Total Posts:251|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is God Real?

DudeStop
Posts: 1,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 11:04:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 10:51:33 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
This is for Jingram994, Dudestop, Haroush, and 2-D.

Lol... I feel like I'm the worst one at debating this subject, due to *lack of experience* , (A new atheist) a terrible age disadvantage, (not yet an adult while you are mostly adults), and a new, unskilled debater in general, (as I am new to this whole debate thing to)

I will do my best though. I really enjoy looking at the arguments for this subject, and if I'm not able to contribute anything, I will ether try to add on to what someone says or I Will be perfectly fine with just listening for now.

Thank you.
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 11:13:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 11:04:58 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/6/2013 10:51:33 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
This is for Jingram994, Dudestop, Haroush, and 2-D.

Lol... I feel like I'm the worst one at debating this subject, due to *lack of experience* , (A new atheist) a terrible age disadvantage, (not yet an adult while you are mostly adults), and a new, unskilled debater in general, (as I am new to this whole debate thing to)

I will do my best though. I really enjoy looking at the arguments for this subject, and if I'm not able to contribute anything, I will ether try to add on to what someone says or I Will be perfectly fine with just listening for now.

Thank you.

I think you are smart for someone who according to your profile is 13.
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 11:13:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 11:07:44 PM, Jingram994 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

Just a link to the original posts in the poll section, for anyone who might not be aware, or need to reference them.

Thanks, janetsanders.

No problem.
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 11:20:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That would be cool, if in real life we all met each other. And, we ended up having like a real panel debate, on a stage, in front of a live audience.

Me and Haroush, and SONOFGOD2013 vs. 2-D, JIngram994, and Dudestop.
DudeStop
Posts: 1,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 11:31:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 11:13:32 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:04:58 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/6/2013 10:51:33 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
This is for Jingram994, Dudestop, Haroush, and 2-D.

Lol... I feel like I'm the worst one at debating this subject, due to *lack of experience* , (A new atheist) a terrible age disadvantage, (not yet an adult while you are mostly adults), and a new, unskilled debater in general, (as I am new to this whole debate thing to)

I will do my best though. I really enjoy looking at the arguments for this subject, and if I'm not able to contribute anything, I will ether try to add on to what someone says or I Will be perfectly fine with just listening for now.

Thank you.

I think you are smart for someone who according to your profile is 13.

Oh thanks. Yet I know you are just saying that.

Yet again I'll try my hardest to keep up.
yay842
Posts: 5,680
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 11:31:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 10:51:33 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
This is for Jingram994, Dudestop, Haroush, and 2-D.

das messed up
30 Important Life Lessons
http://www.debate.org...
20 Terrifying Two-Sentence Horrors
http://www.debate.org...
20 Jokes That Only Geniuses Will Understand
http://www.debate.org...
Name One Song That Can't Match This GIF
http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net...
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 11:35:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 11:31:43 PM, yay842 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 10:51:33 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
This is for Jingram994, Dudestop, Haroush, and 2-D.

das messed up

My bad and this forum is for yay842. I didn't include you at first because I thought you were tired of hearing us argue LOL. You can join as well. There are no restrictions, anyone can join.
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2013 11:36:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 11:31:15 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:13:32 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:04:58 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/6/2013 10:51:33 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
This is for Jingram994, Dudestop, Haroush, and 2-D.

Lol... I feel like I'm the worst one at debating this subject, due to *lack of experience* , (A new atheist) a terrible age disadvantage, (not yet an adult while you are mostly adults), and a new, unskilled debater in general, (as I am new to this whole debate thing to)

I will do my best though. I really enjoy looking at the arguments for this subject, and if I'm not able to contribute anything, I will ether try to add on to what someone says or I Will be perfectly fine with just listening for now.

Thank you.

I think you are smart for someone who according to your profile is 13.

Oh thanks. Yet I know you are just saying that.


Yet again I'll try my hardest to keep up.

No I'm serious. You seem to understand Logic and Reason arguments very well. Most people your age probably wouldn't care at all to study these things.
Jingram994
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 4:10:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 3:33:33 AM, janetsanders733 wrote:
At 12/7/2013 12:55:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
No

Yes.

Well, that's basically the core of the argument, in a nutshell. Shall we continue on from any and all previous arguments, which newcomers can see from the link to the Poll, or should we just start over from scratch here?
2-D
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 2:08:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Janetsanders said: "@2-D Your assuming that God is contingent. You are using the Euthyphro Dilemma by Socrates. However, upon further inspection this argument fails. 1) God is, by definition, a maximally great being. (2) This entails His being metaphysically necessary and morally perfect. (3) Therefore, by (2), God exists in all possible worlds. (4) moral values (or at least many of them) are not contingent, but hold in every possible world. Then God will ground these values in every possible world. (5)s, by (1), (3) & (4), it follows that God has the same moral character in every possible world. (6) Therefore God"s nature is good neither because of the way He happens to be nor because of His fitness with reference to an external standard of goodness."

Could you clarify how this refutes the Euthyphro Dilemma? This seems to assume the Ontological argument is correct which simply makes God the common moral element in all universes and implies that morality is subjective to God in all Universes.

I have one of the same problems with the Modal Ontological argument in general it can be used to argue many contradictory claim and can be adapted to argue against a maximally great being. From Iron chariots:

"P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists."

http://wiki.ironchariots.org...
2-D
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 2:16:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 11:04:58 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/6/2013 10:51:33 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
This is for Jingram994, Dudestop, Haroush, and 2-D.

Lol... I feel like I'm the worst one at debating this subject, due to *lack of experience* , (A new atheist) a terrible age disadvantage, (not yet an adult while you are mostly adults), and a new, unskilled debater in general, (as I am new to this whole debate thing to)

I will do my best though. I really enjoy looking at the arguments for this subject, and if I'm not able to contribute anything, I will ether try to add on to what someone says or I Will be perfectly fine with just listening for now.

Thank you.

Ha, don't worry about it. Atheist is the default position since all you're really saying is, "I am not convinced."

You can find typical objections to most common arguments for God linked at the bottom of the page here:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

I like this site and also infidels.org. No offense to theists but I obviously don't see that there are any strong arguments for God. It boils down to faith and experience which just can't be transferred to others.
James.Price
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 2:22:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 2:08:56 PM, 2-D wrote:
Janetsanders said: "@2-D Your assuming that God is contingent. You are using the Euthyphro Dilemma by Socrates. However, upon further inspection this argument fails. 1) God is, by definition, a maximally great being. (2) This entails His being metaphysically necessary and morally perfect. (3) Therefore, by (2), God exists in all possible worlds. (4) moral values (or at least many of them) are not contingent, but hold in every possible world. Then God will ground these values in every possible world. (5)s, by (1), (3) & (4), it follows that God has the same moral character in every possible world. (6) Therefore God"s nature is good neither because of the way He happens to be nor because of His fitness with reference to an external standard of goodness."

Could you clarify how this refutes the Euthyphro Dilemma? This seems to assume the Ontological argument is correct which simply makes God the common moral element in all universes and implies that morality is subjective to God in all Universes.

I have one of the same problems with the Modal Ontological argument in general it can be used to argue many contradictory claim and can be adapted to argue against a maximally great being. From Iron chariots:

"P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists."

http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

I offer a caveat, in that the Abrahamic god Yahweh (being discussed) is not "moral" or "good," and has no requirement to adhere to any standards of acceptable behavior. In fact, this deity is almost exclusively described as quite evil, perhaps insane. His supposed benevolence and mercy is almost exactly that of a serial killer, who spares some of his victims.

In the "Iron Chariots" argument given, perhaps we can review the Fourth Premise: "P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists." I do not follow this logic. Perhaps you are arguing that since Yahweh cannot be better than x, then the idea/concept of y disqualifies him as "maximal" if y is accepted as "better?"
2-D
Posts: 226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 2:32:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 2:22:48 PM, James.Price wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:08:56 PM, 2-D wrote:
Janetsanders said: "@2-D Your assuming that God is contingent. You are using the Euthyphro Dilemma by Socrates. However, upon further inspection this argument fails. 1) God is, by definition, a maximally great being. (2) This entails His being metaphysically necessary and morally perfect. (3) Therefore, by (2), God exists in all possible worlds. (4) moral values (or at least many of them) are not contingent, but hold in every possible world. Then God will ground these values in every possible world. (5)s, by (1), (3) & (4), it follows that God has the same moral character in every possible world. (6) Therefore God"s nature is good neither because of the way He happens to be nor because of His fitness with reference to an external standard of goodness."

Could you clarify how this refutes the Euthyphro Dilemma? This seems to assume the Ontological argument is correct which simply makes God the common moral element in all universes and implies that morality is subjective to God in all Universes.

I have one of the same problems with the Modal Ontological argument in general it can be used to argue many contradictory claim and can be adapted to argue against a maximally great being. From Iron chariots:

"P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists."

http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

I offer a caveat, in that the Abrahamic god Yahweh (being discussed) is not "moral" or "good," and has no requirement to adhere to any standards of acceptable behavior. In fact, this deity is almost exclusively described as quite evil, perhaps insane. His supposed benevolence and mercy is almost exactly that of a serial killer, who spares some of his victims.

In the "Iron Chariots" argument given, perhaps we can review the Fourth Premise: "P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists." I do not follow this logic. Perhaps you are arguing that since Yahweh cannot be better than x, then the idea/concept of y disqualifies him as "maximal" if y is accepted as "better?"

I agree the God of the bible is immoral and in our original Poll argument I brought up passages condoning permanent slavery and the beating of slaves to support this point.

Yeah I don't find the argument convincing either but it is just designed to show the flaws in the Modal Ontological argument which assumes that God must exist in all possible worlds.

The modal ontological argument follows the form:

" P(1): It is possible that God exists.
P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
C(1): Therefore, God exists. "

http://wiki.ironchariots.org...
James.Price
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 2:45:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 2:32:05 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:22:48 PM, James.Price wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:08:56 PM, 2-D wrote:
Janetsanders said: "@2-D Your assuming that God is contingent. You are using the Euthyphro Dilemma by Socrates. However, upon further inspection this argument fails. 1) God is, by definition, a maximally great being. (2) This entails His being metaphysically necessary and morally perfect. (3) Therefore, by (2), God exists in all possible worlds. (4) moral values (or at least many of them) are not contingent, but hold in every possible world. Then God will ground these values in every possible world. (5)s, by (1), (3) & (4), it follows that God has the same moral character in every possible world. (6) Therefore God"s nature is good neither because of the way He happens to be nor because of His fitness with reference to an external standard of goodness."

Could you clarify how this refutes the Euthyphro Dilemma? This seems to assume the Ontological argument is correct which simply makes God the common moral element in all universes and implies that morality is subjective to God in all Universes.

I have one of the same problems with the Modal Ontological argument in general it can be used to argue many contradictory claim and can be adapted to argue against a maximally great being. From Iron chariots:

"P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists."

http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

I offer a caveat, in that the Abrahamic god Yahweh (being discussed) is not "moral" or "good," and has no requirement to adhere to any standards of acceptable behavior. In fact, this deity is almost exclusively described as quite evil, perhaps insane. His supposed benevolence and mercy is almost exactly that of a serial killer, who spares some of his victims.

In the "Iron Chariots" argument given, perhaps we can review the Fourth Premise: "P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists." I do not follow this logic. Perhaps you are arguing that since Yahweh cannot be better than x, then the idea/concept of y disqualifies him as "maximal" if y is accepted as "better?"

I agree the God of the bible is immoral and in our original Poll argument I brought up passages condoning permanent slavery and the beating of slaves to support this point.

Yeah I don't find the argument convincing either but it is just designed to show the flaws in the Modal Ontological argument which assumes that God must exist in all possible worlds.

The modal ontological argument follows the form:

" P(1): It is possible that God exists.
P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
C(1): Therefore, God exists. "

http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

I see.

Since you supported the idea of Yahwistic immorality, I want to quickly add the idea of Christs atonement, the doctrine of Hell, the Noachian Flood, the murder suicide of Samson, and the teachings of Jesus as further evidence of the immorality of this deity.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 2:46:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 11:04:58 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/6/2013 10:51:33 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
This is for Jingram994, Dudestop, Haroush, and 2-D.

Lol... I feel like I'm the worst one at debating this subject, due to *lack of experience* , (A new atheist) a terrible age disadvantage, (not yet an adult while you are mostly adults), and a new, unskilled debater in general, (as I am new to this whole debate thing to)

I will do my best though. I really enjoy looking at the arguments for this subject, and if I'm not able to contribute anything, I will ether try to add on to what someone says or I Will be perfectly fine with just listening for now.

Thank you.

Just lie like all Christians and atheists do.
DudeStop
Posts: 1,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 3:38:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 2:46:21 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:04:58 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/6/2013 10:51:33 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
This is for Jingram994, Dudestop, Haroush, and 2-D.

Lol... I feel like I'm the worst one at debating this subject, due to *lack of experience* , (A new atheist) a terrible age disadvantage, (not yet an adult while you are mostly adults), and a new, unskilled debater in general, (as I am new to this whole debate thing to)

I will do my best though. I really enjoy looking at the arguments for this subject, and if I'm not able to contribute anything, I will ether try to add on to what someone says or I Will be perfectly fine with just listening for now.

Thank you.

Just lie like all Christians and atheists do.

Oh? Tell me what religion you are please. And how do atheists/Christians lie then?
Romanii
Posts: 4,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 4:23:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 3:38:06 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:46:21 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:04:58 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/6/2013 10:51:33 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
This is for Jingram994, Dudestop, Haroush, and 2-D.

Lol... I feel like I'm the worst one at debating this subject, due to *lack of experience* , (A new atheist) a terrible age disadvantage, (not yet an adult while you are mostly adults), and a new, unskilled debater in general, (as I am new to this whole debate thing to)

I will do my best though. I really enjoy looking at the arguments for this subject, and if I'm not able to contribute anything, I will ether try to add on to what someone says or I Will be perfectly fine with just listening for now.

Thank you.

Just lie like all Christians and atheists do.

Oh? Tell me what religion you are please. And how do atheists/Christians lie then?

Dudestop, don't listen to that bornofgod guy. He's completely insane. He thinks (or pretends to think) he is a saint and that every other human on the planet is destined for Hell.
Just look at his recent activity on the site, and you'll get the idea...
DudeStop
Posts: 1,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 4:30:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I really hope this ends up being a friendly exchange. We are both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you do. When you realize why you dismiss the other religions, you will understand why I dismiss yours. I'd rather accept that there are things I may never understand than believe in something that can't back itself up scientifically or philosophically

Questions:
Are we really intelligently designed:

If god's goal was life, then why do we have death?

Why did god make poison ivy... It literally has no use,

Why did god make mountains, if humans can only be dropped about 20 feet or so?

Why do we have useless body parts?
http://www.bloggingwv.com...
SONOFGOD2013
Posts: 149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 6:35:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2013 11:20:44 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
That would be cool, if in real life we all met each other. And, we ended up having like a real panel debate, on a stage, in front of a live audience.

Me and Haroush, and SONOFGOD2013 vs. 2-D, JIngram994, and Dudestop.

That would be cool dude.
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 8:06:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 4:30:52 PM, DudeStop wrote:
I really hope this ends up being a friendly exchange. We are both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you do. When you realize why you dismiss the other religions, you will understand why I dismiss yours. I'd rather accept that there are things I may never understand than believe in something that can't back itself up scientifically or philosophically

Questions:
Are we really intelligently designed:

If god's goal was life, then why do we have death?

Why did god make poison ivy... It literally has no use,

Why did god make mountains, if humans can only be dropped about 20 feet or so?

Why do we have useless body parts?
http://www.bloggingwv.com...

I am not an atheist because I believe in Christ and deny other false Gods. An atheist is someone who denies any God/Gods.

We have death because we sinned. Death is the result of sin, not just physicall but spiritual.
DudeStop
Posts: 1,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 8:27:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 6:35:09 PM, SONOFGOD2013 wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:20:44 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
That would be cool, if in real life we all met each other. And, we ended up having like a real panel debate, on a stage, in front of a live audience.

Me and Haroush, and SONOFGOD2013 vs. 2-D, JIngram994, and Dudestop.


That would be cool dude.

We should have a tournament, lol!

First round:
1. Jingram994 VS. Haroush
2. Sonofgod2013 VS. DudeStop(The great)
3. 2D VS. Janetsanders733

Second round:
We could have either:

All three people for one side win, resulting in that side winning the debate tournament.

If two people from one side wins, then they both decide who will face the one winner from the other side.

If a tie happens, then there shall be a rematch. (Though I'm sure it will not)

RULES:
The debates will be about the existence of god.
A FF on a round will result in conduct, two FF's is equal to concession and loses the entire debate.
The participants in the tournament shall not vote. Instead, the voters could be anyone, or we could decide right now.
Whichever side wins... Will receive respect.

.?
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 8:32:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 3:38:06 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:46:21 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:04:58 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/6/2013 10:51:33 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
This is for Jingram994, Dudestop, Haroush, and 2-D.

Lol... I feel like I'm the worst one at debating this subject, due to *lack of experience* , (A new atheist) a terrible age disadvantage, (not yet an adult while you are mostly adults), and a new, unskilled debater in general, (as I am new to this whole debate thing to)

I will do my best though. I really enjoy looking at the arguments for this subject, and if I'm not able to contribute anything, I will ether try to add on to what someone says or I Will be perfectly fine with just listening for now.

Thank you.

Just lie like all Christians and atheists do.

Oh? Tell me what religion you are please. And how do atheists/Christians lie then?

There is no religion in God's creation, which is where I get the knowledge to speak the Truth from. No Christians or atheists have the Truth to speak with so everything they say, write or do is a lie.
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 8:34:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 2:22:48 PM, James.Price wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:08:56 PM, 2-D wrote:
Janetsanders said: "@2-D Your assuming that God is contingent. You are using the Euthyphro Dilemma by Socrates. However, upon further inspection this argument fails. 1) God is, by definition, a maximally great being. (2) This entails His being metaphysically necessary and morally perfect. (3) Therefore, by (2), God exists in all possible worlds. (4) moral values (or at least many of them) are not contingent, but hold in every possible world. Then God will ground these values in every possible world. (5)s, by (1), (3) & (4), it follows that God has the same moral character in every possible world. (6) Therefore God"s nature is good neither because of the way He happens to be nor because of His fitness with reference to an external standard of goodness."

Could you clarify how this refutes the Euthyphro Dilemma? This seems to assume the Ontological argument is correct which simply makes God the common moral element in all universes and implies that morality is subjective to God in all Universes.

I have one of the same problems with the Modal Ontological argument in general it can be used to argue many contradictory claim and can be adapted to argue against a maximally great being. From Iron chariots:

"P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists."

http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

I offer a caveat, in that the Abrahamic god Yahweh (being discussed) is not "moral" or "good," and has no requirement to adhere to any standards of acceptable behavior. In fact, this deity is almost exclusively described as quite evil, perhaps insane. His supposed benevolence and mercy is almost exactly that of a serial killer, who spares some of his victims.

In the "Iron Chariots" argument given, perhaps we can review the Fourth Premise: "P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists." I do not follow this logic. Perhaps you are arguing that since Yahweh cannot be better than x, then the idea/concept of y disqualifies him as "maximal" if y is accepted as "better?"

I never mentioned which God in my argument. God by definition is a supreme maxmially great being.

On what basis do you make that moral judgment?
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 8:42:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 2:32:05 PM, 2-D wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:22:48 PM, James.Price wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:08:56 PM, 2-D wrote:
Janetsanders said: "@2-D Your assuming that God is contingent. You are using the Euthyphro Dilemma by Socrates. However, upon further inspection this argument fails. 1) God is, by definition, a maximally great being. (2) This entails His being metaphysically necessary and morally perfect. (3) Therefore, by (2), God exists in all possible worlds. (4) moral values (or at least many of them) are not contingent, but hold in every possible world. Then God will ground these values in every possible world. (5)s, by (1), (3) & (4), it follows that God has the same moral character in every possible world. (6) Therefore God"s nature is good neither because of the way He happens to be nor because of His fitness with reference to an external standard of goodness."

Could you clarify how this refutes the Euthyphro Dilemma? This seems to assume the Ontological argument is correct which simply makes God the common moral element in all universes and implies that morality is subjective to God in all Universes.

I have one of the same problems with the Modal Ontological argument in general it can be used to argue many contradictory claim and can be adapted to argue against a maximally great being. From Iron chariots:

"P(1) It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is some possible world where God does not exist.
P(2) God is defined as a necessary being, i.e. exists in all possible worlds.
P(3) If there is one possible world where God does not exist, then there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists.
C(1) It is impossible that God exists."

http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

I offer a caveat, in that the Abrahamic god Yahweh (being discussed) is not "moral" or "good," and has no requirement to adhere to any standards of acceptable behavior. In fact, this deity is almost exclusively described as quite evil, perhaps insane. His supposed benevolence and mercy is almost exactly that of a serial killer, who spares some of his victims.

In the "Iron Chariots" argument given, perhaps we can review the Fourth Premise: "P(4) If there is no possible world in which God exists in all possible worlds, then it is impossible that God exists." I do not follow this logic. Perhaps you are arguing that since Yahweh cannot be better than x, then the idea/concept of y disqualifies him as "maximal" if y is accepted as "better?"

I agree the God of the bible is immoral and in our original Poll argument I brought up passages condoning permanent slavery and the beating of slaves to support this point.

Yeah I don't find the argument convincing either but it is just designed to show the flaws in the Modal Ontological argument which assumes that God must exist in all possible worlds.

The modal ontological argument follows the form:

" P(1): It is possible that God exists.
P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
C(1): Therefore, God exists. "

http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

God by definition a maximally great being. Euthyro's dilemma is an Is/Or statement. It is not an Is/Is not statement.

Therfore; I am not restricted to answer one or the other. Since I am not restricted to answer one or the other, I can provide an alternative proposition and this is my point. God is the good. Good does not exist outside God.

As I said before God is the greatest being conceivable, which makes him the highest moral good. This makes him independent, which then means anythimg that comes from him is objective and independent.

Wiki iron chariots premise 2 contradicts premise 1. If God exists in all possible worlds, then he that means he exists in all worlds. If he exists in all worlds, then there is not one possible world in which he does not exist. So how can he not exist in one possible world if he exist in all possible worlds? That argument is self-defeating.
DudeStop
Posts: 1,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 8:50:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 8:32:57 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/7/2013 3:38:06 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:46:21 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:04:58 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/6/2013 10:51:33 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
This is for Jingram994, Dudestop, Haroush, and 2-D.

Lol... I feel like I'm the worst one at debating this subject, due to *lack of experience* , (A new atheist) a terrible age disadvantage, (not yet an adult while you are mostly adults), and a new, unskilled debater in general, (as I am new to this whole debate thing to)

I will do my best though. I really enjoy looking at the arguments for this subject, and if I'm not able to contribute anything, I will ether try to add on to what someone says or I Will be perfectly fine with just listening for now.

Thank you.

Just lie like all Christians and atheists do.

Oh? Tell me what religion you are please. And how do atheists/Christians lie then?

There is no religion in God's creation, which is where I get the knowledge to speak the Truth from. No Christians or atheists have the Truth to speak with so everything they say, write or do is a lie.

So anything I say cannot possibly be true.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 8:58:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 8:50:07 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/7/2013 8:32:57 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/7/2013 3:38:06 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:46:21 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/6/2013 11:04:58 PM, DudeStop wrote:
At 12/6/2013 10:51:33 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
This is for Jingram994, Dudestop, Haroush, and 2-D.

Lol... I feel like I'm the worst one at debating this subject, due to *lack of experience* , (A new atheist) a terrible age disadvantage, (not yet an adult while you are mostly adults), and a new, unskilled debater in general, (as I am new to this whole debate thing to)

I will do my best though. I really enjoy looking at the arguments for this subject, and if I'm not able to contribute anything, I will ether try to add on to what someone says or I Will be perfectly fine with just listening for now.

Thank you.

Just lie like all Christians and atheists do.

Oh? Tell me what religion you are please. And how do atheists/Christians lie then?

There is no religion in God's creation, which is where I get the knowledge to speak the Truth from. No Christians or atheists have the Truth to speak with so everything they say, write or do is a lie.

So anything I say cannot possibly be true.

That's correct.

There are two different kinds of information available in the mind of our Creator. One set of information is energy that vibrates in harmony, which is His creation. The other set of information vibrates in disharmony and gives us the illusions of this world. So the world that we see, hear, smell, taste and touch is what deceives man from his true created existence as God's thoughts converted to wavelengths of energy.

This means we are invisible information ( energy ) that has to be processed in order to give us the illusions of a flesh and the things of this world.

The astrophysicist named Stephen Hawking has announced that everything came from nothing but he still doesn't understand that what we see are only illusions on the retina's of our eyes in the form of atomic elements. Atomic elements are just like pixels on a Photoshop computer program that have to be zoomed in or out to give us a defined picture to see. Atoms are only illusions that look like tiny blurry pictures, which we can replicate easily on a Photoshop program.

The reason scientists can only give us theories is because they are looking at illusions, which are NOT our true created existence as invisible energy.