The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Justaserver
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

There are two main reasons why the the god of the torah, Bible, Quran, Book of mormon is untrue

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Justaserver
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2020 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 591 times Debate No: 125736
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

backwardseden

Pro

The supposed unproven character storybook god of print only that is the one and the same that has an authoritative voice all the way from the torah to the bible, To the quran to the book of mormon and many other branches (though it does not engulf all religions) cannot and is not true because of two standing reasons. Naturally, There are of course many other reasons why this supposed god is untrue. However, For this debate, There are two clear ominous outstanding reasons that stand above the rest. . .

1. If this unproven storybook character god of print only were true, It would end all suffering. POOF. GONE. This would be true especially among children as there would be no suffering among children.
One question that nobody has been able to properly justify and or discern in my 45+ years of me doing this is "What can children possibly learn from suffering? " If you've answered "nothing", You've answered correctly.
If you've actually taken the time to have read the bible and the torah, In which case you probably haven't, As well as comprehended it, They are geared towards the deliberate torturing and deliberate suffering of children among many other horrific things. The bible and the torah are both sickening diseased books, The quran a distant third though I am not sure how much torture there is as far as children in it. Regardless, There's a lot of needless suffering.
Yep, You've got that imminent terrible explanation of suffering through a fake and false sneezerag christ who may or may have not existed but regardless was not the messiah according to the bible, And the explanation of his suffering is quite sickening so that which never works btw, And there's no justification for it in the bible, As well as the book of mormon.
It's simple. If the unproven storybook character god of print only were true POOF, GONE with the click of magical time in a quadrillionth of a second there would be no---more---suffering. Nobody, But nobody, Should recommend reading these books and especially not read them to anybody else, Especially to children, These are XXX rated books people as they are extremely violent, Hateful, Evil and bloody books.

2. This unproven storybook character god pf print only is dumb enough to use text/ the written word, As a form of communication, Advertisement, Correspondence, The absolute WORST form of communication, Advertisement, Correspondence possible FOR A GOD in which case no true god would clearly not ever do. Not for any reason. Don't worry, You cannot think of a valid reason.
"It is the nail in the coffin for christianity" Matt Dillahunty. He's right. But it's not only christianity. It's all religion that is proven false if YOU insist that no matter which god(s) you dream up that would be stupid enough to use text/ the written word for ---any--- reason.
There are at least 50 reasons why no god(s), From any religion, Would ever use text/ the written word, Not ever, Not for any reason. If you cannot think of at least 3 of the at least 50 reasons why this is so, Then you do not know ---any--- religion at all and the unproven storybook character god(s) of print only as well as you think you might for whichever religion. As a matter of fact, It's not at all.
And remember not one god from any religion has yet to be proved in the entire existence of the human race. The same is true for anything from the supernatural. Nothing from the supernatural has yet to be proved in the entire existence of the human race.

So debunk both reasons as listed above and prove the god of the torah, Bible, Quran and the book of mormon to be true and the one and the only.

Dsjpk5 is disqualified from the voting procedures as he tries to pretend he's god and thus change the voting structure of who wins and loses here on DDO.
Justaserver

Con

Your arguments are clearly more emotional than intellectual. To preface my individual responses to your two arguments, I would like to explain why I believe the very grounds on which your assertions rest is dubious.

First, I am seeing seriously huge generalizations on your part. The idea that the "[Torah, Bible, And Quran] are geared towards the deliberate torturing and deliberate suffering of children among many other horrific things. " is so nonspecific a claim that it is hard to even begin arguing against it. What do you mean that they are "geared toward" these things? If you mean they actively glorify them, Then I would say that is patently false. If you mean such instances are doctrinally or organizationally central to the documents, I would say you are wrong again. If you mean that the events described therein naturally conclude with or are somehow likely to prompt such atrocities, Then why is that? You have neither created a specific claim nor daned to support it.

I also find your claim that children can learn nothing from suffering extremely odd. Who would agree with you? Who does not believe that suffering is a good teacher of moral and practical truths? I am not straw-manning your argument. You plainly said that children have nothing to learn from suffering, A claim I find both shortsighted and in the plainest way possible, Wrong.

Finally, I see fit to point out how thoroughly you have illuminated your own biases by using informal and often loaded terms such as "sickening, Diseased" to describe the Bible, Torah, And Quran, And "sneezerag"(? ) to describe Jesus himself. Now as to what any of these words mean or imply I can only guess, Because they do not actually convey any specific information about their subjects, Being only vessels of a hollow and as of yet unjustified disdain you obviously have for them.
Without going even further, I believe that this all demonstrates (before even getting into the arguments, Mind you) how clearly reactionary and openly ostentatious your argument is, Rather than its being based on clear reason and logical process. If indeed your argument is based on a cohesive and inscrutable frame of logic, Then you simply have not shown it.

Now onto the points:

1: The famous argument that God cannot be both all-good and all-powerful at the same time. Though an inherently attractive proposition, Not to mention useful for undermining the epistemological basis for theistic ethics, It is ultimately based on the omission of one explanation for the proposed behaviour of God- that He has a reason for permitting suffering which is in keeping with his supposed all-goodness. The argument is based on an intuition that suffering is the ultimate evil. I would argue suffering is not itself evil, But instead an effect of evil. The allegation that suffering is itself evil is based on a standard of good which is skeptically unjustifiable, As it relies on no underlying condition that does not already assume that good and evil can be ostensibly defined with reference to something, A model, Mind you, Which an atheistic worldview naturally lacks. The more logically tenable version of this stance, That God would not permit evil to occur if He was indeed omnibenevolent is still, However, Subject to the inherent assumption that it is better for evil not to have the potentiality to exist rather than for it to. This, Again, Is an unjustified assumption. The simple answer is free will. Free will could not exist if a path of action which was inherently less beneficial or good than another did not exist, Or at least could not exist to an appreciable extent. If we to are assume that God is by nature a creative being, Then the act of creating free will necessarily entails the potential of evil. As such, God could not just "Poof" away all of the world"s suffering in a quadrillionth of a second because it would undermine his own being and respect for human free will. In fact, If God considers an infringement upon human free will to be inherently evil, Then it is by definition something He is incapable of doing. This is all to say that God, And, I assume, Most human beings believe that the benefits of having free will supercede the detriments of its evil effects. This is true, Unless you believe God himself actively commits acts which are immoral, In which case you have provided no evidence nor even hinted that that was your true intent save for the implication that not preventing immoral acts is itself an immoral act of God, Which I have just refuted.

2: Now I had to look this one up and I will admit it is a convincing point. I see why Matt Dillahunty is head of the Atheist community of Austin. His cogence and reference to generally considered infallible epistemological processes, Namely, The accruing of evidence and the confirmation by testing make him a powerful presence and agreeable commentator. However, If you think that his argument proves religion incorrect, Then I think your standards of proof are somewhat low.
For one, The idea that God could more effectively have conveyed his message to humanity via objective logical processes and proofs is reductive in that it assumes the existence of some nebulous piece of information that God saw necessary to give to humanity. This is most certainly not the goal of the texts you have described. Instead, For anyone who tries to see what kind of commonality is shared between the texts of any of these books will see that God never had one explicit "message" to humanity. Instead, He has an expressed desire to live with and in proximity to humans, Guiding and shaping them into a supernatural kingdom and the books listed provide essentially a record of how He went about doing that. Now those books do indeed convey some rote truths, I. E. , Jesus Christ is the messiah, The Prophet Muhammud is the emissary of God on earth, Etc. However, If we accept that the collective meaning of any of these was never instantaneously distributed or even necessarily extant, As Dillahunty misrepresents, Then we see a basic possibility for God"s having a reason to dictate and command His followers to record His actions and messages as they occurred. As for why he used text and not simply some kind of omni-telepathy, Then I simply point to the fact that it is not necessary that God is self recording. After all, Hurricane Katrina was not self-recording, Nor was the Emancipation Proclamation or the discovery of Radium. Why then should the parting of the Red Sea have been? It is perfectly likely that God simply chose to present Himself in a way that He could be in some way recorded in His actions and intent. In fact, How do you expect someone today to respond should they hear the voice of God whisper in their ear in a way consistent with the ways He has been recorded to manifest? Well, That person would likely record what had occurred, Either in text or in video, Though I find text much more reliable and timeless. As for Dillahunty's rebuttal of God"s existence based on a lack of objectively testable evidence outside of eyewitness testimony, I say that such a view is necessarily founded on the belief practice known as scientism, A belief scheme which is fundamentally self refutory and thus necessarily incorrect (if this needs to be explained I will happily do so, But this post is long enough). Furthermore his claim that no amount of eyewitness testimony is sufficient to justify belief in a miracle is, I argue, An unjustified proposition. In short, Such a philosophy could be said to be based on a definition of what can be relied upon to be referenceable human reality as whatever adheres to a common sense of what has happened in human history or is considered liable to happen. This philosophy is not comprehensive as it necessarily assumes reality exists before it can be justified to exist. This is the same as defining a mathematical function of X in terms of an expression which contains X. It cannot be solved because if reality does not exist until there is a basic standard of reality, Then nothing has been done to meaningfully define the concept of reality. Instead, This philosophy unintentionally (not to mention ironically), In my opinion, Creates a definition for a miracle, That is, An event which defies common human understanding of what usually happens or is liable to happen. A group of people separated by space, Time, Culture, Race and gender all testifying to a similar anomaly should not be ignored, Nor should the anomaly itself be lazily labeled as some kind of outlandishly improbable collective hallucination. Whether or not the truth behind the anomaly is as stated, It should not be categorically discounted that the anomaly occurred. If we take the idea of God"s supposed presence in the Abrahamic timeline to be such an anomaly, Categorically refuting that the Abrahamic timeline has no intellectual value is an academically dishonest conception. This is where Dillahunty's argument fails.

I could go on and on with all this, But I think my point has been established more than well enough. I mean not to condescend you or any of your points, But only to highlight what I see as serious flaws in your argument. I hope that next time you post, Additionally, You do so with an intentional effort to separate your emotional reaction to the subjects of your allegation from your intellectual objections to them so that we might have a more fair and balanced argument.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

"Your arguments are clearly more emotional than intellectual. "
This would imply that you believe that you are of sound mind and that you have an edumacation, Intelligence, And that you are somehow bright, And that you know your religion, Somewhat, Well whatever that religion may be, In which case you clearly don"t. You only pretend that you do. See, These are not my arguments. They are the arguments that have long since been passed down since religion, Text, And suffering and a whole ton of other s--t since the torah was first published. I also take expert advice from others whereas you only listen to you as well as you invent your own excuses to thus think to make yourself look good, Nah, But it"s all a grinding halt steadfast facade. But let"s be honest here" you are only a mere 18 years old so in no possible way could you POSSIBLY have the edumacation nor the intelligence nor the experience to lasso in any true experience as far as what a religion entices and what it is about. Um yeah, I do and so do others.

"To preface my individual responses to your two arguments, I would like to explain why I believe the very grounds on which your assertions rest is dubious. "
Sure, Be my guest. But like I said, They are not mine. So you"ve automatically got one very big pitfall strike against you.

"First, I am seeing seriously huge generalizations on your part. The idea that the "[Torah, Bible, And Quran] are geared towards the deliberate torturing and deliberate suffering of children among many other horrific things. " is so nonspecific"
Oh it"s very specific. This clearly means that you have not read any of them especially the torah and the bible. Here"s some actual verses for you since you obviously only pay attention to you"
LM4: 9-11, MT 10:37, MT 2:16, JG 21:10, DT 2:34, NU 31: 17-18, LV 26: 21-22, HS 13:16, EZ 9: 5-7, HS 9: 11-16, EX 12: 29-30, IS 13: 15-18, MT 2:16, EX 21:17, LV 20:9, MK 7:10, MT 15:4, MT 10:21, JG 11: 30-33, PS 137: 8-9, DT 21: 18-21, DT 32:25, DT 2: 32-34, DT 3: 3-6, JG 19: 24-29, EX 12:29, LV 26:29, JM 11: 22-23, JM 19: 7-9, JM 51: 22-26, LM 2: 20-22, RV 2: 18-23
"a claim that it is hard to even begin arguing against it. "
Because you once again have not read them. So dosey doe around something that in no possible way can you get around by tripping over your own invented excuses.
"What do you mean that they are "geared toward" these things? "
Well gosh golly I dunno. I guess that one is on you. If you don"t understand Ingles, That"s not my problem that"s entirely yours.
"If you mean they actively glorify them, "
No that"s not what I said. But since you wish to interpret it that way, Um still, No.
"Then I would say that is patently false. "
Sorry, Proved you patently false.
"You have neither created a specific claim nor daned to support it. "
Sorry, Just did with the above verses. We haven"t even gotten started.

"I also find your claim that children can learn nothing from suffering extremely odd. "
That"s because you know 0% of nothing about suffering, Genuine suffering that is. Not some stupid little bitty arm or leg being broken. I"m talking about years of neglect and child about torturing, Rape, Abuse, Something that your teeny tiny itty bitty mind cannot even fathom.
"Who would agree with you? "
I didn"t ask the question. I didn"t put children through horrific suffering. So who would agree with you who once again knows 0% of nothing about suffering especially from a child"s point of view?
"Who does not believe that suffering is a good teacher of moral and practical truths? "
Oh I see, So you are an expert on this issue? Really? TEE HEE! DO NOT pretend that you are something that you are clearly not or even have the knowledge for something that you clearly don"t. K teeny bopper with a complete lack of EDUCATION? As an example. . . Your unproven storybook character god of print only that you carry with such a gentle armpit covering, Knowingly creates children to be raped, Beaten and tortured at the hands of their abusers. . . Sometimes for decades. An example is daddy is sticking in his you know what inside of his daughter age 5 while punching her in the face twice per week for 15 years. To knowingly create children to suffer is 100% pure evil and hate at its finest. You can not get more evil than that with all the hate if you wanted to. Please DO NOT bring in the "Free Will" argument either because children DO NOT have the Free Will to escape from these monsters who commit these horrific acts. AND YOUR unproven god knowingly creates these children to deliberately suffer as well as these monsters to commit their unspeakable crimes to begin with. AND it gets better because each and every single time this supposed unproven storybook character god of print only MUST give "power" to the psychopath/ evildoer/ devil/ sociopath/ criminal/ lawbreaker or whatever you wish to call him or her, To commit his or her crimes that are sometimes heinous and appalling for first time events and sometimes many times more events after that, No exceptions, None while the victim inevitably always suffers with the events sometimes being sometimes sickening and detestable.
The abrahamic unproven god must also love it, Otherwise, It would create these horrific events. Please DO NOT invent the excuse that "its not god's fault". Well yeah it is. Otherwise, The unproven storybook character god of print only is NOT in control of everything, Nor is it all knowing, Nor is it all powerful, Nor is it omnipotent. Nor does it care enough to not create these horrific acts. And the worst of the absolute worst is your unproven god is giving a greater value, A greater meaning to these monsters to commit these horrific acts while these children suffer at the hands of these savages who have no free will to SCREAM. The unproven character storybook god of print only IS hate and evil. Pure and simple. So invent better excuses please. This supposed unproven storybook character god of print only of YOURS absolutely loves suffering, Otherwise it would not create their situations for them to suffer.

Do you want to get into the fake, False and fraudulent oafing jesus teeny booper? Do you REALLY?
"to describe Jesus himself. "
You pretend like it actually existed, Was prophetic, Told the truth, Was kind, Considerate, Loving, Etc.
Here"s a fun video for you to watch in which case you probably won"t because once again you only pay attention to you"
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=x-slAgzJmdU - Why Does Every Intelligent christian disobey jesus?

1: "He has a reason for permitting suffering which is in keeping with his supposed all-goodness. "
WRONG. There is no "goodness" in suffering, Even for animals, Even for plants, Even for trees. There is no argument.
"The argument is based on an intuition that suffering is the ultimate evil. "
No it"s not. Not even close. The ultimate evil is that man rapes Mother Nature and does untold damage to her, Causes war to his fellow man, Hates his fellow man - yeah you guessed it because of religion, And simply cannot get along with each other. That"s the ultimate evil.
"I would argue suffering is not itself evil, But instead an effect of evil. "
That"s a worthless excuse. It"s almost as bad as someone actually believing that obesity and being overweight are part of the 10 commandments. You have no argument. This also means that you believe that your unproven storybook character god of print only has absolutely no powers whatsoever. This includes the power to stop all suffering. Please come up with something better.
"That God would not permit evil to occur if He was indeed omnibenevolent is still, However, Subject to the inherent assumption that it is better for evil not to have the potentiality to exist rather than for it to. "
Woah. STOP RIGHT THERE. You do realize that since YOUR unproven god"s inception there"s not been 50 years, Just 50 stinking years of peace, Not anywhere, Not at any time, Not within any culture - correct? However, There have been within other cultures that your unproven god has had nothing to do with. Evil is NOT a need, Evil is NOT a want. Evil is not a requirement. But indeed according to your unproven god, It most certainly is.

FREE WILL? If you believe in YOUR unproven god you have no free will whatsoever. Ah yes, Such ignorant claptrap. Again, This was already tackled that your god ALWAYS, No exceptions, According to you, Gives free will to at the very least, The first time lawbreakers, Yeah, That includes Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Hong Xiuquan, Stalin, All serial killers, Torturers, Rapists, Pedophiles, Etc while the victims NEVER have the free will on the first time basis at the very least to escape.
Oh and here"s a few videos on free will in which case I know you won"t watch because once again you only pay attention to you.
Btw, How dare you put a person"s life ahead of YOUR idiocies on free will. Really?
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=hOaLlyRId4I - All Knowing god verses Free Will: The Greatest Religious Contradiction
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=lAqFbiBDb_c - Free Will With god
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=Z1BzP1wr234 - How god Favors Evil
http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=CEuaMfNS88g - god allows Free Will?

"As such, God could not just "Poof" away all of the world"s suffering in a quadrillionth of a second because it would undermine his own being and respect for human free will. "
Then according to you, Your unproven storybook character god of print only in which case thankfully nobody has ever been able to prove in the entire existence of the human race, Does not in any possible way respect nor care about human life, Humanity, Prosperity and prefers hate and evil instead. How stupid are you? So actually this "god" if genuine and true, It would end all suffering no matter what you happen to think.

https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=HcHYsieoQK8&t=58s - Summarizing that god is evil

We'll get into text/ the written word the next RD.
Justaserver

Con

I was hoping for a thoughtful, Well organized response to the counterpoint I posted rather than a series of offhand dismissals peppered with immaterial invective, But I will take it.

I understand that these arguments did not start with you. So what? You obviously agree with them, And if I am carefully, Cogently refuting them, What should it matter whose they are? I am only calling them "yours" because you are the one presenting them. Such an immaterial attack as this should indicate the tone of your offense, Especially to the extent that you claim it should constitute a "very big pitfall strike""

What I am saying about your "geared toward" claim is that it has no agreed upon definition or basis. Based on your insult of my own calling it into question, I can only assume that you mean that such horrible things occur frequently in the texts, Which I am not denying. The primary Abrahamic texts describe horrible things. However, The sentence "The woman was raped. " also describes an abomination and yet is not somehow labeled a "bad sentence". The texts are not bad because of what they record as happening. I read each and every one of the verses you listed along with their surrounding context and can say that while many describe in graphic detail children suffering, They in no way prove that the books from which they hail are "geared toward" those themes, Only that they record them happening. "Geared toward" can mean anything you want it to mean and is thus arbitrary and useless in a serious debate.

You have done nothing to disprove how suffering is a vessel of instruction but have only engaged in handwaving off the "stupid little bitty arm or leg being broken" as insufficient examples. You are either moving the goalposts or are commiting unique kind of "no true scotsman" fallacy wherein you enforce some sort of arbitrary bar to be considered "true" suffering. Even then your rebuttal falls short. Say a child is pushed on the playground by another child. The emotional pain of that experience teaches the child, Assuming he or she has been brought up with a moral compass if they do not possess one inherently, Not to push other children on the playground. However, Given your predilection for extremes let us say a child is raped. That child will likely be scarred for life. However, At the same time, It gets firsthand evidence of the pain rape brings and in later life may choose to become an advocate for childhood rape victims and tightening legal loopholes used by pedophiles to exploit helpless children. Was their rape good? No! Of course it was not good. But denying that it was a source of moral and practical knowledge is not tenable.

"children DO NOT have the Free Will to escape from these monsters who commit these horrific acts. AND YOUR unproven god knowingly creates these children to deliberately suffer as well as these monsters to commit their unspeakable crimes to begin with. " -This again begs the question that free will does not exist to begin with, To claim God created them to sin. If free will does not exist, Then God did create them to be monsters, But if it does, Then he simply created an independent creature who chose to do horrible things. Also, Free will is defined as the capacity to do what one chooses to do based on their own reasoning. Breaking out of ropes or overcoming a situation set up to prevent escape is not necessarily part of the free will scheme of any creature. That is just called being a normal person. Free will obviously has limitations since I cannot simply choose to defy the laws of physics. It has limitations to preserve its own conceptual integrity. Your insistence isn"t co prehensive itself because it, At the same time proposing a counterpoint to theistic ethics, Interposes no alternative grounding for morality while nevertheless insisting that morality exists. I am not saying that atheists are amoral. I know that most atheists have strong moral centers. I mean to say that that they do it is in spite of a lack of an epistemological grounding for their actions rather than because of it.

God is not in control of everything, Correct. However, This is because he willingly surrenders control of people to themselves rather than that he never had control in the first place. Your dismissal of God"s nature is in the vein of the multitude of well known paradoxes that arise from the superlative nature of God"s being (omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent), I. E. , "Could God make a rock so heavy He could not lift it? ". Such paradoxes make God"s inherent existence seem paradoxical, But in fact are merely predicated on a confusion and removal of the inherently understood boundary between a physical or corporeal impossibility and a logical impossibility, Which we call a paradox. God, Or at least the concept of God can do things no human could do, Obviously. However, To say, For example, That He could create a rock heavier than He could lift is not a logical situation and in fact lies outside of the realm of possible reality because it essentially boils down to the statement "God can do something that He cannot do. " It is self refuting and thus necessarily false. Thus, We know that if God indeed possesses the qualities He is assumed to by abrahamic texts, Then He should be unable to contradict Himself and thus, Could not create a rock so heavy He could not lift. To hold such up as an example of a failure of God to be omnipotent is invalid since the example is necessarily self refuting and unresolvable, Hence, Outside of the realm of what may be considered reasonable reality.

I watched each and every video you linked to and will respond to them.

Why do intelligent Christians disobey Jesus-
This is based on five things Jesus said:
1- You should love your enemies
America does not equal Christianity. Also, That one cannot love one"s enemy while at the same time maintaining a military is a false dichotomy.
2- You should sell everything you own
Jesus always or almost always said this to rich people whose wealth got in the way of their spiritual potential. This is also what Jesus means when He blesses the "poor in spirit" in the beatitudes.
3- You should abandon/hate your family
Careful reading of the context of the verses shows that Jesus was indicating the superseding importance of spirituality and the war of ideas to familial relationships. If your family gets in the way of doing the right thing, Be willing to disconnect yourself from them.
4- you should dismember yourself for your sins
This is hyperbolically rhetorical. Jesus, A first century Jewish rhetoritician, Is saying that if you care more about sinning with your hand than not sinning, It would be better that you did not even have a hand to sin with.
5- you should drink poison
This is just ridiculous. Jesus says people will survive being forced to drink poison and being bitten by snakes for his name. This is confirmed in Acts 28:3-6 when Paul is venerated by the Maltans for surviving a snakebite. Also, Since the forced drinking of poison was a historical method of execution, This is obviously what He was referring to.

This video seeks to create a false dichotomy between being Christian and being rational. I agree it is better to think rationally than dogmatically. Christians who actually know what they believe and why they believe it do.

All Knowing god verses Free Will: The Greatest Religious Contradiction- This is based on a very narrow definition of God"s omniscience. For example, If we define omniscience as the ability to understand and know the outcome of any of an infinite number of potential actions in response to a given circumstance, Then the point may be overcome. Theologians have debated the meaning of omniscience for centuries and I am not unwilling to adjust my understanding of a basic concept assuming a better argument can be made. At most, You have only disproven a certain definition of omniscience.

Free Will with God-
This video contains a lot of instances of the previously mentioned discounting of explanations of omniscience that fall outside a very narrow definition as well as enforcing some unjustified statements as part of the basis for its points. One in particular, That "all outside determinants were created by God" is one that, Once again, Begs the question that free will does not exist before it can be justified. If free will existed, Then humans could introduce determinants into a situation that God would have known about, But would not have created. Also "if we were truly free we could choose not to be free"? Even if we could choose not to choose, The choice not to choose is still a choice, So there is no way to escape making a choice. This is framing a logical contradiction as an argumentative lapse.

How God favors evil-
This video was the hardest to watch. It is rich with barely concealed contempt for the concept of God as a whole. Just because someone"s free will is being violated regardless of whether God intercedes does not mean that impinging on someone"s free will is not wrong for Him to do and that it would not be out of character for Him to do it. If God is incapable of sinning, But humans are, Then that means humans can do things that God cannot, Including atrocities. This does not make him less than omnipotent because some things that God cannot do do not count against his omnipotence because to include them would undermine the very concept of his omnipotence, And constitute another logical contradiction. Also, When your videos cite God"s "plan" they are not citing the plan as it is understood by believers in the "plan". God"s plan was culminated when Jesus supposedly died on the cross so that people would have the option to choose God over sin. Jesus" life and death did not require the death of millions of children, So the video"s point is completely falsely equivocal.

I have already seen the crash course videos you linked to. They are only summaries and don't prove anything. Ran out of room.
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

Le buu.
So let"s see what yah got as far as text is concerned since suffering has been more than tackled. Granted, So has text/ the written word in a sidebar series of posts, In which case no idiot god if true and genuine would ever be stupid enough not ever, Not for any reason to use text/ the written word. God what a true moron to even dream of a concept.

Yeah, Matt Dillahunty is an amazing debater. He"s been at it for more than 25 years, And was a southern baptist for 20. So he"s had quite a bit of experience. He also like me doesn"t take any s--t from anyone. There"s no need especially when you know you are right and you can prove it. I mean after all why should you?
"However, If you think that his argument proves religion incorrect, Then I think your standards of proof are somewhat low. "
Well then this shows that you don"t know me and Dillahunty all that well. I don"t base my ideals on Dillahunty alone but have long studied others also as am also well read on the turgid violent hate and evil that the bible spreads. I am truly shocked that people actually believe it. But then again, I do know better. I do know they haven"t actually picked it up past page 1 and read the damn thing.
"For one, The idea that God could more effectively have conveyed his message to humanity via objective logical processes and proofs is reductive in that it assumes the existence of some nebulous piece of information that God saw necessary to give to humanity. "
Well only you know what you mean by that.
"This is most certainly not the goal of the texts you have described. Instead, For anyone who tries to see what kind of commonality is shared between the texts of any of these books will see that God never had one explicit "message" to humanity. Instead, He has an expressed desire to live with and in proximity to humans, Guiding and shaping them into a supernatural kingdom and the books listed provide essentially a record of how He went about doing that. "
I see. So you think somehow that you know your unproven storybook character god of print only better than it knows itself? And you think somehow that it would use text so that it would joke around and thus text would be the ultimate way to be confusing so that especially children would not be able to understand it and interpret it correctly? Ah yes, And what about those who do the interpreting and the updates? Like they ---never--- oh they never make mistakes? Really? So this supposed "god" would not know these things beforehand? Really?
Awe well gee, This supposed god communicated with its prophets WITHOUT USING TEXT so there"s no reason why it can"t communicate, Advertise, Correspond with EVERYBODY else and NOT use text. Well that is of course unless it is unable to and can only communicate with a select few, Wants to deliberately give out mixed confusing messages, Especially contradictions and inconsistencies, Thousands of them in which case your bible has to thus make your bible unreadable, Sheer utter absurdities that no true god would ever do and or commit such as taken from the secular web" plants began to grow before there was sunlight, Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, Buckeye pod, Nightshade, Oleander. ), The serpent speaks human language (presumably Hebrew), God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides to flood the earth to eliminate mankind. All living things including plants, Animals, Women and innocent children are also exterminated. (Note: This is like burning down a house to rid it of mice. ), The flood covered the earth with water fifteen cubits (twenty plus feet) above the highest mountains. (Note: This would require steady, Worldwide rainfall at the rate of about 6 inches per minute, 360 inches per hour, 8640 inches per day--for 40 days and nights--so as to cover the entire earth with an endless ocean 5 miles deep, Thus burying 29, 000 ft. Mt. Everest under 22 ft. Of water. How did the author know the depth of the water? Did Noah take soundings? And where has all this water gone? ), Etc etc etc

"As Dillahunty misrepresents"
Woah, Dillahunty does not misrepresent anything. In fact you do. It was just pointed out how exactly to the letter that you do and in no possible way can the idiot bible can be accepted for truth for anything. If it makes one mistake, That"s too much. And as Dillahunty constantly states "Why should I care what the bible says? " He"s right. And something else "Nobody knows who wrote the bible". So since this is absolutely 100% true, How do you know who the authors were and if they told the truth or not for anything when it is an impossibility? That was listed in the posts for 4 reasons.

"Then we see a basic possibility"
Key word "possibility".
No it 100% should be an actuality.
"for God"s having a reason to dictate and command His followers to record His actions and messages as they occurred. "
Um no. It is this supposed unproven god"s RESPONSIBILITY to dictate to EVERYBODY, Not just its followers, It"s laws rules and regulations. AND it 100% does this NOT by using text to avoid confusion and misinterpretation, Especially throughout all the updates that MUST occur throughout the generations as language changes, And throughout all the translation of languages that there are so there is no chance of mixed and misused messages. But then again this shows that either your unproven god 1. Does not exist 2. Does not care 3. Loves to play children"s games 4. Hides behind the shield of religion.

"Then I simply point to the fact that it is not necessary that God is self recording. After all, Hurricane Katrina was not self-recording, Nor was the Emancipation Proclamation or the discovery of Radium. "
Well that point is utterly lost and makes no sense.
"Why then should the parting of the Red Sea have been? "
Who said it ever took place?
"It is perfectly likely that God simply chose to present Himself in a way that He could be in some way recorded in His actions and intent. "
Once again you are assuming that this unproven god exists when you have no proof that it does. Yeah, It still would not use text to someway record it"s actions --- to humans. You missed that part.
"In fact, How do you expect someone today to respond should they hear the voice of God whisper in their ear in a way consistent with the ways He has been recorded to manifest? "
Very good! You"re learning. It"s NOT THROUGH TEXT now is it?
"Well, That person would likely record what had occurred, Either in text or in video"
Yeah, That"s a PERSON, NOT GOD. GOT IT! NO---GOD---WOULD---EVER---USE---TEXT! WHO CARES ABOUT WHAT A LOWLY HUMAN WOULD USE? Now what part of that don"t you understand? K? Sorry about the strenuous caps but it needs to be made perfectly clear.

Um no no no. It"s not just Dillahunty. It"s the atheist positioning for those that are involved with discussing religion that god is required to be tested, Demonstrated, Asserted. And you cannot do it because you nor anyone knows how to do it. Science is the best way to go because it can be tested and demonstrated and asserted. Science can also say "I don"t know" for something that it doesn"t know. Like I said, I"ve been doing this for 45+ years, Almost 46, And I"ve probably not heard 20 out of roughly 22, 000 that I"ve talked with say "I don"t know". Dare your unproven god be imperfect? Of course not.
Scientism? That"s a new one. I"ve been watching The Atheist Experience for about 4 years now and watched a lot of their episodes and have ---never--- not once heard that term used by ---any--- of the panel.

A miracle? You do realize as time rolls on especially in this century ALL supposed claimed miracles have been debunked, Correct? No exceptions, None. Do you know who James Randi is? If not, You should. He at one point in his career offered $1 million for anyone who could prove anything from the paranormal. Naturally NOBODY proved it to be true. He"s no retired and the $1 million is taken off the table. There is a film on him. It is on Amazon Prime called "An Honest Liar". So if you get Amazon Prime, Watch it!

Also if you get Amazon Prime, Watch "Inherit the Wind". It is one of my all time fav films. It is the film adapted from the play on evolution VS creationism which is exactly to the letter why god was taken out of the classrooms and evolution remains in the classrooms. Granted, It"s been remade several times but does not live up to the classic and there are a few versions on youtube.

"This is the same as defining a mathematical function of X in terms of an expression which contains X. "
Oh absolutely not. Math is the only fact(s) that there are. 2 + 2 = 4 no matter which language you speak provided that the equation is not changed.
Sorry, A miracle is not a standard of reality. You cannot sell me on that one.
Tell you what, Instead of you defining what a miracle is, Let"s stick to what the dictionary defines what a miracle is"
1. An effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause. 2. Such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.
Obviously the other definitions don"t apply for this deeee-bate. The supernatural cannot be proved, Just like faith cannot be proved, Just like a god cannot be proved, Just like a book does not prove a god exists.
I see, Like the end of the world that so many wait for it to happen and it never happens - right?
Sure they should if they are insane and if they have no evidence to support their claims in which case nearly all the time, Like nearly 100% of the time they don"t. Why do you think that if you were to get a religious paper together and try to get it entered at ---any--- scientific community from around the world of merit that is not theistic, It will never be entered through the front gate?

I'm out of space.
Please tc and have fun.
Justaserver

Con

Most of what I am hearing is based on the assertion that God should not be believed in if he cannot be proved to exist. I understand that and see why it appeals. Why take something to be true if you do not have a reason to do so? I thought like that for a long time and think that it is still useful regarding corporeal things. However, As I will explain, Such a category is useful only in defining corporeal things and asserting corporeal realities, But is insufficient for evaluating the possibility of the supernatural. The statement that only what can be proved to be true should be believed to be true is a self refuting proposition. This is the belief scheme known as scientism(or particularly that variety of it defined by August Comte as an expression of positivism as can be seen here: https://www. Aaas. Org/programs/dialogue-science-ethics-and-religion/what-scientism)- that scientific test is the only way to confirm the truth value of any statement. Scientism itself is based on an even more fundamental mode of knowing and thus an even more fundamental flaw.
The broadly defined paradigm of knowledge is the problem of the criterion which separates the parts of knowing into particulars(instances of knowledge which exist without having to be justified, Such as any of the observed laws of the universe), And methods(instances of knowledge built as a commonality between particulars that can qualify new particulars a la "something is true if it conforms to the laws of the universe"). Particularism is the belief that particular instances of knowledge exist before they can be justified to exist or can be applied to a method. I know the statement 2+2=4 to be true because if it were not, Asserting its nonexistence would be an insolvent case because I could not use math to do so. Methodism is the belief that we justify knowledge by adherence to known methods such as "a statement is true if it adheres to mathematical precedent"". However, Before we can say for certain that the statement is true, We must justify the method of math by yet another method, Ad infinitum. Now, To be clear, Methods cannot be particulars because methods are by necessity the abstract connection between particulars. Thus, Particularism must be the basis on which we judge any proposition, As it is the only which provides a firm basis for experienced reality. This somewhat connects to Hume's commentary on the paradox of induction.
Thus, My refutation of scientism is that if only what can be scientifically (methodically) tested ought to be regarded as true, Then scientism itself fails its own category since there is no way to scientifically test the proposition that scientific tests are the only way to gain knowledge. Additionally, There are knowledge types that are not scientific, Including historical, And philosophical. Scientific knowledge cannot, Furthermore, Be greater than philosophical knowledge because its individual points are necessarily predicated on the philosophical underpinnings that support its being taken as reliable in the first place via particularism such as: gravity exists(particular), It obeys general relativity(particular), Therefore, General relativity is true and must be obeyed by non-quantum objects(method).

God is needed to justify good because without Him no standard of good exists, And thus I have no right to say to anyone but myself 'what you are doing is wrong'. I know this from two proofs: If there is not a standard of morality or goodness, Then whatever claim I make about morality will only be relative to my personal standard of morality, Whereof there is no way to prove it is any more objectively better than someone else's. Also, If determinism is true, Then no one has any control over their actions and thus cannot stop themselves from committing atrocities. This is known as the "ought" implies "can" dilemma.

An atheist who has a particularly salient answer to this is Sam Harris, Who argues that good should be measured as the objective standard of what causes mankind to flourish. He uses what he conceptualizes his point as a "landscape"" of good, Charting all actions as a function of how they benefit humanity. Even other internet atheists like Cosmic Skeptic disagree because, First of all, What is good is very often not what benefits humanity, Meaning that the peaks on his moral landscape could very well be occupied by awful people, And the landscape is basically speciesist from a skeptical point of view. Why should humanity flourish rather than any other species in particular? Why should life be prioritized at all? This is even before the introduction of determinism, A point of view Sam Harris supports, So this is assuming that humans can choose what to do at all. Therefore, Without free will, There can be no morality. Morality exists therefore free will exists. If morality does not exist, Then it is simply a development of social evolution, So it is not necessarily less human to disbelieve in it, Either.

"Well then this shows that you don"t know me and Dillahunty all that well. I don"t base my ideals on Dillahunty alone but have long studied others also as am also well read on the turgid violent hate and evil that the bible spreads. "
First of all, The scope of the argument at that point was still only the two points you initially posted. The second point was cited on the basis of Dillahunty's statement and you made the claim that anyone who understands what he is saying would see the fallacy in religion. So basically you are saying that what Dillahunty is saying disproves religion, Which is what I was responding to. I could rephrase my statement: "if you think that Dillahunty's argument alone provides an infallible basis on which to discount the validity of the texts, Then your standards for an infallible basis are somewhat low. "

What I meant by the "nebulous information" quote was that Dillahunty is implying that the text is just a series of instances of God telling people things. He does tell people things, But he also does things in real time and expects people to do things in response. "Extant"- God did not mean every piece of information He ever gave at the same time. If God at one point tells someone to do something, Then at another time tells someone else to do the opposite, Then when He said what and in what context matters.

I do not believe in religion to the extent that it is a code of conduct man must adhere to. The Federalist Papers say it best when they say that "If all men were angels, He would not need government. "" Any code of conduct is just an imperfect substitute for real goodwill and a heart geared toward love in all circumstances. This was the point of the Bible, To show that adhering to a code of conduct is not sufficient and that we need a transformation of our hearts toward love rather than self-service on top of trusting Jesus' death to account for the places where we fail.

"Why not millions or billions or trillions of gods? " Because infinity times a trillion is still infinity. It is not only more parsimonious that there should be one God rather than many, But also logically necessary if that God is to be superlative in nature. What you are describing is an unlimited number of persons within that God, For which I do believe in a number of. The Bible Project had a pretty good explanation of this. If we take God to be a higher order of being interacting with a lower order, The analogy can be made that God is like a dynamic three dimensional object intersecting a two dimensional plane. He could manifest in a series of planar sections which are disconnected from each other two dimensionally but which are connected with each other in a higher dimension. Theoretically, God could manifest in a trillion persons, But those persons could not be considered different Gods as they would all equally be the same God. That is the basic concept of the trinity. Now, Before you go off on that the Johannine Comma was not originally in the Bible, Know that the "trinity"" is a useful way of explaining a biblical concept that most people in church history take as a literal paradigm of God. It could just as well have been a quadrinity, Pentinity, Etc. However, It is most useful to explain God's presence in the Bible in the form of a three-fold object. I recommend The Bible Project's videos for more on the deconstructed nature of God.

"Math is only the fact(s) that there are. " I do not exactly understand your objection. Because 2+2 equals four, If x+2=4, X must necessarily be two. The reason that algebraically the statement x=(x+5)/7 is worthless is the same reason you cannot define a word using the same word. If you have to know x before you solve x, Then you have done nothing to meaningfully define x. This is so with reality. If you have to have a conception of what is liable to be reality before you can define reality, Then you have not defined reality but referred to a previously asserted definition of reality. What I am saying is that if something occurs that cannot be possible under our understanding of the "function" of reality, Then it must originate from a supernatural source.

When it comes to the written word, Your point entirely relies on the practice of not considering the actual context and nature of many of the actual scriptures. Many of these books were written in the form of epistles(letters) from one person or group of people to another and should be taken as such. In my opinion the First council of Nicea was, Although a necessary occurrence regarding the clarity of divine scripture, Somewhat injurious to our modern understanding of the singleness of the gospel. I believe a properly informed theologian should read the many Jewish writings regarding the Old testament that add context to the books. In fact, One cannot fully grasp many of the deeper meanings of Jesus' words until one knows the teachings outside the Tanakh He referenced.

A bit disjointed but I had a lot of ground to cover. Respect.
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

"Most of what I am hearing is based on the assertion that God should not be believed in if he cannot be proved to exist. "
No. It"s entirely all. I would also refer to this supposed "god" as an "it" since no one knows what "it" is. Meaning that no one knows if it is a "he", "she", "whatever". In other words, Since nobody knows, As there is no clear definition, And this supposed "god" never defined itself at all to anyone, Not in the entire existence of the human race"s history, Nobody knows what "it" is.
"Why take something to be true if you do not have a reason to do so? "
See, Now that kind of questioning leads to short circuiting. It"s quite beyond reasoning alone. It includes thinking, Rationalizing, Common sense, And logic.
"Corporeal" is also a word I"ve never heard used. So why use it now? It simply does not fit or apply.
"But is insufficient for evaluating the possibility of the supernatural. "
When you mention the word "possibility", This means you are guessing. So the next question is "why guess? " Then the next followup question as asked before is why not have evidence in believing in something rather than having no evidence for something and thus believing in it?
Here"s a Dillahunty quote only from a few weeks ago"

Matt: "Until somebody demonstrates that the supernatural exists and can in fact interact with the natural world, You are not justified in appealing to that as an explanation. "
Caller: "If that something existed that would not be explicable through normal science, Because if it was then the event would be natural and not supernatural. "
Matt: "No. If there"s something supernatural, That"s where you went wrong. Because you are inferring something about something that you have no evidence for. You don"t know what it"s limits are. You don"t know what X is. You can"t tell me anything about it. And yet you"re trying to by saying if X is supernatural, Then there can"t be a natural explanation for it. But there"s no way to demonstrate there CANNOT be a natural explanation. The only thing we can ever do is show there"s not CURRENTLY not a natural explanation. So you"re hiding a big argument from ignorance fallacy in this model. My definition is really simple" Before we get to use the supernatural as a potential candidate for an observation we must first demonstrate that the supernatural exists and could be a potential explanation for it. "

"Ultimately, Science would save humans from unnecessary suffering and their self-destructive tendencies. And it promised to achieve these goals in this world, Not the afterlife. It was a bold, Prophetic vision. "
Yet it never mentioned what this prophetic vision was, Naturally because IT DOES NOT EXIST!

"The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. " "Carl Sagan, Cosmos = makes perfect sense from perhaps the greatest scientist of all time and the greatest prophet of all time. He correctly predicted there would be lakes of liquid methane on Titan years before it was known with only foggy pictures of it. He also correctly made predictions of dust devils on Mars long before they were known.
"The more the universe seems comprehensible, The more it also seems pointless. " "Stephen Weinburg, The First Three Minutes = idiot statement from a pointless statement.
"We can be proud as a species because, Having discovered that we are alone, We owe the gods very little. " "E. O. Wilson, Consilience = perhaps the most idiodic statement of all time. If idiots actually believe it, Then it sets the human race back multitudes of eons. How stupid can one get to make such a moronic statement AND expect true imbeciles to believe it? Here"s something for you"
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=HcbQ3Gspyyo - New Study Suggests 36 Alien Civilizations In The Milky Way, But"
Even if there is only 1, Just alien 1 civilization in the Milky Way, When it is now known that there are trillions of galaxies in this universe, Well I"m sure you can do the math.

"but a worldview that closely aligns itself with science"scientism (14). By disentangling these two concepts, We have a much better chance for enlisting public support for scientific research than we would by trying to convince millions of people to embrace a materialistic, Godless universe in which science is our only remaining hope. "
That"s 100% false also as science gets it wrong umteen times. But at least, As stated before, Science can and does always say "I don"t know" for something that it doesn"t know. Strangely I saw 0% of nothing like that in the article you presented. Why? Especially if it"s supposed to be an ultimate worldview of some sort? Science doesn"t claim something unless it can be proved. Like the big bang, The universe is roughly 13. 8 billion years old, Evolution + Mother Earth, The god of the underworld (hades), Lightning (Zeus), And now man knows better.
"Scientism, On the other hand, Is a speculative worldview"
Woah there. There"s that one word of "guessing" again, Meaning it doesn"t know. "Speculative". Nor does it give any evidence to support its ideas.
"about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. "
"Rather than working within carefully constructed boundaries and methodologies established by researchers, "
That"s by far NOT what researchers do otherwise how can researchers possibly gain any new and different perspectives ON ANYTHING and yeah, That includes mathematical equations? What a silly ridiculous statement!
Continuing to its further downfall "it broadly generalizes entire fields of academic expertise and dismisses many of them as inferior. "
OH goodie. Yea! No wonder scientism has not been heard of and has probably been completely rejected by those that have!
Continuing to its further luxurious downfall "With scientism, You will regularly hear explanations that rely on words like "merely", "only", "simply", Or "nothing more than. Scientism restricts human inquiry. "
Then how is it that with scientism can one learn much about anything by using those simplistic words? You BY FAR are more complex and can think, Rationalize, Reason, Use common sense, Use logic better than that. You know what? YOU DO!
Then to the ultimate plunder if there ever was one "But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science". . .
Who ever stated that there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science? Science most certainly doesn"t, And if it does, Then it"s bad science UNLESS it"s something that already has been proved OR can knowably be proved through odds and ends such as math. But you know what? That equation of "I don"t know" is always right there. Science is the best tool we"ve got right now until something comes along that is better. It"s not superstition, Or the realm of the supernatural that has never been proved by anyone that has never been proved in the entire existence of the human race. Nor is it a god that has also never been proved by anyone in the entire existence of the human race.
Regardless, Within the article does it in no possible way prove a god exists. Nor does it prove that the supernatural exists because nobody can test, Demonstrate and assert them. Since nobody knows what they are, Just how would you and or anybody be able to do these things - test, Demonstrate and assert that a "god" or the "supernatural" exists?
Also, Define the "supernatural" since no one else has? I mean that could be anyone"s declaration which has not been first tested and demonstrated and clearly not asserted from anything to witch doctors to Aztec sun gods to Mayan moon gods to Ra and anything else that someone can perceive to be true. But where"s their and your evidence showing that it is true? To prove that it"s not, Let them, Just like you as previously stated, Get all of your information together and then present it to one, Just one scientific community from around the world of merit that is not theistic (after all you nor they can be biased), And you nor they would not even be shown to the the front gate. Can you take a stab in the dark as to guess why? The same is true in this country as to the why as a few have sued over the right to practice prayer in the classroom. It"s never gone to trial and never will. Again, Can you guess why?
"Scientism itself is based on an even more fundamental mode of knowing"
I only gathered the cheapness of knowing. Thus not caring enough to know.
"and thus an even more fundamental flaw. "
I"ll agree with that. Since this is true, Why pursue it?
"(instances of knowledge which exist without having to be justified, Such as any of the observed laws of the universe)"
But they are having to be justified and even more so every single time someone headbutts them to be somewhat disproved. An example is when I was oh say 9 or so my brother thought that someday people would be able to do just like in Star Trek and be able to actually travel at say warp 9. My dad would say nope, No one and nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Naturally I 100% believe that there"s something that can travel faster than the speed of light and man is so god damned arrogant to believe that there isn"t. Man just hasn"t discovered what that something(s) is - yet, Possibly may never do it with his own tepid ignorance, And man could very well be wiped clean off the face of the earth before it discovers squat. That"s just a few samples.
Well a mathematical equation" Hmmm some moron could change the symbols so that the equation could not be understood # + ) = 4 by others and is thus proved meaningless. Or prove that to be correct? Better yet use a drum, The first instrument. // + // = //// In other words, Man would have had to have had some type of planning, Indeed math, In order for it to have built its cities.
Let"s put it this way" we all experience our own perceptions of our own glass caged realities. If we didn"t then we would not be individuals and not have separate personalities.

I'm out of space.
Sorry I cannot contribute more.
Please always tc and have fun
Justaserver

Con

I do not think you fully understood my arguments in rd 3.

God has no gender, We only address Him as such because it is convenient and/or He addresses Himself thus.

Corporeal: having, Consisting of, Or relating to a physical material body: such as: not immaterial or intangible. - Mirriam Webster.

How exactly is it inappropriate?

"Possibility"- You are right that we should not guess. We should observe and decide what is more likely to be true. You were not initially simply saying that religion is simply less likely to be true, However. You were saying that the points mentioned categorically refute the truth of religion. If that were true, There would be no possibility of one of them being correct in spite of your arguments. Discounting that I believe that there is evidence for the existence of God from a philosophical base, I am not here to prove the existence of God, Only to disprove that your arguments disprove His existence.

Dillahunty's interaction with the caller illustrates a fallacy in that he assumes that the supernatural has no set definition because we cannot understand it according to the caller's logic. We can 100% deduce the properties of something we cannot directly observe by examining the thing's inverse and extrapolating the extent to which the thing is the opposite of the other. We deduce what the properties of antimatter are because we know what the properties of regular matter are. In the same way, We can define the supernatural as the inverse of the natural, That is, Whatever cannot be explained by natural processes, Is not deterministic, And is or derives its cause from something which is uncaused, I. E. God.

I indicated that the definition of scientism which is relevant to the discussion is that listed under positivism as defined by August Comte. I was directing you to a particular section which I was responding to. Comte dictates that only what can be experienced with the senses should be taken to be true. Obviously the definition of scientism has evolved since then but the point remains that what can be observed to be true immediately is not all that should be taken as true.

""Ultimately, Science would save humans from unnecessary suffering and their self-destructive tendencies. And it promised to achieve these goals in this world, Not the afterlife. It was a bold, Prophetic vision. " Yet it never mentioned what this prophetic vision was, Naturally because IT DOES NOT EXIST! "
Are you still quoting Dillahunty? Could you please make your quotations clearer and insert appropriate commentary? I am not sure what you mean by what you said regarding this statement. Are you pro or con- this statement?

What do the quotations you listed have to do with the argument? I get that Carl-Sagan was a good scientist. That does not make him right. (appeal to authority) Qualify what these quotations mean to the argument as opposed to throwing them out like they should be self-explanatory, Please.

I really did not think you got my math analogy. The point was to illustrate the nature of algebra as necessarily identificative in nature. Through algebraic maneuver, One can define even a small piece of a large equation in terms of the other aspects of the equation, Such as turning E=MC^2 into C=(E/M)^". It is a rule of algebra that if you are tasked to define X, The equated to expression cannot contain X because that would create an infinite nesting of the expression of X within itself, Hence, An incomprehensible logical conundrum. This is the problem with Dillahunty"s skepticism. It assumes there should be a naturalistic explanation for any one event before it is proven, In effect, Nesting nature into the expression of what occurs in reality. If something that belies our understanding of reality and logic occurs (not simply something which we have not seen happen before but something which should for all intents and purposes be impossible), We should be willing to call it supernatural.

"But they are having to be justified and even more so every single time someone headbutts them to be somewhat disproved. "
My initial analogy was incomplete. The laws of the universe are not good examples of particulars. A better example would be any true mathematical statement like 1+1=2. We take this to be true simply because it is true without qualification. Anyone trying to disprove it would be laughed at because there is as much a way to disprove it as there is a way to prove it. The rules of math, Then, Are a method which is based on the particulars of known mathematical realities.

But"
Even if there is only 1, Just alien 1 civilization in the Milky Way, When it is now known that there are trillions of galaxies in this universe, Well I"m sure you can do the math. "

What exactly is this responding to? It seems like you have completely abandoned your previous points in favor of naming various perceived reasons for secularism. I am a moderate of my faith, Meaning that I am willing to accept textual interpretation of the Bible and other books assuming there is a good enough argument. To be clear, This does not mean that I believe the truth of the Bible has ever changed, So to speak, Only that the understanding of what it claims has shifted throughout history and may be incomplete in regards to other areas of study, That is, As we accrue more information about the sociology, History, Or cosmological areas of study, We may begin to fill in some pieces of information that would not have been included. After all, A cookbook does not tell you how to grow and culture tomatoes, Basil, Or any other manner of ingredient because that is not its intent. As you learn those things you might look back at the cookbook and say "so that is where those came from. " The Bible and other holy texts have very specific intents beyond which they do not try to reach, Nor beyond which it is likely any human had ever even thought of during their writing. Thus, To say for example that the biblical creation story disallows the faithful to study evolution is not accurate because that ignores the textual criticism based on the literary style of the text that it is not literal and therefore is not necessarily opposed to the slow and arduous process of evolution. Instead, The modern critical believer might look at evolution and not see something that contradicts their faith but one which adds context to it.

I would like to briefly return to the point about suffering. The argument that objective good (God) cannot exist because suffering exists such as the rape and murder of innocent people, As He would simply dispel all suffering if He existed does not take into account the actual nature of what good and evil are. The closest thing to an insinuation of the axiom of morality that any of your arguments will give is that "good" is the absence of "evil", Or something is "right" insofar as it is not "wrong". On what basis is this assertion proposed? Instead, We must consider how the universe would look if instead, As the Christian theology would consider it, "evil" were rather the absence of "good". This is certainly insinuated by the analogy between light and darkness and good and evil. If darkness is the absence of light, Then wrong is the absence of right. Reevaluating the world based on this axiom, Those who choose to do wrong do not take initiative to do something that is unique(even though within the state of evil they may take unique initiative to do something particularly nasty), But rather fail to do something that ought to be done in that situation. Billy does not take active initiative to hurt Bob, But rather fails to respect Bob the way he should and restrain the temptation to hurt him. It is not wrong to rape because it is something that someone would not do otherwise, But because it is something one would do otherwise, Without the active and necessary effort to restrain one"s self from doing something wrong in the presence of the temptation to rape. No one has the same temptations, And thus everyone has the responsibility to deny those unique temptations. I do not expect you to take this axiom of evil based on faith alone, But expect you to be honest about whether or not the model of the world wherein evil is an activity or that wherein it is a passivity is more accurate to the observed state of the world.

I refer back to my fifth paragraph. My job here was not to prove God exists, Only to prove that your listed arguments for disqualifying his existence are not infallible. Everything else is beside the point. There is the possibility that God, Being an unfathomable creature, Could have a reason to permit suffering to occur that we do not understand, And there is the possibility that God had distinct and knowable reasons to allow humans to communicate his actions and intent in the world. Dismissing these based on the perceived fallacy of Christianity in general is not very useful, Because it assumes there is some Christian consensus or definition of truth in all these matters outside of the basics of the faith like Jesus' divinity. The debate about these matters is lively. Whatever explanation best fits the observed data is that which should be taken to be true. And no, Some things cannot be true if others are to be true. If we take one thing to be true that is logically contradictory of another, Then one has got to go. That is why illustrated a way of thinking about God's omnipotence that does not infringe upon free will, Because to believe that God can know what we are going to do exactly rather than only the outcomes of any possible reaction and how to treat it to preserve an eternal goal would infringe upon the idea of free will, Which is also a fundamental belief.

I really do not know what to say here. You did not really make a lot of specific claims or rebuttals in the last round so I am at a bit of a loss. Nevertheless, I wish you the best.
Debate Round No. 4
backwardseden

Pro

"God is needed to justify good""
Again, Prove that any god from any religion exists. You can only make guesses that any god does. So these questions MUST be asked and sorry that I"m pushing the pedal to the metal"
* What makes you so special that you think you are better than billions of others that YOU can identify with this so-called unproven storybook character god of print only AND prove it exists whereas nearly 100% no one else can?
* Why wouldn"t this so-called unproven god show itself to those who are suffering, Especially children, And clear things up especially with the creation of suffering? POOF, GONE.

"because without Him no standard of good exists, "
I"m perfectly good, So are billions of others. I nor anyone requires a god to standardize what is good and what is not. We don"t commit murder, Allow rape, Treat women like s--t, Ensue slavery all throughout time. Issues death warrants for absurd things such as those that are gay, Blaspheme, Work on the sabbath, Don"t worship it, Commit adultery, Curse at their parents etc. Hates children, Caused umpteen genocides. Has the same HUMAN emotions such as anger, Wrath, Evil, Vengeance, Rage, Fury, Jealousy. What? Jealousy is nothing more than anger disguised as fear. AND act upon those emotions to create violence and hate. Your god does according to your bible.
You can honestly believe and state with a somewhat good conscience
"because without Him no standard of good exists, "
By what standards? Yours? Certainly not by the world's general population that doesn't believe in your unproven immoral god.
Here"s what you don"t get"
Evil and being completely immoral is not a requirement, A need, A necessity. However, According to your unproven god, It is.

"If there is not a standard of morality or goodness, "
That"s where you need to stop and think about that, Rationalize, Reason, Use common sense and use logic because whoever said man requires a god from any religion to hammer any kind of law of morality, In which case the god of the bible"s actions and laws are completely immoral and should not be acted upon under any circumstance? You don"t act upon them AT ALL! Do you murder people because they work on the sabbath, Blaspheme, Don"t worship this so-called unproven god, Because people happen to be gay, Commit adultery, Curse at their parents? Why no. Of course not. That"s immoral for those laws as dictated by your unproven god to even exist.
"Then whatever claim I make about morality will only be relative to my personal standard of morality, "
Nope. It is the standard of every single person who has ever lived unless they are lawbreakers/ criminals/ felons/ dictators/ Hitler"s, Mao"s, Hong Xiuquan"s, Stalin"s, Pol Pot"s, Serial killers, Pedophiles, Rapists, Torturers etc. The thing is, Saying your unproven god exists, It gives power to the first time offender, Every single time, No exceptions, None, That power to commit the first time offense and possibly more offenses whereas the victims, No exceptions, None, Always suffers, Sometimes horrifically.
So that"s really "good" and "moral"? NO! YOU---ARE---BETTER---THAN---THIS!
"Whereof there is no way to prove it is any more objectively better than someone else's. "
Don"t have to unless you are better than a person who is clearly immoral. You know the difference. This is NOT hard!
"Also, If determinism is true, "
Whoever said it was? But there are some instances where I"d agree it is"
Donald manure spread Trump, Easily the worst president of all time is a sociopath and a psychopath and was born to play that role. Gays are born that way. Serial killers are born to murder. Thus your unproven god cannot possibly exist.

From what little I know of Sam Harris, Other atheists who speak out against religion generally disagree with what he has to say though not always. I do like The Cosmic Skeptic though I have rarely watched anything he does simply because his accent is so thick at times that it"s very hard to follow.
"What is good is very often not what benefits humanity, "
There"s no grounding point to possibly know that because it's never occurred. So how can anybody know what it would/ could/ should be like?
"Meaning that the peaks on his moral landscape could very well be occupied by awful people, "
Namely this so-called god of the bible that invented people. Start right at the very top and let it trickle on down. Religion works like this" Religion is invented to explain the unexplained. Then with all religions known comes power. Then from that power, Though not with all, Trickles down to fear and from that though not with all that trickles down to control. That is so true of christianity.
"Why should humanity flourish rather than any other species in particular? "
That"s easy. His brain is bigger and thus was able to control fire. Then was able to develop weapons, And learn how to farm, Domesticate animals, And then build government and equality.
"Why should life be prioritized at all? "
Should is not the right word. It"s "is". However, Man really hasn"t done a very good job in prioritizing anything at all as he has s--t for brains and cannot, At least as of yet, Live in a modern society where he does not pollute the oceans, Skies, Deforest the lands, And cannot live at one with Mother Nature which is why she is striking back in a huge monumental way. Records of all kinds, Ice cores, Ocean cores (if that"s what you call them), Rocks clearly show this.
Btw, Whoever said anybody has free will? We could all be programmed to do whatever. Regardless, If you believe in your unproven god, Then it"s a 100% certainty you have 0 free will.

"The scope of the argument at that point was still only the two points you initially posted. "
True. We both have lost that. I"m just trying to follow what you say.

"if you think that Dillahunty's argument alone provides an infallible basis on which to discount the validity of the texts. . . "
Nope. I"ve shown one helluva lot more than what Dillahunty has stated in regards to text being the worst form of communication TO A GOD.

If God at one point tells someone to do something, Then at another time tells someone else to do the opposite, . . . "
Well this supposed unproven god did that in text you know. Talk about supermassive hypocritical contradictions. Examples are the great flood where it annihilates all life except for 2 of each species and eight people and then telling men not to kill each other. It did this also with genocide after genocide. How truly contradictory and hypocritical. As a child I could also never get past "you shall fear your god and love your god. " That always was confusing to me because it IS so contradictory and hypocritical and a true impossibility. There's many more examples.

"I do not believe in religion to the extent that it is a code of conduct man must adhere to. "
If you believe in a god, That"s a religion. If you believe in the christian god then you must follow its laws, Rules and regulations which it is impossible to do, In which case you are not a christian. The same is true for any religion on the market today. You cannot go around making stuff up and break the rules, Laws and regulations of your religion just because you want to because it suits your wants, Needs and desires for what suits you best in which case all supposed christians must. Otherwise it"s a different religion from what was originally stated by a BOOK of all things that no god would ever dream of using to get its message across.

"This was the point of the Bible, To show that adhering to a code of conduct is not sufficient and that we need a transformation of our hearts toward love. . . "
Actually no. No true supposed christian will ever state that and will state something though not completely different, Something different, That is if they know anything at all about supposed christianity. Please go to 20 different churches within a 20 mile radius and see what they say. Betcha there will be no consensus. Betcha you will hear some truly wild explanations (sad to say) that are clearly bluffed and they don"t know what they are squawking about. Regardless, Betcha all of them will lead up in one way or another to a superior ego god complex. You just proved it.

"Because infinity times a trillion is still infinity. "
One god might not have all the answers. And it is always better to learn from one god to the next and the next etc. Also you have no idea, None if the god you believe in is lying to you in which case it did according to the bible as did to its prophets which is such a supermassive fatal flaw in your bible which is yet another reason why your god cannot be accepted as being true. Since no god has been proven since there"s no possibility of testing, Demonstrating, Asserting a god, How would you know if a god is true if it were to knock on your door? How would you KNOW it"s a god? How did you get to the conclusion it"s a god?

"But also logically necessary if that God is to be superlative in nature. "
How much do you know about Mother Nature/ Gaia Mother Earth?
"The Bible Project had a pretty good explanation of this. "
It doesn't prove the bible or a god is in any possible way true.
"If we take God to be a higher order of being interacting with a lower order, "
"We" don't. You have to first prove a god exists.
"Theoretically, God could manifest in a trillion persons, "
How can you know? If it could it would = it's superior ego god complex all throughout the bible, The absolute requirement to be worshiped and idolized.

Uggg. I'm out of space once again. This being RD 5 there's still much to get to. If you wish another debate can be created, Or you can email me, Or we can continue in posting or you can say "no" and simply drop the debating. Regardless, I think it is nice to FINALLY be debating with someone who is intelligent and educated and NOT flying from the wings as most I debate with here on DDO do! Thanx!
Please always tc and haveth thee fun!
Justaserver

Con

As a closing statement, I think you have some good points and make some good arguments. Much of it is obscured, However, Beneath condescension. What makes you think that you are better than the rapists, Murderers, And terrorists you so gladly will defame if neither you nor them made a conscious free will choice to be either good or bad. You continue to draw unjustified dichotomies between so called "good" or "average" people and every one who has committed an unconscionable immoral act. Who says that their measure of good or bad is any less valid than yours? From an atheistic standpoint, Good and bad are only relative terms, With something being good only insofar as it is perceived to be good by a society and agreed upon as such. Am I better than this? I never said you or the millions of other atheists who agree with you are not moral people. I only said earlier that that you act in accordance with a standard of good that is by and large acceptable despite the lack of an objective basis for morality and not because of it.

Do I think I know better than the billions who do not believe in Jesus? Do the number of alternative beliefs dictate whether any of them is in fact true? No. If God exists, Then if there were two religions making mutually exclusive claims, Then one must be correct and the other incorrect. If you added one more, The same would be true and only one would be correct. Why not a billion religions, Then? Why can no religion be correct simply because there are so many religions? Do I think I know better? I do because I have a reason and justification to believe that what I put my faith in is correct, Not that whatever everyone else puts their faith in isn"t correct. You are trying to turn me against myself by making me have to categorically refute every religion before I can believe in any one particular God, Which is absurd. You do not have to first disprove every other competing theory to believe in relativity because relativity is that which simply fits the available evidence. According to the properties of the universe that I can observe and rely upon, I conclude that God ought to exist and that He is the Judeo/Christian God. Is this proposition undoubtable? No. Faith does not mean the lack of doubt. I have and will go through periods of questioning where I struggle with the actual reality of what I believe, And I am as of yet open to changing my beliefs if a better explanation is given because I believe that if God is the truth and my duty is first to God, Then my duty is first to the truth.

Most of what you will flaunt as evidence of the horror of organized religion is really just evidence of the horror of man. Pollution and environmental destruction is a travesty and undoubtedly manifest only of man"s greed and ambition. This world is not ours, But merely on loan from the one who made it. It is His right and His right alone to destroy and wipe it away. In the meantime we are here to steward and utilize the natural gifts we have been given to glorify Him. However, We also know that we as humans have a higher place among the order of creatures than every other creature on earth, And a higher duty as well, Not to do evil to each other in the name of the base instincts we are born with. How many animals mate with others of their kind against their will? How many are guilty of rape? How many have killed their own kind for access to food and mates? How many are guilty of murder? You cannot deny that humans are distinctly different in this regard.

I would love to refute each of your individual points in kind but I do not think it would do all that much. Knowing the truth is not composed of knowing what is not the truth, But in knowing intimately the substance of what constitutes truth. Thus, All the rebuttals in the world will not demonstrate whatever truth may exist within my position without the truth being had at first, Rather than merely by virtue of the rebuttal of distorted truth. What I mean to say is this: one cannot get at the truth by looking at what is false. One must first seek out the truth itself, By virtue of which falsehood may be identified. Do I have free will? I do, But I choose willingly to restrict the range of actions which may be considered part of the scheme of my free will. However much I may want to, I will not allow unjust theft or murder to become a part of who I am or what I may become. Going back to one of your earlier videos, This is as close as one can get to choosing not to choose. I choose not to choose to commit what I know is morally incorrect. The people who most freely choose and who make the most of their free will schemes are psychopaths and those who give no heed to morality because they have no reason to restrict what is in their free will scheme. Free will is thus not something that is worthy of pursuit in and of itself, But facilitates the worthy pursuits of good. I do not seek to have ultimate autonomy because I know that it is not worth my time to exact it, But I do seek to use what autonomy I have to do what it is worth using my time to do with it, Good.

So thank you for doing me the service of providing me the opportunity to exercise and challenge my own understanding of the concepts we dealt with. Respect is a better look than disrespect on everyone who is willing to wear the mantle. Thanks again and have a nice summer.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by backwardseden 3 months ago
backwardseden
Yis. Oh sorry, Yes. And I almost always sign out like that, That is if there's good convo going and if there's enough characters for me to sign out as such.

Mmmm, Here's a few vidies if you are interested. . .
All of them are recent and made within the past three months.
* https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=sB9RREO4igc&t=5687s - Kevin - MS - So, I've Been Thinking, And I Have Proof of God
Please jump to the 01:33:27 mark. This is perhaps the very best Atheist Experience call I've ever witnessed. A LOT of subjects are covered.
* https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=M0t0LmQ0I2k - I Have Been in the Presence of God, Literally
It's calls like these that I LOVE because they are so hilarious. The caller does get destroyed and humiliated because she actually believed for a single second, Well actually longer than that, That while on the phone with the hosts that she was in the presence of god! WHAT? And she doesn't get it! But I think you most certainly will! Have fun with it!
* https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=3bQwsT9yaPA - Justifying Eternal Punishment from an All-Powerful God | Jonathan-AZ | Talk Heathen 04. 27
Vi and Shannon Q Talk with a theist turned to an atheist turned back to a theist about the concept of hell and punishment. Its concept is completely immoral, Bankrupt, And I cannot think of anything worse from any religion. This is one of the main reasons why I'm an atheist. Of course there are other reasons.

Pleaseth always tc (take care) and haveth thee fun.
And my slogan is that I've been using for a good 40 years or so is, "do everything I wouldn't do" so damn right that's a GOOD thing.
Posted by Justaserver 3 months ago
Justaserver
does tc mean take care?
Posted by backwardseden 3 months ago
backwardseden
6. Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

"But in the truths that we can know from philosophy which lead me to the conclusion that not only does God likely exist, "
Well which god? And how are you sure it's a god and not a whatever? And why only one god? Why not thousands, Millions, Billions, Sextillions of gods? Or the best bet is why not any god(s) since no god(s) have been proved? Why not have evidence first before believing rather than having no evidence and thus believing? Andthe question still remains, "why believe? "

" I believe that I was put on this earth to love people and to do everything I can for them rather than to harm them if I wanted to. "
Sure! Great! NO PROBLEM with that at all. Here's the thing and in no possible way am I trying to turn you away from your belief in your god, Just think, Reason, Rationalize, Use common sense and use logic K? In no possible way do you need, Out of necessity, Require a god to do any of that. Just be you.
Here's another thing. . . Who are you doing this for? If you are doing it for this supposed god that you can only assume exists, Well you've got to consider yourself and your life because you've only got one life to live. Live for you and others around you, Not something that you cannot prove exists because what purpose would that be?
Necessary room for the supernatural? Again, Like a god, Nobody in the entire existence of the human race has yet to prove anything from the supernatural ever existing. So once again why not have evidence before believing rather than having no evidence and thus believing? For me, Yeah, I gotta have something tangible and I'm not going to leap into something based merely on faith and the supernatural.
Please tc and haveth thee fun.
Posted by backwardseden 3 months ago
backwardseden
Yeah I wanna keep the arguments and posts in the argument section also. Or you could email me if you wish. Emailing is better. That way you can post links, Videos and they will not be deleted and will appear are they normally should without DDO interference.
So I was not able to get into your RD 2 argument. I ran out of space.
OK to quickly answer. . .
"They shouldn't have changed so drastically as to render their meaning incompatible. :
Well they have. Any true genuine god would know this long beforehand and would not use text because of it.
"I mean a culture of people drilling scripture into people's heads to the extent most Rabbi were able to recite from memory pretty much all of the Torah or Old Testament. "
Another reason why no true genuine god would ever use text. How good do you think children's memories are? Especially that of Adam and Eve regardless in which case nobody can prove that they even existed in which case that story is 100% false? They were CHILDREN. They had to be taught several times over. Not just once. What a great lesson for others to learn right? It's---a---joke.
"Final point, I do not believe in "religion" which is an invention of man's, "
No offence, But of course you absolutely 100% do.
1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, Nature, And purpose of the universe, Especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, Usually involving devotional and ritual observances, And often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4. The life or state of a monk, Nun, Etc. :
to enter religion.
5. The practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
Posted by Justaserver 3 months ago
Justaserver
I see and hear a lot of what you are saying, And I want to keep the debate in the actual debate section so I will be brief. First of all, Thank you for recognizing me as an individual. When I say "Abrahamic texts, I mean all those you were refering to- particularly the Torah, Bible, And Koran. "Which language. . . Translation. . . Etc. "? All of them. As I wish I could have pointed out, I believe the greatest stock should be put in the books as translated in their native languages, As meaning can as you mentioned be often confused. That is not to say meaning is lost, However. The meaning is still there in the original languages. Also, I think a good argument could be made that the well documented slowness of the Torah and Bible to deviate from their source means that to within the timeframes we have textual representations of the books after the events they describe, They shouldn't have changed so drastically as to render their meaning incompatible. By oral history I do not mean a game of telephone. I mean a culture of people drilling scripture into people's heads to the extent most Rabbi were able to recite from memory pretty much all of the Torah or Old Testament. I could say more, But I think that should do. Final point, I do not believe in "religion" which is an invention of man's, But in the truths that we can know from philosophy which lead me to the conclusion that not only does God likely exist, But that if He exists, He is most probably the God described by the Jewish and Christian traditions. I believe that I was put on this earth to love people and to do everything I can for them rather than to harm them if I wanted to. Abrahamic theology and furthermore the Christian sect is that system of belief which gives a basis for that untaught knowledge of mine as well as follows in what I see to be a tenable frame of logic, That scientism is self refuting and thus leaves necessary room for the supernatural.
Posted by backwardseden 3 months ago
backwardseden
Also since there's laws, Rules and regulations such as the 10 commandments which strap free will to nothingness and with 4 of them if you break them, You die, That's not free will.
6. Not mentioned in the RD PBS's Nova did an episode on violence. Roughly 10, 000 years ago 1 in every 15, 000 was murdered. Today it's roughly1 in every million. Why the dramatic drop? 3 reasons. 1. Government and equality. 2. Man's skulls have changed drastically and thus so have testosterone levels have dropped dramatically. 3. There's a lot more peacekeepers in comparison to the Hitler's, Mao's, Pol Pot's, Hong Xiuquan's, Stalin's. Granted just one bump of the toggle switch could change everything into utter chaos.
What was really surprising was how little was spent on religion. Perhaps 30 seconds, If that.
Narrator Keith David "And if you think early religions were a paradise of peace, Think again. " Harvard Univesity Steven Pinker "The bible, The so-called good book, Is one long capitate of violence beginning where Cain slaying Able, Noah's flood, You have Samson killing thousands with a jawbone of of an a$$. And then the Israelites are commanded by god to commit total genocide. "

Now I wasn't able to get into text/ the written word and what you said in RD1 simply because of space. There's only 10, 000 characters per RD that DDO allows. However with what has been stated here and in RD1, Hopefully you now realize that no idiot god would ---ever--- use text/ the written word. Not ever. Not for any reason.
Please tc and haveth thee fun.
Posted by backwardseden 3 months ago
backwardseden
especially when being raped, Beaten, Tortured, Abused etc. AND as stated according to your bible, Your unproven god does knowingly create chu=ildren to be deliberately be raped, Tortured, Abused etc otherwise it is not in control of everything, Is not in charge of everything, Does not know everything, Is not omnipotent, Is not perfect.
3. Did you watch the video on your jesus? See whaqt I mean about ignoring evidence in which case you "probably" did?
4. "He has a reason for permitting suffering which is in keeping with his supposed all-goodness. "
Now that p**ses me off. Really? You cannot even prove that this supposed god even exists and yet you "assume" this whatever god is all good? Have you ever read the bible? This unproven god not all good and there's several verses where it has freely admitted it is "evil", It has committed countless genocides, Loves rape, Slavery, Hates women, Hates children, Murders children and babies, Issues death warrants for absurd reasons, Being gay, Working on the sabbath, Cursing at your parents, Committing adultery, Not worshiping it, Blaspheme, And 4 of those are from the 10 commandments! So why do you think no scientific community from around the world will ever accept this god in the front gates?
5. "because it would undermine his own being and respect for human free will. "
So also in addition to what was stated in the RD it can be added that you obviously in no possible way believe in peace as man's free will, Such as to murder each other with such examples as Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hong Xiuquan etc, And you prefer rapists, Torturers, Pedophiles, Etc otherwise your unproven god would not create them. Since it did according to your bible and it knows everything, It is ultimately responsible for them.
Also free will? You show me anywhere in your bible where it states something to the effect of "I the lord thy god grants man free will". Since there is nothing of the kind, Free will does not exist.
Posted by backwardseden 3 months ago
backwardseden
nothing about and yet you pretend that you do. Here"s my fav as an example" the worst thing anybody has ever told me about religion is one of the 10 commandments is obesity and being overweight. Now how would you take that? Oh this person was convinced of it. Insults are ab-so-lu-tely justified. Who wants to hang around with these solidified maggots?
"What I find insultingly unjustified is that you would claim to know anything about me or anyone you debate personally. "
I do know more than you think for pretty close to everybody that I debate. Sure, Sometimes I misread someone. It happens. It"s not that often. I"m a poker player and reading people's tells comes naturally to me.
"I have had a great deal of love in my life. I care for my family and friends. "
Well that"s a great thing. And you keep them in your life by NEVER lying to them. You be honest ALL THE TIME. If not they will see right through you and it"s all over. Now I did say "genuine" friends, Those that would die for you, Happily take a bullet for you. That"s a very big difference.
OK I shall take you at your word. No reason not to.
I put my trust in others. I always have. I always will. Yep. I"ve been burned many times before. It"s happened. Sure I could tell you some true horror stories about lil ole me, But I"ve known others who have had it far far farrrrrr worse. Once again, No true genuine god would ever put anyone through genuine suffering, Not ever, Not for any reason, Especially children. It would especially never use text/ the written word as proven further here in these posts.
Now I have answered one heckuva lot of what you've stated in regards to suffering barring the insults in RD2. And until you've experienced true genuine suffering, You cannot be honest about it.
1. I gave you EXACT verses of children in your bible going through horrific suffering either though a genocide or a mother's innards be ripped up or whatever.
2. Children can't learn anything from suffering
Posted by backwardseden 3 months ago
backwardseden
if you have any as so so so many here on DDO clearly don"t because they do exactly what was just stated, And it"s so blatantly obvious, Oh yeah, It"s HUGE red flag. I"m not here to please you. I"m not here to make friends with you, However if it happens it happens, Though I have made quite a few friends. Yep. This is something that was taught to me in college. Why it isn"t taught at the grade school level as it rightly should be I have no idea.
"So either you have developed your own criteria of what constitutes evidence (setting aside that most of the points I bring up are epistemic or based on theology rather than strictly evidential modes of knowing, "
You really think I DON"T KNOW? I"ve been doing this for 45+ years, Almost 46. Of course I know. I know pretty near exactly what you and everybody is going to say before they say it. There"s pretty near nothing I haven"t seen or heard. Wouldn"t it be great if there would be just once in a blue moon someone who could actually debate me with some intelligence AND with an education AND be able to prove what they believe in WITH EVIDENCE to be able to back up their claims and not exist in pretend time? It"s happened though it"s extremely rare.
The thing I REALLY hate is when you and others come across my bow and you invent excuses, As you clearly have, And you know it, Rather than saying "I don"t know" for something that you don"t know?
"However, I disagree with the conclusion. "
Then---you---prove---it. I can always, No exceptions, None, Back up what I say. You can"t. Neither can nearly 100% of those I debate with here. The problem is with your kind, Nearly 100% of the time is you nearly 100% of the time ab-so-lu-te-ly refuse to look at the evidence provided. That"s your problem. Not mine.
"In fact it is the basis for the institution of debate as a knowledge pooling method as a whole. "
100% false. Especially when you invent excuses and or flat out lie for something in which case you clearly know
Posted by backwardseden 3 months ago
backwardseden
4. Compare different translations such as the KJV, NIV, NLT as examples. Some of the verses especially what your unproven god and christ are supposed to have said are completely and totally different as examples. The messages are completely and totally different. Yeah you guessed it, Don"t you think if they actually existed, They"d be p**sed off and there"d be your god"s anal idiot wrath and anger as there was in the O. T. ?
So it is impossible to rely on ---any--- verse(s) that have been spawned in your bible that absolutely nobody should and or can pay attention to, Especially the R rating in which case should obviously be kept put of the hands of children for obvious blatant reasons.
Yeah no idiot god if true and genuine would ever even dream for a sextillionth of a second in using text/ the written word. Not ever. Not for any reason because of yet more reasons.

"Also, I have not seen a debate of yours regarding religion that does not involve you in some way making unjustified assertions as to the character of your opponent. "
Unjustified? When you or anybody shows 0 education and intelligence for the subject that they profess to have knowledge upon and they really don"t and they pretend that they do and because they don"t they invent excuses for it, Just---like---you have, It is my right for the insults to come a flyin", Or I simply walk. Forgive me in being blunt as I usually am, If you don"t like it, You are always welcome to leave. I never asked you to join my debate(s) and spew your idiocies that are amazingly fabled, Incorrect, Goofed, That you cannot back up your claims AT ALL with any evidence. You CANNOT back up a god, Or any god(s) existing. It"s amazingly dishonest. It"s amazingly insulting to me. So I either insult you and you deserve it. Or I walk. You do that crap to your teachers, Without backing up what you say with rock solid evidence = an instant F every single time. You do that crap to your supposed genuine friends and loved ones,
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 months ago
dsjpk5
backwardsedenJustaserverTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro called Con a teeny bopper as an insult. That's poor conduct.

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