The Instigator
condeelmaster
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
GoOrDin
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

We cannot know reality without the Christian God

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,206 times Debate No: 85852
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (57)
Votes (0)

 

condeelmaster

Con

I challenged ViceRegent to this debate but He cowardly declined It. Anyway, I thought this could be an interesting debate to have with anybody.


Rules:

1- Pro has the burden of proof. Pro has to logically prove that without the Christian God we cannot know anything.

2- Not acceptance in first round. Directly into arguments please.

3- Definitions (the following definitions should be used throughout the debate and cannot be changed without previous arrange):

Knowing: Is when a cognizant subject apprehends an object of knowing.

Apprehending: Is the process where the cognizant subject creates a mental representation of the knowing object.

Reality: What exists or what isn't false, fake or apparent.

Christian God: The god described in the Bible and worshiped by Christians.



Good luck to my opponent. Cheers!


Note: Definitions were extrected from: Diccionario de Filosofia (Dictionary of Philosophy) by José Ferrater Mora

GoOrDin

Pro

You Lose buddy.

The Christian God, is a contingent part of our psyche, our culture, our heritage, economy, our day to day lives and much much more. That aspect of the Christian God, regardless of his personal representation. SO we cannot Exist without him, that is confirmed fact. He is here, we are here - the end.

likewise, we can no longer live without Harry Potter and the PowerPuff Girls, for better or worse.

However, I will thoroughly love hearing your arguments before I bring the full calamity of Theology to the table. I fear, the more you present means there is only more for me to obliterate. I can scientifically and Philosophically dispel any disillusionment to the holy truth, Lest you block your ears and refuse to listen.
Debate Round No. 1
condeelmaster

Con

Thanks for accepting the challenge!

First I will rebut Pro's arguments. Remember that being successful in debunking Pro's arguments is enough because Pro has the burden of proof. However I will give some further arguments against the necessity of a god to be able to know.


Rebuttals

"The Christian God, is a contingent part of our psyche, our culture, our heritage, economy, our day to day lives and much much more. That aspect of the Christian God, regardless of his personal representation. SO we cannot Exist without him, that is confirmed fact. He is here, we are here - the end."

I really love this part:" we cannot Exist without him, that is confirmed fact"

It isn't a fact that we can't exist without god. That's just a belief, one that I can respect, but a belief at the end. Presenting beliefs and subjective statements like facts isn't just a fallacy but also morally incorrect.


" we can no longer live without Harry Potter and the PowerPuff Girls, for better or worse."

I don't think this provides anything to the debate, but is still an statement without any argument. Just an empty statement.

The last paragraph is just a demonstration of arrogance. This doesn't serve to prove Pro's stance in any way and should be noticed in the conduct point.


I showed that the whole argument of Pro was invalid and argument less, anyway I will give more argumentation.


My arguments

There are plenty of different arguments which prove we can know reality without any god. Here are some...

Empiricism

The philosophical stance that knowledge comes only from the senses. Basically, I can know reality, not because god but because I feel reality. I can know reality by using my senses and only that.

I know that the first thing you could think about this is "sometimes my senses fail me, sometimes I see things in a way but then I realise that they weren't like that".
This is an intelligent thought. It's true that our sense fail us sometimes. However, senses mistake with what is "far and less sensible" (Descartes). In contrast, they don't make mistakes with what is "close and more sensible" (again Descartes).
The perceptions I receive from this reality are pretty strong, close and sensible to make me sure that I know reality.

Summarizing, We cannot doubt of our senses. They might mistake when I think someone far away is A but actually is B, but they can't mistake in the short range. Is indubitable that I'm with my laptop, writing this speech, right know.

Solipsism

The philosophical stance that only one's mind exists. If the only thing that exists is my mind, God doesn't exists. And I can know myself(duh). Ergo, I can know reality without God.

The good old "Cogito.Ergo,sum.". The Descartes' argument is quite famous but, but I will expose It anyway.

If I doubt about my existence I'm thinking.
If I think I exist (because to do something you must exist).
Therefore, I exist.

This is the only knowable thing, the only statement of which I cannot doubt.

Constructivism

Constructivism proposes that knowledge is a sort of collection of human made constructions. This means that knowledge is created by the human interpretation of sensory experience. Thus, no need of God, because knowledge is human made.

I have more arguments favouring my position but I will leave them for next rounds.


Conclusions

Pro's arguments were successfully refuted and new arguments against the resolution were proposed.
The resolution is negated.





GoOrDin

Pro

Apologies, I do not feel compelled to make remarks concerning my opponents arguments: Empiricism is nonsense, because it suggests reality has no bearings without a witness, that is delusional by definition; Solipsism is the idea that there is no reality but the mind, which is also delusional BUT clearly suggests God as the Only valid option; Constructivism refutes the fact that rue knowledge is based on facts and is not fabricated... I feel as though my opponent is trying to make a joke of everyone else by pretending that he is opposed to God.

Now an argument for God.
Just because you cannot personally perceive something doesn't mean that it is unperceivable. Moreover, just because you have not perceived something does not mean that it is not perceivable. as we discussed.

So, Creation is a scientific fact. The third day of creation is scientifically provable and proven. There is a troll host on the internet, and a womanizer host in the population and government that prevent it from circulating as it would impair a man's ability to seduce prostitutes and harlots and hire prostitutes, However
~ when the planet expanded on the third day of creation it left a geological mark. Prior to light was matter, and when the matter had accumulated in a ball with the least dense matter enveloping it, the perfect conditiona rose for Light/electricity to stir and it did ~what? = It took the path of least resistance, while clinging to matter, molecularized the sky and ocean and then went into the earth.
...
The eggs were created for all egged things by drawing on the immediate premises to establish DNA that was ascociable with this holistic entity that was the newly born earth etc... Then ont he 6th day animals were Fully developed formt his r

I spent 53 minutes wrting a response...a dn didn't connect tot he internet to post it... and now I have 8127 characters left here.... So... we'lls ee how I lose points based on your responses contributions.

Creation is a fact and thus The Christian God is a Fact.

DAMN I went all out ,and added so much stuff XD next round
Debate Round No. 2
condeelmaster

Con

"Apologies, I do not feel compelled to make remarks concerning my opponents arguments:"

As you can see, my opponent starts with a demonstration of arrogance and unwillingness towards this debate.


"Empiricism is nonsense, because it suggests reality has no bearings without a witness"

This is not an argument but a simple statement without reasoning. Scientific theories are based upon the fact that reality has no bearings without a witness, and the significance of the observer. So empiricism is still valid.


"Solipsism is the idea that there is no reality but the mind, which is also delusional BUT clearly suggests God as the Only valid option"

Firstly, Pro gives no explanation why the idea that there is no reality but the mind is delusional. Secondly, is non sequitur to say that solipsism means the only valid option is god. If the only thing which exists is your mind then god does not exist or you are god. The most logical is the former. So solipsism is also still valid.


"Constructivism refutes the fact that rue knowledge is based on facts and is not fabricated"

This is just a confirmation of what constructivism is, so at least Pro did read my argument. No rebuttals here, so constructivism is still valid.


" I feel as though my opponent is trying to make a joke of everyone else by pretending that he is opposed to God."

Now Pro proceeds to attack me and underestimate me. This provides nothing to the debate and should be taken into account for the conduct point.


"Just because you cannot personally perceive something doesn't mean that it is unperceivable. Moreover, just because you have not perceived something does not mean that it is not perceivable. as we discussed"

I never said that. However this is not a proof of the existence of god. If this proves god, then this also proves the existence of unicorns, aliens, all the god that people talk about, monsters, ghosts, imaginary friends, whatever you can imagine. I mean, just because you cannot personally perceive unicorns doesn't mean that unicorns don't exist, unicorn actually exist. This is the reasoning of Pro, as you can see absurd.


"So, Creation is a scientific fact. The third day of creation is scientifically provable and proven. There is a troll host on the internet, and a womanizer host in the population and government that prevent it from circulating as it would impair a man's ability to seduce prostitutes and harlots and hire prostitutes, However
~ when the planet expanded on the third day of creation it left a geological mark. Prior to light was matter, and when the matter had accumulated in a ball with the least dense matter enveloping it, the perfect conditiona rose for Light/electricity to stir and it did ~what? = It took the path of least resistance, while clinging to matter, molecularized the sky and ocean and then went into the earth."


This is just pure chatter. All of what is stated here does not have a logical argument nor a scientific base, just pure chatter. Obviously, invalid.


"The eggs were created for all egged things by drawing on the immediate premises to establish DNA that was ascociable with this holistic entity that was the newly born earth etc... Then ont he 6th day animals were Fully developed formt his r"

This is the same as the previous one, just chatter without a logical argument. In this one Pro doesn't even finishes the idea, I can't imagine what would have he written after the "r", but I don't think that single word would justify all the others.


Conclusion of the rebuttals:

Con did not made any reasoned rebuttal to my arguments. He then tried to prove the existence of god which isn't the debate's resolution (actually the resolution is We cannot know reality without the Christian God). Anyway, He couldn't give a logical argument to defend this stance. So, Pro couldn't prove his point and I could give valid arguments against his point. Thus, the resolution was negated. However, I will give some more arguments against the resolution, just to give even more strength to my point.


Rationalism

Proposes that the center of the knowing process is the reason. This stance says that we can get new knowledge by intuition or deduction. Deduction is when we link previous intuitions with logical arguments. Intuition is an a priori knowledge. This intuitions are part of our DNA, part of the human nature. So here you have another way of knowing reality without the necessity of god.

Pragmatism

This philosophical tradition argues that knowledge is a tool, and that truth must be evaluated by how well it can predict phenomena. As far as I know, you don't need god to predict phenomena, just some maths and physics. So there's another way of knowing reality without god.

Logical positivism

This philosophy believes that the only cognitively meaningful statements are the ones which can be empirically verified. My knowledge of reality(which did not need god) can be verified empirically, what I perceive as reality is what others perceive, so there you have your verification. This theory does not only directly prove my point, but also proves the non existence of god. God can't be empirically verified, so god does not exist.


Final conclusion

I gave plenty of different arguments that negate the resolution. On the other hand, Pro did not give any valid argument to support the resolution. Ergo, the resolution is negated, vote Con.
GoOrDin

Pro

Philosophy is, The way that the mind works. Not what causes it to work. Philosophy addresses communication tactics, behavioural causes and consequences, and practical thinking. Philosophy does not address what makes thinking possible.
The following examples are philosophies, not explanations for What allows us to (How) we think.

"What allows us to think" is the debate am I correct? ? ?? [Your conclusion being that, " we do not need the Christian God in order for something within our reality to have the capacity to think?]
Otherwise. I'll address the topic of Philosophy in this argument regardless.

Logical Positivism:
Cognitively Meaningful statements are only ones which have been empirically verified.
{Empirically verified = that which follows a formal communication pattern which address the facts, and over look nothing of relevance as an attempt to disillusion the content of the discussion or lead to delusion.}
Logical Positivism does not express What gives us Capacity to use Logical Positivism; and therefor does not express How we can know something without God.
Logical Positivism does not disprove God, IN any way. You do not know what is beside me, you can't figure it out if I do not respond, and yet... It's there.

Pragmatism: = Prophecy
Does not express What enables us to use Pragmatism ~ How we know things.

Rationalism:
This did not express HOW we are capable of using reason. It simply states that you must use reason in order to Know something, and so you can prophecy, and come to conclusions without observation. Fact.

These three philosophies however true, do not explain How we are Capable of intelligence. But only express what intelligence is.

Empiricism: is not a philosophy, it is an idea, a concept or a " theory".
Empiricism does not explain WHY you can feel, or why you can think. However knowledge does only come from the senses Intellect does not.

Solipsism: is also not a philosophy but also is a "theory".
The idea that only your mind exists IS literally delusional, and that is proven. I am not required to disprove Solipsism here. If you said the sky was magenta, I could simply disregard your claim and let that speak for itself. It however does not express how Solipsism has the capacity to be real.

Constructivism: Constructivism is a concept.
It explains the schematic of the brain. Knowledge However can only be true or it is not knowledge. I can know about Unicorns because the concept of a unicorn exists and the knowable facts applied to the fictitious creature are distinguishable. However, there is no indication that God is not a requirement for this capacity to be present here either.

God:
Omnipresent, - in all things; Physical, imaginary & theoretical.
Omnipotent, - immune to predatory threats, and inheritor/possessor/recipient of all rewards and victories.
All-knowing, - aware of the consequences and mathematical outcomes of all events within Knowable parameters.
Merciful, - accommodating of potential for repentance and penance.
Loving, - provider of all provisions.
Jealous, - biased towards his greater prosperity, and holding enmity to a desolate profit.
&
Wrathful, - relentlessly moved to destroy that which obstructs his prosperity, even unto a greater desolation, to ensure that maximum potential is attainable, even if Maximum is now lower then a pervious Minor.

These are the universal qualities of God which have been presented as the Nature of God in all cultures, eras and religions world wide. I am not talking about god, God.
PS. Hinduism is a Henotheist religion, and only has one God, Greek mythology also is henotheist, and so is Norse, Egyptian, Tartar etc.

These natures of God have been evaluated to be factual elements of Our Reality and the Entity which factually exists, and can only be associated within our Diction, Grammar and Vocabulary as being " Spiritual" (Unearthly: Not bound to restraints from an exterior force.). And that Is What God is. God is thus;
Physics, Matter, Philosophy/theory, the laws of nature and morals, And all other aspects of reality.
This unstipulable nature of God has been very thoroughly expressed, proven and exalted as True Wisdom since the beginning of recorded history unto the end,

It is referred to as enlightenment ~ acknowledgement of reality in a HOLISTIC manner.

Only selfish bigots, perverts, insolent brats, pompous fools, inconsiderate morons (moron meaning.. Google it. LOL), Spiteful mopes, and undignified shrewds Have ever denied God and not seen the wisdom in it, or lacked the efforts necessary to comprehend it. {all criminal justification, corrupt behaviour, insolent selfishness, pompous indignity is an act of spite towards God for Not expressing himself. Which is essentially blackmailing God.}

BUT, Because God is defined as the Nature of Reality, and all that which supports it and is in effect the result of all actions, as well as being the prosperous ideology and imaginary concepts to ensue. GOD, which IS That God of Christianity IS Necessary to KNOW anything.

As anything contrary to the truth is not knowledge. God is that truth by definition. God is that knowing in nature. He is the foundation of our senses according to scriptures definition of God. He presents reality, and is defined as THAT (the actual) force which establishes and sustains reality.

THis is the historical application of the Term God, and when addressed Holistically it becomes even more Enlightening, Awesome, Exponentially Grandeur and entirely anti-Atheistic.

God IS. However, although rambling about the 5th and 6th day of creation were Chatter. When the planet expanded from within itself on the Third Day of Creation because it was previously in darkness and nothing was molecularized because the perceived element of "Light" had yet to be present there, It left Geological Proof ~ which supports no contrary theory, concept or idea. It is even more-so evaluable as being true because of the validity of the second day, the First, and the fourth {thus presenting enough scientifically verifiable evidence to evaluate the 5th and 6th day with confidence and understand a spontaneous creation of DNA {DNA requires a cell to replicate or sustain itself, and a Cell cannot exist without DNA. But both being a part of the same spontaneous creation is factually logical. Where as anything contrary is Factually lacking evidence or scientific method.} }
SO, because Creation is Proveable. The Christian GOD is determined to be the Only way we CAN actually Think.

I anticipate your reply. Please read this argument twice prior to responding to ensure you are aware of my statements. I also request that you use the statement section to discuss anything which seems like a riddle. It is good to from an accord [indicating that fi we do not agree, we at least understand each other] prior to continuing forward.
Debate Round No. 3
condeelmaster

Con

"Philosophy does not address what makes thinking possible."

I know this is a back to school thing but one of the branches of philosophy is epistemology. Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge. Epistemology studies what knowledge is, how we acquire it, and what makes us capable of knowing. As you can see, the statement of Pro is absolutely false.


"Logical Positivism does not express What gives us Capacity to use Logical Positivism; and therefor does not express How we can know something without God."


False. Logical positivism states that we can know by making empirical experiments. And as you know, God cannot be empirically proved because, supposing he exists, he is not physical, so you can't make an empirical proof of god.


"Logical Positivism does not disprove God,"

I'm not trying to disprove god, that is not the topic of this debate. What I'm proposing here is that god is not necessary to know, thus if god did not exist, we could still know reality.


"Pragmatism: = Prophecy
Does not express What enables us to use Pragmatism ~ How we know things"

False again. Pragmatism expresses that we know reality by comparing which piece of knowledge has better capacities of explaining and predicting phenomena. If you compare theories that argue in favour of god with atheist theories you will see the later are better at explaining and predicting phenomena. If we guided our knowledge by Christianity, we would still think that the earth is plane and that we are the center of the universe, thus we would be far from knowing reality.


"Rationalism:
This did not express HOW we are capable of using reason. It simply states that you must use reason in order to Know something, and so you can prophecy, and come to conclusions without observation. Fact."

Read my last argument carefully: "This stance says that we can get new knowledge by intuition or deduction. Deduction is when we link previous intuitions with logical arguments. Intuition is an a priori knowledge. This intuitions are part of our DNA, part of the human nature."

It expresses how we are capable of knowing, it says that we know by deducting or by intuiting. And this again is part of human nature, not something given by god.



"These three philosophies however true, do not explain How we are Capable of intelligence. But only express what intelligence is"

I've already proved you are wrong by saying this. The three explain how we are capable of knowing and how we know.


"Empiricism does not explain WHY you can feel, or why you can think. However knowledge does only come from the senses Intellect does not."

I recommend you to read Hume, just to have a little grasp of empiricism. Feeling and thinking is part of human nature, we evolved in a way we are now capable of feeling and thinking. Empiricism does not say that all knowledge comes from senses, but that the ultimate source of knowledge is our senses. We can know by feeling (impressions) or by reasoning about what we have felt(ideas).


"The idea that only your mind exists IS literally delusional"

According to you. You don't give any evidence supporting this.


" Knowledge However can only be true or it is not knowledge"

False. This is a rather antique vision of knowing. In the past, logicians talked about two values of truth: true or false. However this is outdated. Nowadays, logicians talk about multiple values of truth: the degree of truth depends on the probability of the sentences being true. Then, knowledge can be partially true and still be knowledge.



"However, there is no indication that God is not a requirement for this capacity to be present here( in constructivism)"

But there is no indication that god is a requirement either.


God:

Omnipotent: god cannot be omnipotent. Remember the paradox? Can god create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? If you say yes, then god is not omnipotent because he can't lift that rock. If you say no, then god is not omnipotent because he can't create that rock. Ergo, god cannot be omnipotent.

All knowing and All loving: god cannot be both things. If he know everything, then why doesn't he apply his loving characteristic and solve the problems of everyone? If god is so loving, why is he letting people suffer? He doesn't have the excuse of not knowing what people suffer because he is all knowing. So, he is all knowing and evil or not all knowing but all loving.

Wrathful and all loving: again, he can't be both. If he is all loving he can't be positive about destroying living things.

As you can observe now, the Christian god cannot exist, because nothing with such contradicted characteristics can exists.


"These are the universal qualities of God which have been presented as the Nature of God in all cultures, eras and religions world wide. I am not talking about god, God."


We are talking about the Christian god. If you want to defend that we need some god(not the Christian) to know, then do it in other debate.


" God is thus;
Physics, Matter, Philosophy/theory, the laws of nature and morals, And all other aspects of reality."

Tell me, how you prove this? Pro is not giving any evidence, proof or argument to support this statement. Then, it's invalid.


"Only selfish bigots, perverts, insolent brats, pompous fools, inconsiderate morons (moron meaning.. Google it. LOL), Spiteful mopes, and undignified shrewds Have ever denied God and not seen the wisdom in it, or lacked the efforts necessary to comprehend it. "

Now Pro proceeds to insult and attack people who don't believe in god. This doesn't provide anything to the debate.


"BUT, Because God is defined as the Nature of Reality, and all that which supports it and is in effect the result of all actions, as well as being the prosperous ideology and imaginary concepts to ensue. GOD, which IS That God of Christianity IS Necessary to KNOW anything."

Again, just empty preaching. Pro gives no proof to support this. He is just saying "God is necessary to know because he is great". In the same manner I could have said "God is not necessary to know because I just talked to him and he said so". How could I prove that? I can't prove that in any way. The same applies with Pro's argument.


Pro then proceeds to express more empty preaching. I encourage him to give proof of what he says next time.


Conclusion


So far in this debate, Pro did not post any argument defending his point. He instead gave some preaching about what god is, but without giving any proof or solid reasoning. Pro contention until now is that god is everything, thus god is knowledge, thus we need god to know. How he proves this? He does not prove anything.
On the other hand, I gave several ways of knowing reality that do not require the existences of a god.
Summarizing, there's no conclusive evidence supporting the necessity of god for knowing, but there is supporting the unnecessity. Ergo, the resolution is negated.
GoOrDin

Pro

Re-read all previous arguments to evaluate your second appraisal
to any preconceived notions you may have had the first time.

Reference the context of the debate, and the methods which were applied
when responding to each characteristic of the opponents arguments.

Read the discussion article to find resolutions and further details regarding
each argument as they became made, and any "apparent" lack of acknowledgement.

All in All. It is important when considering something that you have little insight in,
or are biased towards one side, or maybe have not considered the content prior,
To analyse the methods by which the information was presented, applied and responded to.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
condeelmaster

Con

Thanks to Pro for wasting last round.

Remember that the burden of proof is on Pro. However he gave no arguments whatsoever to support his point. He just talked about the need of a creator, which I showed is nonsense. Then he claimed there's a god, without any evidence. However, I proved his god is impossible to exist cause there are some contradictions in its definition.

I gave plenty of evidence showing that we do not need god to know reality. I think it's enough. The resolution is truly and absolutely negated, and I can say I know this without the necessity of god hahaha....

Hope that Pro gives some true logical argument at least in the last round.....
GoOrDin

Pro

The 3 Philosophies presented by my opponent did not disprove that God was a necessary component of their functioning.
The 3 theories he presented first hand were Not facts, but also did not disprove God's presence. As God, by definition - with no further parameters - is what gives those theories causality.

Furthermore I presented the fact that we can discern the validity of one God over another, because Creation is substantially provable through science. The planet left a geographical mark when it expanded from within itself on the third day of creation, which is through the science of physics Factually the event which would take place given the model of creation when applied to the laws of physics: ~ there was darkness (no perceived element of Light, as it is today) yet there was matter, and the World (which was the least dense molecules entirely enveloping the denser) presented the perfect condition for Light to become manifest. It (the light) then took the path of least resistance while always clinging o something (the studied behaviour of energy) and molecularized the gaseous and liquid elements, and once it reached the bottom of the Ocean began to expand the earth itself. Which can be proven to have taken place through geology.

Furthermore I explained the nature of God's basic parameters: That love does not oppose wrath. That omnipotence does not oppose all-knowing.
But My opponent decided to address those Aspects of God's personality/being as being Oxymoron's, which is not true. And disregarded the aspects of those attributes which make God the Agent which gives Thought functionality and the substances of Stipulation(knowledge).

But to be frank; My first clause that: The undefined parameters of "The Christian God" - whether fully perceived, or only partially alluded to - are assuredly a portion of his reality and thus if Were not real, as they are a contingent part of his reality, His entire existence would be Not.
I elaborated this in the conversation thread if anyone cares to look into it more ~ That in an atheistic perspective of reality, where everything is Thus dependant on Math alone to determine all events, The Christian God is still present as a Notion, Imposing, known in every language, and being the most influential agent of Human ethics, society and Culture.

So to close my final argument I would like to add with elation, that My God has a very influential role in my life as a personal friend, as he is the friend of many peoples around the world today, & That Throughout this debate we are not breaking Grounds in philosophical debates: BUT THAT These debates have been very thoroughly discussed, studied and debated throughout Spanish, French, English, Italian, Greek, German, Slavic, Iranian, Hebrew, Indian, Chinese, Punjab and varying other cultures throughout history & they have all come tot he same conclusion that: God, by definition is the Agent by which humanity Thinks.

Thank You.

Amen brotha's

and to make a point, I was very pragmatic. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
yet You did not back any of your theories in your first post. and regardless they did not support your Initial claim that you do not need God, the agent which enables those functions - as being the defined parameters of the word, "God" - in specific reference to the Christian and global application of the term .
Posted by condeelmaster 1 year ago
condeelmaster
I recommend you to read " Argumentation for dummies", just to get you started...
Posted by condeelmaster 1 year ago
condeelmaster
Read before talking. Know something before start the none sense chatter.

"When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. "

"An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false "

And just someone saying " god exists and god is this way" doesn't prove anything.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
1:49:45 is openly states. but the entire video explains the nature of God. The God of Abraham. Krishna
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
Umm.. You are trying to disprove the necessity of God. LOL burden of proof is always shared in a debate.
Posted by condeelmaster 1 year ago
condeelmaster
the burden of proof is in the one trying to prove something, not in the one trying to disprove. So don't try to avoid the burden of proof cause it's on you .
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
I didn't preach. I gave definitions and an explanation of the parameters of God.

Anyways. thanks for finishing up your last round arguments. I'll get around to this later today.

However in All debate both parties share burden of proof. Your burden was to prove God was not a necessary component of Knowing things.

I will continue to review my pervious arguments indicating that the Philosophies and theories you presented did not factual indicate that God was not a mechanic of their function, and restate the arguments I made.
Posted by condeelmaster 1 year ago
condeelmaster
come one man!! stop preaching and start to argument. No one can respect you if you don't reason, if you can't give evidence of what you say.
I can't take you seriously no more man!
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
One should not allow themselves to be blind-sided by disillusionment.
No votes have been placed for this debate.