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

Proof of God Via Existential Dependence

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  
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: 8/16/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 608 times Debate No: 103454
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

God has revealed many facts about Himself in various scriptures all over the world.

One of the things that He has revealed about Himself, in various languages, is that He is the one and only Existentially Independent Entity -- that He exists eternally, without ever having not existed, that He requires no creator, and has no cause preceding Him, logically or temporally. He has stated this in many different ways, in many different languages. He has also stated, in many different languages, that we are "in His image," that we possess some of the characteristics that He possesses, and that we derive all of our limited characteristics from His infinite stock of perfect characteristics.

My statements here in this introduction are accurate paraphrases of His scriptural statements about Himself, and are therefore not up for debate.

The following 8 points, conversely, are up for debate in this thread, as they are based directly on science and logic, not necessarily based directly on revealed scripture. There's a certain beauty in logical simplicity, also known as Occam's Razor, so please let's keep this as succinct as possible:

1. Some entities observably depend on others for existence.

2. There is an observable chain of existential dependence among entities.

3. Some entities in this chain possess observable personal characteristics.

4. Following the chain of existential dependence back in time, logic inevitably leads to an existentially independent entity -- one that depends on no other for existence.

5. The believer in atheist Dogma refers to this entity as "the universe," and lacks the ability to follow the chain any further back than that, either logically or temporally. There may be other terms the believer in atheist Dogma makes up for this existentially independent entity, but just like the term, "the universe," each one refers to an impersonal entity -- one possessing no personal characteristics.

6. We Theological Realists refer to this existentially independent entity as God, and He possesses personal characteristics.

7. The fact that God Himself possesses personal characteristics easily explains the existence of our own personal characteristics -- existentially dependent entities can only derive their various characteristics from entities displaying such characteristics themselves.

8. Impersonal entities cannot display personal characteristics or bestow them upon others. The absolute lack of personal characteristics in the the believer in atheist Dogma's notion of our primary origin fails to account for the undeniable existence of our own personal characteristics.

It is illogical to believe that an entity can display that which it does not possess. That's like saying that you can withdraw a million dollars from a bank account with only ten dollars in it. Logically, that is impossible, just as it is impossible for an impersonal entity to display personal characteristics or to bestow them upon other entities.

Conversely, we Theological Realists say that God, having infinite personal characteristics, displays them without hindrance, and bestows personal characteristics upon other entities, meaning us, in the same way that it is entirely possible to withdraw ten dollars from a million dollar bank account, but it is impossible and illogical the other way around (the the believer in atheist Dogma's way).

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.
AmazingPastafarian

Con

Contention 1: Purushadasa is an idiot, and by not responding to me, he agrees.
Evidence: Look at his f*cking profile.

Contention 2: Purushadasa is a f@ggot, and by not responding to me, he agrees.
Evidence: Look at his f*cking profile.

Contention 3: Purushadasa is now an atheist, and by not responding to me, he agrees.
Evidence: Wait and see

Contention 4: Purushadasa owes me 150,000 dollars, and by losing this debate, he agrees.
Evidence: Wait and see

Vote for me and I'll give 30% of his moneY!

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
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CasualDebator 5 months ago
CasualDebator
It can also be argued that god only exists because humans believe that there is a god. Gods, without there ever being a proof of their existence, are just figments of our imagination. Humans need to believe in something of a higher power because they themselves are weak. So, if we all stopped believing in a god, maybe the god would no longer exist.
Posted by canis 5 months ago
canis
Hope you get rid of your fanatacy god..And learn to face / Learn about reality...
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Thank you all for so many kind and intelligent posts.

My engagement on this site was intended, from the beginning, to be a nothing more than a temporary experiment.

I didn't know specifically when it was going to end, until this evening: My girlfriend, Bhaktin Caroline, said something to me that inspired me to make tonight the end of the experiment.

Bhaktin Caroline matters much, much more than this website.

If you are still feeling overly attached after I leave, I apologize, but I will still be leaving nonetheless: I won't be engaging in any further debates, arguments, or conversations on this site, and nor will I be reading any further posts uploaded by its kind and intelligent members -- starting now.

You can argue amongst yourselves, from now on.

Good-bye! =)
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between reality and fantasy.

Without God, there could be no science.
Posted by Caden335 5 months ago
Caden335
Scriptures are fantasy. Iron-age wanderers do not know more about the world than modern scientists
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"What unspoken law of the universe says that personal characteristics are required for dependence?"

I never claimed that it did, you hopelessly ignorant douchebag, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. LOL SMH! =)

That which does not possess personal characteristics cannot display personal characteristics, nor can that which does not possess personal characteristics possibly bestow personal characteristics upon other entities.

Therefore, your explanation (sun and plants, which do not possess any personal characteristics) utterly fails to account for the personal characteristics that we all possess and observe every day.

Conversely, my explanation (God, who does indeed possess and display personal characteristics) is a logical, valid, and true explanation for the personal characteristics that we all possess and observe every day.

Therefore my explanation for the existence of our personal characteristics is far superior to your explanation.

Thanks for your time! =)
Posted by cakerman 5 months ago
cakerman
What unspoken law of the universe says that personal characteristics are required for dependence?

That entire paragraph doesn't even refute what I said, you just restated your own thesis
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
That which does not possess personal characteristics cannot display personal characteristics, nor can that which does not possess personal characteristics possibly bestow personal characteristics upon other entities.

Therefore, your explanation (sun and plants, which do not possess any personal characteristics) utterly fails to account for the personal characteristics that we all possess and observe every day.

Conversely, my explanation (God, who does indeed possess and display personal characteristics) is a logical, valid, and true explanation for the personal characteristics that we all possess and observe every day.

Therefore my explanation for the existence of our personal characteristics is far superior to your explanation.

Thanks for your time! =)
Posted by cakerman 5 months ago
cakerman
Your explanation utterly fails to account for the personal characteristics that we all possess and observe every day

What your entire argument fails to consider is that personal characteristics aren't required in order for something to depend off of it, I can name hundreds of living mammal species that depend on plants, which rely on us (and everything else that releases CO2) which ultimately circles around to depend on the plant. set your limits lower and i'll accept the debate and provide you a 10,000 letter essay about it
Posted by Purushadasa 5 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"1. Some entities observably depend on others for existence.

2. There is an observable chain of existential dependence among entities.

3. Some entities in this chain possess observable personal characteristics.

4. Following the chain of existential dependence back in time, logic inevitably leads to an existentially independent entity -- one that depends on no other for existence."

That is all true.

"This chain ends with plants and the sun, debate ended, point proven"

Not true -- plants and sun possess no personal characteristics, and therefore plants and sun could not possibly have bestowed any personal characteristics upon any personal entity. Your explanation utterly fails to account for the personal characteristics that we all possess and observe every day, whereas mine is a perfectly logical, rational, and demonstrable explanation for them.

You lost this debate and I won: Thanks for your time! =)
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.