Total Posts:332|Showing Posts:271-300|Last Page
Jump to topic:

More powerful than God?

Dogknox
Posts: 6,472
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 3:54:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2016 3:35:40 PM, dhardage wrote:
uncung Jesus is "ONE" with all who eat his living flesh and drink his life giving blood!


28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"

29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

30 So they asked him, "What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: "He gave them bread from heaven to eat.""

32 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

dhardage You refuse to eat so you die!!

None of that changes the fact that you are practicing ritual cannibalism in your religious rites.

dhardage The priest makes the change at the Alter!!!
The Priest takes ordinary bread, with the help of the Holy Spirit this ordinary bread is changed into the "Body of Jesus".. LIVING flesh of God! True Manna from heaven!
Over one BILLION (that's billion with a "B") people eat this spiritual food every Sunday!!

Okay?
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 3:56:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2016 3:54:18 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 5/17/2016 3:35:40 PM, dhardage wrote:
uncung Jesus is "ONE" with all who eat his living flesh and drink his life giving blood!


28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"

29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

30 So they asked him, "What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: "He gave them bread from heaven to eat.""

32 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

dhardage You refuse to eat so you die!!

None of that changes the fact that you are practicing ritual cannibalism in your religious rites.

dhardage The priest makes the change at the Alter!!!
The Priest takes ordinary bread, with the help of the Holy Spirit this ordinary bread is changed into the "Body of Jesus".. LIVING flesh of God! True Manna from heaven!
Over one BILLION (that's billion with a "B") people eat this spiritual food every Sunday!!

Once again, ritual cannibalism. You haven't refuted my point, just reinforced it. Thanks.
uncung
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 4:16:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2016 3:12:04 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 5/17/2016 2:39:36 AM, uncung wrote:
I asked: why did God place Satan in hell? for what? What are the satan doing therein?

uncung I reply: Only those with love can enter heaven!! Satan has no place in heaven, he is without any love! Hell has been prepared ready to receive him!!

Satan is not in hell yet.. He is here, tempting man!!!
1 Peter 5:8
Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

1 Timothy 3:6
He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil.

1 John 3:8
The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil"s work.

End Time Prophesy:
Revelation 20:10
And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

But you said God placed Satan in Gehenna.

uncung I am NOT God I do not know the time line!!!
Read it yourself!!!! (Below)
Revelation 20:7 [ The Judgment of Satan ]
When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison.
8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth"Gog and Magog"and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.
9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God"s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.
10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.


You said previously God placed Satan in Gehenna.
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 7:20:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1 of 2

MagicAintReal wrote:

Can your god demonstrate himself physically without contradicting his nature?
Yes or no?

Are you now suggesting that contradicting His nature would be something that He should not be able to do in order to truly exist as the omnipotent God, or should He be able to do so and be both God and not God at the same time and in the same way, or should He both be able to contradict His nature and not be able to so at the same time and in the same way in order to exist? Either way, you are refuted.

I can.

However, since this (and all) of your claims continue to be made in support of the contradictory argument you're relying on to support your position here (which is, itself, founded upon the irrational basis of 'sensing and reasoning that your senses and reasoning are valid'), I'd say that demonstrates your ability to contradict yourself quite nicely. Again, God cannot contradict Himself, as doing so is an act of incompetence/weakness. In order to prove otherwise, you would have to assume the truth of God's omnipotence (and omniscience) at the outset. What further need is there for proof of that here?

Why is demonstrating yourself physically a weakness, I'm afraid it is you who has to demonstrate this.

Not if the argument you're levying as the foundational premise is irrational to begin with, which it is. Why do I have to do anything in response to a self-defeating premise and says who?

Besides, any attempt to prove anything is but an appeal to the very thing you are trying to disprove here----God's omnipotence (since the very preconditions for proving anything (truth, knowledge, and logic) cannot be accounted for apart from His Divine revelation).

This is not true, it's an assertion, and truth can be accounted for without god, because you have not shown god to exist, but clearly truth does...

That's like someone denying the existence of air and saying, 'look, I'm breathing and I don't need air!'. Breathing doesn't require a professed belief in air, but it does require air, just as knowing things to be true doesn't require a professed belief in the existence of God, but it does require God's existence (by the impossibility of the contrary). Hence your absurdity when you try to argue otherwise.

I've also shown you with a brain study from Oxford that our brains sense and reason objective stimuli in objective space accurately, and you've given no reason to reject the findings of this study...you are a coward my friend.

And since you no doubt used your senses and reasoning to observe and conclude that that study provides an accurate basis for trusting the reliability of your senses and reasoning in the first place, I trust I don't have to tell you what that means, no?

Remember, the ultimate basis for everything you claim to know to be true here is the irrational one of 'sensing and reasoning that your senses and reasoning are valid'.

Did you read the brain study or no?

I browsed it using senses and reasoning that I know for certain to be basically reliable per God's direct and indirect revelation. The reliability of our senses/reasoning is but one of the things that intellectual honesty would (has) force(d) you to concede that God could reveal to people such that we can be certain of it, by the impossibility of the contrary.

If you don't know for certain that your senses and reasoning are basically reliable to begin with, then, of course, you can't know that any observation or conclusion you put forth is reliable either. Thank you for demonstrating this, as it is imperative for folks to see what a worldview without God really leads to.

Hey folks, reasonableness here, read this study about how our brains are objectively accurate, because this guy won't read it.
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org...

Hey folks, look up 'viciously circular arguments' to see why 'sensing and reasoning that one's senses and reasoning are reliable' is woefully irrational.

Again, I like to debate and will do so with those who hold to a worldview in which the very concept of debate is possible to begin with.

The concept is possible here, you're just too cowardly to accept the debate.

Prove your case then. Debate assumes absolute laws of logic, and it assumes truth, and the ability to know things for certain to be true. How do you account for any of those things in a worldview without God? So far, you've only alluded to sensing and reasoning that your senses and reasoning are valid as your basis for these things in your worldview (which of course, destroys the possibility of knowledge, truth, and logic in your worldview). The fact that you do believe in those things but profess a worldview that destroys the possibility of them is the proof that you are suppressing what you know to be true about God's existence because you don't want to acknowledge it. Very unwise (not to mention, irrational).

You have already forfeited the debate by even requesting it,

This is baffling logic, and really it's just that you're scared to debate me because it might shake your belief in that obviously non-existent god.

Actually, you continue to confirm that God exists by the impossibility of the contrary (since the contrary position (i.e. yours) ends in absurdity like 'God must be both God and not God at the same time and in the same way in order to be God', 'I sense and reason that my senses and reasoning are valid', 'SOME weakness should be included in the scope of ALL power', etc.). Again, if you have a rational reason why irrational behavior should be given academic merit in a formal debate, then state your case.

since you must rely upon the truth of the Christian worldview in order to even begin to make sense of what you're doing.

Nope.
The brain study says otherwise, and I've pointed out that demonstration, replication, and accurate predictions with this accurate brain DENY your assertion that the christian worldview is necessary for truth...it's just not a path to truth.

Cool, since you do so under the premise of using the sensory and reasoning faculties of your brain as the basis for how you know that the sensory and reasoning faculties of your brain are working accurately and providing you with reliable feedback about your sensory and reasoning faculties of your brain. If that's what you want to reduce this to, then you would also necessarily have to accept the claims that 'God exists because He exists' and 'God is truly omnipotent because He is truly omnipotent' as valid proofs from me to substantiate God's existence and omnipotence and there would now be nothing to debate. Either way you're refuted.

Naturally, borrowing concepts from my worldview that cannot be made sense of in yours in order to argue against my worldview is woefully self-defeating at the outset.

Wouldn't need to borrow from your worldview, the brain is accurate in sensing demonstration, replication and accurate predictions.

And, since you rely upon the use of your brain to reach conclusions about the accuracy of your brain, you are again reduced to vicious circularity and have destroyed any foundation whatsoever for knowledge in your worldview. Good thing you don't (and can't) really live according to what you profess to believe, though.

I see no rational reason to honor that type of behavior with a formal debate.

Translation: I'm afraid and too cowardly to debate you.
I understand, I've defeated your concept of god over and over and over again...

Only if you believe that viciously circular and self-contradictory arguments can be used as valid support for one's claims. See, that's the difference between us, I know that they absolutely cannot be, while you behave as if they can be (while at the same professing that they cannot be). Hence the absurdity of atheism is exposed.
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 7:26:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
2 of 2

Actually, self-defeating claims don't require much effort to defeat, as they are just that--self-defeating. I am simply here to expose them for what they are.

Then expose it in a debate that gets validated by how persuasive you're being...no one has been able to do it yet, so why not break the mold and really demonstrate your magic man.

Not necessarily interested in relying upon persuasion as the gauge here, since people can be persuaded by things that are false. I mean, you continue to profess an obviously false position despite the obvious inconsistencies in your position. All I can do is expose that fact in hopes that you will come to acknowledge what you"re doing and repent of it.

Again, though you have given up any possible foundation for the very preconditions required to have a "debate" in the first place. Why do you, therefore, feel it is rationally expedient to accommodate such a position with a formal "debate" given that fact?

I mean, just look at your behavior here and you'll see a good example of exactly how folks can continue to suppress the obvious truth of that which they do not wish to acknowledge, despite the irrational consequences of doing so.

You never explained why demonstrating oneself without self negation is a weakness or a rendering of god as non god...

Seems you're being irrational here.

Which of course assumes an absolute standard of logic by which one should conduct their thinking and reasoning. Something you have no basis for believing in according to your professed worldview. Again, the fact that you do believe in and appeal to absolute standards that could not exist if your position were true demonstrates the behavioral inconsistency you are engaging in. Of course, you probably are already aware that behavioral inconsistency is yet another form of irrationality.

In fact, many unbelievers will **ahem** often even continue to hold to and attempt to dogmatically defend an obviously contradictory, self-refuting argument

But you're defending omnipotence, not me.

Actually you are (though unwittingly), since your "arguments" against it only serve to confirm the reality of the existence of omnipotence by demonstrating the impossibility (absurdity) of the contrary position. Like I said, if your position were true, it would have to be false, therefore, it is false. Remember, my position is that we both know that God exists, but one of us professes that truth while the other tries (unsuccessfully) to suppress it. I trust I don"t have to point out to you which camp you"re in, no?

Omnipotence is itself a contradiction, and you have not demonstrated otherwise.

You demonstrated the falsity of that position by showing (1) that the only argument you have to support your position is the equivalent of "if something cannot contradict itself, then it cannot be true" and (2) that you hold to an irrational double standard since you do not apply this same logic to any other truth claims and (3) in order to prove your (or any) claim absolutely true, you would have to be omnipotent yourself or have revelation from One who is.

Again, should be easy for the intellectually honest to see why you have no valid complaint, even if you refuse to at the present.

Like I said, you defeated yourself the moment you embraced atheism as your worldview,

You defeated yourself when you said that I lost by instigating a debate"

Only if you believe that borrowing from someone"s worldview the things that cannot be accounted for in your own in order to even begin to argue against their worldview is a logically sound practice. Why do you believe that it is and why should anyone believe that to be true?

since you are in the unenviable position of relying upon the existence of God in order to even begin to formulate any argument against His existence.

Nope.
And if you take the debate, you will see how I can disprove god and not need god to reason or whatever BS thing you claimed.

Riiiiiiight. You can"t even begin to make sense of anything (including the very concept of "debate") without God right now, but you"re going to show that you can do so there? If we both necessarily rely upon the same ultimate authority in order to make sense of the world around us, then what, pray tell, is the purpose of the "debate"? All that"s left is for you to repent and acknowledge the truth you are trying so desperately to suppress.

As a result, I'd say that ultimately equates to you being defeated by God quite nicely.

Nope.
I've defeated god so many times, and you can't deal with it, and you can't do anything about it either...you would lose too.

That"s why I"m very thankful for the record of this exchange that can be viewed by any intellectually honest reader who wants to see what your position really amounts to.

Besides, I"d say the same thing if I were in your shoes and my worldview had been exposed to be based upon absurdity. The frustration is expected. Remember, though, the truth only hurts when it should.

Fortunately, He is merciful and still offers you an opportunity to repent of your folly. I'd take the opportunity if I were in your shoes. You are without excuse.

Fortunately, your god doesn't exist, I've proven it, and you're too cowardly to debate me or engage in things that show how omnipotence is a contradiction.

So, you"ve proven that God does not exist by being forced to concede that He must exist in order for you to prove that He does not exist. Hey, if that"s what you want the record here to show as your final position, suits me just fine. In fact, I am very pleased with that!

Does god have the ability to exist?
Nope.
He's powerless too.

Looks like we can add arbitrary conjecture to that list of logical inconsistencies you"re trying to use to support your position. I know you don"t happen to like God, but surely you can see by now that that is not a reason to try to pretend like He doesn"t exist. In fact, it is quite foolish to do so (Psalms 14:1, Romans 1:18-22, Proverbs 9:10). Why continue to suppress the truth, just because you happen not to like it? You"re better than that.
Fly
Posts: 3,321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 7:41:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://youtu.be...
"I don"t have faith in faith
I don"t believe in belief
You can call me faithless
But I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that"s faith enough for me"
-Rush
MagicAintReal
Posts: 1,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 8:24:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Like I said, if your position were true, it would have to be false, therefore, it is false.

This is without a shadow of a doubt the most unreasonable logic that exists.
If it were true it would be false?

I hope someone else actually reads this and marvels at the most illogical statement possible.

We're done, you've admitted that omnipotent means UNLIMITED, but you've over and over again have confirmed capabilities (you conceded that both weaknesses and contradictions are in fact capabilities though less than desirable) that god does not have; so what if they are non-god like?

You've conceded so many capabilities that god is limited in having/doing...You've conceded that god DOES NOT HAVE the powers relisted below, which you never directly refuted EVER.
Therefore you have given me no reason to believe that omnipotence ISN'T contradictory.
You've given me no reason to believe that anything unlimited is even possible, let alone the case I have to buy from you.

Again, all of the things YOU'VE conceded that god cannot do/does not have, and if he weren't so damn limited, he could do them/have them:

1. The power to demonstrate oneself physically without negating one's existence.
-Isn't a weakness to demonstrate oneself physically, and by definition would not render god non-god.

2. The power to defeat humans in a competition without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to defeat humans in a competition and by definition would not render god non-god.

3. The power to infinitely increase in strength without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to infinitely increase in strength, and by definition would not render god non-god.

4. The power to freely choose to do things unlike oneself without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to choose to do things unlike oneself, and by definition would not render god non-god.

5. The power to violate laws of logic without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to surpass logic, and by definition would not render god non-god.

6. The power to create rules that allow one to violate logic without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to create rules that allow one to violate them, and by definition would not render god non-god.

7. The power to remain incomprehensible.
-Isn't a weakness to remain beyond the scope of comprehension, and as you have admitted, you comprehend god so very well.
neptune1bond
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 8:25:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2016 2:37:27 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
You think I'm a retarded, arrogant, oblivious, overly literal, elementary-level, village idiot and it affects me none.

So, you're too cowardly to accept a debate with me?
Got it.
Ooh, the bitterness. You're really upset about not receiving your little trophy and pat on the back, aren't you? Oh my god, what will you ever do if you can't have people tell you that you are doing a good job through "voting". "You don't wanna debate? Well yer yellah!" The argument is as old as the hills and just as stupid today as it ever was, and then you wonder why I have the opinion of you that I do. You supposedly are a grown man, but you still can't just engage in discussions for the sake of learning. Still gotta have your lollipop at the end so that you can feel like you're a good boy. What will you do if you can't feel like you're "right" or that you're "winning"? How bad is the need to feel like the most specialest and bestest kid with down syndrome for you?

I think it's also interesting that you haven't yet realized that I don't take you seriously at all any more. I stopped taking you seriously or having any interest in having a real discussion with you when I said I wasn't gaining anything and was done with the conversation, everything after that was just for fun. If you can't gain anything else useful or important, why NOT have a little fun instead? Yet, you still ignorantly say,"Well, you aren't making any arguments!" I realized I had nothing important to learn from you and so I stopped trying. You still think that you've actually had something valuable to contribute and that I'm "losing", as though my whole world has been shaken with a pathetic argument from semantics. "Oh fvck, some guy on the internet is too retarded to understand English! Now his sad little feelings of inadequacy are leading him to challenge me to waste my time in a debate with him! What ever will I do? The village idiot thinks I'm a coward! My whole world has been shaken to the core! TO THE VERY CORE! MY GOD, AN ARGUMENT OF SEMANTICS MEANS SOOOOO MUCH! WHAT WILL I EVER BELIEVE IN NOW?" And you think that I am angry. Ooh, GRRRRR, I'm sooo angry. lol. Grrrrr.

It's like those teachers when I was in college that students pretend to respect in class but are constantly laughing about how fvcking stupid they are once they leave, ah memories (although I think that you MIGHT be a kindergarten teacher hired by some poor ignorant woman who didn't actually bother to look into any qualifications, like that your degree came from P.U.).

Listen, I'll still give you an apology, since your feelings of inadequacy won't allow you any self-reflection or self-knowledge and you really have this need to feel superior even when you're not. I'm really sorry that you were too much of a failure to become a real scientist and had to become a teacher instead and now need votes on a debate website to make you feel like you've succeeded at something. I normally have great respect for certain educators, just not the one's that only chose it because they had no other option and you reek of someone who has few options. I'm really sorry that happened to you. I'm also sorry about how deeply it hurts to find that you are uninteresting and have nothing useful to add to a discussion that might stimulate intellectual growth or actually cause someone to question their own thoughts and opinions. That must really hurt as a teacher. I guess if you did have useful things to add, you would've been a scientist, huh. I'm also very sorry that you feel so inadequate that you would still sadly persist with someone who doesn't even take you seriously as though you still actually had something to gain from the conversation when they realized a while ago that they had nothing to gain from you. I'm sorry that you are still on the outside beating your head against the wall of the house, and still hugging yourself yelling,"I'z wihnneeng! I'z wihnneeng! Suhm-wuhn pweez tehll mee I'z wihnneeng!" I'll admit that, even though you can't add anything intellectually useful to a discussion, you still can be pretty entertaining.

But, I'm also sorry that I'm so mean. You might be retarded now, but you actually have some potential if you can get past your feelings of inadequacy and learn how to work with other people for the sake of growth instead of being so desperate to call yourself the "winner". Maybe some day you'll learn, but from my experience, I doubt it. If you ever learn how to have meaningful conversation, then I might consider actually having a serious conversation with you. Maybe I'll even actually continue this conversation since it may actually go somewhere at that point. But I'll warn you now, if you ever try to accomplish that level of self-awareness, it is a long long journey with almost no one to tell you you're a good boy or to give you any votes. In fact, people will fight you tooth and nail. You'll find that even some of your closest friends will have the "crab mentality":

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Unfortunately, you obviously have the crab mentality yourself right now, which is why you need votes so badly and are incapable of mutual growth and learning in a discussion WITH someone else. Most of the world right now is just a giant "bucket", sadly.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 1,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 8:50:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ooh, the bitterness. You're really upset about not receiving your little trophy and pat on the back, aren't you?

DDO's got trophies now?

Oh my god, what will you ever do if you can't have people tell you that you are doing a good job through "voting".

Tell myself?

"You don't wanna debate? Well yer yellah!" The argument is as old as the hills and just as stupid today as it ever was, and then you wonder why I have the opinion of you that I do.

So, that's a "no" to the question "Do you want to debate me and hash this out?"

You supposedly are a grown man, but you still can't just engage in discussions for the sake of learning.

Yeah, you never engage in discussions for the sake of learning in academia...come on, that's literally my entire job, which does make what you're saying infinitely funnier, and it is funny btw.

Still gotta have your lollipop at the end so that you can feel like you're a good boy. What will you do if you can't feel like you're "right" or that you're "winning"? How bad is the need to feel like the most specialest and bestest kid with down syndrome for you?

"Most specialist" is a double superlative and bestest isn't a word; i strive to be neither.

I think it's also interesting that you haven't yet realized that I don't take you seriously at all any more. I stopped taking you seriously or having any interest in having a real discussion with you when I said I wasn't gaining anything and was done with the conversation, everything after that was just for fun.

Yeah, I gathered that when you told me I needed someone to teach me how to poopoo on the toilet, but I'm a persistent debater, and the discussion is itself a learning experience; again, you have been pretty funny in your insults.

If you can't gain anything else useful or important, why NOT have a little fun instead?

I'm with you on that...

Yet, you still ignorantly say,"Well, you aren't making any arguments!" I realized I had nothing important to learn from you and so I stopped trying.

I meant when you actually thought you were making arguments, you weren't actually making arguments, they were assertions...

You still think that you've actually had something valuable to contribute and that I'm "losing", as though my whole world has been shaken with a pathetic argument from semantics. "Oh fvck, some guy on the internet is too retarded to understand English! Now his sad little feelings of inadequacy are leading him to challenge me to waste my time in a debate with him! What ever will I do?

Take the debate and expose him for who he is?

The village idiot thinks I'm a coward!

I'm not an idiot...you may be a coward though.

My whole world has been shaken to the core! TO THE VERY CORE! MY GOD, AN ARGUMENT OF SEMANTICS MEANS SOOOOO MUCH! WHAT WILL I EVER BELIEVE IN NOW?" And you think that I am angry. Ooh, GRRRRR, I'm sooo angry. lol. Grrrrr.

Easy tiger.

It's like those teachers when I was in college that students pretend to respect in class but are constantly laughing about how fvcking stupid they are once they leave, ah memories (although I think that you MIGHT be a kindergarten teacher hired by some poor ignorant woman who didn't actually bother to look into any qualifications, like that your degree came from P.U.).

Nope,
I teach at a high school in Maryland, and I'm also the wrestling coach, and student perception of me is quite high, and my kids' test scores are some of the highest in the state.

Listen, I'll still give you an apology, since your feelings of inadequacy won't allow you any self-reflection or self-knowledge and you really have this need to feel superior even when you're not.

That's a lot of baggage on that apology, no?

I'm really sorry that you were too much of a failure to become a real scientist

Ah, you assume that I'm not a real scientist.

and had to become a teacher instead

Well, those two things are not mutually exclusive, so I can be both a teacher and a real scientist.

and now need votes on a debate website to make you feel like you've succeeded at something. I normally have great respect for certain educators, just not the one's that only chose it because they had no other option and you reek of someone who has few options.

Well, i'm still researching while teaching, so I'm exercising at least two of my options already...

I'm really sorry that happened to you. I'm also sorry about how deeply it hurts to find that you are uninteresting and have nothing useful to add to a discussion that might stimulate intellectual growth or actually cause someone to question their own thoughts and opinions.

You should read my debates, seriously.

That must really hurt as a teacher. I guess if you did have useful things to add, you would've been a scientist, huh.

Which I am.

I'm also very sorry that you feel so inadequate that you would still sadly persist with someone who doesn't even take you seriously as though you still actually had something to gain from the conversation when they realized a while ago that they had nothing to gain from you.

I don't actually feel inadequate.

I'm sorry that you are still on the outside beating your head against the wall of the house, and still hugging yourself yelling,"I'z wihnneeng! I'z wihnneeng! Suhm-wuhn pweez tehll mee I'z wihnneeng!" I'll admit that, even though you can't add anything intellectually useful to a discussion, you still can be pretty entertaining.

Funny.

But, I'm also sorry that I'm so mean. You might be retarded now, but you actually have some potential if you can get past your feelings of inadequacy and learn how to work with other people for the sake of growth instead of being so desperate to call yourself the "winner". Maybe some day you'll learn, but from my experience, I doubt it. If you ever learn how to have meaningful conversation, then I might consider actually having a serious conversation with you. Maybe I'll even actually continue this conversation since it may actually go somewhere at that point. But I'll warn you now, if you ever try to accomplish that level of self-awareness, it is a long long journey with almost no one to tell you you're a good boy or to give you any votes. In fact, people will fight you tooth and nail. You'll find that even some of your closest friends will have the "crab mentality":

Ok...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Unfortunately, you obviously have the crab mentality yourself right now, which is why you need votes so badly and are incapable of mutual growth and learning in a discussion WITH someone else. Most of the world right now is just a giant "bucket", sadly.

Whatever.
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 9:18:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2016 8:24:24 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
Like I said, if your position were true, it would have to be false, therefore, it is false.

This is without a shadow of a doubt the most unreasonable logic that exists.

Guess we can see about that when/if you ever provide your justification for absolute laws of logic. We both believe in them, however, only one of us has provided a basis for that belief in their worldview. Still waiting on you.

If it were true it would be false?

That's the nature of self-defeating claims (such as 'something must be self-contradictory in order to be true at all' and 'ALL power must include SOME weakness', for instance). Clear?

I hope someone else actually reads this and marvels at the most illogical statement possible.

You mean the one akin to 'I sense and reason that my senses and reasoning are valid'? Intellectually readers seeing that should be your greatest fear right now.

We're done, you've admitted that omnipotent means UNLIMITED,

Yep, unlimited power. You, however, seem to want that to include SOME weakness for some strange reason (actually, I know why--you can't bear the thought of bowing the knee to God).

but you've over and over again have confirmed capabilities (you conceded that both weaknesses and contradictions are in fact capabilities though less than desirable) that god does not have; so what if they are non-god like?

Then they do not comport with the definition of omnipotence. Again, that you really, really want them to is irrelevant.

You've conceded so many capabilities that god is limited in having/doing...You've conceded that god DOES NOT HAVE the powers relisted below, which you never directly refuted EVER.

Didn't need to, as you refuted yourself. Besides, since you sense and reason that your reasoning is valid, then you have no way of even knowing for certain what omnipotence is or isn't to begin with and no way to distinguish between a power and a weakness to begin with. This whole thing amounts to you begging the question in assuming that God does not exist as the source of all power in order to prove that God does not exist as the source of all power. Hence, the absurd results that ensue.

Therefore you have given me no reason to believe that omnipotence ISN'T contradictory.

I have, you just reject it due to your presuppositional bias. Fortunately, you have provided every reason to believe that the position that says 'omnipotence IS contradictory' is absolutely false. I can live with that.

You've given me no reason to believe that anything unlimited is even possible, let alone the case I have to buy from you.

Perhaps we can discuss that when/if you ever provide a valid justification for believing that your reasoning about any of this is reliable and trustworthy. So far, no dice.

Again, all of the things YOU'VE conceded that god cannot do/does not have, and if he weren't so damn limited, he could do them/have them:

1. The power to demonstrate oneself physically without negating one's existence.
-Isn't a weakness to demonstrate oneself physically, and by definition would not render god non-god.

Perhaps we can discuss that when/if you ever provide a valid justification for believing that your reasoning about any of this is reliable and trustworthy. So far, no dice.

2. The power to defeat humans in a competition without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to defeat humans in a competition and by definition would not render god non-god.

Perhaps we can discuss that when/if you ever provide a valid justification for believing that your reasoning about any of this is reliable and trustworthy. So far, no dice.

3. The power to infinitely increase in strength without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to infinitely increase in strength, and by definition would not render god non-god.

Perhaps we can discuss that when/if you ever provide a valid justification for believing that your reasoning about any of this is reliable and trustworthy. So far, no dice.

4. The power to freely choose to do things unlike oneself without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to choose to do things unlike oneself, and by definition would not render god non-god.

Perhaps we can discuss that when/if you ever provide a valid justification for believing that your reasoning about any of this is reliable and trustworthy. So far, no dice.

5. The power to violate laws of logic without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to surpass logic, and by definition would not render god non-god.

Perhaps we can discuss that when/if you ever provide a valid justification for believing that your reasoning about any of this is reliable and trustworthy. So far, no dice.

6. The power to create rules that allow one to violate logic without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to create rules that allow one to violate them, and by definition would not render god non-god.

Perhaps we can discuss that when/if you ever provide a valid justification for believing that your reasoning about any of this is reliable and trustworthy. So far, no dice.

7. The power to remain incomprehensible.
-Isn't a weakness to remain beyond the scope of comprehension, and as you have admitted, you comprehend god so very well.

Perhaps we can discuss that when/if you ever provide a valid justification for believing that your reasoning about any of this is reliable and trustworthy. So far, no dice.

Don't forget that you would be forced to concede (just like others before you) that I have a possible avenue for knowing with certainty what omnipotence is and what it isn't via God's direct and indirect revelation, while you have provided zero rational basis for anything you claim to know about the topic. Still waiting on you. Until then, thank you for your opinions here, but as I stated way back at the beginning, I am only interested in discussing what we both know to be true regarding omnipotence, not what you only believe to be the case but which could be (read: is) completely false.

Again, feel free to come back when you have a rational position to posit.
Right now, you've given more than ample proof here to demonstrate that you must indeed assume the reality of God's existence and His omnipotence/omniscience in order to even begin an argument against His existence and His omnipotence/omniscience. Of course, it bears repeating that such behavior is the epitome of a self-refuting stance. QED.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 9:32:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Quick question:

If in my argument, I assert the position opposite me is false, and to prove my assertion first presupposes my position to be true from the onset...

doesn't that just really mean the first person to speak "wins"?

;)
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
MagicAintReal
Posts: 1,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 9:51:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Like I said, if your position were true, it would have to be false, therefore, it is false.

Yep, it's still stupid to say that, and I've never said that statement EVER in my life, because it's ridiculous.

I've said that unlimited means there is no limit, and you've given me all these limits that god has.
Still waiting on those answers btw.

So if god were omnipotent, he would have to have unlimited powers which include those listed, and which you won't respond to, and which YOU HAVE CONCEDED ARE CAPABILITIES.

Guess we can see about that when/if you ever provide your justification for absolute laws of logic. We both believe in them, however, only one of us has provided a basis for that belief in their worldview. Still waiting on you.

Your belief relies on senses and reasoning, you've just come to the wrong conclusions about your senses and reasoing.

I on the other hand have provided evidence that our brains are great for sensing and reasoning, and you did not question ANYTHING in the study.

Therefore, the machines used in the study to determine if our brain's detections were accurate, has not been challenged by you, and thus you concede that this machine doesn't rely on our senses or reasoning.

Listen, the study you ignored shows that my senses and reasoning lead me to accurately understanding demonstration, replication, and accurate predictions.

Hey, what senses and reasoning did the objective machine that monitored eye movements in the study use?

Oh you didn't think of that?
My basis by definition is better because I have evidence that our brains are excellent SANS god; machines SANS senses and reason indicate such.

Yep, unlimited power. You, however, seem to want that to include SOME weakness for some strange reason (actually, I know why--you can't bear the thought of bowing the knee to God).

You've conceded that weaknesses are capabilities.
You've conceded that god DOES NOT have these capabilities
You've conceded that god has limited capabilities, weak or otherwise.

Unlimited with limits is the contradiction here.

So my senses and reason are accurate, and you've yet to show your omnipotence to be able to exist AND have conceded their utter lack of capabilities...a limit to their capabilities...

You've lost this exchange.

Unless you can respond to the powers listed below, which you said you would do since you can see that I have accurate senses and reason.

1. The power to demonstrate oneself physically without negating one's existence.
-Isn't a weakness to demonstrate oneself physically, and by definition would not render god non-god.

2. The power to defeat humans in a competition without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to defeat humans in a competition and by definition would not render god non-god.

3. The power to infinitely increase in strength without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to infinitely increase in strength, and by definition would not render god non-god.

4. The power to freely choose to do things unlike oneself without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to choose to do things unlike oneself, and by definition would not render god non-god.

5. The power to violate laws of logic without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to surpass logic, and by definition would not render god non-god.

6. The power to create rules that allow one to violate logic without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to create rules that allow one to violate them, and by definition would not render god non-god.

7. The power to remain incomprehensible.
-Isn't a weakness to remain beyond the scope of comprehension, and as you have admitted, you comprehend god so very well.

But you can't/won't...kinda like your inept god, right?
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2016 10:38:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2016 5:49:11 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/11/2016 2:28:12 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
To all the believers of an omnipotent God, is it possible for God to create a more powerful and complex being than he himself?

This is the problem with most atheists. God is not a being. God is being itself.

And one cannot get more powerful than omnipotent.

That's wonderful to know.
Eagerly await your evidence for the claim. I also would like to know how that squares with the notion that the Christian God is a personal God.

Should I get some popcorn ready in time for the mental gymnastics of Olympic calibre that are about to follow?

Just thought I should let you know how satisfying it is to watch the decline of the Catholic Church in this country, in case you en passant assert no such decline is happening in the West.
Dogknox
Posts: 6,472
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 12:08:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2016 3:35:40 PM, dhardage wrote:
uncung Jesus is "ONE" with all who eat his living flesh and drink his life giving blood!

John 6:27
Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"

29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

30 So they asked him, "What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: "He gave them bread from heaven to eat.""

32 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."


dhardage You refuse to eat so you die!!

None of that changes the fact that you are practicing ritual cannibalism in your religious rites.
dhardage To be "Cannibal" you must "Kill and Eat a person" dead meat!!!!
The flesh of Jesus is a GIFT from Jesus and his flesh is NOT dead: LIVING FOREVER FLESH!! Life giving blood!!!!
Perfect love... Giving of self TOTALLY, COMPLETELY...So complete his the love of God that he is TOTALLY Consumed.

The Flesh of Jesus is "BREAD"!
The Blood of Jesus is "WINE"!
I know God does everything PERFECTLY, what more perfect then sweet wind and bread!

dhardage Perfect food, true manna from heaven!
Dogknox
Posts: 6,472
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 12:13:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2016 4:16:45 PM, uncung wrote:
At 5/17/2016 3:12:04 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 5/17/2016 2:39:36 AM, uncung wrote:
I asked: why did God place Satan in hell? for what? What are the satan doing therein?

uncung I reply: Only those with love can enter heaven!! Satan has no place in heaven, he is without any love! Hell has been prepared ready to receive him!!

Satan is not in hell yet.. He is here, tempting man!!!
1 Peter 5:8
Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

1 Timothy 3:6
He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil.

1 John 3:8
The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil"s work.

End Time Prophesy:
Revelation 20:10
And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

But you said God placed Satan in Gehenna.

uncung I am NOT God I do not know the time line!!!
Read it yourself!!!! (Below)
Revelation 20:7 [ The Judgment of Satan ]
When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison.
8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth"Gog and Magog"and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.
9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God"s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.
10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.


You said previously God placed Satan in Gehenna.

uncung
Can't be released for one thousand years if NOT first captive!
Revelation 20:7 [ The Judgment of Satan ]
When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison.

uncung I also said... I do NOT know the time line! God lives outside of time so WHEN...
When the thousand years starts or ends who knows!??
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 12:45:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2016 2:41:49 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 5/17/2016 2:18:56 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/17/2016 2:09:15 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 5/17/2016 2:01:14 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/17/2016 1:05:45 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 5/17/2016 6:56:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/17/2016 4:23:13 AM, scmike2

Why can't your god be god and not god at the same time?

Because He is true.
Well what a lovely non sequitur.

So truth can be contradictory in your worldview then? That explains ALOT!! Gotta love that atheist (non) logic! Priceless!!

Omnipotence can do anything, that's the whole point. Why should your concept of logic place restrictions on omnipotence?
For the simple reason that you need it to, your god can't do anything that defies the happy little world you've created for yourself.
If you can't conceive of it then your god can't perform it.

So, if God can't contradict His own nature and be both God and not God at the same time and in the same way, then He therefore cannot be God? How about this: since bulproof is asserting that something must be self-contradictory in order to be true, then that argument cannot ever be valid. Should be easy to see which of us is holding the rational position and which of us is not. Not that you were ever fooling anyone up to this point. Ha! ; )
This is not my contention "He therefore cannot be God?"
I haven't made that assertion ever.
Aren't you afraid all of your strawmen will catch fire.
I contend that omnipotence is incoherent and you agree with me otherwise you wouldn't need to place restrictions on your god that pacify the cognitive dissonance the concept creates.
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 2:44:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/17/2016 9:32:48 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Quick question:

If in my argument, I assert the position opposite me is false, and to prove my assertion first presupposes my position to be true from the onset...


doesn't that just really mean the first person to speak "wins"?

;)

No, especially if they hold to a worldview in which the necessary preconditions for logical argumentation (i.e. absolute laws of logic, proof, and truth) cannot exist. I mean, I've even seen unbelievers who were so defeated in their position that they ultimately had to concede that laws of logic could possibly be false in their worldview. No, I'm not making that up!! ; )
uncung
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 5:09:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You said previously God placed Satan in Gehenna.

uncung
Can't be released for one thousand years if NOT first captive!
Revelation 20:7 [ The Judgment of Satan ]
When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison.

uncung I also said... I do NOT know the time line! God lives outside of time so WHEN...
When the thousand years starts or ends who knows!??

You said previously God placed Satan in Gehenna.
And you said: Satan was released after thousand years.
what did satan do in Gehenna then?
Who released him from Gehenna?
why did he was released?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 11:00:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2016 2:44:09 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 5/17/2016 9:32:48 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Quick question:

If in my argument, I assert the position opposite me is false, and to prove my assertion first presupposes my position to be true from the onset...


doesn't that just really mean the first person to speak "wins"?

;)

No.

And yet that is the tactic you routinely employ.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 2:40:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2016 12:08:04 AM, Dogknox wrote:
At 5/17/2016 3:35:40 PM, dhardage wrote:
uncung Jesus is "ONE" with all who eat his living flesh and drink his life giving blood!

John 6:27
Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"

29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

30 So they asked him, "What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: "He gave them bread from heaven to eat.""

32 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."


dhardage You refuse to eat so you die!!

None of that changes the fact that you are practicing ritual cannibalism in your religious rites.
dhardage To be "Cannibal" you must "Kill and Eat a person" dead meat!!!!
The flesh of Jesus is a GIFT from Jesus and his flesh is NOT dead: LIVING FOREVER FLESH!! Life giving blood!!!!
Perfect love... Giving of self TOTALLY, COMPLETELY...So complete his the love of God that he is TOTALLY Consumed.

The Flesh of Jesus is "BREAD"!
The Blood of Jesus is "WINE"!
I know God does everything PERFECTLY, what more perfect then sweet wind and bread!

dhardage Perfect food, true manna from heaven!

Allow me to educate you.

Cannibalism: noun
1. the eating of human flesh by another human being.
2.the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind.
3.the ceremonial eating of human flesh or parts of the human body for magical or religious purposes, as to acquire the power or skill of a person recently killed.

So you see, the act of communion is symbolic cannibalism. If you actually believe in the Miracle of Transubstantiation then it's not even symbolic, it's actual cannibalism. That's a hangover from the barbaric and primitive origins of the Sky God Yahweh,
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 2:46:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2016 11:00:27 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/18/2016 2:44:09 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 5/17/2016 9:32:48 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Quick question:

If in my argument, I assert the position opposite me is false, and to prove my assertion first presupposes my position to be true from the onset...


doesn't that just really mean the first person to speak "wins"?

;)

No.

And yet that is the tactic you routinely employ.

Well, since my discussion with M.A.R. began with me RESPONDING to his claims, there goes that theory! Hey, can I help it if **ahem** some people choose to embrace a worldview that actually **ahem** forces them into arguing that the very laws of logic, which make 'rational argumentation' possible, may not even exist at all. Really, I am NOT making that up!! ; )
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 2:47:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2016 2:46:35 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 5/18/2016 11:00:27 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/18/2016 2:44:09 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 5/17/2016 9:32:48 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Quick question:

If in my argument, I assert the position opposite me is false, and to prove my assertion first presupposes my position to be true from the onset...


doesn't that just really mean the first person to speak "wins"?

;)

No.

And yet that is the tactic you routinely employ.

Well, since my discussion with M.A.R. began with me RESPONDING to his claims, there goes that theory!

Yes, and what conversation stopper did you use? That being some one that asks genuine questions, intellectually honest questions, and then... what happened, Mike? In your own words, detail how you feel those varieties of conversations go.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 2:51:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2016 2:47:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/18/2016 2:46:35 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 5/18/2016 11:00:27 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/18/2016 2:44:09 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 5/17/2016 9:32:48 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Quick question:

If in my argument, I assert the position opposite me is false, and to prove my assertion first presupposes my position to be true from the onset...


doesn't that just really mean the first person to speak "wins"?

;)

No.

And yet that is the tactic you routinely employ.

Well, since my discussion with M.A.R. began with me RESPONDING to his claims, there goes that theory!

Yes

Awesome!
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 2:53:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2016 2:51:13 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 5/18/2016 2:47:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/18/2016 2:46:35 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 5/18/2016 11:00:27 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/18/2016 2:44:09 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 5/17/2016 9:32:48 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Quick question:

If in my argument, I assert the position opposite me is false, and to prove my assertion first presupposes my position to be true from the onset...


doesn't that just really mean the first person to speak "wins"?

;)

No.

And yet that is the tactic you routinely employ.

Well, since my discussion with M.A.R. began with me RESPONDING to his claims, there goes that theory!

Yes

Awesome!

...and what conversation stopper did you use? That being some one that asks genuine questions, intellectually honest questions, and then... what happened, Mike? In your own words, detail how you feel those varieties of conversations go.

you don't hold conversations, you hold races to how fast some one can ask you how you know what you know, and then fail to overcome your own benchmark.

Gas lighting is not a conversation, Mike.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 4:33:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1 of 2

At 5/17/2016 9:51:13 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:

Like I said, if your position were true, it would have to be false, therefore, it is false.

Yep, it's still stupid to say that, and I've never said that statement EVER in my life, because it's ridiculous.

Actually, I would say that a position like the one you have put forth (sensing and reasoning that your senses and reasoning are valid), which undermines the very possibility of objective, universal logical laws, knowledge, and truth is the very definition of a 'stupid" and "ridiculous" one. I am pleased with that!

I've said that unlimited means there is no limit, and you've given me all these limits that god has.
Still waiting on those answers btw.

There are no limitations to His absolute, universal, objective powers. The purely subjective standard you are appealing to as your basis for determining what constitutes a 'power' and what constitutes a 'weaknesses' is arbitrary and irrational, making your argument here against omnipotence necessarily the weakest type possible--an illogical one. Hopefully you don't need further explanation as to why that renders your entire position an incompetent one, no?

So if god were omnipotent, he would have to have unlimited powers which include those listed, and which you won't respond to, and which YOU HAVE CONCEDED ARE CAPABILITIES.

They are 'capabilities' in a purely subjective sense (from a limited/changing perspective), but 'liabilities' (disadvantages) in the objective sense (from God"s unlimited, unchanging, sovereign perspective)---apples and oranges. Of course, attempting to impose a purely subjective standard upon an objective authority (especially THE absolute objective Authority) is irrational. Again, provide your basis for abstract, universal, invariants like truth, knowledge, and logic in your worldview and let"s compare claims, since, absent an absolute, objective Authority, you'd have no way of determining anything to be absolutely true and, therefore, no way of distinguishing between a power and a weakness in the first place. Well?

Guess we can see about that when/if you ever provide your justification for absolute laws of logic. We both believe in them, however, only one of us has provided a basis for that belief in their worldview. Still waiting on you.

Your belief relies on senses and reasoning, you've just come to the wrong conclusions about your senses and reasoing.

How do you know that your reasoning about that is valid? Oh, yeah--you sensed and reasoned that it was. AAAAAAAGGGGHH!!

I on the other hand have provided evidence that our brains are great for sensing and reasoning, and you did not question ANYTHING in the study.

Because I know for certain that brains are useful tools and are a wonderful gift from God via Divine revelation. You, on the other hand are reduced to blindly assuming the reliability of your senses and reasoning based upon the the feedback provided to you by those same unsubstantiated senses and reasoning. Of course, this is viciously circular and destroys any foundation for knowledge in your worldview.

Therefore, the machines used in the study to determine if our brain's detections were accurate, has not been challenged by you, and thus you concede that this machine doesn't rely on our senses or reasoning.

So you reasoned that your reasoning about the logical standard produced by your brain (hence your, "therefore" and "thus") is accurate and reliable based upon applying the logical standard produced by your brain to the conclusions reached by your brain. Um""..ok?

Listen, the study you ignored shows that my senses and reasoning lead me to accurately understanding demonstration, replication, and accurate predictions.

And, since you used your senses and reasoning to reach those conclusions about the reliability of your senses and reasoning, you are, indeed, back to arguing that "you sense and reason that your senses and reasoning are reliable". Doesn"t get any more viciously circular than that, I"m afraid.

Hey, what senses and reasoning did the objective machine that monitored eye movements in the study use?

Oh you didn't think of that?
My basis by definition is better because I have evidence that our brains are excellent SANS god; machines SANS senses and reason indicate such.

So, you rely on the machines created and programmed by human reasoning for the purpose of measuring human reasoning in order to confirm the reliability of your human reasoning. Nope, nothing viciously circular there. Priceless!

Again, how do you know that your conclusions about any evidence for the reliability of your reasoning is, itself, reliable if you don"t already know that your senses and reasoning are reliable to begin with? Blind faith, perhaps?

Yep, unlimited power. You, however, seem to want that to include SOME weakness for some strange reason (actually, I know why--you can't bear the thought of bowing the knee to God).

You've conceded that weaknesses are capabilities.

I"ve conceded that some "capabilities" (in the purely subjective sense) are, in reality, weaknesses from God"s omnipotent, omniscient perspective (an objective sense). Again, posit YOUR basis for knowing things to be objectively true in your worldview and we compare our claims to see whose is valid. Not looking very promising right now, though, if I"m honest.

You've conceded that god DOES NOT have these capabilities
You've conceded that god has limited capabilities, weak or otherwise.

So, I"ve ultimately just conceded that God is not subject to weakness, then. Yes, I know--where have you been?

Unlimited with limits is the contradiction here.

Unlimited power = No weakness (and therefore no contradiction). Again, posit your rational justification for absolute, objective standards of truth and logic and let"s discuss to see whose claims are true and logical and whose are not. So far, you have no rational position of your own from which to levy any criticism at all or to even justify your complaint that I have made a logical error (like engaging in contradictions, for instance). After all, what is a "logical error" in a worldview that cannot account for an absolute, universal standard of logic by which people should conduct their reasoning? Like I said before, while I appreciate your opinions here, I am only interested in what you know to be true and how you know it for the sake of this discussion. If you don't have a rationally defensible position of your own, then I thank you for your time and appreciate that fact having been exposed here for all to see.

So my senses and reason are accurate, and you've yet to show your omnipotence to be able to exist AND have conceded their utter lack of capabilities...a limit to their capabilities...

And you know that your conclusions about your senses and reasoning, etc. are accurate because you sensed and reasoned that they are, remember?

You've lost this exchange.

According to what----your non-abstract, non-universal, non-invariant, purely subjective logical standard? In that case, I just counter with "I haven"t lost the exchange" and your position is necessarily negated. Wow, that was easy!! So much for the possibility of any rational discourse in an atheistic worldview, eh?
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 4:47:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
2 of 2

Unless you can respond to the powers listed below, which you said you would do since you can see that I have accurate senses and reason.

Oh, I believe that your senses and reasoning are basically reliable, since they are a wonderful gift from God to you. It is your position that God does not exist which ultimately leads to the absurd conclusion that you must "sense and reason that your senses and reasoning are reliable". Since it would take sheer intellectual dishonesty to deny the possibility that an omnipotent, omniscient God could reveal things to people such that we can know them for certain to be absolutely true (as you have rightly conceded), I have a rationally defensible basis for proceeding with the assumption that my senses and reasoning are basically reliable, while you presently do not. Hence, a further demonstration that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary and your challenges/claims are without merit, since they are ultimately being levied from a position of irrationality and blind faith in order to counter one which establishes rationality and absolute truth.

1. The power to demonstrate oneself physically without negating one's existence.
-Isn't a weakness to demonstrate oneself physically, and by definition would not render god non-god.

I actually have some things to say about this one, regarding the incarnation of Jesus Christ, and how an omnipotent God has accomplished this without negating His nature (something that anyone would be forced to admit could be done by an omniscient, omnipotent God in a non-contradictory way, anyway). I"d love to discuss the specifics with you once you posit your basis for the validity of your senses and reasoning and for absolute standards of logic and truth (which we both believe in and are using to participate in this very exchange).

2. The power to defeat humans in a competition without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to defeat humans in a competition and by definition would not render god non-god.

Already showed you how God"s Authority ultimately defeated your arguments against Him here (and continues to do so). And, the only thing negated in the process were (are) your arguments against Him. QED.

3. The power to infinitely increase in strength without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to infinitely increase in strength, and by definition would not render god non-god.

It is from God"s perspective (the objectively true one) if it assumes the absence of infinite strength to begin with (since that would make Him "not God").

4. The power to freely choose to do things unlike oneself without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to choose to do things unlike oneself, and by definition would not render god non-god.

God contradicting His own nature would necessarily render Him also "not God".

5. The power to violate laws of logic without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to surpass logic, and by definition would not render god non-god.

Logic is but one aspect of God"s nature. See above.

6. The power to create rules that allow one to violate logic without negating one's existence.
-isn't a weakness to create rules that allow one to violate them, and by definition would not render god non-god.

See above.

7. The power to remain incomprehensible.
-Isn't a weakness to remain beyond the scope of comprehension, and as you have admitted, you comprehend god so very well.

All truth is in God, therefore, concealing His identity from us would equate to suppressing the truth (an act of incompetence), something that is contrary to His nature and would render Him "not God".

But you can't/won't...kinda like your inept god, right?

Already been through this with you, but there it is again for the record. Now, you are free to continue along your current course, the likes of which is essentially arguing that it is perfectly OK to believe in things (like absolute laws of logic, knowledge, truth, the reliability of your senses/reasoning, etc.) and to act upon those beliefs with no good reason(s) for doing so (blind faith), or you can get with the program and argue that there is at least one other self-consistent, objectively verifiable worldview which can account for the concepts above that we both believe in and are utilizing here (and for which you have conceded I have a possible justification for in my worldview---Divine revelation). If your next response does not remedy this glaring inconsistency, then it has missed the point and remains no argument at all. Take care.
Dogknox
Posts: 6,472
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 5:35:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2016 2:40:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/18/2016 12:08:04 AM, Dogknox wrote:
At 5/17/2016 3:35:40 PM, dhardage wrote:
uncung Jesus is "ONE" with all who eat his living flesh and drink his life giving blood!

John 6:27
Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"

29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

30 So they asked him, "What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: "He gave them bread from heaven to eat.""

32 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."


dhardage You refuse to eat so you die!!

None of that changes the fact that you are practicing ritual cannibalism in your religious rites.
dhardage To be "Cannibal" you must "Kill and Eat a person" dead meat!!!!
The flesh of Jesus is a GIFT from Jesus and his flesh is NOT dead: LIVING FOREVER FLESH!! Life giving blood!!!!
Perfect love... Giving of self TOTALLY, COMPLETELY...So complete his the love of God that he is TOTALLY Consumed.

The Flesh of Jesus is "BREAD"!
The Blood of Jesus is "WINE"!
I know God does everything PERFECTLY, what more perfect then sweet wind and bread!

dhardage Perfect food, true manna from heaven!

Allow me to educate you.

Cannibalism: noun
1. the eating of human flesh by another human being.
2.the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind.
3.the ceremonial eating of human flesh or parts of the human body for magical or religious purposes, as to acquire the power or skill of a person recently killed.

So you see, the act of communion is symbolic cannibalism. If you actually believe in the Miracle of Transubstantiation then it's not even symbolic, it's actual cannibalism. That's a hangover from the barbaric and primitive origins of the Sky God Yahweh,

3.the ceremonial eating of human flesh or parts of the human body for magical or religious purposes, as to acquire the power or skill of a person recently killed.


The flesh of Jesus is LIVING flesh!!! NOT dead!!!
God is IN Me because I consume him! It is just this simple!

John 10:38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 5:54:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2016 2:53:23 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/18/2016 2:51:13 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 5/18/2016 2:47:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/18/2016 2:46:35 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 5/18/2016 11:00:27 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/18/2016 2:44:09 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 5/17/2016 9:32:48 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Quick question:

If in my argument, I assert the position opposite me is false, and to prove my assertion first presupposes my position to be true from the onset...


doesn't that just really mean the first person to speak "wins"?

;)

No.

And yet that is the tactic you routinely employ.

Well, since my discussion with M.A.R. began with me RESPONDING to his claims, there goes that theory!

Yes

Awesome!

...and what conversation stopper did you use? That being some one that asks genuine questions, intellectually honest questions, and then... what happened, Mike? In your own words, detail how you feel those varieties of conversations go.

you don't hold conversations, you hold races to how fast some one can ask you how you know what you know, and then fail to overcome your own benchmark.

Gas lighting is not a conversation, Mike.

Actually, I'd say that holding a worldview which forces you to concede that laws of logic could be false is the ultimate conversation stopper (since it undermines the very possibility of conversation in the first place) and the epitome of 'gas lighting'. That you continue to willfully hold to such a position, though, is the really sad part. Regardless of how you feel about me faustian (and despite some questionable behavior on your part over the last year of so), I still think of you as a friend, and can't help but feel for you. Again, I'm here when/if you ever decide to honestly think through these issues. Take care.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 6:08:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/18/2016 5:35:06 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 5/18/2016 2:40:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/18/2016 12:08:04 AM, Dogknox wrote:
At 5/17/2016 3:35:40 PM, dhardage wrote:
uncung Jesus is "ONE" with all who eat his living flesh and drink his life giving blood!

John 6:27
Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"

29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

30 So they asked him, "What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: "He gave them bread from heaven to eat.""

32 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."


dhardage You refuse to eat so you die!!

None of that changes the fact that you are practicing ritual cannibalism in your religious rites.
dhardage To be "Cannibal" you must "Kill and Eat a person" dead meat!!!!
The flesh of Jesus is a GIFT from Jesus and his flesh is NOT dead: LIVING FOREVER FLESH!! Life giving blood!!!!
Perfect love... Giving of self TOTALLY, COMPLETELY...So complete his the love of God that he is TOTALLY Consumed.

The Flesh of Jesus is "BREAD"!
The Blood of Jesus is "WINE"!
I know God does everything PERFECTLY, what more perfect then sweet wind and bread!

dhardage Perfect food, true manna from heaven!

Allow me to educate you.

Cannibalism: noun
1. the eating of human flesh by another human being.
2.the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind.
3.the ceremonial eating of human flesh or parts of the human body for magical or religious purposes, as to acquire the power or skill of a person recently killed.

So you see, the act of communion is symbolic cannibalism. If you actually believe in the Miracle of Transubstantiation then it's not even symbolic, it's actual cannibalism. That's a hangover from the barbaric and primitive origins of the Sky God Yahweh,

3.the ceremonial eating of human flesh or parts of the human body for magical or religious purposes, as to acquire the power or skill of a person recently killed.


The flesh of Jesus is LIVING flesh!!! NOT dead!!!
God is IN Me because I consume him! It is just this simple!

John 10:38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

Then you participate in cannibalism. It's just that simple. You're not better than the primitive tribes of headhunters of the Amazon were.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2016 7:02:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Quick question:

If in my argument, I assert the position opposite me is false, and to prove my assertion first presupposes my position to be true from the onset...


doesn't that just really mean the first person to speak "wins"?

;)

No.

And yet that is the tactic you routinely employ.

Well, since my discussion with M.A.R. began with me RESPONDING to his claims, there goes that theory!

Yes

Awesome!

...and what conversation stopper did you use? That being some one that asks genuine questions, intellectually honest questions, and then... what happened, Mike? In your own words, detail how you feel those varieties of conversations go.

you don't hold conversations, you hold races to how fast some one can ask you how you know what you know, and then fail to overcome your own benchmark.

Gas lighting is not a conversation, Mike.

Actually, I'd say that holding a worldview which forces you to concede that laws of logic could be false is the ultimate conversation stopper (since it undermines the very possibility of conversation in the first place) and the epitome of 'gas lighting'.

Glad we agree, unless you mean antithesis.

That you continue to willfully hold to such a position, though, is the really sad part. Regardless of how you feel about me faustian (and despite some questionable behavior on your part over the last year of so), I still think of you as a friend, and can't help but feel for you. Again, I'm here when/if you ever decide to honestly think through these issues. Take care.

That is not your strong suit, Mike. You still haven't answered the question on the table. World views etc is not the focus of this conversation (thought I have no doubt you will want to go there, since you need to race to get to the question of "how do you know..").

As I recall, some of your original posts on this board hinged around being a brain in a jar.

This, however, is never a position you yourself cleared, which is why I consider your 'worldview' to be dishonest at its core. It requires you to ask such a question that has no immediate answer to an honest participant of said conversation before they do.

You have no means of "knowing" that you are not a brain in a jar. When you clear that hurdle that you set for your opposition, then I can take you seriously. In the mean while, call center work would suit you to a T.

(in response to your response) - that is the programmed stimulus given to a brain in a jar.

If you have another question, repeat the above as necessary until the lesson sticks.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...