Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism

scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2008 10:54:05 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.
joshandr30
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2008 11:08:22 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Good show. You are not complexity worthless scissors. Johnny weeping willow. Do they actually believe that? Or a piece of toilet paper. I would love to wipe my arse with beem0r. Ha Ha Ha J/k. LOL.
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 6:43:04 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/2/2008 11:08:22 PM, joshandr30 wrote:
You are not complexity worthless scissors.

I wish I could say the same
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 6:43:25 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/2/2008 11:04:52 PM, beem0r wrote:
I don't find Dane Cook funny anymore ;[
He's too gimmicky.
Even so, I didn't like this routine when I did like his humor.

Really? My roommates find him hilarious.
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 5:44:20 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/3/2008 9:04:32 AM, Zerosmelt wrote:
I thought only sorority girls still liked him... lol.

oh well two can play that game scissors.

I was really going for quality over quantity.

Additionally if you are a proponent of the Big Bang Theory, then you will agree that all matter began at a particular place and instant in the universe.

If you are a proponent of science, then you will agree with Newton's laws of motion.

Since there had to be a cause of the big bang you can only conclude that one infinite being would have to exist to cause the big bang. Since unintelligent matter does not move on its own accord, you can conclude that this infinite being was intelligent, thus supporting the idea of an intelligent infinite being that was cause of the creation of the universe.

Additionally, Einstein came to this same conclusion as did I. Although he did not believe in the Christian God as I do.
However both Einstein and Spinoza successfully provide adequate logic for the existence of the Christian God.

Spinoza begins by describing what can be known about God. God is infinite being, according to Spinoza. God is infinite substance, consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses God's eternal and infinite essence (I, Prop. XI).1

God necessarily exists, argues Spinoza, because God's essence is existence. God's essence is perfect, and therefore God's perfection implies that God must exist. God's essence and existence are the same (I, Prop. XX). Each attribute which expresses God's essence also expresses God's existence.

According to Spinoza, infinite substance is indivisible (I, Prop. XIII). If infinite substance were divisible, it could either be divided into two finite parts, which is impossible, or it could be divided into two equally infinite parts, which is also impossible. Thus, there is only one infinite substance.

Since God is infinite substance, Spinoza argues, no attribute which expresses the essence of substance can be denied of God (I, Prop. XIV). Every being has its being in God. Nothing can come into being or exist without God.

According to Spinoza, the will and the intellect are modes of thought. The will is the same as the intellect. In God, intellect is actual and not potential, because in God intellect is fully actualized. This means that things must necessarily occur in the manner in which they occur, because the intellect or will of God is fully actualized.

For Spinoza, God is the necessary cause of all things. All things by nature proceed from necessity. All things are predetermined by God, and for anything that exists, some effect must follow.

Spinoza argues that thought is one of the attributes of God (II, Prop. I). God can think an infinite number of things in an infinite number of ways. God's infinite intellect comprehends all of God's attributes.

According to Spinoza, God is the essence of substance. Thought and extension are attributes of God. Thus, God is the essence of thinking substance (i.e. mind) and of extended substance (i.e. body).

Substance is defined by Spinoza as a mode of being which implies necessary existence. God is infinite substance, and outside of God no other substance is possible. Thus, Spinoza's philosophy is pantheistic, in that it claims that God is present in all things.

It seems to me that atheists are as ignorant as believers in the respect that they also do not have proof of Gods inexistence.

Clear logic can provide a solution where evidence cannot.

Furthermore, Einstein points to a unity. Einstein's theory if carried out to its logical conclusion would bring to mankind a scientific formula for monotheism. He does away with all thought of dualism or pluralism. There can be no room for any aspect of polytheism.
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.
brittwaller
Posts: 331
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 5:58:27 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Maher and Carlin aren't even in the same league as Dane Cook - he's a little kiddie compared to them, intellectually speaking. I don't really find him funny, either.

Considering that Spinoza was persecuted by the church in his own day, and accused of writing "De Tribunus Impostorus," for his "liberal" (in the broad sense of the word) views concerning god, I'm fairly certain he would explain a little differently, if not be completely on the other side of the fence. Spinoza does not describe the Christian god; "god" for him is a much wider category of being - a kind of universalistic holism. imo
Don't I take care of them all?
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 6:16:21 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Considering that Spinoza was persecuted by the church in his own day, and accused of writing "De Tribunus Impostorus," for his "liberal" (in the broad sense of the word) views concerning god, I'm fairly certain he would explain a little differently, if not be completely on the other side of the fence. Spinoza does not describe the Christian god; "god" for him is a much wider category of being - a kind of universalistic holism. imo

No I completely agree, Spinoza's concept of God is entirely different, however his logic supports the concept of an infinite intelligent God as does my own logic. I wasn't arguing that his concept of God and the Christian God were the same, because they aren't in many reguards. However the general concept of an infinite, intelligent God that is singular and is present in all things is certainly the same concept.

My point was to show that the concept of God is not an unintelligent concept, nor is it one that lacks logic. In my opinion it exceeds the logic of the argument that there is no God. The lack of factual proof that a God exists is by no means a logical explanation backing the nonexistence of a God.

In my opinion atheists attacking "religious" people for their lack of logical explanation of God is almost, in a sense, hypocritical seeing as how most atheists lack a logical explanation for their belief that God does not exist.
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.
Robert_Santurri
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 9:24:29 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/3/2008 5:58:27 PM, brittwaller wrote:
Maher and Carlin aren't even in the same league as Dane Cook - he's a little kiddie compared to them, intellectually speaking. I don't really find him funny, either.

Considering that Spinoza was persecuted by the church in his own day, and accused of writing "De Tribunus Impostorus," for his "liberal" (in the broad sense of the word) views concerning god, I'm fairly certain he would explain a little differently, if not be completely on the other side of the fence. Spinoza does not describe the Christian god; "god" for him is a much wider category of being - a kind of universalistic holism. imo

Want to know who God was? George Carlin lmao.

Thanks to him, I now worship the sun and pray to Joe Pesci. Haha
"We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
-- Edward R. Murrow

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."
-- Robert Frost
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 10:14:08 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I'm not touching the videos, too lazy to sit through their slow pace.

"
Additionally if you are a proponent of the Big Bang Theory, then you will agree that all matter began at a particular place and instant in the universe.
"
Nope. The Big Bang simply refers to the PRESENT ARRANGEMENT of matter. It posits nothing about whether matter was there before, how long it existed in a singularity, how singularities came to be, whether there is an infinite regress :D.


" If you are a proponent of science, then you will agree with Newton's laws of motion."
Depends. I've heard many physicists nowadays seem to find empirically that those laws are not accurate at more fundamental levels.


"Since there had to be a cause of the big bang you can only conclude that one infinite being would have to exist to cause the big bang. Since unintelligent matter does not move on its own accord, you can conclude that this infinite being was intelligent, thus supporting the idea of an intelligent infinite being that was cause of the creation of the universe. "
Why would there have to be an infinite being as it's cause? Why can't it be caused by previous matter arrangements, caused in turn by previous other matter arrangements? And yes, unintelligent matter moves of it's own accord. It's known as gravity.

"
Additionally, Einstein came to this same conclusion as did I. Although he did not believe in the Christian God as I do."
Ad authoritatem.
"
However both Einstein and Spinoza successfully provide adequate logic for the existence of the Christian God."
eh?




"God necessarily exists, argues Spinoza, because God's essence is existence."
You can't prove something exists by defining it. That's just begging the question.\

"God's essence is perfect, and therefore God's perfection implies that God must exist. ."
You are assuming perfection in order to prove existence, however, this is an unsupported assumption. If you simply toss it into definitions... well, I could define pink unicorns in your hair as perfect, does that make pink unicorns appear in your hair?
Much the same for the rest of your mysticism. You seem to be confusing logic with begging the question :D
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2008 11:14:33 PM
Posted: 8 years ago

Additionally if you are a proponent of the Big Bang Theory, then you will agree that all matter began at a particular place and instant in the universe.

http://thesciencenetwork.org...
just bc ive been roaming this site lately.
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2008 12:00:32 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/3/2008 10:14:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I'm not touching the videos, too lazy to sit through their slow pace.

Haha laziness is my forte R_R i dont blame you.

Nope. The Big Bang simply refers to the PRESENT ARRANGEMENT of matter. It posits nothing about whether matter was there before, how long it existed in a singularity, how singularities came to be, whether there is an infinite regress :D.

No I completely agree that it doesnt mention any of that. However my point was that the big bang presents a scientific case of how matter in this universe was in a singularity.


" If you are a proponent of science, then you will agree with Newton's laws of motion."
Depends. I've heard many physicists nowadays seem to find empirically that those laws are not accurate at more fundamental levels.

Really, could you show me an example?

Why would there have to be an infinite being as it's cause? Why can't it be caused by previous matter arrangements, caused in turn by previous other matter arrangements? And yes, unintelligent matter moves of it's own accord. It's known as gravity.

I agree, its not possible to rule out the concept of an infinite universe, however this same explanation applies to the concept of an finite universe as well. Personally, there is far more logic backing the case of a finite universe due primarily that the concept of infinity is flawed because the idea that time is an infinite dimension of space is flawed.

However, if the universe is finite (an idea far more complex than an infinite one), then one must stand to reason that there was a primary mover. Yes, I am aware that this concept has since been laughed at by physicists, however it is correct in the sense of a finite universe.

In the instance of gravity, mass moves that unintelligent matter, unintelligent matter does not move of its own accord If I were to place a small rock in space, and no other form of mass were to come into contact (on a gravitational level as well) with it, that rock would do nothing.

Therefore it logically stands to reason that if the concept of a finite universe is proven to be the case, then in turn the concepts of an infinite being with intelligence (that some denote as God) is as well.

"God necessarily exists, argues Spinoza, because God's essence is existence."
You can't prove something exists by defining it. That's just begging the question.\

"God's essence is perfect, and therefore God's perfection implies that God must exist. ."
You are assuming perfection in order to prove existence, however, this is an unsupported assumption. If you simply toss it into definitions... well, I could define pink unicorns in your hair as perfect, does that make pink unicorns appear in your hair?
Much the same for the rest of your mysticism. You seem to be confusing logic with begging the question :D

Haha, I wont deny that part of spinoza's belief is bad logic, however I was using spinoza primarily to show the logic on infinity as a concept. Conclusion: There can only be one substance.
Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances.

"If by eternity is understood not eternal temporal duration, but timelessness, then he lives eternally who lives in the present."
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2008 12:03:13 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/3/2008 11:14:33 PM, Zerosmelt wrote:

Additionally if you are a proponent of the Big Bang Theory, then you will agree that all matter began at a particular place and instant in the universe.


http://thesciencenetwork.org...
just bc ive been roaming this site lately.

I dont argue that the speaker has absolutely excellent points, however there is a point in the speech where the speaker stops speaking facts and instead transitions to purely postulation supporting his prior convictions.
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2008 7:55:40 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
inb4 Ragnar pulls in his fancy symbols proof and gets this over with.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2008 9:27:35 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"
Nope. The Big Bang simply refers to the PRESENT ARRANGEMENT of matter. It posits nothing about whether matter was there before, how long it existed in a singularity, how singularities came to be, whether there is an infinite regress :D.

No I completely agree that it doesnt mention any of that. However my point was that the big bang presents a scientific case of how matter in this universe was in a singularity."
And? What is the consequence of matter having been at one point in a singularity?


" If you are a proponent of science, then you will agree with Newton's laws of motion."
Depends. I've heard many physicists nowadays seem to find empirically that those laws are not accurate at more fundamental levels.

" Really, could you show me an example?"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Specifically: "The quantum theory of the atom was developed as an explanation for the electron's staying in its orbital, which could not be explained by Newton's laws of motion and by Maxwell's laws of classical electromagnetism."
I'm no expert on physics, mind

Why would there have to be an infinite being as it's cause? Why can't it be caused by previous matter arrangements, caused in turn by previous other matter arrangements? And yes, unintelligent matter moves of it's own accord. It's known as gravity.

I agree, its not possible to rule out the concept of an infinite universe, however this same explanation applies to the concept of an finite universe as well. Personally, there is far more logic backing the case of a finite universe due primarily that the concept of infinity is flawed because the idea that time is an infinite dimension of space is flawed.

Of what flaw do you speak?
And to say the universe's history regresses infinitely is not the same as to say the universe is infinite.

However, if the universe is finite (an idea far more complex than an infinite one), then one must stand to reason that there was a primary mover. Yes, I am aware that this concept has since been laughed at by physicists, however it is correct in the sense of a finite universe.


A universe with finite time, not just any finite universe. Note, of course, that a primary mover does not have to have all the characteristics of a Christian God even so, and cannot have some of them. :D

In the instance of gravity, mass moves that unintelligent matter, unintelligent matter does not move of its own accord If I were to place a small rock in space, and no other form of mass were to come into contact (on a gravitational level as well) with it, that rock would do nothing.

The mass IS unintelligent matter. Unintelligent matter moving unintelligent matter counts as unintelligent matter moving of it's own accord.

"God necessarily exists, argues Spinoza, because God's essence is existence."
You can't prove something exists by defining it. That's just begging the question.\

"God's essence is perfect, and therefore God's perfection implies that God must exist. ."
You are assuming perfection in order to prove existence, however, this is an unsupported assumption. If you simply toss it into definitions... well, I could define pink unicorns in your hair as perfect, does that make pink unicorns appear in your hair?
Much the same for the rest of your mysticism. You seem to be confusing logic with begging the question :D

"Haha, I wont deny that part of spinoza's belief is bad logic, however I was using spinoza primarily to show the logic on infinity as a concept.

I missed this logic, must've lost it in the nonlogic :D.
"
Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances. "
That depends on what aspect of them was infinite, and whether they interacted. Two infinitely long lines for example, can be parallel, and never interact. In any case, time is not a subtance, it is a property.

Since, of course, the elephant in the room is that you are talking about the Christian God, I will shoot that elephant with my fancy symbols as above suggested. The Christian God, you see, is described as omnipotent, among other things.

An OMNIPOTENT being has all powers imaginable, and can perform any ACTION. CREATING something more powerful than omnipotent is an action, and therefore possible if one can perform any ACTION. It is not possible to CREATE something more powerful than omnipotent. Therefore, contradiction.

1. O->A (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
2. A->C (Assumption, dare you to defy it.)
3. ~C (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
4. O (Assumption of the existence of God)
5. A (4,1 by arrow out rule of logic.
6. C (5,2 by arrow out rule).
7. C & ~C (6,3, by ampersand in rule, CONTRADICTION, check premises).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2008 11:27:38 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
And? What is the consequence of matter having been at one point in a singularity?

See below under the "gravity" issue

" If you are a proponent of science, then you will agree with Newton's laws of motion."
Depends. I've heard many physicists nowadays seem to find empirically that those laws are not accurate at more fundamental levels.

" Really, could you show me an example?"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Specifically: "The quantum theory of the atom was developed as an explanation for the electron's staying in its orbital, which could not be explained by Newton's laws of motion and by Maxwell's laws of classical electromagnetism."
I'm no expert on physics, mind

I agree, quantum physics is an excellent addition to newtons laws, however (although inconsistancies do occur when trying to join the two) neither disproves the other. And quantum physics does not disprove the point I am attempting to make (however I believe it is a great additive to physics as a whole).

However, if the universe is finite (an idea far more complex than an infinite one), then one must stand to reason that there was a primary mover. Yes, I am aware that this concept has since been laughed at by physicists, however it is correct in the sense of a finite universe.


A universe with finite time, not just any finite universe. Note, of course, that a primary mover does not have to have all the characteristics of a Christian God even so, and cannot have some of them. :D

Correct, I was referring in the dimension of time (not the structure) of the universe.
Really? Do go on. However the point of this argument was to show the existence of an infinite being with intelligence, not to show the existence of the christian God (in whom I personally believe and which I base more off of personal faith and logical interpretation).

In the instance of gravity, mass moves that unintelligent matter, unintelligent matter does not move of its own accord If I were to place a small rock in space, and no other form of mass were to come into contact (on a gravitational level as well) with it, that rock would do nothing.

The mass IS unintelligent matter. Unintelligent matter moving unintelligent matter counts as unintelligent matter moving of it's own accord.

wrong

Of its own accord means of its own accord, intellgence absolutely plays no part in this definition

unintelligent mass doesn't move of its own accord - meaning no mass (unintelligent or intelligent) has influenced the matter in any way including by direct or indirect (gravity) contact.

Meaning if I were to stick a rock in empty space and no other objects were to exist (as is the case with the primeval atom and all matter being located in one point), the rock would not move.

2.

I missed this logic, must've lost it in the nonlogic :D.
"

The logic I wanted you to see was the below:
Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two substances. "
That depends on what aspect of them was infinite, and whether they interacted. Two infinitely long lines for example, can be parallel, and never interact. In any case, time is not a subtance, it is a property.

Since, of course, the elephant in the room is that you are talking about the Christian God, I will shoot that elephant with my fancy symbols as above suggested. The Christian God, you see, is described as omnipotent, among other things.

An OMNIPOTENT being has all powers imaginable, and can perform any ACTION. CREATING something more powerful than omnipotent is an action, and therefore possible if one can perform any ACTION. It is not possible to CREATE something more powerful than omnipotent. Therefore, contradiction.

1. O->A (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
2. A->C (Assumption, dare you to defy it.)
3. ~C (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
4. O (Assumption of the existence of God)
5. A (4,1 by arrow out rule of logic.
6. C (5,2 by arrow out rule).
7. C & ~C (6,3, by ampersand in rule, CONTRADICTION, check premises).

Haha R_R, I knew this was coming, unfortunately you have made a very large mistake in your proof. While your logic is completely correct under the latin definition of omnipotent, this logic is not correct under the Christian definition of omnipotent.

Sometimes Christians, and even non-Christians, will try to claim that omnipotence means "the power to do absolutely anything." This is somewhat misleading, as we shall subsequently see, for God's omnipotence is totally defined by God's Will, and not by sheer, unadulterated power. Indeed, for classical Christian philosophical theology, omnipotence is simply God's "ability to do that which God wants done."
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 9:08:41 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Sometimes Christians, and even non-Christians, will try to claim that omnipotence means "the power to do absolutely anything." This is somewhat misleading, as we shall subsequently see, for God's omnipotence is totally defined by God's Will, and not by sheer, unadulterated power. Indeed, for classical Christian philosophical theology, omnipotence is simply God's "ability to do that which God wants done."

Your basically saying that the christian definition is self contradictory.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 9:10:44 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/3/2008 5:44:20 PM, scissorhands7 wrote:
At 10/3/2008 9:04:32 AM, Zerosmelt wrote:
I thought only sorority girls still liked him... lol.

oh well two can play that game scissors.

this made me laugh.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 10:17:35 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Ragnar haet this quoting system. Ragnar smash and use own.

"
I agree, quantum physics is an excellent addition to newtons laws, however (although inconsistancies do occur when trying to join the two) neither disproves the other."
Quantum physics disprove the notion that Newton's laws are "Laws of motion" with no further context than "Matter." Rather, they are "Laws of motion" in the context of "Matter big enough to really matter to us in general."

"However the point of this argument was to show the existence of an infinite being with intelligence"
What makes you think a primary mover has to be infinite or intelligent, even assuming you've proven it's necessity, which due to the possibility of infinite recess, you haven't?

"I base more off of personal faith and logical interpretation)."

Mutually exclusive :P

"
wrong

Of its own accord means of its own accord, intellgence absolutely plays no part in this definition

unintelligent mass doesn't move of its own accord - meaning no mass (unintelligent or intelligent) has influenced the matter in any way including by direct or indirect (gravity) contact."
This may be true in the context of matter we know about. This is not necessarily true in the context of unknown prima movers, such as, perhaps, dark matter.

"
Meaning if I were to stick a rock in empty space and no other objects were to exist (as is the case with the primeval atom and all matter being located in one point), the rock would not move.
"
This example contradicts itself. If no other objects exist, you don't, and you can't stick the rock in. Further, sticking the rock in would give it inertia :D. Further, the rock would probably give off some kind of mini-version of hawking radiation over the next few trillion years, just to spite you :P.

"
The logic I wanted you to see was the below:"
oh, you mean the part I addressed.

" Sometimes Christians, and even non-Christians, will try to claim that omnipotence means "the power to do absolutely anything." This is somewhat misleading, as we shall subsequently see, for God's omnipotence is totally defined by God's Will, and not by sheer, unadulterated power. Indeed, for classical Christian philosophical theology, omnipotence is simply God's "ability to do that which God wants done."
"
Zerosmelt is correct. This is a contradiction.

God cannot DO anything.
If god WILLS anything, he can DO anything.
God can change his WILL to anything.
God can DO anything
DO and not DO, wtfcontradictiontiem.

1. ~D (A, your statement)
2. W>D (A, you said no other limit to his actions but his will can exist)
3. W (A, wills are by definition under the control of the willer)
4. D (2,3 >O)
5. D&~D (4,1 &I)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 10:20:04 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Last step of that should read:

5. D&~D (4,1 &I CONTRADICTION, check premises)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 12:52:02 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Omnipotent being can contradict itself. For example, assuming God exists, He could make something a square circle. That's because he is omnipotent. Ergo you lose.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 1:25:23 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/5/2008 12:52:02 PM, LR4N6FTW4EVA wrote:
Omnipotent being can contradict itself.

"All powerful" does not translate to "ability to have contradictory attributes".
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 8:09:24 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/5/2008 12:52:02 PM, LR4N6FTW4EVA wrote:
Omnipotent being can contradict itself. For example, assuming God exists, He could make something a square circle. That's because he is omnipotent. Ergo you lose.

Reality cannot contradict itself. Therefore, if omnipotent being can, omnipotent being is not part of reality. Ergo right back at ya.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2008 11:20:26 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
Omnipotent being can contradict itself. For example, assuming God exists, He could make something a square circle. That's because he is omnipotent. Ergo you lose.

Err. No. Circle and Square are descriptives of properties of a given shape. Ergo try again.
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 6:30:57 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Zerosmelt is correct. This is a contradiction.

God cannot DO anything.
If god WILLS anything, he can DO anything.
God can change his WILL to anything.
God can DO anything
DO and not DO, wtfcontradictiontiem.

1. ~D (A, your statement)
2. W>D (A, you said no other limit to his actions but his will can exist)
3. W (A, wills are by definition under the control of the willer)
4. D (2,3 >O)
5. D&~D (4,1 &I)

You are correct when you say that wills are by definition control of the willer. Human wills can be changed, however Gods will is perfect and will not alter from the course that has been set.

The Christian God clearly makes it obvious that he does not want any other God (especially one more powerful)

So your assumption that:

God can change his WILL to anything.

Is an incorrect assumption at least in terms of the Christian God, therefore rendering your logic incorrect.
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.
scissorhands7
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2008 6:33:57 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
This example contradicts itself. If no other objects exist, you don't, and you can't stick the rock in. Further, sticking the rock in would give it inertia :D. Further, the rock would probably give off some kind of mini-version of hawking radiation over the next few trillion years, just to spite you :P

Please excuse my figures of speech.

My example was meant to show that if a rock was existed in the middle of space (and had no previous inertia), and no other mass existed in the universe, then the rock would not move.
I rock peas on my head, but don't call me a peahead, bees on my head but dont call me a beehead, bruce lees on my head but dont call me a lee head...
I hang out with an apple who loves self loathing....
Its my show I'm andy milonakis.