Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Help with a debate

kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 11:47:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
How should I respond in this debate?
http://www.debate.org...

I am con and I'm arguing for atheism.

Note: I have read the terms of service and FAQ's and have not found that getting outside help through forums, friends etc. Is against the rules. If it is, please let me know and I will delete this.
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 3:39:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 11:47:38 AM, kohai wrote:
How should I respond in this debate?
http://www.debate.org...

I am con and I'm arguing for atheism.

Note: I have read the terms of service and FAQ's and have not found that getting outside help through forums, friends etc. Is against the rules. If it is, please let me know and I will delete this.

I can help you. The whole point about not answering prayers is a lost cause. Just try to patch it up as much as you can. The whole point that o body believes in Greek Gods therefore they don't exist is also a lost cause. What you can try to show is that since these ideas have no evidence, they have to complete with an infinite number of unproven contradicting ideologies, so the probability than that a single one is true is pretty much zero.

You can easily argue the point that God cannot break his own rules. The fact that you CAN do anything does not mean you should do everything. This contradicts omnipresence. Just because you can throw a rock into your neighbors window does not mean you should. If you are omni benevolent we all know that you won't.

Same with God. If it is wrong to contradict your own rules, then if you are omnibenevolent, then you will not. You have the ABILITY to, but you won't.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 5:08:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 3:39:25 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/29/2011 11:47:38 AM, kohai wrote:
How should I respond in this debate?
http://www.debate.org...

I am con and I'm arguing for atheism.

Note: I have read the terms of service and FAQ's and have not found that getting outside help through forums, friends etc. Is against the rules. If it is, please let me know and I will delete this.

I can help you. The whole point about not answering prayers is a lost cause. Just try to patch it up as much as you can. The whole point that o body believes in Greek Gods therefore they don't exist is also a lost cause. What you can try to show is that since these ideas have no evidence, they have to complete with an infinite number of unproven contradicting ideologies, so the probability than that a single one is true is pretty much zero.

You can easily argue the point that God cannot break his own rules. The fact that you CAN do anything does not mean you should do everything. This contradicts omnipresence. Just because you can throw a rock into your neighbors window does not mean you should. If you are omni benevolent we all know that you won't.

Same with God. If it is wrong to contradict your own rules, then if you are omnibenevolent, then you will not. You have the ABILITY to, but you won't.

Your point about omnibenevovlence only works if god is omnibenevolent in the way that we believe. We can easily attribute human error to our understanding of god.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 6:02:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 5:08:16 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Your point about omnibenevovlence only works if god is omnibenevolent in the way that we believe. We can easily attribute human error to our understanding of god.

If you claim God is unknowable then you lose any basis to refute any argument based upon properties. The one claiming properties has a basis, that position does not.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 6:20:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Youre too far into the debate and have made too many mistakes to go back now. if you had come at round 2, we couldve helped you. Sorry mate, but you kinda suck in this debate. :(
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2011 6:31:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/31/2011 5:08:16 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/31/2011 3:39:25 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/29/2011 11:47:38 AM, kohai wrote:
How should I respond in this debate?
http://www.debate.org...

I am con and I'm arguing for atheism.

Note: I have read the terms of service and FAQ's and have not found that getting outside help through forums, friends etc. Is against the rules. If it is, please let me know and I will delete this.

I can help you. The whole point about not answering prayers is a lost cause. Just try to patch it up as much as you can. The whole point that o body believes in Greek Gods therefore they don't exist is also a lost cause. What you can try to show is that since these ideas have no evidence, they have to complete with an infinite number of unproven contradicting ideologies, so the probability than that a single one is true is pretty much zero.

You can easily argue the point that God cannot break his own rules. The fact that you CAN do anything does not mean you should do everything. This contradicts omnipresence. Just because you can throw a rock into your neighbors window does not mean you should. If you are omni benevolent we all know that you won't.

Same with God. If it is wrong to contradict your own rules, then if you are omnibenevolent, then you will not. You have the ABILITY to, but you won't.

Your point about omnibenevovlence only works if god is omnibenevolent in the way that we believe. We can easily attribute human error to our understanding of god.

Of course I see your point. That is for your opponent to argue. I define omnibenevolence to mean that you always do good. Is it OK to give people rules that you don't follow? It really depends on the rule.

If the rule is objectively true, and should never be broken by anybody because of its inherent universal trueness, then I say that God as an omnibenevolent being is following it.