Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Admit defeat or change definition?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 8:25:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

There are three gods fighting each other, must be.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 9:10:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

It depends on what properties they were and what my basis for believing in them in the first place was. I'd have to be in the situation.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 10:46:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A contradiction doesn't show the absence of God, it would show that a premise is wrong. It's easier to chance a facet of God's personality or whatever you're getting at than abolishing belief in God altogether.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2013 11:08:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

I'm not full theist, but rather an agnostic theist, which means I'm a deist who's agnostic toward specific religion. So for me, I'd just move to a full deist.

Even if I were a full theist (which I have been), I'd Just reject the part of my belief which had been disproven (I.E. a specific aspect of God). Depending on the specific nature of the property, I might have to change other things. For example if the property was clearly spelled out in the bible, I might reject biblical inerrancy, or at least conclude that the text has been corrupted, or perhaps take a much more metaphoric interpretation of the bible, etc.

Come to think of it as an agnostic theist, I'd probably react the same way, just on an agnostic level. (I.E. I'd go from agnostic to "Atheistic" on whatever the property is.)
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Suqua
Posts: 433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 12:41:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

This is just blowing hot air, no substance. Lay down something!
PureX
Posts: 1,523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 7:47:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

By definition, God's "properties" would appear contradictory, from our limited perspective. Anything that could be claimed to be both absolute and infinite would appear to us as being both "this and that, here and there, and even existing and not existing" simultaneously, which would be considered contradictory by our logic.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 8:47:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I can't change the definition of God that is in the scripture, he defined himself, so it If the definition I have was defeated for sure, I'd be very disappointed and lost.

By the way God does have attributes that are contradictory and he admits them to himself , as he is merciful and rude, but his mercy is greater then his rudeness. so he admit all this in the scripture and I don't really know what kind of contradiction you would mean?
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 9:59:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

Why ask a question for something you should already know the answer to? Easiest two properties to pick are All Knowing, and Free Will. Depending on your definitions the two properties are in contradiction. All Knowing works really well with Fatalism and Determinism, but not very will with Free Will.

You end up with a lot of people who will hear the argument and still side with Free Will and an All Knowing God. They just want to have their cake, and eat it too. However, Calvinists wouldn't have a problem with that because they're fatalists.

Personally, note I'm Agnostic, I side more with Free Will, and if an All Knowing God exists, clearly, our definition of All Knowing is wrong. Example, an All Knowing God might know All That Was and All That Is, but for the future knows all that Could Be. All that Could Be is larger than all that Will Be if you believe in free will. If you don't believe in free will then all that Could Be and Will Be are equal values. However, all that Will Be is in all that Could Be. So this God would know it, but just doesn't Know that it Will Be, just that it Could Be.

Most things of this nature are heavily semantic so proving them in an acceptable fashion is exceedingly difficult.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 10:48:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 9:59:38 AM, medv4380 wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

Why ask a question for something you should already know the answer to? Easiest two properties to pick are All Knowing, and Free Will. Depending on your definitions the two properties are in contradiction. All Knowing works really well with Fatalism and Determinism, but not very will with Free Will.

You end up with a lot of people who will hear the argument and still side with Free Will and an All Knowing God. They just want to have their cake, and eat it too. However, Calvinists wouldn't have a problem with that because they're fatalists.

Personally, note I'm Agnostic, I side more with Free Will, and if an All Knowing God exists, clearly, our definition of All Knowing is wrong. Example, an All Knowing God might know All That Was and All That Is, but for the future knows all that Could Be. All that Could Be is larger than all that Will Be if you believe in free will. If you don't believe in free will then all that Could Be and Will Be are equal values. However, all that Will Be is in all that Could Be. So this God would know it, but just doesn't Know that it Will Be, just that it Could Be.

Most things of this nature are heavily semantic so proving them in an acceptable fashion is exceedingly difficult.

However, a definition change would be shifting the goal posts. If the theist defines God as "x" and you disprove "x", then they would have to shift the goal post in a ad hoc fashion to claim you did not disprove God.
AbnerGrimm
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 11:01:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

That does not change God. That just affirms our human lack of understanding Him. We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 11:17:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 11:01:27 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

That does not change God. That just affirms our human lack of understanding Him.

You cannot define something you do not understand, unless you define it as that which you can not understand. When you define God and his nature and give him all of these properties; this contradicts the notion that humans cannot understand him. If you could not understand God then how can you give him all of these properties? How is this not special pleading?

We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 11:20:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 11:01:27 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

That does not change God. That just affirms our human lack of understanding Him. We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?

"We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?"

All I want is one good reason or one tiny shred of evidence, not undeniability.
AbnerGrimm
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 11:24:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 11:17:02 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:01:27 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

That does not change God. That just affirms our human lack of understanding Him.

You cannot define something you do not understand, unless you define it as that which you can not understand. When you define God and his nature and give him all of these properties; this contradicts the notion that humans cannot understand him. If you could not understand God then how can you give him all of these properties? How is this not special pleading?

No, I can define terms I understand but can still claim I do not understand all of God. I would hope no one claims they completely know about God. The Bible gives us the basis of those definitions. You are making absolutes. You can know properties about something without knowing all the properties of the whole thing. Who is pleading, it seems your not thinking the thought through.
AbnerGrimm
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 11:34:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 11:20:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:01:27 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

That does not change God. That just affirms our human lack of understanding Him. We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?

"We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?"

All I want is one good reason or one tiny shred of evidence, not undeniability.

Buddy there is evidence all around you. Any sign in life on the planet, logical arguments, witnesses of Jesus, the historical record of the Bible, its authenticity, and the overall wealth of all theistic religions of something more than the natural. Scientific evidence that suggest more than naturalistic means. When evidence mounts up it starts to become a belief of not believing.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 11:35:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 10:48:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 9:59:38 AM, medv4380 wrote:
Most things of this nature are heavily semantic so proving them in an acceptable fashion is exceedingly difficult.

However, a definition change would be shifting the goal posts. If the theist defines God as "x" and you disprove "x", then they would have to shift the goal post in a ad hoc fashion to claim you did not disprove God.

So you support a double standard. When Science determined that the Sun was the center of the solar system the Definitions changed. When Einstein determined that Time was Relative Definitions changed. What you're proposing is that Theists must be static and unchanging, but others can get away with it. That is nothing more than hypocrisy.

New information must allow people to re-evaluate their own beliefs. That is how Science works, and I see no reason it isn't the same for every human belief structure.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 11:42:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 11:34:15 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:20:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:01:27 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

That does not change God. That just affirms our human lack of understanding Him. We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?

"We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?"

All I want is one good reason or one tiny shred of evidence, not undeniability.

Buddy there is evidence all around you.

Really? All I see is evidence for Atheism.

Any sign in life on the planet

Explained by biology, not God.

, logical arguments

TAG argument is a failure.

, witnesses of Jesus

People witnessed him (probably), that does not mean he is the sun of any God.

, the historical record of the Bible, its authenticity, and the overall wealth of all theistic religions of something more than the natural.

How is The Bible authentic? Also, there is no good reason to believe there is necessarily anything more than natural.

Scientific evidence that suggest more than naturalistic means.

No it does not.

When evidence mounts up it starts to become a belief of not believing.

I'm still waiting for this evidence..
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 11:44:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 11:34:15 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:20:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:01:27 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

That does not change God. That just affirms our human lack of understanding Him. We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?

"We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?"

All I want is one good reason or one tiny shred of evidence, not undeniability.

Buddy there is evidence all around you. Any sign in life on the planet, logical arguments, witnesses of Jesus, the historical record of the Bible, its authenticity, and the overall wealth of all theistic religions of something more than the natural. Scientific evidence that suggest more than naturalistic means. When evidence mounts up it starts to become a belief of not believing.

Also, how do you jump from "something beyond the natural" to "God"? This is a non-sequitur, even if there is something beyond the natural.
AbnerGrimm
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 11:47:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 11:44:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:34:15 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:20:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:01:27 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

That does not change God. That just affirms our human lack of understanding Him. We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?

"We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?"

All I want is one good reason or one tiny shred of evidence, not undeniability.

Buddy there is evidence all around you. Any sign in life on the planet, logical arguments, witnesses of Jesus, the historical record of the Bible, its authenticity, and the overall wealth of all theistic religions of something more than the natural. Scientific evidence that suggest more than naturalistic means. When evidence mounts up it starts to become a belief of not believing.

Also, how do you jump from "something beyond the natural" to "God"? This is a non-sequitur, even if there is something beyond the natural.

How did you change your own OP in mid-stream?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 11:50:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 11:47:26 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:44:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:34:15 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:20:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:01:27 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

That does not change God. That just affirms our human lack of understanding Him. We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?

"We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?"

All I want is one good reason or one tiny shred of evidence, not undeniability.

Buddy there is evidence all around you. Any sign in life on the planet, logical arguments, witnesses of Jesus, the historical record of the Bible, its authenticity, and the overall wealth of all theistic religions of something more than the natural. Scientific evidence that suggest more than naturalistic means. When evidence mounts up it starts to become a belief of not believing.

Also, how do you jump from "something beyond the natural" to "God"? This is a non-sequitur, even if there is something beyond the natural.

How did you change your own OP in mid-stream?

I believe you did that when you starting listing off all these arguments for God. If you want to have a formal debate then we might as well do it.
AbnerGrimm
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 11:58:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 11:50:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:47:26 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:44:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:34:15 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:20:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:01:27 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

That does not change God. That just affirms our human lack of understanding Him. We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?

"We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?"

All I want is one good reason or one tiny shred of evidence, not undeniability.

Buddy there is evidence all around you. Any sign in life on the planet, logical arguments, witnesses of Jesus, the historical record of the Bible, its authenticity, and the overall wealth of all theistic religions of something more than the natural. Scientific evidence that suggest more than naturalistic means. When evidence mounts up it starts to become a belief of not believing.

Also, how do you jump from "something beyond the natural" to "God"? This is a non-sequitur, even if there is something beyond the natural.

How did you change your own OP in mid-stream?

I believe you did that when you starting listing off all these arguments for God. If you want to have a formal debate then we might as well do it.

What on this?
Admit defeat or change definition?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 12:04:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 11:58:16 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:50:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:47:26 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:44:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:34:15 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:20:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:01:27 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

That does not change God. That just affirms our human lack of understanding Him. We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?

"We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?"

All I want is one good reason or one tiny shred of evidence, not undeniability.

Buddy there is evidence all around you. Any sign in life on the planet, logical arguments, witnesses of Jesus, the historical record of the Bible, its authenticity, and the overall wealth of all theistic religions of something more than the natural. Scientific evidence that suggest more than naturalistic means. When evidence mounts up it starts to become a belief of not believing.

Also, how do you jump from "something beyond the natural" to "God"? This is a non-sequitur, even if there is something beyond the natural.

How did you change your own OP in mid-stream?

I believe you did that when you starting listing off all these arguments for God. If you want to have a formal debate then we might as well do it.

What on this?
Admit defeat or change definition?

I do not feel like debating a subject that small. You loaded your theistic shotgun and blasted multiple arguments in my directions that I believe I can defeat. Would you like to debate God's existence? Obviously, we have to stick with one definition... We will share the BOP to make it interesting; instead my usual agnostic position where I make the theist take on the full BOP. However, you will making the first argument and I get the last word. Game or no game?
AbnerGrimm
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 12:06:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 12:04:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:58:16 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:50:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:47:26 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:44:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:34:15 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:20:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:01:27 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

That does not change God. That just affirms our human lack of understanding Him. We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?

"We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?"

All I want is one good reason or one tiny shred of evidence, not undeniability.

Buddy there is evidence all around you. Any sign in life on the planet, logical arguments, witnesses of Jesus, the historical record of the Bible, its authenticity, and the overall wealth of all theistic religions of something more than the natural. Scientific evidence that suggest more than naturalistic means. When evidence mounts up it starts to become a belief of not believing.

Also, how do you jump from "something beyond the natural" to "God"? This is a non-sequitur, even if there is something beyond the natural.

How did you change your own OP in mid-stream?

I believe you did that when you starting listing off all these arguments for God. If you want to have a formal debate then we might as well do it.

What on this?
Admit defeat or change definition?

I do not feel like debating a subject that small. You loaded your theistic shotgun and blasted multiple arguments in my directions that I believe I can defeat. Would you like to debate God's existence? Obviously, we have to stick with one definition... We will share the BOP to make it interesting; instead my usual agnostic position where I make the theist take on the full BOP. However, you will making the first argument and I get the last word. Game or no game?

Yes, but am debating several debates at the moment. I suggest in a week or two?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 12:13:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 12:06:42 PM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/21/2013 12:04:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:58:16 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:50:05 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:47:26 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:44:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:34:15 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:20:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:01:27 AM, AbnerGrimm wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

That does not change God. That just affirms our human lack of understanding Him. We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?

"We still will be using descriptions from a human standpoint both for and against. When God is undeniable will you continue to question Him?"

All I want is one good reason or one tiny shred of evidence, not undeniability.

Buddy there is evidence all around you. Any sign in life on the planet, logical arguments, witnesses of Jesus, the historical record of the Bible, its authenticity, and the overall wealth of all theistic religions of something more than the natural. Scientific evidence that suggest more than naturalistic means. When evidence mounts up it starts to become a belief of not believing.

Also, how do you jump from "something beyond the natural" to "God"? This is a non-sequitur, even if there is something beyond the natural.

How did you change your own OP in mid-stream?

I believe you did that when you starting listing off all these arguments for God. If you want to have a formal debate then we might as well do it.

What on this?
Admit defeat or change definition?

I do not feel like debating a subject that small. You loaded your theistic shotgun and blasted multiple arguments in my directions that I believe I can defeat. Would you like to debate God's existence? Obviously, we have to stick with one definition... We will share the BOP to make it interesting; instead my usual agnostic position where I make the theist take on the full BOP. However, you will making the first argument and I get the last word. Game or no game?

Yes, but am debating several debates at the moment. I suggest in a week or two?

Sure, whenever you have time just challenge me I will be ready.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 2:32:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 10:48:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 9:59:38 AM, medv4380 wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

Why ask a question for something you should already know the answer to? Easiest two properties to pick are All Knowing, and Free Will. Depending on your definitions the two properties are in contradiction. All Knowing works really well with Fatalism and Determinism, but not very will with Free Will.

You end up with a lot of people who will hear the argument and still side with Free Will and an All Knowing God. They just want to have their cake, and eat it too. However, Calvinists wouldn't have a problem with that because they're fatalists.

Personally, note I'm Agnostic, I side more with Free Will, and if an All Knowing God exists, clearly, our definition of All Knowing is wrong. Example, an All Knowing God might know All That Was and All That Is, but for the future knows all that Could Be. All that Could Be is larger than all that Will Be if you believe in free will. If you don't believe in free will then all that Could Be and Will Be are equal values. However, all that Will Be is in all that Could Be. So this God would know it, but just doesn't Know that it Will Be, just that it Could Be.

Most things of this nature are heavily semantic so proving them in an acceptable fashion is exceedingly difficult.

However, a definition change would be shifting the goal posts. If the theist defines God as "x" and you disprove "x", then they would have to shift the goal post in a ad hoc fashion to claim you did not disprove God.

Moving a goal post is only invalid in a debate, once the parameters or definition has been set, they cannot be moved in order to discount an argument about that specific resolution based on that specific definition. That particular debate is over, and the person has won, but that doesn't preclude or have any impact on a new debate with a new definition. This specific debate is over, it doesn't preclude another similar one. The fact that part has been disproven, does not disprove the whole. This happens all the time, part of a theory is disproven, but we don't reject the whole thing. (In fact, sometimes the entire theory remains, and the "disproof" just remains as a "yet unanswered question".)

It may be frustrating to a "disprover" when the goal post is moved, and they'll often be disgusted and refuse to debate the entire subject anymore at all, considering it done. But, the fact of the matter is only that which has been disproved has been disproven. Disproving one belief does not necessarily disprove a similar belief, regardless of how similar they are.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 2:44:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 2:32:36 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 5/21/2013 10:48:42 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 9:59:38 AM, medv4380 wrote:
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

Why ask a question for something you should already know the answer to? Easiest two properties to pick are All Knowing, and Free Will. Depending on your definitions the two properties are in contradiction. All Knowing works really well with Fatalism and Determinism, but not very will with Free Will.

You end up with a lot of people who will hear the argument and still side with Free Will and an All Knowing God. They just want to have their cake, and eat it too. However, Calvinists wouldn't have a problem with that because they're fatalists.

Personally, note I'm Agnostic, I side more with Free Will, and if an All Knowing God exists, clearly, our definition of All Knowing is wrong. Example, an All Knowing God might know All That Was and All That Is, but for the future knows all that Could Be. All that Could Be is larger than all that Will Be if you believe in free will. If you don't believe in free will then all that Could Be and Will Be are equal values. However, all that Will Be is in all that Could Be. So this God would know it, but just doesn't Know that it Will Be, just that it Could Be.

Most things of this nature are heavily semantic so proving them in an acceptable fashion is exceedingly difficult.

However, a definition change would be shifting the goal posts. If the theist defines God as "x" and you disprove "x", then they would have to shift the goal post in a ad hoc fashion to claim you did not disprove God.

Moving a goal post is only invalid in a debate, once the parameters or definition has been set, they cannot be moved in order to discount an argument about that specific resolution based on that specific definition. That particular debate is over, and the person has won, but that doesn't preclude or have any impact on a new debate with a new definition. This specific debate is over, it doesn't preclude another similar one. The fact that part has been disproven, does not disprove the whole. This happens all the time, part of a theory is disproven, but we don't reject the whole thing. (In fact, sometimes the entire theory remains, and the "disproof" just remains as a "yet unanswered question".)

It may be frustrating to a "disprover" when the goal post is moved, and they'll often be disgusted and refuse to debate the entire subject anymore at all, considering it done. But, the fact of the matter is only that which has been disproved has been disproven. Disproving one belief does not necessarily disprove a similar belief, regardless of how similar they are.

True, but if most people believe in that one type of God and you disproved the one they believed in, they now have to make up another God. Even if it wasn't a knock out; it would at least it would be a nice blow. I do not think that it would discourage the disprover, it would encourage him because he is making progress!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 4:47:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/20/2013 8:01:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists, if you were eventually convinced by an Atheistic argument showing two or more of God's properties contradicted each other, would you admit Atheism was true or simply change the definition of God?

If you were eventually convinced two or more properties of matter contradicted each other, would you stop believing in matter, or simply change your definition of matter?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater