Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Debate Me on "God Exists" - Sign Ups

tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Anybody wants to debate me as Pro on the topic "God Likely Exists", with God being defined as: "a supernaturally powerful, transcendent, intelligent and immensely great creator of the universe", sign up here!

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Le-vox-von-zhizn
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 10:18:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:
Anybody wants to debate me as Pro on the topic "God Likely Exists", with God being defined as: "a supernaturally powerful, transcendent, intelligent and immensely great creator of the universe", sign up here!

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

You do know that religion= faith not fact. So it can't be 100% proven nor can it be 100% disproven.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 10:49:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 10:18:33 AM, Le-vox-von-zhizn wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:
Anybody wants to debate me as Pro on the topic "God Likely Exists", with God being defined as: "a supernaturally powerful, transcendent, intelligent and immensely great creator of the universe", sign up here!

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

You do know that religion= faith not fact. So it can't be 100% proven nor can it be 100% disproven.

God *Likely* Exists will be the debate title.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 11:16:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 11:14:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:

You should ask Ajab.

He challenged me and we prepared for it, but I ultimately declined because I could only argue against a God who is the creator of the universe ...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 11:17:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 11:16:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:14:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:

You should ask Ajab.

He challenged me and we prepared for it, but I ultimately declined because I could only argue against a God who is the creator of the universe ...

Isn't that what he argues for?
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 12:10:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 11:17:18 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:16:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:14:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:

You should ask Ajab.

He challenged me and we prepared for it, but I ultimately declined because I could only argue against a God who is the creator of the universe ...

Isn't that what he argues for?

No, he argues for a supernaturally powerful, transcendent being as God, but not a creator.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 12:13:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 12:10:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:17:18 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:16:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:14:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:

You should ask Ajab.

He challenged me and we prepared for it, but I ultimately declined because I could only argue against a God who is the creator of the universe ...

Isn't that what he argues for?

No, he argues for a supernaturally powerful, transcendent being as God, but not a creator.

Oh, okay.

I personally don't know how to logically justify God as something other than creator - if something is supernaturally powerful, but not transcendent, how could it not be the author of, say, the laws of physics or the natural world? It begs the question, to me, of what possibly could be, and of course the necessity of such a being.

Then again, Ajab usually seeks to prove God ontologically, though not empirically, because he acknowledges that it isn't exactly an empirical question, so the difference probably lies therein.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 12:13:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Oops, I don't know where "not transcendent" came from, but it's the same general point: if A and B, shouldn't C logically follow?
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 12:16:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 12:13:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:10:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:17:18 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:16:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:14:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:

You should ask Ajab.

He challenged me and we prepared for it, but I ultimately declined because I could only argue against a God who is the creator of the universe ...

Isn't that what he argues for?

No, he argues for a supernaturally powerful, transcendent being as God, but not a creator.

Oh, okay.

I personally don't know how to logically justify God as something other than creator - if something is supernaturally powerful, but not transcendent, how could it not be the author of, say, the laws of physics or the natural world? It begs the question, to me, of what possibly could be, and of course the necessity of such a being.

Exactly.


Then again, Ajab usually seeks to prove God ontologically, though not empirically, because he acknowledges that it isn't exactly an empirical question, so the difference probably lies therein.

I forgot you have done God debates before =)
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 12:17:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 12:13:56 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Oops, I don't know where "not transcendent" came from, but it's the same general point: if A and B, shouldn't C logically follow?

It's impossible for me to imagine you discussing philosophy .... you should be proud of and disgusted at yourself simultaneously XD
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 12:18:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 12:16:26 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:13:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:10:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:17:18 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:16:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:14:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:

You should ask Ajab.

He challenged me and we prepared for it, but I ultimately declined because I could only argue against a God who is the creator of the universe ...

Isn't that what he argues for?

No, he argues for a supernaturally powerful, transcendent being as God, but not a creator.

Oh, okay.

I personally don't know how to logically justify God as something other than creator - if something is supernaturally powerful, but not transcendent, how could it not be the author of, say, the laws of physics or the natural world? It begs the question, to me, of what possibly could be, and of course the necessity of such a being.

Exactly.


Then again, Ajab usually seeks to prove God ontologically, though not empirically, because he acknowledges that it isn't exactly an empirical question, so the difference probably lies therein.

I forgot you have done God debates before =)

Very few, lol, but I haven't really gotten too far into the nuts and bolts. I think I know Ajab's argument, though...

(1) If an idea exists in cognition, it is either true or necessarily false
(2) If it's false, it's imagined
(3) If it's true, it's either innate (as distinct from a priori) or empirical
(4) God isn't imagined, because it's a simple idea that can't be broken down further
(5) God isn't an empirical idea - we can't physically prove his existence because he's independent on the natural world
(6) Therefore, he must be an innate idea

I think that's it, lol.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 12:18:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 12:17:21 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:13:56 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Oops, I don't know where "not transcendent" came from, but it's the same general point: if A and B, shouldn't C logically follow?

It's impossible for me to imagine you discussing philosophy .... you should be proud of and disgusted at yourself simultaneously XD

LOL.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 12:18:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 12:18:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:16:26 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:13:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:10:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:17:18 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:16:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:14:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:

You should ask Ajab.

He challenged me and we prepared for it, but I ultimately declined because I could only argue against a God who is the creator of the universe ...

Isn't that what he argues for?

No, he argues for a supernaturally powerful, transcendent being as God, but not a creator.

Oh, okay.

I personally don't know how to logically justify God as something other than creator - if something is supernaturally powerful, but not transcendent, how could it not be the author of, say, the laws of physics or the natural world? It begs the question, to me, of what possibly could be, and of course the necessity of such a being.

Exactly.


Then again, Ajab usually seeks to prove God ontologically, though not empirically, because he acknowledges that it isn't exactly an empirical question, so the difference probably lies therein.

I forgot you have done God debates before =)

Very few, lol, but I haven't really gotten too far into the nuts and bolts. I think I know Ajab's argument, though...

(1) If an idea exists in cognition, it is either true or necessarily false
(2) If it's false, it's imagined
(3) If it's true, it's either innate (as distinct from a priori) or empirical
(4) God isn't imagined, because it's a simple idea that can't be broken down further
(5) God isn't an empirical idea - we can't physically prove his existence because he's independent on the natural world
(6) Therefore, he must be an innate idea

I think that's it, lol.

Yup.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2015 3:47:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:
Anybody wants to debate me as Pro on the topic "God Likely Exists", with God being defined as: "a supernaturally powerful, transcendent, intelligent and immensely great creator of the universe", sign up here!

1. Envisage
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 12:27:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 3:47:09 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:
Anybody wants to debate me as Pro on the topic "God Likely Exists", with God being defined as: "a supernaturally powerful, transcendent, intelligent and immensely great creator of the universe", sign up here!

1. Envisage
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Wow, that'll be interesting, though you'll destroy me.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 3:15:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 12:13:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:10:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:17:18 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:16:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:14:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:

You should ask Ajab.

He challenged me and we prepared for it, but I ultimately declined because I could only argue against a God who is the creator of the universe ...

Isn't that what he argues for?

No, he argues for a supernaturally powerful, transcendent being as God, but not a creator.

Oh, okay.

I personally don't know how to logically justify God as something other than creator - if something is supernaturally powerful, but not transcendent, how could it not be the author of, say, the laws of physics or the natural world? It begs the question, to me, of what possibly could be, and of course the necessity of such a being.

Then again, Ajab usually seeks to prove God ontologically, though not empirically, because he acknowledges that it isn't exactly an empirical question, so the difference probably lies therein.

Slight clarification. I do believe God is a Creator God, but then God could have created something else, which created the multiverse, which created this universe.

Attempting to prove God is the first cause of whatever came before the multiverse or of the multiverse is absurd.

God does not need to have created *this* Universe to be the Creator God, He only need have created the beginning which led to this Universe.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 3:35:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 12:18:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:16:26 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:13:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:10:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:17:18 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:16:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:14:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:

You should ask Ajab.

He challenged me and we prepared for it, but I ultimately declined because I could only argue against a God who is the creator of the universe ...

Isn't that what he argues for?

No, he argues for a supernaturally powerful, transcendent being as God, but not a creator.

Oh, okay.

I personally don't know how to logically justify God as something other than creator - if something is supernaturally powerful, but not transcendent, how could it not be the author of, say, the laws of physics or the natural world? It begs the question, to me, of what possibly could be, and of course the necessity of such a being.

Exactly.


Then again, Ajab usually seeks to prove God ontologically, though not empirically, because he acknowledges that it isn't exactly an empirical question, so the difference probably lies therein.

I forgot you have done God debates before =)

Very few, lol, but I haven't really gotten too far into the nuts and bolts. I think I know Ajab's argument, though...

(1) If an idea exists in cognition, it is either true or necessarily false
(2) If it's false, it's imagined
(3) If it's true, it's either innate (as distinct from a priori) or empirical
(4) God isn't imagined, because it's a simple idea that can't be broken down further
(5) God isn't an empirical idea - we can't physically prove his existence because he's independent on the natural world
(6) Therefore, he must be an innate idea

I think that's it, lol.

ResponsiblyIrresponsible the philosophy hater has done a God debate? :O

I want to see them! Can you link to them?
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Ajabi
Posts: 1,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 5:14:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 12:18:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:16:26 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:13:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:10:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:17:18 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:16:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:14:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:

You should ask Ajab.

He challenged me and we prepared for it, but I ultimately declined because I could only argue against a God who is the creator of the universe ...

Isn't that what he argues for?

No, he argues for a supernaturally powerful, transcendent being as God, but not a creator.

Oh, okay.

I personally don't know how to logically justify God as something other than creator - if something is supernaturally powerful, but not transcendent, how could it not be the author of, say, the laws of physics or the natural world? It begs the question, to me, of what possibly could be, and of course the necessity of such a being.

Exactly.


Then again, Ajab usually seeks to prove God ontologically, though not empirically, because he acknowledges that it isn't exactly an empirical question, so the difference probably lies therein.

I forgot you have done God debates before =)

Very few, lol, but I haven't really gotten too far into the nuts and bolts. I think I know Ajab's argument, though...

(1) If an idea exists in cognition, it is either true or necessarily false
(2) If it's false, it's imagined
(3) If it's true, it's either innate (as distinct from a priori) or empirical
(4) God isn't imagined, because it's a simple idea that can't be broken down further
(5) God isn't an empirical idea - we can't physically prove his existence because he's independent on the natural world
(6) Therefore, he must be an innate idea

I think that's it, lol.

Hey look you actually learned something. lol.
To be clear, I have modified the argument.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 5:32:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 3:35:37 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:18:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:16:26 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:13:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:10:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:17:18 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:16:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:14:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:

You should ask Ajab.

He challenged me and we prepared for it, but I ultimately declined because I could only argue against a God who is the creator of the universe ...

Isn't that what he argues for?

No, he argues for a supernaturally powerful, transcendent being as God, but not a creator.

Oh, okay.

I personally don't know how to logically justify God as something other than creator - if something is supernaturally powerful, but not transcendent, how could it not be the author of, say, the laws of physics or the natural world? It begs the question, to me, of what possibly could be, and of course the necessity of such a being.

Exactly.


Then again, Ajab usually seeks to prove God ontologically, though not empirically, because he acknowledges that it isn't exactly an empirical question, so the difference probably lies therein.

I forgot you have done God debates before =)

Very few, lol, but I haven't really gotten too far into the nuts and bolts. I think I know Ajab's argument, though...

(1) If an idea exists in cognition, it is either true or necessarily false
(2) If it's false, it's imagined
(3) If it's true, it's either innate (as distinct from a priori) or empirical
(4) God isn't imagined, because it's a simple idea that can't be broken down further
(5) God isn't an empirical idea - we can't physically prove his existence because he's independent on the natural world
(6) Therefore, he must be an innate idea

I think that's it, lol.

ResponsiblyIrresponsible the philosophy hater has done a God debate? :O

I want to see them! Can you link to them?

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 5:35:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
1. Creationtruth
2. Philocat
3. Lannan13
4. Envisage
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 6:44:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 5:14:14 AM, Ajabi wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:18:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:16:26 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:13:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:10:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:17:18 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:16:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:14:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:

You should ask Ajab.

He challenged me and we prepared for it, but I ultimately declined because I could only argue against a God who is the creator of the universe ...

Isn't that what he argues for?

No, he argues for a supernaturally powerful, transcendent being as God, but not a creator.

Oh, okay.

I personally don't know how to logically justify God as something other than creator - if something is supernaturally powerful, but not transcendent, how could it not be the author of, say, the laws of physics or the natural world? It begs the question, to me, of what possibly could be, and of course the necessity of such a being.

Exactly.


Then again, Ajab usually seeks to prove God ontologically, though not empirically, because he acknowledges that it isn't exactly an empirical question, so the difference probably lies therein.

I forgot you have done God debates before =)

Very few, lol, but I haven't really gotten too far into the nuts and bolts. I think I know Ajab's argument, though...

(1) If an idea exists in cognition, it is either true or necessarily false
(2) If it's false, it's imagined
(3) If it's true, it's either innate (as distinct from a priori) or empirical
(4) God isn't imagined, because it's a simple idea that can't be broken down further
(5) God isn't an empirical idea - we can't physically prove his existence because he's independent on the natural world
(6) Therefore, he must be an innate idea

I think that's it, lol.

Hey look you actually learned something. lol.

Well, duh. :P

To be clear, I have modified the argument.

How so?
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 6:44:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 3:35:37 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:18:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:16:26 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:13:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:10:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:17:18 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:16:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:14:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:

You should ask Ajab.

He challenged me and we prepared for it, but I ultimately declined because I could only argue against a God who is the creator of the universe ...

Isn't that what he argues for?

No, he argues for a supernaturally powerful, transcendent being as God, but not a creator.

Oh, okay.

I personally don't know how to logically justify God as something other than creator - if something is supernaturally powerful, but not transcendent, how could it not be the author of, say, the laws of physics or the natural world? It begs the question, to me, of what possibly could be, and of course the necessity of such a being.

Exactly.


Then again, Ajab usually seeks to prove God ontologically, though not empirically, because he acknowledges that it isn't exactly an empirical question, so the difference probably lies therein.

I forgot you have done God debates before =)

Very few, lol, but I haven't really gotten too far into the nuts and bolts. I think I know Ajab's argument, though...

(1) If an idea exists in cognition, it is either true or necessarily false
(2) If it's false, it's imagined
(3) If it's true, it's either innate (as distinct from a priori) or empirical
(4) God isn't imagined, because it's a simple idea that can't be broken down further
(5) God isn't an empirical idea - we can't physically prove his existence because he's independent on the natural world
(6) Therefore, he must be an innate idea

I think that's it, lol.

ResponsiblyIrresponsible the philosophy hater has done a God debate? :O

I want to see them! Can you link to them?

Lol, I can in a bit.. they're mostly, if memory serves, on my JMK account.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 7:59:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 6:44:38 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:35:37 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:18:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:16:26 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:13:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:10:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:17:18 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:16:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:14:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:

You should ask Ajab.

He challenged me and we prepared for it, but I ultimately declined because I could only argue against a God who is the creator of the universe ...

Isn't that what he argues for?

No, he argues for a supernaturally powerful, transcendent being as God, but not a creator.

Oh, okay.

I personally don't know how to logically justify God as something other than creator - if something is supernaturally powerful, but not transcendent, how could it not be the author of, say, the laws of physics or the natural world? It begs the question, to me, of what possibly could be, and of course the necessity of such a being.

Exactly.


Then again, Ajab usually seeks to prove God ontologically, though not empirically, because he acknowledges that it isn't exactly an empirical question, so the difference probably lies therein.

I forgot you have done God debates before =)

Very few, lol, but I haven't really gotten too far into the nuts and bolts. I think I know Ajab's argument, though...

(1) If an idea exists in cognition, it is either true or necessarily false
(2) If it's false, it's imagined
(3) If it's true, it's either innate (as distinct from a priori) or empirical
(4) God isn't imagined, because it's a simple idea that can't be broken down further
(5) God isn't an empirical idea - we can't physically prove his existence because he's independent on the natural world
(6) Therefore, he must be an innate idea

I think that's it, lol.

ResponsiblyIrresponsible the philosophy hater has done a God debate? :O

I want to see them! Can you link to them?

Lol, I can in a bit.. they're mostly, if memory serves, on my JMK account.

Already gave him the links of the ones you did on your JMK account. Scroll up :P
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 8:00:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 7:59:50 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/17/2015 6:44:38 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/17/2015 3:35:37 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:18:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:16:26 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:13:20 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 12:10:33 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:17:18 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:16:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/16/2015 11:14:24 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:

You should ask Ajab.

He challenged me and we prepared for it, but I ultimately declined because I could only argue against a God who is the creator of the universe ...

Isn't that what he argues for?

No, he argues for a supernaturally powerful, transcendent being as God, but not a creator.

Oh, okay.

I personally don't know how to logically justify God as something other than creator - if something is supernaturally powerful, but not transcendent, how could it not be the author of, say, the laws of physics or the natural world? It begs the question, to me, of what possibly could be, and of course the necessity of such a being.

Exactly.


Then again, Ajab usually seeks to prove God ontologically, though not empirically, because he acknowledges that it isn't exactly an empirical question, so the difference probably lies therein.

I forgot you have done God debates before =)

Very few, lol, but I haven't really gotten too far into the nuts and bolts. I think I know Ajab's argument, though...

(1) If an idea exists in cognition, it is either true or necessarily false
(2) If it's false, it's imagined
(3) If it's true, it's either innate (as distinct from a priori) or empirical
(4) God isn't imagined, because it's a simple idea that can't be broken down further
(5) God isn't an empirical idea - we can't physically prove his existence because he's independent on the natural world
(6) Therefore, he must be an innate idea

I think that's it, lol.

ResponsiblyIrresponsible the philosophy hater has done a God debate? :O

I want to see them! Can you link to them?

Lol, I can in a bit.. they're mostly, if memory serves, on my JMK account.

Already gave him the links of the ones you did on your JMK account. Scroll up :P

Oh, perfect, lol.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 8:05:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 7:59:50 AM, tejretics wrote:

Ah, that last debate, "God is fake," brings back memories...

I remember the sheer frustration at that, lol. My opponent worded the resolution poorly, which imposed on him an impossible burden of proof to physically disprove God, which obviously I exploited. He tried some philosophical gymnastics to try to set up a demarcation between "fake" and "imagined" or something of the sort, but obviously for someone to be imagined, it must not have any objective reality - and the same goes for fakery, so contextually they had identical meanings. That debate basically featured him raging at me - claiming I had a "mental illness" or that I even believed in God; clearly, Bradk couldn't read.

And then two people, one of which was Sagey, actually voted for him. Of course, one provided no discernible RFD, and Sagey as per usual didn't read the debate, but voted his bias. The moron even gave Brad conduct.. there isn't a clearer mark of an invalid than that.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 8:06:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 8:05:34 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/17/2015 7:59:50 AM, tejretics wrote:

Ah, that last debate, "God is fake," brings back memories...

I remember the sheer frustration at that, lol. My opponent worded the resolution poorly, which imposed on him an impossible burden of proof to physically disprove God, which obviously I exploited. He tried some philosophical gymnastics to try to set up a demarcation between "fake" and "imagined" or something of the sort, but obviously for someone to be imagined, it must not have any objective reality - and the same goes for fakery, so contextually they had identical meanings. That debate basically featured him raging at me - claiming I had a "mental illness" or that I even believed in God; clearly, Bradk couldn't read.

And then two people, one of which was Sagey, actually voted for him. Of course, one provided no discernible RFD, and Sagey as per usual didn't read the debate, but voted his bias. The moron even gave Brad conduct.. there isn't a clearer mark of an invalid than that.

Oh, lol.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 9:20:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:
Anybody wants to debate me as Pro on the topic "God Likely Exists", with God being defined as: "a supernaturally powerful, transcendent, intelligent and immensely great creator of the universe", sign up here!

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

So if pro or con wins the debate does that settle the god argument?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2015 9:23:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/17/2015 9:20:49 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/16/2015 8:11:55 AM, tejretics wrote:
Anybody wants to debate me as Pro on the topic "God Likely Exists", with God being defined as: "a supernaturally powerful, transcendent, intelligent and immensely great creator of the universe", sign up here!

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

So if pro or con wins the debate does that settle the god argument?

Um .... no .... it's just a debate :P
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass