The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

The Christian God is personal and not merely philosophical

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 808 times Debate No: 63687
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




I argue that you cannot empirically or logically prove that God exists, but that it has to come from divine revelation or a desire to form a relationship. I will present evidence for my views.

First round acceptance


The argumentation presented go in the following form: that (1) God cannot be proven empirically, and (2) it is divine relevation that can prove God. This inconsistency with the pure ontological views of both major schools of the study of philosophical knowledge (rationalism and empiricism) are quite disgusting in my opinion. I shall briefly provide comments and define the terms in the resolution at hand, and after this, I shall provide brief comments upon the unjustified nature of this resolution.


1. By the Christian God, we can exclude the possibilities of the Jewish God or the Pantheist God; the Christian God is exclusively human-like, as was proven in Genesis, and includes the following attributes: omnipotence, omnivolence, and omniscience.

2. By personal, if we were to infer from the opposition's opening statements, it shall be said that personal would be what one experiences, but not another.

3. By philosophy, it would be the study of reality and the nature of it.

Note: Here, it has already been proven that the proposition "the personal is not philosophical" is analytically contradictory, for philosophy is the study of reality; if personal reality is the reality in which "God exists" then "God exists philosophically" is a true statement. Let this be the driving point of this debate.

Preliminary Discussion:

On the Anselm's Ontological

It must henceforth be said that it was through divine revelation that Anselm first formulated his argumentation; possibly the first ontological argumentation ever proposed in the history of Christianity. This ontological is simple; if non-existence is the limitation of perfection, then analytically, God must exist, for God is maximally good. This argumentation has been repeated in a modal logical form, validified by Alvin Platinga. The main field, and possibly the most convinving argumentation for God's existence, lies in a "divine revelation" which has been further exemplified into logically valid argumentations via the weapons of philosophy.

However, let it be affirmed that the Burden of Proof lies upon the opposition, for he is making this claim.

With this said, GL and HF! I look foward to defending the honor and dignity of philosophy in the face of such absurd propositions :D

Debate Round No. 1


I shall rebut a few of con's opening statements:

1. Allah is also omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipotent given that people define him that way as is the Jewish God. This definition can be applied even to a deist God. Con failed to demonstrate how this strictly applies to the Christian God.

3. Wrong, it would be the theology of it. Theology is the study of who God is and not of his existence which is the concern of philosophy (1).

My opponent presents the ontological argument as proof that God exists however he did not define precisely which God exists which is the problem that Christians, Jews, Muslims, and any other religious person face when attempting to prove that God exists using the moral argument, ontological argument, cosmological argument, list goes on. You may successfully prove that God exists but inevitably you did not prove that YOUR God exists. What did those philosophical arguments accomplish? Nothing unless you want to support a philosophical definition of an impersonal God.

I'll now explain the flaws of the ontological argument. The argument is as follows (2):

1.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6.God exists in the mind as an idea.
7.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

The first premise is "i cannot imagine a being greater than God" but you imagined God into existence. The main problem is that you did not define precisely what God is or even if it is a being at all. It's also entirely subjective. Perhaps you could not imagine a being greater than God because you lack a great imagination, i don't know. The other problem is that "Greater" is not defined. What would it mean for a being to be greater? It's entirely subjective. I can claim that my mother is greater than my grandmother simply because she cooks better. Is greater defined by majesty? Skills? Abilities? Attributes? It's not precisely defined.

Last, you imagined God into existence which is entirely subjective and not based on reality (something objective). Thus you can replace God with another word such as aliens, unicorns, etc. and the argument would still be equally valid.

Existence is not dependent on attributes (being "the greatest") but simply being or having the ability to take substance and interact with reality. I know that you exist because i see you, not because of your attributes.

That being said, i now move to my argument:

The ancient mind is very different from our own perspective. William Barrett summarizes these differences:

"The distinction arises from the difference between doing and knowing. The Hebrew is concerned with practice, the Greek with knowledge. Right conduct is the ultimate concern of the Hebrew, right thinking that of the Greek. Duty and strictness of conscience are the paramount things in life for the Hebrew; for the Greek, the spontaneous and luminous play of the intelligence. The Hebrew thus extols the moral virtues as the substance and meaning of life; the Greek subordinates them to the intellectual virtues the contrast is between practice and theory, between the moral man and the theoretical or intellectual man." (Taken from his book "Irrational man"

The Hebrew mind revered morality rather than theoretical and intellectual knowledge by the Greek. This helps us understand the Scriptures in their proper perspective.

"To the Jewish mind, the understanding of God is not achieved by referring to a Greek way to timeless qualities of Supreme Being, to ideas of goodness and perfection, but rather by sensing the living acts of His concern, to His dynamic attentiveness to man. We speak not of His goodness in general but of His compassion for the individual man in a particular situation" ( "God in Search of Man" by Abraham Heschel p. 21).

In other words, God is revealed to man by his divine acts and works rather than in philosophical dispute. Furthermore, existence is dependent on personal interaction when the being interacts with reality.

"Our analysis of the Hebrew verbs that express standing, sitting, lying,, etc., teaches us that motionless and fixed being is for the Hebrews a nonentity; it does not exist for them. Only being which stands in inner relations with something active and moving is reality to them...only movement (motion) has reality. To the extent that is concerned Hebrew thinking at all, static being as a predicate is a motion that has passed over into repose" (Boman, p. 31).

Hebraic thought sees knowing as having an experience or a relationship with another person (Ps. 95:10).

The Hebrew is not concerned with knowledge of everything in the universe, he simply accepts it and marvels at it (3). The Scriptures affirm God's existence from the beginning.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

What came before God? What is God made of? What are the philosophical implications of God? The Hebrew mind says "I don't know, i don't care..i don't meddle with things that are too high for me to understand." Genesis 1 is concerned with God's relationship to the world in bringing purpose to it.

Genesis 6:13 says "13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth."

What did God sound like? How did he speak to Noah? The Scriptures doesn't say. God acted (proving his existence) and Noah responded in faith to his will which is the point of the story.

We also see the relationship between God and his people in the giving of the Torah at Sinai.

Exodus 20:1-2

"And God spoke all these words, saying:

2 "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."

God delivered his people from his slavery, thus placing emphasis on Israel as his chosen people to obey his commandments.

No where do we see a philosophical argument which establishes God's existence through reason alone, simply affirms it.







The opposition's replies to my comments are absurd. As the opposition knows very well, God does not exist in my opinion. Nevertheless, it would be of great value to say that the opposition's absurd replies to them are very much criticisms of the ontological, not to the argumentation that I have presented myself (which I have not done until this round).

Secondly, the Burden of Proof lies entirely on the opposition. IN proving that the Bible says God is personal is a mere appeal to authority, and does not affirm the case. Apart from this, the mere assumption that this is "not a philosophical debate" but a "personal one" does not give license for the opposition to present ignoratio elenchi and circular reasoning. This is a debate, not a sermon. Nevertheless, I shall object to the opposition's points now.

Objection One: Theological is not Personal

The framework of theology is based upon the assumption that a God exists, and henceforth, studies religious institutions based on that. However, the personal is what one experiences. Henceforth, to put the Bible in context here, the Bible may provide justifications for several premises that proves that the existence of a God is a personal issue, not an objective issue. However, Biblical justification alone is just pure ignoratio elenchi.

Objection Two: Defending the Ontological

(Devil's Advocate) The Anselm's Ontological assumes the following things as a definition; that God is the Greatest, and that existence is negation of omnipotence. The opposition's claims that Anselm's God is the subjective God is completely absurd. Every argumentation has previous definition, from Spinoza's to Godel's ontological. The opposition's attempt of debunking this argumentation is a wholly circular thing, based on will power alone. The only valid point is "existence is not dependent on attributes" but it is; for we know that gravity exists only because we do not fly. We know that Obama exists for sure because he "talks on the television" (not enough justification for those Cartesians though, bloody Cartesians). If the cause-effect is known, then if there were an effect, there must be a cause; if there were a known effect that causes something, then of course, a known cause would be attributed to it.

Objection Three: Greek Monotheism

The idea of one God was, apart from being a Jewish idea, was a Greek one too. Socrates, for example, was the "Jesus of Greece" He had to drink poision to justify his beliefs in one God, yet he was possibly the most rational man alive at his time. If the opposition is satisfied with "God exists, shut up atheists" then the opposition is clearly has a lot of work to do. i.e he has to justify his beliefs USING philosophical evidences and sciences.

Apart from this, the Hebrew people were a very philosophical people, albeit their philosophical convictions may not be as complicated and as essential as the Greeks. Abraham was a philosopher, who used arguments from design to justify his beliefs of the God we are putting now into question. Philosophers, such as Hiwi the Herectic, espoused fields of study that used reasoning instead of faith, and argued that Moses' interaction with the Red Sea was merely a coincidence. Henceforth, it would be wholly an ignorant oversimplification to say that the Hebrews were "unable to think for themselves" [2]

Argumentation from Atomic Propositions

Definitions of Terms:



The stance of the opposition assumes (u:G) but yet he beliefs (u:G∧~u:pG). Firstly, through the language analysis of the proposition, I shall show that (1) the question of God’s existence is an atomic proposition, and (2) atomic propositions can be proven via philosophy.

In doing this, we shall analyze the status quo of each proposition. We shall firstly assume that the theorem p=~G is a true theory. Then it would automatically come to the assumption that (u:Gè~u:pG), for p=~G. However, let us then take the assumption that it is false via nature; then it would automatically come to mind that (∃)(~u:pG), but since G entails P, for P is the universal inclusive of all atomic propositions. [1]

This then allows for us to prove the (u:G) is an atomic proposition. Affirming that all propositions are made of atomic structure, for they all have a certain truth-value, we could henceforth analyse any proposition via philosophy! For example, “John is a boy” contains a fundamental truth-value and could be formalized as Bj. This proposition could be denied or affirmed via philosophy, as the study of philosophy is the study of reality and of truth. Henceforth up to now, we have affirmed three conclusions: (1) that since philosophy is the study of reality, and since atomic propositions could be affirmed or denied via reality, all atomic propositions could be negated/affirmed via philosophy, (2) that all atomic propositions could be formalized into logical structures, and (3) that (u:G) entails that (pG) iff (u:G) implies G is an atomic proposition.

Then let us provide an argumentation for the atomic basis of 4:

1. (u:(Gv~G))
If 2. ((u:~G)èAu)
If 3. ((u:G)èTu)
4. Via proposition 2 and 3, G is an atomic proposition

Argumentation from Consistency

The justification of faith alone requires philosophy. This was proven in William James' amazing essay "The Will to Believe" in which he justifies faith, which the opposition has, with reasonable basis. Nevertheless, let us affirm that the motion is in itself inconsistent with the known reality of the world.

Argumentation from consistency is based upon the basis that self-contradictory beliefs negate a set proposition. With this said, let us affirm the following:

1. (Æ*x)(PxG)
2. (Æx)(~PxG)

Then accordingly to the law of non-contradiction, two propositions cannot be totally contradicting and yet be held true. Nevertheless, the translation assumes that some people believe that philosophy justifies God, whilst some people believe that philosophy doesn't justify God. However:

3. (Æx)(~PxG) iff (O~PxG)
4. (OPxG) according to 1

Then if ~(R~Px) is a fact, then deductively:

5. (Æx)(~OPxG)

What this argumentation proves is that there is no justification for the basis of belief in God outside philosophical reigns, for if proposition holds true to all, then the conditional of proposition three must always satisfy proposition II. Apart from this, accordingly to the law of non-contradiction, two propositions cannot be totally opposite. Henceforth, either proposition 1 or 2 must be true, and if one is true, the other is false. From that basis, we can apply Occam's Razor which affirms that a theory, a proposition, with the least assumptions must be taken as fact. With this said, then the 2nd proposition (which is the debate motion) is false as it automatically assumes that God is not based on philosophy.

Argumentation from Causau Si

Men are naturally curious animals, but not all men are rational. This God is a psychological phenomena, not a personal one, for if God were a personal illumination, then how is it possible that many people have belief in God? Let us take the logical basis of illogical premises here. Logically, the opposition is an agnostic Christian in a sense; the opposition believes that there is no way to prove that God exists, but henceforth God exists, because of faith. This is a philosophical belief called fideism, which states that pure acceptance of authority should be favored over rational belief. Then it would satisfy the opposition to know that God, or at least the study of God, was self-caused via philosophy. Metaphysics is the study of the effects and causes of God, accordingly to Aristotle. This premise is based upon the fact, a premise, that an unmoved first-mover created the world, and henceforth metaphysics should study "the nature and the science" of this unmoved first-mover. Let us note that it was the human intellect, the intellect that was capable of (1) conceive substances and affects, (2) theorize on the cause of the substance and effects, and (3) build upon the study of the nature of these substances and affects that caused humans to theorize about God. The negation of a philosophical God is based upon a premise that God is caused, not by humans, but by faith. However, accordingly to the doctrines of agent-detection, miracles had to be attributed for, and it was human reasoning alone that came to the final conclusion that divinity was involved in it. [3]

Then if some study is caused is self-caused, then God is philosophical in the sene that it was self caused by philosophy. The creator of western philosophy, Thales of Miletus, philosophized that God created "water" which was then the basis of the world. Thales thus opened a field of study that was based on God, and philosophy and God are so intercorrelated that whole philosophies are based upon the premise that God exists. Thomism is based upon such premises; Cartesianism is also based upon such premises. To say that philosophy cannot prove God is like saying that a mother cannot prove that her son belongs to her. Philosophy caused God and the study of it.

Closing Statements:

I have proven that there is simply no justification for belief in such statements in my argumentation from belief logic and consistencies. I have also proven that since God is self caused by philosophy, then God is a mere philosophical being. The opposition has done nothing but to state that the Jews are irrational people, and left the "heavy work" to the Greeks, which is a highly offensive, blatantly ignorant, and false statement which does not prove the resolution(Unless the opposition is Jewish). The opposition has ignoratio elenchi'ed his argumentation, and has strawman mines in order to make me seem like the ontological rationalist here.

The resolution remains negated

*Existential Quantifier



Debate Round No. 2


Con claims that i did not affirm the case, however he ignores the evidence i presented, labeling it " a sermon." He falsely accuses me of circular reasoning, giving no evidence for his claims.

"Biblical justification alone is just pure ignoratio elenchi."

Again, no explanation for why i committed this fallacy.

" If the cause-effect is known, then if there were an effect, there must be a cause; if there were a known effect that causes something, then of course, a known cause would be attributed to it. "

My opponent has failed to demonstrate that the cause of the universe was God. It could be something completely unknown of. It could be Buddha, a cosmic force, unicorns, a being i call "being x." I see no reason for why it has to be a person rather than a force if i used the ontological argument.

"The idea of one God was, apart from being a Jewish idea, was a Greek one too. Socrates, for example, was the "Jesus of Greece" He had to drink poision to justify his beliefs in one God, yet he was possibly the most rational man alive at his time. If the opposition is satisfied with "God exists, shut up atheists" then the opposition is clearly has a lot of work to do. i.e he has to justify his beliefs USING philosophical evidences and sciences"

Con presented no sources to back up his claims. Socrates was killed for "introducing new gods", corrupting the youth, etc. (1). He was not killed because he believed in one God. My opening position was "I argue that you cannot empirically or logically prove that God exists, but that it has to come from divine revelation or a desire to form a relationship." Therefore the burden of proof is not on me to prove him.

Con still presents no evidence for why Abraham the Patriarch was a philosopher. He cites later Jewish philosophers living centuries long after the ancient Hebrews.

The justification by faith goes further than just a philosophical concept.

"accordingly to the law of non-contradiction, two propositions cannot be totally contradicting and yet be held true. Nevertheless, the translation assumes that some people believe that philosophy justifies God, whilst some people believe that philosophy doesn't justify God."

I never claimed to hold both propositions at the same time. I claimed that it cannot be philosophically or scientifically proven that a person's specific God exists let alone one God.

"How is it possible that many people have belief in God?"

Believing in God doesn't imply that we all can objectively see him. It's quite possible for him to only reveal himself to each person individually hence a personal experience.

I will address the mistaken notion that the position of faith is "inconsistent with the known reality of the world."

The Hebrew word translated as believe is Aman and it's root means "to be secure" (2). Note the following Scriptures in which believing is used not simply a mere intellectual understanding and acceptance of beliefs, but a personal commitment to God (3):

Gen. 15:6 "And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." In earlier verses, Abraham held fast to the promises of God.

Ex. 4:5

"That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee."

We believe not in blind faith, but because of the evidence.

Con misapplies the term agnostic to me.

Agnostic (4):

1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Since my opponent claims i hold to fideism then i am not an agnostic, but i am assured of God's existence on the basis of revelation.

"Then if some study is caused is self-caused, then God is philosophical in the sene that it was self caused by philosophy. The creator of western philosophy, Thales of Miletus, philosophized that God created "water" which was then the basis of the world. Thales thus opened a field of study that was based on God, and philosophy and God are so intercorrelated that whole philosophies are based upon the premise that God exists. Thomism is based upon such premises; Cartesianism is also based upon such premises. To say that philosophy cannot prove God is like saying that a mother cannot prove that her son belongs to her. Philosophy caused God and the study of it. "

I'm not sure what con is attempting to prove here or how this is relevant to Christianity. Nevertheless, in the New Testament, the Word of God is not only a creative force that brought the universe into existence, but the very personal communication between God and man

"In Hebrew thought, the dabar was dynamic and filled with a power that was transmitted to those who received it. The term was often used to designate God's communication to his people, as at the beginning of many of the writings of the prophets: "The word of the Lord came." The whole of the Law, or all of Scripture, could then be referred to as God's Word" (Holman Bible Dictionary- LOGOS).


It is simply ingenious for God to ensure man's faithfulness to him not so much by the use of physical evidence, but rather by building a relationship involving all the aspects of the human being (intellect, will, emotions, character, etc.) It is not enough in Christianity to simply treat God as a philosophical concept inactive in the world, but to worship the living God as we build a relationship with him as he is actively involved in the world.







Objection One: Socrates and Monotheism

Socrates was a monotheist, and there is no doubt (except from those unfamiliar with the works of Aristophanes and Plato) that he was a monotheist. Take example a passage from the dialogue Euthyphro: "May not this be the reason, Euthyphro, why I am charged with impiety-that I cannot away with these stories about the Gods?" If Socrates was not a monotheist, then (if he accepted the conception of polytheism) how would it be possible that he introduced other, new Gods without a belief in the stories of an anthropecentric God? If perhaps that is not enough, then take this excerpt from Apology:

What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of this riddle?

The normal Greek tradition would have been to appeal to one of the many Gods, such a Zeus etc. [1,2]

Nevertheless, this makes no revelence to this debate.

Objection Two: Jewish Philosophy

Abraham was indeed a philosopher; Abraham was a learned philosopher who justified his beliefs in God using an analogy of "a house with a light in it" in a primitive version of argumentation from design. Furthermore, it was Melchizedek who taught Abraham philosophy, or at least, philosophy of the Jews. [3]

Objection Three: Falllllllllaciiiiies!

Firstly, I claimed that the BoP lies entirely upon the opposition to prove that faith justifies belief in God. He has not done so at all, instead claiming that the Burden of Proof is shared, which is, in this case, equally absurd as saying 1+1=3. Secondly, the opposition's strawman of my argumentation from consistency is unforgiveable. The opposition has taken his own stance and assumes that whenever I raise any argumentation, it is about him, and not the resolution. He also cherry picks minor parts of my argumentation and ignores the key argumentation here, which puts him on the edge, since he has the BoP! Apart from this, he has strawman the relation between faith and philosophy; we are in a debate about the resolution, not the word faith. The opposition has ignoratio elenchi'ed his way through, and still thinks that the resolution is affirmed via circular logic (and if not circular logic, then mere appeals to the authority) like "I have faith in God" because "the Bible says to have faith" simply because "the Bible is the word of God" [4]

Objection Four: Inconsistency

Nevertheless, albeit the opposition has strawman'ed my argumentation, let me build upon this consistency issue. Perhaps I shall make it clear if I restate my argumentation:

1. (Æx)(PxG)
2. (Æx)(~PxG)
3. (Æx)(~PxG) iff (O~PxG)
4. (OPxG) according to 1
5. (Æx)(O~PxG)

The opposition henceforth attacks the conception that the conclusion (proposition 5) is "unbiblical" (apparently). This mere and weak appeal to authority should be characterized by the fact that he wholly ignores the logic involved. If then we shall affirm the opposition's position, which is (FxG), then let us derive two axioms from this position:

Ax. 1 (FxG) implies (~PxG)
Ax. 2 (FxG) iff ((~PxG) then (~G))

Here, I have created a framework of how the opposition believes that the notion of God can be affirmed. For if x does F to G, then in theory, if x does P to G then apparently ~G is the only final conclusion that shall be affirmed. On this basis, then of course there would be (Æx)(~PxG) but the fundamental question here is that (in positive relation, not in negative) if (FxG) were true, then how could some people believe in the notion (Æx)(PxG)? Let us apply our atomic proposition theorem here. If (Fv~F) is true, then F is an analytical atomic proposition! And since this debate exists, then (Fv~F) is an atomic proposition. Then if something is an atomic proposition, then it has to be able to be proven via philosophy; henceforth, via virtue of atomic proposition, philosophy justifies faith. Henceforth, neither way, faith has to be justified via philosophy or God has to be justified via philosophy, which seemingly negates the resolution's attempts at playing on words.

Objection Five: On Biblical Justifications

We have a entirely different section to deal with Biblical justifications, just AS A VIRTUE OF RESPECT for the sake of it. The absurdity of these argumentations shall be proven in the following:

"Come now, and let us reason together, Says the Lord, Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool." Isaiah 1:18 This phrase shows that the Bible, and Christianity, needs you to use your logic to justify your faith. But we are told by other Biblical passages to live via faith in Romans 1:17. Let us call this "faith" Biblical faith for now. Biblical Faith has been misdefined. It is not "believe without reason" but it is "reason your faith, then believe!" This is forever present in Hebrews 1:11:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

This faith is not apparently "I hope God makes my opponent die tomorrow" (which the opposition is prolly thinking); this faith is faith with reason, as notated in the Greek notion ελπιζω (elbiso) which apparently implies to be hopeful after fully reasoning the causality-effects of the event. Moreover, Apostle Paul always reasoned, as seen in Act 17:17:

"Therefore he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers, and in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there"

The opposition's main notions about Christian faith and reasoning are flawed, and Biblical faith is faith in reasoning, or reasoned faith, not the blind fiedeistic faith that the opposition attempts to pursue and justifiy through this debate motion! With these presumptions, let us easily refute the opposition's case:

Gen. 15:6 "And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness." This verse attempts to justify belief in God, but as proven before, and as demonstrated here, faith is the reasoning of the cause-effect factor, not "blind faith" Nevertheless, all this proves is that faithfulness in "God" and "Christ" yields the effects of the following, yet it does not justify faith at all, it just justifies the need for faith. [5,6,7,8]

Objection Six, Argumentation from Representations: Certainty

The opposition claims that this term does not apply to him, but is it not him that said that "God was unknowable via reason and experience"? This is the whole thesis of the debate, that God is unknowable a priori or a posteriori, and that he must be knowable a faith-iori (or something of that matter). I did describe him as a Christian Agnostic, and at this I stop. But there is another issue that I must address here; that is, how can we come at certainty to something?

If object x is not known a posteriori, then it is know a priori. Then henceforth, faith is an a priori object. But is it an intuitive representation or abstract representation; does it require reason to be cognitized, or does it not require reason to be cognitized. Let us first formalized the dilemma at hand here:

1. (IgvAg)

Then what is an intuitive representation; an intuitive representation is something that does not require reason to cognitized, that is, it exists without reason. The presumption denies the idealistic worldview, which states that everything, including time and space, assumes requires a mind to perceive. Nevertheless, we shall go on without anymore debating; the only intuitive representations that do not require reason to perceive is possibly time, space, and the existence of oneself. This is intuitive; whatever is abstract requires reason to cognitize. Things like the existence of other minds, 1+1=2, and such, are abstract representations. Then if God were an intuitive representation, the idea that God exists must either be: (1a) innate, or (2a) justifiable via common sense (there is worldwide consensus that God exists, just like time). With this said, let us say that (1a) God is not innate. Innate principles are not ideas that are given via hereditary, and lost throughout the development, but ideas that stick with man forever. Innate principles are false (albeit innatism may be true) for if they exist, then (1) all children will have to have them, and (2) all children will have the same beliefs. But children are fundamentally different, for these principles we consider innate are actually done via assention. If they weren't, then how would it be possible that some children say God "doesn't exist" whilst other affirm that? Also, if they exist, then how could some say that "blue is the best color" whilst other say that red is? Then let us take the second possibility; children do not have the same beliefs. Henceforth, we can say that God is not innate. Then (2a) God exists via common-sense. i.e there is a consensus of people that God exists. This is not true, as atheists exist.

With both possibilities (which allow faith to follow, as intuitive representations requires simple faith in the senses) exhausted, henceforth:

2. ~Ig

Ergo Ag

Then with this said, if God were an abstract representation, then it requires reason to perceive him, not just pure faith.


The opposition has still ignoratio elenchi'ed his premises, uses circular reasoning, cherry-picks my case, and attempts to "shift the goal post" via strawman-ing my premises and conclusions. He thinks that this debate is about him, not the resolution, which I find absurd. He has done nothing but say that Socrates was not a monotheist, which I have proven him wrong, and said that the Bible is enough justification, which is both (1) appeal to authority, and (2) absurd analytically! The resolution here is negated.


[3] Bereishit Rabba (39,1) (retrieved from Wikipedia)
[6];(Biblical passages taken from here)

Debate Round No. 3


Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Truth_seeker 3 years ago
lol and neither would i as i am my own individual thank you.
Posted by 18Karl 3 years ago

I'm sure Soren Kierkegaard would not accept such an honor of being compared to truth_seeker for a fact
Posted by mightbenihilism 3 years ago
Truth_seeker stated position reminds me of Soren Kierkegaard, if Soren Kierkegaard listened to the Death metal and Gangstra rap.

Relevant quote:

"there is ultimately no justification for the belief in eternal life and God's existence; the gap between the finiteness of our comprehension and the infinity of the justification is incommensurable. Only a leap of faith can surmount the gap. Religious belief must be just that--a belief for which one cannot give rational justification. Knowledge of moral directives is rationally possible on a universal level but not on the personal level, and doing something because it is the socially acceptable (or aesthetic) thing to do involves no faith at all. Moral knowledge is general, faith in salvation is particular. The leap of faith is not irrational as much as beyond rationality."

The ontological argument seems kind of poetic and pretty, but I can't imagine any atheist being convinced of it --- and it, on its own, would make for a kind of flabby faith. If faith relies on reason, then if the reasons crumble, the faith crumbles. Yet if faith is based upon an inner certainty, it may be unreasonable, but it is less likely to crash and burn.

The New Testament itself seems to present Jesus as a living reality, to be experienced, and when it does offer proofs of God they are of the most general and indefinite, like "look at nature, man!" Jesus only justified his advent with reference to OT prophecies, not with philosophy, and Paul --- the most philosophically inclined of the Apostles --- seemed to think our understanding of God was innate, even if our overt, conscious mind denied it. The real genius of the Christian tradition, as I see it, was not the compromises it made with Greek philosophy, but in its ability to make deep philosophical "truths" accessible to even the most unlettered of peasants. It was the original existentialism of Europe, perhaps.
Posted by Truth_seeker 3 years ago
1st one
Posted by mightbenihilism 3 years ago
Are you going to prove the existence of God is unprovable, or prove that you must want to have contact with him to prove himself to yourself, or both, or neither?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF's and con's points remained uncontested #win