The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
The Contender
AmazingPastafarian
Con (against)

Proof of God Via Existential Dependence

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Purushadasa has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,291 times Debate No: 103454
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

God has revealed many facts about Himself in various scriptures all over the world.

One of the things that He has revealed about Himself, in various languages, is that He is the one and only Existentially Independent Entity -- that He exists eternally, without ever having not existed, that He requires no creator, and has no cause preceding Him, logically or temporally. He has stated this in many different ways, in many different languages. He has also stated, in many different languages, that we are "in His image," that we possess some of the characteristics that He possesses, and that we derive all of our limited characteristics from His infinite stock of perfect characteristics.

My statements here in this introduction are accurate paraphrases of His scriptural statements about Himself, and are therefore not up for debate.

The following 8 points, conversely, are up for debate in this thread, as they are based directly on science and logic, not necessarily based directly on revealed scripture. There's a certain beauty in logical simplicity, also known as Occam's Razor, so please let's keep this as succinct as possible:

1. Some entities observably depend on others for existence.

2. There is an observable chain of existential dependence among entities.

3. Some entities in this chain possess observable personal characteristics.

4. Following the chain of existential dependence back in time, logic inevitably leads to an existentially independent entity -- one that depends on no other for existence.

5. The believer in atheist Dogma refers to this entity as "the universe," and lacks the ability to follow the chain any further back than that, either logically or temporally. There may be other terms the believer in atheist Dogma makes up for this existentially independent entity, but just like the term, "the universe," each one refers to an impersonal entity -- one possessing no personal characteristics.

6. We Theological Realists refer to this existentially independent entity as God, and He possesses personal characteristics.

7. The fact that God Himself possesses personal characteristics easily explains the existence of our own personal characteristics -- existentially dependent entities can only derive their various characteristics from entities displaying such characteristics themselves.

8. Impersonal entities cannot display personal characteristics or bestow them upon others. The absolute lack of personal characteristics in the the believer in atheist Dogma's notion of our primary origin fails to account for the undeniable existence of our own personal characteristics.

It is illogical to believe that an entity can display that which it does not possess. That's like saying that you can withdraw a million dollars from a bank account with only ten dollars in it. Logically, that is impossible, just as it is impossible for an impersonal entity to display personal characteristics or to bestow them upon other entities.

Conversely, we Theological Realists say that God, having infinite personal characteristics, displays them without hindrance, and bestows personal characteristics upon other entities, meaning us, in the same way that it is entirely possible to withdraw ten dollars from a million dollar bank account, but it is impossible and illogical the other way around (the the believer in atheist Dogma's way).

Proof is different from persuasion, and I have posted proof here, not persuasion.

No proof will ever persuade the believer in atheist Dogma of anything, as he has already come to his unscientific and premature conclusion (that God somehow doesn't exist), without even engaging in the first step of the scientific method in regards to God, what to speak of the other steps. The believer in atheist Dogma's irrational obsession with his premature conclusion precludes his ability to assess the facts in an honest and unbiased manner, which is something that I, unlike the believer in atheist Dogma, have managed to accomplish.

I do not expect to persuade the believer in atheist Dogma, just as I do not expect to persuade the pig, the fruit-fly, the pile of feces, or the slime-mold, but the proof is conclusive regardless of the mental handicaps of such unfortunate parties. The mental inability of the lower animal and the believer in atheist Dogma to apprehend the proof does not change the fact that it is conclusive proof. I know beforehand that the believer in atheist Dogma will cling to his premature, unscientific, and untrue conclusions about God, and I have no problem with that. None of it changes the fact that I have posted conclusive proof here.
AmazingPastafarian

Con

Contention 1: Purushadasa is an idiot, and by not responding to me, he agrees.
Evidence: Look at his f*cking profile.

Contention 2: Purushadasa is a f@ggot, and by not responding to me, he agrees.
Evidence: Look at his f*cking profile.

Contention 3: Purushadasa is now an atheist, and by not responding to me, he agrees.
Evidence: Wait and see

Contention 4: Purushadasa owes me 150,000 dollars, and by losing this debate, he agrees.
Evidence: Wait and see

Vote for me and I'll give 30% of his moneY!

Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 16 records.
Posted by cakerman 3 years ago
cakerman
1. Some entities observably depend on others for existence.

2. There is an observable chain of existential dependence among entities.

3. Some entities in this chain possess observable personal characteristics.

4. Following the chain of existential dependence back in time, logic inevitably leads to an existentially independent entity -- one that depends on no other for existence.

This chain ends with plants and the sun, debate ended, point proven
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Gods are usually words in a book written a long time ago by old men..
So in the end you are talking about a book and your dreams about the content...
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
There is only one God, you are a thoroughly ignorant douchebag, and we are done here.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Gods are usually words in a book written a long time ago by old men..
Posted by Purushadasa 3 years ago
Purushadasa
There is only one God.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Gods are usually words in a book written a long time ago by old men..
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.