Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Define god and explain who must have the bop

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 5:52:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Most discussions on whether "God" exists aren't always clear because of varying definitions of "god". Can people who believe in god provide a concise definition of what they believe in?

Also, in a debate on "god's" existence, who should have the burden of proof? Should the theist have the burden of proof because they are making a positive claim or should it be shared?
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 5:54:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 5:52:35 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Most discussions on whether "God" exists aren't always clear because of varying definitions of "god". Can people who believe in god provide a concise definition of what they believe in?

Also, in a debate on "god's" existence, who should have the burden of proof? Should the theist have the burden of proof because they are making a positive claim or should it be shared?

It's important that a definition is detailed. I usually assume the Judeo-Christian God (3 O's) is the God in question.

BoP is entirely on Pro.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 5:54:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 5:52:35 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Most discussions on whether "God" exists aren't always clear because of varying definitions of "god". Can people who believe in god provide a concise definition of what they believe in?
The maximal being (necessarily one and perfect).

Also, in a debate on "god's" existence, who should have the burden of proof? Should the theist have the burden of proof because they are making a positive claim or should it be shared?
The burden of proof can be turned. If I say that God exists, and want others to believe in that, then I have the burden of proof. If someone says God does not exist, and want others to believe in that, then he has the burden of proof. That means both sides.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 6:13:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 5:54:56 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/10/2011 5:52:35 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Most discussions on whether "God" exists aren't always clear because of varying definitions of "god". Can people who believe in god provide a concise definition of what they believe in?
The maximal being (necessarily one and perfect).

Also, in a debate on "god's" existence, who should have the burden of proof? Should the theist have the burden of proof because they are making a positive claim or should it be shared?
The burden of proof can be turned. If I say that God exists, and want others to believe in that, then I have the burden of proof. If someone says God does not exist, and want others to believe in that, then he has the burden of proof. That means both sides.

Okay, but what is "the maximal being"

Also, if I say that Unicorns don't exist, do I have the burden of proof?
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 6:18:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's funny how people try to justify a one sided burden of proof. Both sides always have the burden of proving their position to be more correct than the opposing position. That's what a debate is essentially. Two people arguing both of their positions to more correct than the other on a topic. Both people have the BOP on their position. Always.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 6:22:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 6:13:43 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Okay, but what is "the maximal being"
For instance, uncaused. If something is caused, then the cause of the caused being is necessarily on a higher rank. Therefore, God cannot be caused (otherwise the cause would be bigger than Him).

Also, if I say that Unicorns don't exist, do I have the burden of proof?
If you want to convince me of that, yes.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 7:17:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 6:22:58 PM, Mirza wrote:
Also, if I say that Unicorns don't exist, do I have the burden of proof?
If you want to convince me of that, yes.

Clearly there must be some things that do not exist, right?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 7:19:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 7:17:38 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/10/2011 6:22:58 PM, Mirza wrote:
Also, if I say that Unicorns don't exist, do I have the burden of proof?
If you want to convince me of that, yes.

Clearly there must be some things that do not exist, right?
Yes. But you don't need to prove that they don't exist unless you want others to believe that. That's where you get a burden.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 7:44:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 7:19:34 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/10/2011 7:17:38 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/10/2011 6:22:58 PM, Mirza wrote:
Also, if I say that Unicorns don't exist, do I have the burden of proof?
If you want to convince me of that, yes.

Clearly there must be some things that do not exist, right?
Yes. But you don't need to prove that they don't exist unless you want others to believe that. That's where you get a burden.

But you were convinced that something does not exist, right? So what proof did they provide in order to convince you?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 7:45:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 7:44:52 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/10/2011 7:19:34 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/10/2011 7:17:38 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/10/2011 6:22:58 PM, Mirza wrote:
Also, if I say that Unicorns don't exist, do I have the burden of proof?
If you want to convince me of that, yes.

Clearly there must be some things that do not exist, right?
Yes. But you don't need to prove that they don't exist unless you want others to believe that. That's where you get a burden.

But you were convinced that something does not exist, right? So what proof did they provide in order to convince you?
Who are "they"? I'm convinced of something being nonexistent at the moment I find it irrational.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 10:17:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 7:45:52 PM, Mirza wrote:
Who are "they"? I'm convinced of something being nonexistent at the moment I find it irrational.

And how do you determine if something is irrational?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 10:43:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Existence is un-caused. It is impossible for there to not be existence.

God is existence.

Honestly, I feel this is so obvious that the burden of proof is on someone to prove that there is no such thing as existence. This would be impossible, and is patently false.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 10:44:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 10:17:35 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/10/2011 7:45:52 PM, Mirza wrote:
Who are "they"? I'm convinced of something being nonexistent at the moment I find it irrational.

And how do you determine if something is irrational?
If it doesn't convince me at all, doesn't have any traces of evidence, etc., that's irrational to me.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 11:24:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 10:44:28 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/10/2011 10:17:35 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/10/2011 7:45:52 PM, Mirza wrote:
Who are "they"? I'm convinced of something being nonexistent at the moment I find it irrational.

And how do you determine if something is irrational?
If it doesn't convince me at all, doesn't have any traces of evidence, etc., that's irrational to me.

So, if someone tries to convince you that something exists, and fails, youre going to believe that it doesnt exist?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 1:58:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Unless otherwise stated God means the single creator God possessed of the omni characteristics. Unless otherwise stated the BoP falls on the theist.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 5:42:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 10:43:00 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Existence is un-caused. It is impossible for there to not be existence.

No no, it's just impossible for us to conceive of no existence, our brain cannot wrap itself around that.

God is existence.

Honestly, I feel this is so obvious that the burden of proof is on someone to prove that there is no such thing as existence. This would be impossible, and is patently false.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 9:23:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 5:42:26 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/10/2011 10:43:00 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Existence is un-caused. It is impossible for there to not be existence.

No no, it's just impossible for us to conceive of no existence, our brain cannot wrap itself around that.


It isn't possible for there not to be an existence. No matter what state the universe has been in, the fact of the matter is, something has always existed.

Existence is the only eternal thing. If you say otherwise, I don't even know how you can claim to be a follower of a religion, because by saying otherwise you are admitting that your god didn't exist at one point.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 1:56:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 9:23:38 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 9/11/2011 5:42:26 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/10/2011 10:43:00 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Existence is un-caused. It is impossible for there to not be existence.

No no, it's just impossible for us to conceive of no existence, our brain cannot wrap itself around that.


It isn't possible for there not to be an existence. No matter what state the universe has been in, the fact of the matter is, something has always existed.

Existence is the only eternal thing. If you say otherwise, I don't even know how you can claim to be a follower of a religion, because by saying otherwise you are admitting that your god didn't exist at one point.

- Only if i agree that non existence was before existence, and even then how they heck do i know? Maybe my God didn't exist at one point, i cannot say.

If you are an atheist, you can understand non existence when you die, that's at a micro level, why cannot non existence exist at a macro level. One cannot wrap their brain around non existence - but that doesn't preclude it as an option. Because you say it cannot be doesn't mean it cannot be.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 1:59:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The burden of proof can be turned. If I say that God exists, and want others to believe in that, then I have the burden of proof. If someone says God does not exist, and want others to believe in that, then he has the burden of proof. That means both sides.:

Nonsense. No one can give positive evidence of something's non-existence. Therefore, the burden of proof is entirely on your side of the table.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2011 2:03:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/11/2011 1:59:20 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The burden of proof can be turned. If I say that God exists, and want others to believe in that, then I have the burden of proof. If someone says God does not exist, and want others to believe in that, then he has the burden of proof. That means both sides.:

Nonsense. No one can give positive evidence of something's non-existence. Therefore, the burden of proof is entirely on your side of the table.

I can give positive evidence of the non-existence of the Judaeo-Christian God.

But not for all types of Gods or supernatural entities.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.