorxxox

Pro

I'm out of time. Vote pro
Puck

Con

Contradictions remain.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
vorxxoxPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
vorxxoxPuckTied
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 J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
vorxxoxPuckTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
vorxxoxPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
vorxxoxPuckTied
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 CP 7 years ago
CP
vorxxoxPuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by vorxxox 7 years ago
vorxxox
vorxxoxPuckTied
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