Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Millenia Debate

AnthraSight
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2012 11:06:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have seen some decent arguments brought up for the non-existence and existence of God but I've also become slightly overwhelmed by the amount of information regarding evidence from both camps!

This same information overload hasn't stopped since thousands of years back and forth ... so in your view, how do the weights of the scales tip? Are the Christian's right? Or are the Atheists correct? Should we care?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 1:43:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 11:34:08 PM, AnthraSight wrote:
This is my argument so far,

http://www.debate.org...

I'd have to say that I disagree with your argument and it seems like it would be pretty easy for a theist to refute.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 4:42:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is the Aristotelean argument of:

P1 - God is perfect (tautology)
P2 - If God is perfect, all of God is perfect (tautology)
C1 - God's thoughts must therefore be perfect (corollary)
C2 - God's thoughts must therefore not be imperfect (D.N.)
P3 - Humans are imperfect (premise)
P4 - If God's thoughts cannot be imperfect, God cannot think of humans (premise)
C3 - Therefore, God cannot think of humans (conclusion).

Or:

P1 - same as previous
P2 - same as previous
C1 - same as previous
P3 - God is the only thing that is perfect (premise)
C2 - Therefore God can only think of himself. (conclusion)
P4 - God cannot thus think of humans. (corollary)
C3 - Thus, God cannot plan for humans (predicate on P4)
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 5:17:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 4:42:39 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
This is the Aristotelean argument of:
The Fool:

P1 - God is perfect (tautology)

The Fool: its not a tautology, (God is God) or (perfect is perfect) is a taugtology
This is defining the TERM/word 'God' as refering to perfection

P2 - If God is perfect, all of God is perfect (tautology)

The Fool: Its false, if God is perfect, then we don't need the word God, we could just use perfect. Because adding the term God doesn't improve the discription.

C1 - God's thoughts must therefore be perfect (corollary)

The Fool: The Term GOd. Doens't imply anything other then what you have defined it as. You have to assume its a concsious mind that has thoughts. etc. There is no information about 'God' That suggest anything else. Even 'Being' is just means Existing. all ready. That is where the term comes from. As in To BE. TO Exist. Thus that is the definition of the term.

C2 - God's thoughts must therefore not be imperfect (D.N.)

The Fool: its a double negative. NOT and IM cancel out to: Therefore perfect.

P3 - Humans are imperfect (premise)

The Fool: Perfect alone says nothing. Its means Complete. Really, it later devolopes a subjectivist connotated meaning. As in I affirm. As in its perfect.

P4 - If God's thoughts cannot be imperfect, God cannot think of humans (premise)

C3 - Therefore, God cannot think of humans (conclusion).

Or:

P1 - same as previous
P2 - same as previous
C1 - same as previous
P3 - God is the only thing that is perfect (premise)
C2 - Therefore God can only think of himself. (conclusion)
P4 - God cannot thus think of humans. (corollary)
C3 - Thus, God cannot plan for humans (predicate on P4)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 6:30:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/24/2012 11:06:07 PM, AnthraSight wrote:
I have seen some decent arguments brought up for the non-existence and existence of God but I've also become slightly overwhelmed by the amount of information regarding evidence from both camps!

This same information overload hasn't stopped since thousands of years back and forth ... so in your view, how do the weights of the scales tip? Are the Christian's right? Or are the Atheists correct? Should we care?

It seems very important for both sides respectfully.
TheAsylum
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 6:37:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 5:17:56 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/25/2012 4:42:39 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
This is the Aristotelean argument of:
The Fool:


P1 - God is perfect (tautology)

The Fool: its not a tautology, (God is God) or (perfect is perfect) is a taugtology
This is defining the TERM/word 'God' as refering to perfection

God is defined as being perfect. That makes it a tautology. Also, how on earth do you misspell tautology, when I wrote tautology? I'm hoping it is a typo rather than a genuine mistake tbh...

P2 - If God is perfect, all of God is perfect (tautology)

The Fool: Its false, if God is perfect, then we don't need the word God, we could just use perfect. Because adding the term God doesn't improve the discription.

Imagine this statement: A dog is an animal. Or the sky is blue. Or John is French. I can't remove the words dog, sky and John from my vocabulary, because there are additional characteristics. What you're essentially saying is that characteristics do not exist. Perfection is a characteristic, not a thing. I'm not saying God is Adam. I'm saying God holds the property of perfection.

C1 - God's thoughts must therefore be perfect (corollary)

The Fool: The Term GOd. Doens't imply anything other then what you have defined it as. You have to assume its a concsious mind that has thoughts. etc. There is no information about 'God' That suggest anything else. Even 'Being' is just means Existing. all ready. That is where the term comes from. As in To BE. TO Exist. Thus that is the definition of the term.

Oh, I've just noticed, you've said the same thing three times. Criticise one premise and move on, not say the same thing three times when it doesn't apply.

C2 - God's thoughts must therefore not be imperfect (D.N.)

The Fool: its a double negative. NOT and IM cancel out to: Therefore perfect.

Well Done. D.N. means double negative, it's one of the 19 laws of inference. I use it because it makes things clearer later on.

P3 - Humans are imperfect (premise)

The Fool: Perfect alone says nothing. Its means Complete. Really, it later devolopes a subjectivist connotated meaning. As in I affirm. As in its perfect.

If God exists, then perfection exists objectively. The argument is a proof by contradiction, so saying "I don't believe in perfection therefore God doesn't exist" may or may not be a valid argument, but it doesn't stop this one at all. The first premise of objective perfection, i.e. a Form of the Form, is presupposed to exist (u c what I did thar?)

P4 - If God's thoughts cannot be imperfect, God cannot think of humans (premise)

This is an actual premise, and it wasn't criticised... this is the one with the most problems in tbh but whatever.

C3 - Therefore, God cannot think of humans (conclusion).

Or:

P1 - same as previous
P2 - same as previous
C1 - same as previous
P3 - God is the only thing that is perfect (premise)
C2 - Therefore God can only think of himself. (conclusion)
P4 - God cannot thus think of humans. (corollary)
C3 - Thus, God cannot plan for humans (predicate on P4)
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 10:37:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 4:42:39 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
This is the Aristotelean argument of:

P1 - God is perfect (tautology)
P2 - If God is perfect, all of God is perfect (tautology)
C1 - God's thoughts must therefore be perfect (corollary)
C2 - God's thoughts must therefore not be imperfect (D.N.)

This assumes that God must be a non-thinking entity that is slave to, and limited by, perfection. If this were the case then I'd argue that He isn't perfect. He wouldn't know that His thoughts are perfect, because He wouldn't even know that imperfect exists. Can an entity who doesn't know all the information, or have the ability to think and reason really be considered perfect??

It seems only logical that a perfect being would have the ability to distinguish good from bad, perfect from imperfect. In order to do that, the being would have to have the ability to think of the imperfect.

P3 - Humans are imperfect (premise)

But they were not created imperfect. They became imperfect by their own choice and action.

P4 - If God's thoughts cannot be imperfect, God cannot think of humans (premise)
C3 - Therefore, God cannot think of humans (conclusion).

The challenge to C2 and P3 basically makes both these statements invalid.
AnthraSight
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 4:26:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 1:43:22 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/24/2012 11:34:08 PM, AnthraSight wrote:
This is my argument so far,

http://www.debate.org...

I'd have to say that I disagree with your argument and it seems like it would be pretty easy for a theist to refute.

Well... seems like I'm winning aha!
AnthraSight
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 4:27:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 6:30:38 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 8/24/2012 11:06:07 PM, AnthraSight wrote:
I have seen some decent arguments brought up for the non-existence and existence of God but I've also become slightly overwhelmed by the amount of information regarding evidence from both camps!

This same information overload hasn't stopped since thousands of years back and forth ... so in your view, how do the weights of the scales tip? Are the Christian's right? Or are the Atheists correct? Should we care?

It seems very important for both sides respectfully.

I would say so... why then?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 4:50:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 4:26:34 PM, AnthraSight wrote:
At 8/25/2012 1:43:22 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 8/24/2012 11:34:08 PM, AnthraSight wrote:
This is my argument so far,

http://www.debate.org...

I'd have to say that I disagree with your argument and it seems like it would be pretty easy for a theist to refute.

Well... seems like I'm winning aha!

Touche

Too bad he didn't put up a fight though.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 5:06:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Without a criteria, perfection is subjective. What I mean by a criteria, is if I asked someone to make the most round 3D object they could, and someone made a sphere with no lumps or edges at all, it would be objectively perfect. However, if I asked someone to make something that is perfect, without a criteria, perfection is completely subjective. When it comes to God, just saying he is "perfect" means nothing. Anybody can come up with their idea of what perfect is, and apply it to God.
AnthraSight
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2012 7:01:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/25/2012 5:06:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Without a criteria, perfection is subjective. What I mean by a criteria, is if I asked someone to make the most round 3D object they could, and someone made a sphere with no lumps or edges at all, it would be objectively perfect. However, if I asked someone to make something that is perfect, without a criteria, perfection is completely subjective. When it comes to God, just saying he is "perfect" means nothing. Anybody can come up with their idea of what perfect is, and apply it to God.

I think I see, so because God's qualities can't be quantified, then therefore we've not basis for affirming or denying his existence?