Total Posts:457|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God Does exist!

Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 5:27:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is the title of a debate I recently had with Frackjack, but the debate was short, and I want to continue debating here.

Others are welcome to participate.

My way in the debate was to justify that "GOD exist" can be an axiom, So I want that Frackjack or whoever have an objection, to explain why not.

http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 6:02:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Be: At 5/16/2013 5:27:02 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
This is the title of a debate I recently had with Frackjack, but the debate was short, and I want to continue debating here.

Others are welcome to participate.

My way in the debate was to justify that "GOD exist" can be an axiom, So I want that Frackjack or whoever have an objection, to explain why not.

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

Gods existence can't be an axiom in a debate on god's existence. And its not normallyaxiomatic, because its an assertion. I may as well say that "you owe me fifty bucks" is an axiom.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 6:47:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 6:02:35 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Be: At 5/16/2013 5:27:02 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
This is the title of a debate I recently had with Frackjack, but the debate was short, and I want to continue debating here.

Others are welcome to participate.

My way in the debate was to justify that "GOD exist" can be an axiom, So I want that Frackjack or whoever have an objection, to explain why not.

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

Gods existence can't be an axiom in a debate on god's existence. And its not normallyaxiomatic, because its an assertion. I may as well say that "you owe me fifty bucks" is an axiom.

Actually it can, unless or until you respond to an answer to you posed, "WHY does God exist?"

Here's what I said:

Any explanation is useless unless you get rid of the silly anthropomorphic notion that God is a being alongside other beings. That's just silly superstition.

The "why" is the same reason human consciousness exists, at least if you believe the explanation put forward by scientists: self-referring processes. But in the case of God, those "self-referring processes" are without boundaries, without beginning, and without end. They are self-existing and uncaused. Hence, it is literally true: "God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere."

Like it or not, accept it or not, this explanation is wholly congruent with both modern science and classical theism. Care to offer an alternative explanation for why things are the way they are? A better one? Or are you going to settle for "just because" and/or "chance-in-the-gaps"?

Unless or until you or someone else propose something that can be debated, God's existence can be assumed to be axiomatic. "Just because," "chance-in-the-gaps" and "I don't know" are not rational alternatives.
StevenDixon
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 7:17:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 6:47:22 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 6:02:35 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Be: At 5/16/2013 5:27:02 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
This is the title of a debate I recently had with Frackjack, but the debate was short, and I want to continue debating here.

Others are welcome to participate.

My way in the debate was to justify that "GOD exist" can be an axiom, So I want that Frackjack or whoever have an objection, to explain why not.

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

Gods existence can't be an axiom in a debate on god's existence. And its not normallyaxiomatic, because its an assertion. I may as well say that "you owe me fifty bucks" is an axiom.

Actually it can, unless or until you respond to an answer to you posed, "WHY does God exist?"

Here's what I said:

Any explanation is useless unless you get rid of the silly anthropomorphic notion that God is a being alongside other beings. That's just silly superstition.

The "why" is the same reason human consciousness exists, at least if you believe the explanation put forward by scientists: self-referring processes. But in the case of God, those "self-referring processes" are without boundaries, without beginning, and without end. They are self-existing and uncaused. Hence, it is literally true: "God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere."

Like it or not, accept it or not, this explanation is wholly congruent with both modern science and classical theism. Care to offer an alternative explanation for why things are the way they are? A better one? Or are you going to settle for "just because" and/or "chance-in-the-gaps"?

Unless or until you or someone else propose something that can be debated, God's existence can be assumed to be axiomatic. "Just because," "chance-in-the-gaps" and "I don't know" are not rational alternatives.

Exactly, this is why Zues was a good axiom for lightning, "Idk" "chance of the gaps" and "Just because" were not good alternatives.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 7:47:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 7:17:49 PM, StevenDixon wrote:
At 5/16/2013 6:47:22 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 6:02:35 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Be: At 5/16/2013 5:27:02 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
This is the title of a debate I recently had with Frackjack, but the debate was short, and I want to continue debating here.

Others are welcome to participate.

My way in the debate was to justify that "GOD exist" can be an axiom, So I want that Frackjack or whoever have an objection, to explain why not.

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

Gods existence can't be an axiom in a debate on god's existence. And its not normallyaxiomatic, because its an assertion. I may as well say that "you owe me fifty bucks" is an axiom.

Actually it can, unless or until you respond to an answer to you posed, "WHY does God exist?"

Here's what I said:

Any explanation is useless unless you get rid of the silly anthropomorphic notion that God is a being alongside other beings. That's just silly superstition.

The "why" is the same reason human consciousness exists, at least if you believe the explanation put forward by scientists: self-referring processes. But in the case of God, those "self-referring processes" are without boundaries, without beginning, and without end. They are self-existing and uncaused. Hence, it is literally true: "God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere."

Like it or not, accept it or not, this explanation is wholly congruent with both modern science and classical theism. Care to offer an alternative explanation for why things are the way they are? A better one? Or are you going to settle for "just because" and/or "chance-in-the-gaps"?

Unless or until you or someone else propose something that can be debated, God's existence can be assumed to be axiomatic. "Just because," "chance-in-the-gaps" and "I don't know" are not rational alternatives.

Exactly, this is why Zues was a good axiom for lightning, "Idk" "chance of the gaps" and "Just because" were not good alternatives.

What part of

"Any explanation is useless unless you get rid of the silly anthropomorphic notion that God is a being alongside other beings. That's just silly superstition"

don't you understand?
StevenDixon
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 8:17:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 7:47:05 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 7:17:49 PM, StevenDixon wrote:
At 5/16/2013 6:47:22 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 6:02:35 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Be: At 5/16/2013 5:27:02 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
This is the title of a debate I recently had with Frackjack, but the debate was short, and I want to continue debating here.

Others are welcome to participate.

My way in the debate was to justify that "GOD exist" can be an axiom, So I want that Frackjack or whoever have an objection, to explain why not.

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

Gods existence can't be an axiom in a debate on god's existence. And its not normallyaxiomatic, because its an assertion. I may as well say that "you owe me fifty bucks" is an axiom.

Actually it can, unless or until you respond to an answer to you posed, "WHY does God exist?"

Here's what I said:

Any explanation is useless unless you get rid of the silly anthropomorphic notion that God is a being alongside other beings. That's just silly superstition.

The "why" is the same reason human consciousness exists, at least if you believe the explanation put forward by scientists: self-referring processes. But in the case of God, those "self-referring processes" are without boundaries, without beginning, and without end. They are self-existing and uncaused. Hence, it is literally true: "God is the circle of infinity whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere."

Like it or not, accept it or not, this explanation is wholly congruent with both modern science and classical theism. Care to offer an alternative explanation for why things are the way they are? A better one? Or are you going to settle for "just because" and/or "chance-in-the-gaps"?

Unless or until you or someone else propose something that can be debated, God's existence can be assumed to be axiomatic. "Just because," "chance-in-the-gaps" and "I don't know" are not rational alternatives.

Exactly, this is why Zues was a good axiom for lightning, "Idk" "chance of the gaps" and "Just because" were not good alternatives.

What part of

"Any explanation is useless unless you get rid of the silly anthropomorphic notion that God is a being alongside other beings. That's just silly superstition"

don't you understand?

I'm sorry I assumed you were a christian that believed in an all loving, conscious creator that could be disappointed, angry, and have relationships.

Either way, my point still stands. I don't know is not an explanation, it is admitting that there isn't enough information to come to a conclusion. Inserting something unaccounted for in that gap just because there is a gap is an argument from ignorance.

Someone saying that it's not rational to admit you don't know something when you don't is beyond baffling. It's a clear indicator that you're not interested in truth.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 8:29:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 8:17:22 PM, StevenDixon wrote:

I'm sorry I assumed you were a christian that believed in an all loving, conscious creator that could be disappointed, angry, and have relationships.

Either way, my point still stands. I don't know is not an explanation, it is admitting that there isn't enough information to come to a conclusion. Inserting something unaccounted for in that gap just because there is a gap is an argument from ignorance.

Someone saying that it's not rational to admit you don't know something when you don't is beyond baffling. It's a clear indicator that you're not interested in truth.

Then you agree that all you've got is hot air and God's existence can be regarded as axiomatic until you come up with a logical alternative.

What I don't understand is why something that is wholly congruent with science is dismissed out of hand without further investigation or alternative.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 8:32:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 8:29:47 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:17:22 PM, StevenDixon wrote:

I'm sorry I assumed you were a christian that believed in an all loving, conscious creator that could be disappointed, angry, and have relationships.

Either way, my point still stands. I don't know is not an explanation, it is admitting that there isn't enough information to come to a conclusion. Inserting something unaccounted for in that gap just because there is a gap is an argument from ignorance.

Someone saying that it's not rational to admit you don't know something when you don't is beyond baffling. It's a clear indicator that you're not interested in truth.

Then you agree that all you've got is hot air and God's existence can be regarded as axiomatic until you come up with a logical alternative.

No, that's stupid and you should know it. That's now how we reach axioms, unless we prefer to make things up. If you want to assert god, you have to defend the assertion, it's not up to everyone else to prove you aren't, any mroe than it's up to me to prove you don't have the cure for cancer in your pocket.


What I don't understand is why something that is wholly congruent with science is dismissed out of hand without further investigation or alternative.

It's dismissed FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE. Show some evidence, and it will be listened to. In the meantime, your constant assertions that something exists solely because you made it up make you look either dishonest or foolish.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 8:46:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 8:32:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:29:47 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:17:22 PM, StevenDixon wrote:

I'm sorry I assumed you were a christian that believed in an all loving, conscious creator that could be disappointed, angry, and have relationships.

Either way, my point still stands. I don't know is not an explanation, it is admitting that there isn't enough information to come to a conclusion. Inserting something unaccounted for in that gap just because there is a gap is an argument from ignorance.

Someone saying that it's not rational to admit you don't know something when you don't is beyond baffling. It's a clear indicator that you're not interested in truth.

Then you agree that all you've got is hot air and God's existence can be regarded as axiomatic until you come up with a logical alternative.

No, that's stupid and you should know it. That's now how we reach axioms, unless we prefer to make things up. If you want to assert god, you have to defend the assertion, it's not up to everyone else to prove you aren't, any mroe than it's up to me to prove you don't have the cure for cancer in your pocket.




What I don't understand is why something that is wholly congruent with science is dismissed out of hand without further investigation or alternative.

It's dismissed FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE. Show some evidence, and it will be listened to. In the meantime, your constant assertions that something exists solely because you made it up make you look either dishonest or foolish.

Want of evidence is not an argument. As I said, rationality is not limited to the empirical. A more encompassing rational line of thinking would be to base explanations on Aristotle's four causes; materialism omits two of them.

Like it or not, accept it or not, the explanation I gave is wholly congruent with both modern science and classical theism. Unless or until you have something different to propose, God's existence can be regarded as axiomatic.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 9:36:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 5:27:02 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
This is the title of a debate I recently had with Frackjack, but the debate was short, and I want to continue debating here.

Others are welcome to participate.

My way in the debate was to justify that "GOD exist" can be an axiom, So I want that Frackjack or whoever have an objection, to explain why not.

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

Your axiom is irrelevant because it lacks definition. All axioms have clear definitions, and your "axiom" is lacking.

Does God exist? Maybe, but it hinges on the definition you wish to use.

If you use a weak definition like "The thing responsible for the Universe" then yes there is a God no matter what anyone says. They'd be morons to counter that simplistic definition. But don't be shocked when they conclude that God could be the Laws of Physics, and nothing more. Pantheism and all that jazz.

There are other stronger definitions but the stronger the definition the easier it is to prove wrong.

So your axiom is worthless until you provide a clear definition of God. Debate 101 - Definitions

Now if you're genuinely crazy, like me, you have a semantic proof for something like a Soul. From there it's not hard to construct semantics for God. But it's still just a semantic definition game, though fun, that hardly proves what most want to prove.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 9:39:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 8:46:24 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:32:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:29:47 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:17:22 PM, StevenDixon wrote:

I'm sorry I assumed you were a christian that believed in an all loving, conscious creator that could be disappointed, angry, and have relationships.

Either way, my point still stands. I don't know is not an explanation, it is admitting that there isn't enough information to come to a conclusion. Inserting something unaccounted for in that gap just because there is a gap is an argument from ignorance.

Someone saying that it's not rational to admit you don't know something when you don't is beyond baffling. It's a clear indicator that you're not interested in truth.

Then you agree that all you've got is hot air and God's existence can be regarded as axiomatic until you come up with a logical alternative.

No, that's stupid and you should know it. That's now how we reach axioms, unless we prefer to make things up. If you want to assert god, you have to defend the assertion, it's not up to everyone else to prove you aren't, any mroe than it's up to me to prove you don't have the cure for cancer in your pocket.




What I don't understand is why something that is wholly congruent with science is dismissed out of hand without further investigation or alternative.

It's dismissed FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE. Show some evidence, and it will be listened to. In the meantime, your constant assertions that something exists solely because you made it up make you look either dishonest or foolish.

Want of evidence is not an argument. As I said, rationality is not limited to the empirical. A more encompassing rational line of thinking would be to base explanations on Aristotle's four causes; materialism omits two of them.

Like it or not, accept it or not, the explanation I gave is wholly congruent with both modern science and classical theism. Unless or until you have something different to propose, God's existence can be regarded as axiomatic.

No. You CLEARLY don't know what "axiomatic" means.

And just because something is congruent with things that are accepted, does not make it true, nor is its congruence inherently an argument FOR it.

Until you can give a reason for God's existence, everyone who isn't an idiot, dishonest, or already on your side is justified in ignoring the proposal.

You're always arguing your proposal is being dismissed. But when I point out there's no reason to think your proposal is correct, you try to retreat into saying you shouldn't have to show that. You do.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
StevenDixon
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 10:24:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 8:29:47 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:17:22 PM, StevenDixon wrote:

I'm sorry I assumed you were a christian that believed in an all loving, conscious creator that could be disappointed, angry, and have relationships.

Either way, my point still stands. I don't know is not an explanation, it is admitting that there isn't enough information to come to a conclusion. Inserting something unaccounted for in that gap just because there is a gap is an argument from ignorance.

Someone saying that it's not rational to admit you don't know something when you don't is beyond baffling. It's a clear indicator that you're not interested in truth.

Then you agree that all you've got is hot air and God's existence can be regarded as axiomatic until you come up with a logical alternative.

What I don't understand is why something that is wholly congruent with science is dismissed out of hand without further investigation or alternative.

No, I don't agree that you should fill a gap in knowledge with an unsupported assertion. The universe exists, we know it's here as a result of the big bang, we wait until we find out what caused it instead of jumping to the conclusion it was an immaterial conscious entity.

No one said there aren't other possibilites...considering nothing isn't nothing, there's a good chance there was always something. If there are eternal particles(or something else) that are in an eternal state of flux then there doesn't need to be a prime mover.

But I don't assert that as an axiom because I'm intellectually honest.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 10:26:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 9:39:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:46:24 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:32:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:29:47 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:17:22 PM, StevenDixon wrote:

I'm sorry I assumed you were a christian that believed in an all loving, conscious creator that could be disappointed, angry, and have relationships.

Either way, my point still stands. I don't know is not an explanation, it is admitting that there isn't enough information to come to a conclusion. Inserting something unaccounted for in that gap just because there is a gap is an argument from ignorance.

Someone saying that it's not rational to admit you don't know something when you don't is beyond baffling. It's a clear indicator that you're not interested in truth.

Then you agree that all you've got is hot air and God's existence can be regarded as axiomatic until you come up with a logical alternative.

No, that's stupid and you should know it. That's now how we reach axioms, unless we prefer to make things up. If you want to assert god, you have to defend the assertion, it's not up to everyone else to prove you aren't, any mroe than it's up to me to prove you don't have the cure for cancer in your pocket.




What I don't understand is why something that is wholly congruent with science is dismissed out of hand without further investigation or alternative.

It's dismissed FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE. Show some evidence, and it will be listened to. In the meantime, your constant assertions that something exists solely because you made it up make you look either dishonest or foolish.

Want of evidence is not an argument. As I said, rationality is not limited to the empirical. A more encompassing rational line of thinking would be to base explanations on Aristotle's four causes; materialism omits two of them.

Like it or not, accept it or not, the explanation I gave is wholly congruent with both modern science and classical theism. Unless or until you have something different to propose, God's existence can be regarded as axiomatic.

No. You CLEARLY don't know what "axiomatic" means.

And just because something is congruent with things that are accepted, does not make it true, nor is its congruence inherently an argument FOR it.

Until you can give a reason for God's existence, everyone who isn't an idiot, dishonest, or already on your side is justified in ignoring the proposal.

You're always arguing your proposal is being dismissed. But when I point out there's no reason to think your proposal is correct, you try to retreat into saying you shouldn't have to show that. You do.

In other words, you have nothing to posit and therefore forfeit by default.
StevenDixon
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 10:29:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 10:26:24 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 9:39:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:46:24 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:32:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:29:47 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:17:22 PM, StevenDixon wrote:

I'm sorry I assumed you were a christian that believed in an all loving, conscious creator that could be disappointed, angry, and have relationships.

Either way, my point still stands. I don't know is not an explanation, it is admitting that there isn't enough information to come to a conclusion. Inserting something unaccounted for in that gap just because there is a gap is an argument from ignorance.

Someone saying that it's not rational to admit you don't know something when you don't is beyond baffling. It's a clear indicator that you're not interested in truth.

Then you agree that all you've got is hot air and God's existence can be regarded as axiomatic until you come up with a logical alternative.

No, that's stupid and you should know it. That's now how we reach axioms, unless we prefer to make things up. If you want to assert god, you have to defend the assertion, it's not up to everyone else to prove you aren't, any mroe than it's up to me to prove you don't have the cure for cancer in your pocket.




What I don't understand is why something that is wholly congruent with science is dismissed out of hand without further investigation or alternative.

It's dismissed FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE. Show some evidence, and it will be listened to. In the meantime, your constant assertions that something exists solely because you made it up make you look either dishonest or foolish.

Want of evidence is not an argument. As I said, rationality is not limited to the empirical. A more encompassing rational line of thinking would be to base explanations on Aristotle's four causes; materialism omits two of them.

Like it or not, accept it or not, the explanation I gave is wholly congruent with both modern science and classical theism. Unless or until you have something different to propose, God's existence can be regarded as axiomatic.

No. You CLEARLY don't know what "axiomatic" means.

And just because something is congruent with things that are accepted, does not make it true, nor is its congruence inherently an argument FOR it.

Until you can give a reason for God's existence, everyone who isn't an idiot, dishonest, or already on your side is justified in ignoring the proposal.

You're always arguing your proposal is being dismissed. But when I point out there's no reason to think your proposal is correct, you try to retreat into saying you shouldn't have to show that. You do.

In other words, you have nothing to posit and therefore forfeit by default.

Troll
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 10:58:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 10:26:24 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 9:39:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:46:24 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:32:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:29:47 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:17:22 PM, StevenDixon wrote:

I'm sorry I assumed you were a christian that believed in an all loving, conscious creator that could be disappointed, angry, and have relationships.

Either way, my point still stands. I don't know is not an explanation, it is admitting that there isn't enough information to come to a conclusion. Inserting something unaccounted for in that gap just because there is a gap is an argument from ignorance.

Someone saying that it's not rational to admit you don't know something when you don't is beyond baffling. It's a clear indicator that you're not interested in truth.

Then you agree that all you've got is hot air and God's existence can be regarded as axiomatic until you come up with a logical alternative.

No, that's stupid and you should know it. That's now how we reach axioms, unless we prefer to make things up. If you want to assert god, you have to defend the assertion, it's not up to everyone else to prove you aren't, any mroe than it's up to me to prove you don't have the cure for cancer in your pocket.




What I don't understand is why something that is wholly congruent with science is dismissed out of hand without further investigation or alternative.

It's dismissed FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE. Show some evidence, and it will be listened to. In the meantime, your constant assertions that something exists solely because you made it up make you look either dishonest or foolish.

Want of evidence is not an argument. As I said, rationality is not limited to the empirical. A more encompassing rational line of thinking would be to base explanations on Aristotle's four causes; materialism omits two of them.

Like it or not, accept it or not, the explanation I gave is wholly congruent with both modern science and classical theism. Unless or until you have something different to propose, God's existence can be regarded as axiomatic.

No. You CLEARLY don't know what "axiomatic" means.

And just because something is congruent with things that are accepted, does not make it true, nor is its congruence inherently an argument FOR it.

Until you can give a reason for God's existence, everyone who isn't an idiot, dishonest, or already on your side is justified in ignoring the proposal.

You're always arguing your proposal is being dismissed. But when I point out there's no reason to think your proposal is correct, you try to retreat into saying you shouldn't have to show that. You do.

In other words, you have nothing to posit and therefore forfeit by default.

That's not how that works. You don't get to say "prove me wrong" based on nothing whatsoever. You've consistently shown yourself to be either dishonest or foolish, and I'm left wondering which it is.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 11:41:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 10:58:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 10:26:24 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 9:39:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:46:24 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:32:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:29:47 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:17:22 PM, StevenDixon wrote:

I'm sorry I assumed you were a christian that believed in an all loving, conscious creator that could be disappointed, angry, and have relationships.

Either way, my point still stands. I don't know is not an explanation, it is admitting that there isn't enough information to come to a conclusion. Inserting something unaccounted for in that gap just because there is a gap is an argument from ignorance.

Someone saying that it's not rational to admit you don't know something when you don't is beyond baffling. It's a clear indicator that you're not interested in truth.

Then you agree that all you've got is hot air and God's existence can be regarded as axiomatic until you come up with a logical alternative.

No, that's stupid and you should know it. That's now how we reach axioms, unless we prefer to make things up. If you want to assert god, you have to defend the assertion, it's not up to everyone else to prove you aren't, any mroe than it's up to me to prove you don't have the cure for cancer in your pocket.




What I don't understand is why something that is wholly congruent with science is dismissed out of hand without further investigation or alternative.

It's dismissed FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE. Show some evidence, and it will be listened to. In the meantime, your constant assertions that something exists solely because you made it up make you look either dishonest or foolish.

Want of evidence is not an argument. As I said, rationality is not limited to the empirical. A more encompassing rational line of thinking would be to base explanations on Aristotle's four causes; materialism omits two of them.

Like it or not, accept it or not, the explanation I gave is wholly congruent with both modern science and classical theism. Unless or until you have something different to propose, God's existence can be regarded as axiomatic.

No. You CLEARLY don't know what "axiomatic" means.

And just because something is congruent with things that are accepted, does not make it true, nor is its congruence inherently an argument FOR it.

Until you can give a reason for God's existence, everyone who isn't an idiot, dishonest, or already on your side is justified in ignoring the proposal.

You're always arguing your proposal is being dismissed. But when I point out there's no reason to think your proposal is correct, you try to retreat into saying you shouldn't have to show that. You do.

In other words, you have nothing to posit and therefore forfeit by default.

That's not how that works. You don't get to say "prove me wrong" based on nothing whatsoever. You've consistently shown yourself to be either dishonest or foolish, and I'm left wondering which it is.

Have you no appreciation for dialectics?

Actually, that's exactly the way a debate works. It's not a debate when all one side has to do is say "no" without explaining why. The problem for you is that a "why" means positing an alternative explanation, or at least an explanation as to why my explanation is unjustifed. And you can't, or at least won't.

Therefore, you forfeit by default.
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2013 11:57:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes and this is why, article by Eliyah with permission to post:

This is four Hebrew letters (Yod, He, Waw and He) called the "Tetragrammaton". The four characters are the four Hebrew letters that correspond to YHWH and are transliterated IAUE or Yahweh. Yahweh is the name of the Almighty Father in Heaven that people commonly call "The LORD" or "God". The reason we see "LORD" and "God" in our bibles is because of a Jewish tradition that the name Yahweh was not to be spoken for fear that the name be blasphemed. However, the scriptures declare that His name should be exalted (e.g. Ps 68:4) and the third commandment forbids this practice. The Preface of some bibles will admit why they change His name. Nearly all will cite tradition and familiarity as the reason. This, I believe is wrong. Sometimes people pronounce the tetragrammaton as "Jehovah". But Jehovah could never be the right pronunciation. On this web site, the name of Yahweh is used in reference to the Heavenly Father because in the scriptures we are told to praise, exalt, bless, love, teach, preach, anoint, assemble, believe, give thanks, honor and call on His name.

The Tetragrammaton has been found in the 2000 year old Dead Sea Scrolls and in ancient copies of the Septuagint!
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 12:15:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 5:27:02 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
This is the title of a debate I recently had with Frackjack, but the debate was short, and I want to continue debating here.

Others are welcome to participate.

My way in the debate was to justify that "GOD exist" can be an axiom, So I want that Frackjack or whoever have an objection, to explain why not.

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

You bet your dear bippy He does!
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 2:02:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 10:29:47 PM, StevenDixon wrote:
At 5/16/2013 10:26:24 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 9:39:38 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:46:24 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:32:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:29:47 PM, Radar wrote:
At 5/16/2013 8:17:22 PM, StevenDixon wrote:

I'm sorry I assumed you were a christian that believed in an all loving, conscious creator that could be disappointed, angry, and have relationships.

Either way, my point still stands. I don't know is not an explanation, it is admitting that there isn't enough information to come to a conclusion. Inserting something unaccounted for in that gap just because there is a gap is an argument from ignorance.

Someone saying that it's not rational to admit you don't know something when you don't is beyond baffling. It's a clear indicator that you're not interested in truth.

Then you agree that all you've got is hot air and God's existence can be regarded as axiomatic until you come up with a logical alternative.

No, that's stupid and you should know it. That's now how we reach axioms, unless we prefer to make things up. If you want to assert god, you have to defend the assertion, it's not up to everyone else to prove you aren't, any mroe than it's up to me to prove you don't have the cure for cancer in your pocket.




What I don't understand is why something that is wholly congruent with science is dismissed out of hand without further investigation or alternative.

It's dismissed FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE. Show some evidence, and it will be listened to. In the meantime, your constant assertions that something exists solely because you made it up make you look either dishonest or foolish.

Want of evidence is not an argument. As I said, rationality is not limited to the empirical. A more encompassing rational line of thinking would be to base explanations on Aristotle's four causes; materialism omits two of them.

Like it or not, accept it or not, the explanation I gave is wholly congruent with both modern science and classical theism. Unless or until you have something different to propose, God's existence can be regarded as axiomatic.

No. You CLEARLY don't know what "axiomatic" means.

And just because something is congruent with things that are accepted, does not make it true, nor is its congruence inherently an argument FOR it.

Until you can give a reason for God's existence, everyone who isn't an idiot, dishonest, or already on your side is justified in ignoring the proposal.

You're always arguing your proposal is being dismissed. But when I point out there's no reason to think your proposal is correct, you try to retreat into saying you shouldn't have to show that. You do.

In other words, you have nothing to posit and therefore forfeit by default.

Troll

That's a coward's way of saying they have no argument and a bully's way of saying the only thing they will accept is silent acquiescence. A debate is give and take, proposal and counter-proposal. It's not a debate when one side proposes and the other side simply says "no."
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 2:19:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 2:11:00 AM, Sower4GS wrote:
What ever you said, it is not in Scripture therefore itis not true. Shalom.

Now that's a troll.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 2:31:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It was stated that until I can give a reason for God's existence, everyone who isn't an idiot, dishonest, or already on your side is justified in ignoring the proposal.

I'm not worried. I posited a possible explanation of God's never-beginning and never-ending existence. Anyone with the sense God gave a flea can figure out for themselves that such a reality, a self-existent acting reality, doesn't need a reason to exist. It just does.
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 7:55:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 2:19:05 AM, Radar wrote:
At 5/17/2013 2:11:00 AM, Sower4GS wrote:
What ever you said, it is not in Scripture therefore itis not true. Shalom.

Now that's a troll.

You like calling people name's?
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 7:56:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is against forum rules to call other's names, ecspecially those who come in the True name!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 8:03:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 7:56:48 AM, Sower4GS wrote:
It is against forum rules to call other's names, ecspecially those who come in the True name!

The forum rules aren't in scripture, therefore aren't true. Sha-na-na.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 9:40:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/16/2013 6:02:35 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Gods existence can't be an axiom in a debate on god's existence. And its not normallyaxiomatic, because its an assertion. I may as well say that "you owe me fifty bucks" is an axiom.

God exist is equal to say , the universe was created, and the creator is God.

not anything can be an axiom , and the example you gave is just too easy to break, as You and I never lived in the same area, and never had the chance to meet! not do we know each other.

But for a creator , it is evident, obvious and that's why so much people assume there is a creator, but won't assume you owe me anything!
Mysterious_Stranger
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 10:32:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I doubt God or a similar entity exists purely because it lacks any form of actual influence. Despite people claiming to feel its influence the entity referred to as God has never manifested itself or preformed any specific or memorable feats in a good few thousand years. If God did exist it would almost certainly reveal itself to the masses and that would completely remove the concept of atheism from the world. And of course if the entity in question did exist then I for one would be dammed to Hell, however I should not raise false hope onto myself, nor should I make any assumptions.
Turn around, go back.
AbnerGrimm
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 10:53:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 10:32:55 AM, Mysterious_Stranger wrote:
I doubt God or a similar entity exists purely because it lacks any form of actual influence. Despite people claiming to feel its influence the entity referred to as God has never manifested itself or preformed any specific or memorable feats in a good few thousand years.

Really? What about Israel coming out of no where to become a nation after 1900 years? Or that the red heifer starting reappearing since Israel became a nation? A Red Heifer is a specific cow that Israelites sacrificed and it has not been seen for hundreds of years. Or that Israel was nothing but a desert and now is a fertile nation. Or that Israel has defeated multiple armies with 1/3 odds?
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2013 10:58:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2013 10:32:55 AM, Mysterious_Stranger wrote:
I doubt God or a similar entity exists purely because it lacks any form of actual influence. Despite people claiming to feel its influence the entity referred to as God has never manifested itself or preformed any specific or memorable feats in a good few thousand years. If God did exist it would almost certainly reveal itself to the masses and that would completely remove the concept of atheism from the world. And of course if the entity in question did exist then I for one would be dammed to Hell, however I should not raise false hope onto myself, nor should I make any assumptions.

What about the French fries you had for lunch, who created the potatoes ?He does manifest himself but you are more dead then the picture in your avatar.