The Instigator
petersaysstuff
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
KRFournier
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

There are no arguments for God that cannot be refuted.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,397 times Debate No: 16910
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (6)

 

petersaysstuff

Pro

I propose a challenge! I am taking that stance that there are no good arguments for god that cannot/have not been thoroughly refuted. I challenge anyone but preferably a theist. This first round will be for the contender to post his/her arguments and I shall respond to them. If I can successfully refute said arguments I win. If I cannot, the contender wins.
KRFournier

Con

I accept this challenge. Per Pro's opening statement, if he can refute my argument, he wins. Otherwise, I win. I'll lay out my argument very simply and defend it in the next round.

Introduction

I am defending the Christian God of the Holy Bible, who is best defined as [1]:

There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.

In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.


I realize the definition is verbose, but it's a more complete depiction of the God Christians profess and do not wish to railroaded into a debate on the character of God himself.

Argument

  1. This is a logical argument.
  2. Pro must use logical laws to refute this argument.
  3. In order for the refutation to be meaningful, logical laws must be abstract and absolute.
  4. In order for logical laws to be abstract, they must be the product of thought, i.e., a mind.
  5. In order for this mind to produce absolute logical laws, it must be immutable.
  6. In order for this mind to be immutable, it must transcend nature (i.e., supernatural) and be unchanging.
  7. The God of the Holy Bible meets the necessary precondition for an unchanging, supernatural mind.
  8. In order for Pro to refute this argument, God must exist.

Conclusion

Pro can only refute this argument if it is true. Ergo, he cannot refute it.

Sources

  1. http://www.reformed.org...
Debate Round No. 1
petersaysstuff

Pro

First off I want to thank my opponent for accepting. I also would like to say that this argument is new to me yet I enjoy the challenge of it.

I will take each point one by one and then draw conclusions regarding them.

//1:This is a logical argument.//
Well you haven't made the argument yet sooooooooooo. But what ever.

//2:Pro must use logical laws to refute this argument.//
Sure I guess.

//3:In order for the refutation to be meaningful, logical laws must be abstract and absolute.//
Why exactly?

//4:In order for logical laws to be abstract, they must be the product of thought, i.e., a mind.//
I have one objection to this. The point being that a mind is not the only thing that could produce logical laws. A computer system could as well. Granted we have not reached that point yet but technically a computer could.

//5:In order for this mind to produce absolute logical laws, it must be immutable.//
How so? An absolute law does not require an immutable mind. The mind itself can grow and change but the law can still be absolute.

//6:In order for this mind to be immutable, it must transcend nature (i.e., supernatural) and be unchanging.//
If we ignore my previous statement this is still false. Take a computer system for example. If there is a basic system that can produce logical laws it will not change thus it is immutable but it is not supernatural. This fact alone discredits this point.***

//7:The God of the Holy Bible meets the necessary precondition for an unchanging, supernatural mind.//
So does a computer system.

//8:In order for Pro to refute this argument, God must exist.//
Here is the worst assertion of all. First, even if we ignore a computer (which I will come back to later) this is assuming a god is doing the refuting, not I. But the aforementioned is clearly not the case. I am doing the refuting and if I can refute your claims it does NOT prove god exists. It merely proves I am god/supernatural. Since I have refuted you argument I am god and your god does not exist since, according to the definition you gave, god is "without body" yet since I have a body and I am god, your god is false....OR.....we could ignore this and assert that I am a computer or I had an immutable self running computer system solve this and your argument is refuted without invoking god....OR....we can jump back to assertion 5 and I can say that an immutable mind is not needed for an absolute logical law. Again, the mind may change but the law will not.

So here you have 3 options.
1: I am god ergo the god you subscribe to is false.
2: A computer solved this and thus the assertion that this can only be false if god is real is not true and your argument ignores a crucial point and thus it is flawed.
3: Your 5th contention is just false and illogical meaning your first one falls and thus your entire argument is false.

Which shall it be? I am god, a computer (which is immutable) solved this or parts of your argument are inherently false? (Hint:all lead to the same demise)

~~Peter

***Now I know one would argue that the system would first have to be programmed but that is irrelevant. We are not talking about the programmer. We are talking about the system itself and the system will not change unless told to do so thus it is immutable.
KRFournier

Con

I appreciate my opponent's rapid responses, which I hope to address to their fullest herein.

Defense of Argument

In the event it is not obvious, my point-by-point argument is cumulative. That is, each point is not meant to stand in isolation from the others. Rather, each point follows from the preceding argument.

1. This is a logical argument.

This is the type of argument I am making: a logical one. This is in contrast to an evidential or moral argument.

2. Pro must use logical laws to refute this argument.

Since this is a logical argument, if it is going to be refuted at all, it must be refuted using logic alone.

3. In order for the refutation to be meaningful, logical laws must be abstract and absolute.

Logical laws must universally apply to everyone. That is to say, true cannot equal false under any circumstances. If logic is a convention of man, then it is not absolute, for these notions directly oppose each other since conventions can change. As soon as we allow for any possibility for logical laws to change, we rob them of their reliability and ability to lead to real truth.

Logical laws are not concrete objects. Logic is not composed of star dust or energy fluctuations. Sure, we may witness the logical laws at work in such things, but the laws of logic would not suddenly cease to exist if you removed all matter from the universe.

In short, logic must be abstract and absolute due to the impossibility of the contrary. I invite my opponent to show otherwise.

4. In order for logical laws to be abstract, they must be the product of thought, i.e., a mind.

Abstract entities are only accessible through thought. Indeed, this is what separates them from their concrete counterparts. However, human minds do not meet the preconditions necessary to make logical laws immutable, since no two minds are the same. Furthermore, individual human minds are subject to change due to either internal or external influences. Therefore, any mind that accounts for logical laws must itself be immutable.

Pro uses a red herring to cheat his way out of his burden. Consider his notion of a computer so advanced as to be able to uphold the entire universe. This computer is unchanging. Even if I grant my opponent this most super of all computers, is he not just giving an arbitrary name to God himself? In the end, we are both speaking of a super-natural entity governing our existence. Nevertheless, there is a better reason to believe that the entity is actually God, and not a computer.

A computer is, by definition, designed. To attribute logical laws to it does not automatically relieve Pro of his burden since he has simply heaped upon himself the burden of explaining how such a computer comes to exist in the first place. I am arguing that God exists. He is arguing that God does not, i.e., that I am imagining him. Is he really arguing that my God is imaginary using an imaginary computer?

Either Pro has a real explanation of logical laws without the need for God or he does not. An imaginary computer is not an explanation, just a cop out.

5. In order for this mind to produce absolute logical laws, it must be immutable.

If a mind can grow and change independently of logical laws, then the rational conclusion is that the mind in question did not produce those laws. In which case, there must be an even greater mind that produces them: one that is actually immutable. In other words, Pro has not refuted this point. Instead of making an effort to give an alternative account for logical laws, he simply assumes that logical laws exist independently of all thought. I ask Pro, if logical laws are not the product of an immutable mind, from whence do they come? And don't say a computer unless you actually intend to provide evidence for such a claim.

6. In order for this mind to be immutable, it must transcend nature (i.e., supernatural) and be unchanging.

Pro's point here employs the fallacy of redefinition. If there is indeed a computer that produces these laws, is Pro implying that it's a physical computer of some kind? Is it running in a virtual server cluster in Silicon Valley? I hardly see a need to point out the absurdity in such thinking. Yet, if this computer is The-Most-Holy-Super-Computer that governs the universe, then by definition it is super-natural. That is, it is outside of our cosmos.

7. The God of the Holy Bible meets the necessary precondition for an unchanging, supernatural mind.

As I've already discussed, Pro's computer theory is rife with fallacious thinking.

8. In order for Pro to refute this argument, God must exist.

If points 1 through 7 hold true, then logic is valid only because God exists. Therefore, any argument negating his existence is self-refuting, that is, they can only be true if they are false. My opponent is using logic laws, of which he cannot account, to refute the God that makes those very laws meaningful.

Pro's rebuttal on this point ignores the context of the point within the greater argument. He treats it as a point that stands alone, thereby employing the straw man fallacy. Any argument becomes weak when its premises are dismantled and refuted in isolation. In order to properly refute this point, Pro should be prepared to show how it does not follow from the previous seven points.

Conclusion

My argument attempts to account for logical laws. Pro's response is to dream up a super-computer that is an insufficient alternative at best and just another name for God at worst. He makes no effort to account for the reliability of logic in a universe without God. In so doing he begs the readers to assume logical laws are valid without God.

My arguments on the other hand are detailed and flow from point to point. Even if some readers are not themselves convinced of my conclusions, I surely hope they can see that I have taken greater care than my opponent at substantiating my claims.

Sources

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Debate Round No. 2
petersaysstuff

Pro

First off I want to thank my opponent.

#1&2 we ca ignore.

3:
//If logic is a convention of man, then it is not absolute//
The problem with what my opponent just said is that if there is even ONE man made logical construct that is absolute, his claim falls entirely.

//for these notions directly oppose each other since conventions can change.//
Also, logic is not necessarily a convention of man, logic is merely a way to discern something.

With this being said an absolute logical law is that 1>0.*** That is to say, that the number one is a bigger number than 0. This is never false. It is true in all social constructs, in all regions of the world. Everywhere. This is a man made logical law and it is not changing even if we change. Because I have given an example of an absolute logical law that man has derived yet it has not changed (and will not change) point 5 falls.
But allow me to give another for you. A+B=B+A.
Or another: If A=B and B=C....A=C.
Or another: If X then Y. X therefore Y. (If it is Wednesday I go to work. It is Wednesday therefore I go to work)

//In short, logic must be abstract and absolute due to the impossibility of the contrary. I invite my opponent to show otherwise.//
Well, I have shown that humans can create absolute logical laws and I might add my opponent seems to have inadvertently admitted this by saying "Sure, we may witness the logical laws at work in such things, but the laws of logic would not suddenly cease to exist if you removed all matter from the universe" meaning that the laws of logic we use to understand the Cosmos is absolute. But it was NOT god who gave us those laws. It is quite to the contrary. We discovered and formulated the laws that my opponent concedes are logical absolutes.

4:
//human minds do not meet the preconditions necessary to make logical laws immutable...//
The two minds do not need to be the same to make laws which hold true. Take the star example YOU gave as well as my limited list of examples above.

//Furthermore, individual human minds are subject to change due to either internal or external influences. Therefore, any mind that accounts for logical laws must itself be immutable.//
What? Ok so if we take this as true that means that when my opponent jumps up there is a chance he will float up since the logical law of gravity was formulated by a changing human mind. Is this what you are trying to argue? A mind does NOT have to be immutable for a law to be absolute. But let's do a test. I want all the voters to jump up. If they float up and away your assertion is correct. If they fall down I have shown that logical absolutes can exist via changeable human minds.

//is he not just giving an arbitrary name to God himself//
Not at all. If I were and you agreed that I was you would prove your own god wrong since your god has no body and a computer does.

//In the end, we are both speaking of a super-natural entity governing our existence.//
This is false again. I am not saying the computer created everything. I am merely saying that computers can be unchanging whilst formulating logical laws. I am not using a "red herring to cheat [my] way out of [my] burden". I am proposing an alternate possibility to your false dichotomy. You assert that god is the only immutable thing. But this is just not true.

//explaining how such a computer comes to exist in the first place//
*Copy-pasta from last round*
"***Now I know one would argue that the system would first have to be programmed but that is irrelevant. We are not talking about the programmer. We are talking about the system itself and the system will not change unless told to do so thus it is immutable."

//Is he really arguing that my God is imaginary using an imaginary computer?//
No. You missed the argument entirely. I am saying that your assertion is wrong. You claim the ONLY immutable thing is god and I am showing this is false. I am not trying to use to computer to disprove god, I am using it to show that your premise for proving him is fallacious.

//An imaginary computer is not an explanation, just a cop out.//
I am not trying to cop out. I am showing you that your premise, which I will repeat again, logical laws must come from immutable minds (false) and that immutable mind must be god. I am showing that there are other things that are immutable minds. Do you understand what I am arguing? I am showing your final premise, the assertion that god is the only immutable mind is false. You claiming it is a cop out is a way for you to not answer it. You have still not proven your god is the only immutable mind thus your main argument falls.

5:
//If a mind can grow and change independently of logical laws, then the rational conclusion is that the mind in question did not produce those laws.//
That is the rational conclusion? Not at all. A mind changes by learning things but it is still the same mind. Cross apply my argument from 3 that shows the another basic premise, immutable minds are the only thing that can produce logical absolutes, is flawed.

// In other words, Pro has not refuted this point.//
What? I have not refuted this point. Your claim rests on the assertion that the only thing that can produce logical abosolutes is an immutable mind but I have shown time and time again that this premise is flawed.

//I ask Pro, if logical laws are not the product of an immutable mind, from whence do they come?//
From a normal, human mind. Look at all my aforementioned examples.

//And don't say a computer...//
Oh my lordy lordy. I am using the computer as an example to show that your assertion that logical absolutes can ONLY come from god is a flawed premise. I have given another example of a thing from which they could come and you have yet to refute it thus I extend it.

6:
I employ a redefinition fallacy? Well you defined nothing except god soo....
I am saying that computers CAN produce logical laws.
My opponent then is claiming that the computer is supernatural. This just shows the fact that he is not understanding the argument I am making. I am showing that there are other ways to get logical laws, not just via god which you assert without thinking of anything else. The super computer does not govern the universe. What you are doing here is what is called a straw man. You are trying to claim I said something I never did and then refuting that. Please extend all my arguments showing that other things can be immutable and make logical laws.

7: Your "debunking" of my computer argument is a strawman and you have left the actual one intact. Try again?

I will hit 8 in my conclusion. (Regarding the definition, you should define you terms before we're halfway through)

Conclusion:

EXTEND THE I AM GOD argument please.

The basic premise of my opponent's argument is that humans cannot make logical absolutes which is just false. As shown above I have given examples of logical absolutes that humans have made (and my opponent has been kind enough to give me one) The fact that humans have made logical absolutes discredits my opponent's entire argument. Also, my opponent did minimal work on refuting my actual argument regarding the computer. He just stawmaned it.
Also, extend my argument that I am god which also disproves his point. There are now 3 things that refute him and let me add it would be unfair for my opponent to bring up new arguments now seeing as I have no chance to refute them.
He can defend his claims but bringing new arguments against old stuff is unfair to me.

Thank you and vote PRO.

***Here one might argue that this is not a logical law but it is. The definition of logic is: "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference."[1] and one would say a law is a rule. 1>0 by using this basic foundation we can investigate all other numbers thus it is logic that is being used and it is a law because it is a rule. Ergo, logical law.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
KRFournier

Con

Thanks to petersaysstuff for instigating the debate. I also want to thank him for making it three rounds for the benefit of our readers.

Defense of Argument

1. This is a logical argument.

Pro is tasked to refute an argument, so I gave him a logical one.

2. Pro must use logical laws to refute this argument.

My argument requires logical (philosophical) refutation, not evidential refutation.

3. In order for the refutation to be meaningful, logical laws must be abstract and absolute.

My opponent has listed several mathematical facts which will remain true everywhere for all time. Indeed, I agree this is true. I would never argue that logical laws are, in fact, malleable. Indeed, I'm sure everyone would agree they are not. That's my point. I am seeking to give a philosophical account for this fact. To say that man fabricated these laws does not account for the fact that they would be valid even if man hadn't thought of them in the first place.

In fact, notice Pro's own words, "We discovered and formulated the laws that my opponent concedes are logical absolutes." Discovered and formulated? If we discovered them, then we must not have formulated them. Moreover, discovery implies the laws exist independently of human thought. My opponent may not see the folly in his words, but I do hope the readers are more discerning. Of the two positions in this debate, I am giving a philosophical account for logic and my opponent wants to take it completely for granted. He says logical laws never change, but he never explains why.

4. In order for logical laws to be abstract, they must be the product of thought, i.e., a mind.

I am beginning to suspect my opponent has misunderstood the notion of logical laws. When I speak of logical laws, I am speaking primarily of the three classic laws attributed to Aristotle: the Law of Identity, the Law of Noncontradiction, and the Law of Excluded Middle. [1] That is, laws that govern reason.

The Law of Gravity is not a logical law; it is a law of physics. But since Pro brought it up, let's consider the similarities. In both cases, the law holds true no matter how much people think otherwise. To say then, that laws of logic are a human convention, is to undermine the utter independence of these laws. As Pro so aptly put it earlier, these laws are discovered.

In response to my critique that Pro is really giving another name to God, he says that he is merely trying to provide an alternative immutable entity, i.e., a computer. He says I am appealing to a false dichotomy, but I insist this is not the case. I am logically concluding the necessary precondition for abstract, absolute logic. For it to be absolute, it must come from something immutable. For it to be abstract, it must come from a mind. For it to be logic, that immutable and abstract mind must be rational.

A computer is not immutable if it is a physical computer in this cosmos because all physical computers decay. Therefore, even a physical super-computer cannot uphold the laws indefinitely. The only way such a computer would not decay is if it were super-natural. Furthermore, if the computer were not rational, then such a complex thing could only produce the laws of logic if some other being that is rational imbued those laws into it. If it is a rational computer, than we are ultimately talking about the same immutable thinking being.

My opponent says the programmer is irrelevant, but this just begs the question. He wants to win the debate by saying a computer fits the bill, but wants all criticism regarding this theory taken upon his word alone.

So, while Pro is insisting I do not understand his refutation, I am insisting he doesn't understand why his refutation falls woefully short. His theoretical computer is not a mind. It is not a sufficient precondition for logical laws. It is arbitrary. It lacks philosophical support.

5. In order for this mind to produce absolute logical laws, it must be immutable.

Pro says over and over that he has shown my premise is flawed. Since I am asserting his rebuttal is flawed, it will be up to the readers to decide. I will, however, say this. He says logical laws come from a normal human mind despite earlier claiming they were discovered only to later assert that a computer can fabricate them. Pro's position is arbitrary and unfocused.

6. In order for this mind to be immutable, it must transcend nature (i.e., supernatural) and be unchanging.

"I am saying that computers CAN produce logical laws."

I am being accused of straw man tactics, so let me be as simple as possible. If the computer is in a server warehouse in California, a computer cannot account for logical laws because it is not immutable. All physical objects decay over time. If the computer is in a non-decaying existence outside of our cosmos, then what exactly is this computer? If it thinks, is unchanging, and exists independently of our universe, than how is it anything more than a different name given to God himself?

Furthermore, it's a tad hypocritical for Pro to criticize me for only defining God in this debate when he can't even give us a concrete notion of what this computer is or why we should accept it as plausible. He just keeps saying, "a computer did it." Ipse dixit.

7. The God of the Holy Bible meets the necessary precondition for an unchanging, supernatural mind.

A computer simply fails this test as I've had to repeat throughout this round. God is rational. He is eternal. He is unchanging. He thinks. He is good. He is self-existent. He is reliable. All these qualities provide the best philosophical account for why logical laws are universally binding, ever present, and unmoving.

Pro has not offered a philosophically defensible alternative. Just because he can imagine an alternative and stick with it through thick and thin is to argue from imagination.

8. In order for Pro to refute this argument, God must exist.

I did address Pro's I-am-God argument when I dismissed due to the fact that it attempts to refute point 8 in isolation. Point 8 is meant to follow points 1 through 7. If Pro can refute my argument, it does not prove him to be God, that would be the fallacy of affirming the consequent. So the readers know that I did respond to Pro, here is a copy/paste from round two:

"If points 1 through 7 hold true, then logic is valid only because God exists. Therefore, any argument negating his existence is self-refuting, that is, they can only be true if they are false. My opponent is using logic laws, of which he cannot account, to refute the God that makes those very laws meaningful."

Conclusion

Pro is certain his computer theory blows my argument out of the water, yet he hasn't proffered his own account for the reliability of logic. He keeps saying human minds think it or a computer produces it, but he doesn't explain why such entities are able to maintain the immutability of logic. In fact, if you re-read his arguments, you can see that operates on the assumption that logic is and always will be reliable. In most cases, such an assumption would be valid. However, since the laws of logic are central to this debate, such an assumption begs the question.

I once again thank the readers for taking time to vote thoughtfully. While you are permitted to vote any way you wish, I truly hope you see the merits of my case and vote and my favor.

Sources

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Skyhook 5 years ago
Skyhook
Hey, KRFournier, I know I'm pretty late but this was an great debate. I know I can't vote, but if I could, it would be a 3:0 vote in favor of Con. Petersaystuff put a valiant effort, however, your defense of the logical argument was strong.

The computer analogy Pro brought up and how you handled it reminded me of William Lane Craig debating Lewis Wolpert who tried to defend a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent computer not realizing he was describing God. Great job to the both of you.
Posted by warpedfx 5 years ago
warpedfx
the thing with logical absolutes is that it's true regardless of whether people think them or not.
Posted by TdotSoul 5 years ago
TdotSoul
The problem is people spend too much time debating the NATURE of God to prove or disprove his existence. What ever clumsy terms we use to describe him and whatever paradoxes the use of those terms creates is a completely independent argument from the truth about his existence. It would be basically be impossible to ever prove without a doubt that God exists, I submit that there isn't even any evidence that he does not exist, because the evidence people tend to use just call into question the nature of God.. like "I can't see him" so the nature of God could be invisible in the visible light spectrum, or "why does he let babies die", well maybe he is malevolent, or maybe he understands something about life that we don't. The fact is, at its most basic level, the definition of God is a supernatural (transcends nature, not magical) consciousness that either created the universe or the laws which set things into motion. That being said, while there is no proof that God exists, there is evidence. You can pretty much use anything as evidence that God exists, wether people choose to accept that as proof is an individual choice. Also to say that the universe does not NEED God to exist, or that the existence of science means he doesn't exist is a fallacy. It is fully plausible that God created the laws on which science is based, and God may have a logical, scientific mind.
Posted by InquireTruth 5 years ago
InquireTruth
Not to mention the fact that the omnipotence "paradox" is necessarily self-refuting.
Posted by J.Kenyon 5 years ago
J.Kenyon
"J.Kenyon, why do people not take the omnipotence paradox seriously?"

Well, there's KRFournier's answer, which makes sense given his use of TAG. Then there's the simpler answer I prefer: omnipotence is just the ability to actualize any logically possible state of affairs. Making a rock so heavy God can't lift it is logically impossible. QED.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
Roy, aside from the omnipotence paradox being fairly meh as objections go, it wasn't brought up in the debate at all! How can your RFD be about an argument which wasn't used?!
Posted by petersaysstuff 5 years ago
petersaysstuff
J.Kenyon, why do people not take the omnipotence paradox seriously?
Posted by InquireTruth 5 years ago
InquireTruth
"I guess I can explain it in this way. Had there been any mind to observe it, they would have observed that two and two stones make up four stones. They may give different names to these concepts."

It seems reasonable that something like the aforementioned would exist absent human apprehension, but that is not what you said. You said that the concept of it would exist. Concepts have semantic content and are very hard to imagine as mind-independent entities. I am speaking specifically of abstractions, like numbers and logical laws. Logical laws and numbers have semantic content. In what way - metaphysical or otherwise - do these things exist independent of all apprehension?
Posted by J.Kenyon 5 years ago
J.Kenyon
Roy, how does your RFD have anything to do with the arguments actually presented in this debate? Do you seriously think the omnipotence paradox is a good argument? Most secular philosophers don't even take it seriously. I certainly don't. If you're going to bring your own arguments to the table, at least make it a good one, like the PoE or the argument from reasonable non-belief.
Posted by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
@RoyLatham, @baggins

Actually, God neither obeys logic or created it. My theological stance is that God is by nature, rational, and logic is a characteristic of him. Can he create a rock so large he cannot lift it? Yes, he can, even if it's a paradox. The point is, he has the ability to all things. Would he? No, he wouldn't. According to Christian theology, God never does anything that would deny himself. That is, he never acts contrary to his character. He is a logical being.

Once you have a being that has ALL power and is PERFECT in nature, our notions of can and cannot become inadequate in accurately describing his abilities. God is perfectly unchanging, so he NEVER will do certain things, even though he has the power to do them. So, it's equivalent to saying he CAN'T do those things, in so far as our language in concerned.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
petersaysstuffKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job with the TAG by pro. Nice try by con but he was unable to refute it.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
petersaysstuffKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Can God make a rock so large he cannot lift it? No, because God must obey logic. I don't see how the Deist God can be refuted, but Con didn't argue that.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
petersaysstuffKRFournierTied
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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Excellent presenation by KRFournier, at times this seemed more like a lecture than a debate. 2 pt for Peter for the ambitious topic and hanging in there with one of the stronger debaters on DDO. 5:2
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 5 years ago
InquireTruth
petersaysstuffKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Petersaysstuff never stepped to the plate, perhaps because he never quite understood what it was, and explained the ontology of metaphysical abstractions absent a transcendental mind. His arguments were to propositions that could remain true without changing the conclusion of KRFournier's round 1 syllogism.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
petersaysstuffKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm kind of going back and forth on this. Con had the better argument, though I think that there was a minor flaw in it, so I was going to give the points to Pro, however, Pro never exposed those flaws and so I can't give them to him. Con's argument never supports the Christian God, but merely something defined as an immutible logic law creator. Pro could have shown that the Christian God does not meet this, based on the bible. Had Con gone with a generic God not of a religion... see comment
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
petersaysstuffKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: There is at least one flaw in Con's argument. In premise 4, he argues that abstract logical laws must be product of mind. Not necessarily. 2 2 = 4 is true even without a mind. We need a mind to understand it. There is another way of looking at it. This logical argument is a product of Con's mind. Since his mind is mutable, that means his logic is not abstract and absolute. Why does he expect that kind of rebuttal then.