You can't disprove God's existence. - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.

You can't disprove God's existence.

Debate Information

Nor can you prove it. 
Happy_KillbotDee[Deleted User]xlJ_dolphin_473AlofRIJesusistheonlyGod777
Debate Details +



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

    Arguments


  • @JustinC ;
    That depends on your definition of god. If your concept of god contains a logical inconsistency, we can determine that this god doesn't exist. For example, if you claim that "God is all geometric shapes" that god cannot exist because it would have to be both a square and a circle, which is impossible.

    How would you define god exactly?
    JustinC
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 2800 Pts

    You can't disprove the tooth fairies existence.

    AlofRIJesusistheonlyGod777xlJ_dolphin_473
  • Dee said:

    You can't disprove the tooth fairies existence.

    And if you have a worldview which describes creation of the universe and life, you can't prove or disprove it either. Whats the point here? 
    Happy_KillbotAlofRI[Deleted User]
  • @JustinC ;

    That depends on your definition of god. If your concept of god contains a logical inconsistency, we can determine that this god doesn't exist. For example, if you claim that "God is all geometric shapes" that god cannot exist because it would have to be both a square and a circle, which is impossible.
    -- Strong argument. I agree with this in terms of the logical impossibility. There can't be something like this within the definition. 

    How would you define god exactly?
    -- The standard of morality, what is good is found through God. Furthermore, the Biblical creation narrative claims creation ex-nihlo. So, we can conclude:

    Space, time and matter/energy all started at creation. Therefore, we can supply definitional terms from what must logically be concluded. The creator of the universe must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. Also, personal in order to choose to create and intelligent to create such a seemingly ordered and fine-tuned universe and the complexity of life. "All powerful" to create out of nothing. 

    We can add three unique persons in one being as well. 

  • @JustinC ;
    -- The standard of morality, what is good is found through God. Furthermore, the Biblical creation narrative claims creation ex-nihlo. So, we can conclude:

    Space, time and matter/energy all started at creation. Therefore, we can supply definitional terms from what must logically be concluded. The creator of the universe must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. Also, personal in order to choose to create and intelligent to create such a seemingly ordered and fine-tuned universe and the complexity of life. "All powerful" to create out of nothing. 

    We can add three unique persons in one being as well. 
    Alright, that's a little rambl-ly so I'm going to break this down to a list.

    God is that entity which is:
    • All powerful
    • creator of time, space, energy, and mater from nothing
    • Personal, desires creation of complex intelligent life and a world which they can inhabit.
    • Is three unique persons
    • Is one being

    Are you satisfied with this definition, or would you like to modify it in any way?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @JustinC ;
    -- The standard of morality, what is good is found through God. Furthermore, the Biblical creation narrative claims creation ex-nihlo. So, we can conclude:

    Space, time and matter/energy all started at creation. Therefore, we can supply definitional terms from what must logically be concluded. The creator of the universe must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. Also, personal in order to choose to create and intelligent to create such a seemingly ordered and fine-tuned universe and the complexity of life. "All powerful" to create out of nothing. 

    We can add three unique persons in one being as well. 
    Alright, that's a little rambl-ly so I'm going to break this down to a list.

    God is that entity which is:
    • All powerful
    • creator of time, space, energy, and mater from nothing
    • Personal, desires creation of complex intelligent life and a world which they can inhabit.
    • Is three unique persons
    • Is one being

    Are you satisfied with this definition, or would you like to modify it in any way?
    Appreciate that, thank you. Yes, as long as the second bullet implies a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being. 
  • @JustinC
    Nor can you prove it. 

    You can't disprove God but, so what? You can't disprove anything that's not there anyway.
    You can prove the existence of God though. That is if God exists.
    And, since God has never remotely close to being proven, there is no God.

    Any absurd claim that's made with no evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
    Amen, case closed.
    Happy_Killbot[Deleted User]xlJ_dolphin_473
  • @Happy_Killbot
    How would you define god exactly?
    A figment of imagination in the minds of deluded nitwits.
    Happy_Killbot[Deleted User]
  • @JustinC ;
    Alright, so to move on with this definition, which we will be coming back to a lot, we can ask the question: Can this being logically impossible? If the answer to that question is true, then we have in fact disproved god's existence due to it being impossible.

    With this definition, I would say that yes, and in more than one way, this being is impossible.

    Even with the added stipulation on the second bullet of "a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being" this bullet is particularly problematic. Consider this assertion: Is god something or nothing? It is not possible for god to be nothing unless we assert that nothing has intrinsic properties such as in the other bullet points, but if god is something then it is not possible for the universe to have been created from nothing, because god is something. In either case, there is a logical contradiction, either between the other premises or within the description itself. Therefore, this god can not exist.

    Second, there is a problem with the first and third assertions. If god has certain desires or creates the world a certain way, we might ask if it is possible for it to have other desires, such as to create the universe in any other way or to produce any other possible reality. If god does not have the ability to have other desires, it is not all powerful. If it is all powerful, we should expect all possible desires to be expressed because if some desires are repressed at the expense of others, then there is power that can not be utilized. To make this last point clear, lets say you desire 1 car which is blue. If however you also desire that car to be red, that would be a problem because you can not have this car both blue and red at the same time, so this is logically impossible. Another more specific example might be to suppose that god could have desired to create orcs or dwarves instead of humans, obviously it can not have a world with just humans and just orcs because that is logically impossible. Failure to desire both would imply that there is some ability that god does not have, which is desiring something different. Therefore, this god can not exist.

    Finally, we get to the trinity, which you will probably dispute and I am interested in how you will justify things. Personally, I don't think the trinity makes any sense accept to the most learned Christian theologians, but based on the definition you have provided here there are a few contradictions. First and most obvious, being 3 unique persons and 1 being isn't exactly possible, because by definition a being is the essence of a person, and we would be saying that 1 = 3, which is blatantly false and therefore, this god can not exist. Perhaps you can clarify things by defining what you mean by "being" and "unique persons".

    I think this is a pretty good start for now. You can either provide a rebuttal, or redefine your concept of god. Keep in mind that if even just one of these is true, or contradicts further with something in you rebuttal, that this is enough to say that this being is false.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • edited October 12
    @Dee

    of course you can, the tooth fairy is stated by its author to be fake, #@$.
  • Swolliw said:
    @JustinC

    Quote 
    "You can't disprove God but, so what?"
    -- Just looking to have a conversation. So what?

    Quote
    "You can't disprove anything that's not there anyway."
    -- You just asserted the opposite claim to my statement. Did you want to engage on the topic or simply preach?

    Quote
    "You can prove the existence of God though. "
    -- Another part of my premise. Did you want to engage on this topic? I disagree. 

    Quote
    "That is if God exists."
    - Hence unprovable in the topic. It would have to be an if.

    Quote 
    "And, since God has never remotely close to being proven, there is no God."
    -- How is that true? Either God exists in reality or does not. 

    Quote
    "Any absurd claim that's made with no evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
    -- There's evidence, yet another discussion. This is simply your opinion. 

  • @JustinC ;

    Quote 
    "Even with the added stipulation on the second bullet of "a timeless, spaceless, immaterial being" this bullet is particularly problematic. Consider this assertion: Is god something or nothing? It is not possible for god to be nothing unless we assert that nothing has intrinsic properties such as in the other bullet points, but if god is something then it is not possible for the universe to have been created from nothing, because god is something.
    -- Well nothing as in no space-time, matter/energy. The 3d we know. This is assuming there isn't a higher realm of existence beyond our Universe. In essence, claiming the three dimensions of space and one of time containing matter are all that exist is an unproven claim. This is consistent with my premise.

    I found thinking of God's realm as a 4th physical dimension with different rules that the Bible doesn't include. Similar to the model here from a classic physics example (our whole universe contained within the 2d, God's realm 3d for this example). 



    An infinite realm both physical and spiritual is impossible to comprehend when fully contained in the Universe. There are descriptions consistent with physical places but different. More. One reason why analogy always accompanies descriptions of Heaven, Hell, etc. Interesting that in Paul's letter to the Corinthians he describes, when called, he was "caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things" or in Roman's when he says he's speaking "in human terms due to our natural limitations".


    Quote
    "Second, there is a problem with the first and third assertions. If god has certain desires or creates the world a certain way, we might ask if it is possible for it to have other desires, such as to create the universe in any other way or to produce any other possible reality."
    -- I'd agree the Bible supports this as possible. To have created the universe differently or a different reality. 

    Quote
    "If god does not have the ability to have other desires,"
    -- Theres nothing in the Bible suggesting this. 

    Quote
    "it is not all powerful. If it is all powerful, we should expect all possible desires to be expressed because if some desires are repressed at the expense of others, then there is power that can not be utilized. To make this last point clear, lets say you desire 1 car which is blue. If however you also desire that car to be red, that would be a problem because you can not have this car both blue and red at the same time, so this is logically impossible."
    -- Got you. The example was super helpful, thanks. So I would say the part you're missing is that, because God defines the objective standard of morality, his design would also have to be "best" as well as desired. So, you would pick the better color in the car analogy. 

    Quote
    "Another more specific example might be to suppose that god could have desired to create orcs or dwarves instead of humans, obviously it can not have a world with just humans and just orcs because that is logically impossible."
    -- Theres also the problem of assuming what an infinite being would desire. He needed nothing. Then has a singular desire that led to humanity. Whatever else is not claimed and thus would be unprovable to conclude as a potential desire. 

    What's more, if we grant God is all powerful then who's to say they don't exist elsewhere in the universe or at a different time on earth? Perhaps after Christ's return, when he remakes the earth, he'll create orcs so some people can go adventuring. On Mars. I dont know. The Bible never claims besides us living on Earth. This doesn't satisfy the claim to prove or disprove God. 

    Quote
    " Failure to desire both would imply that there is some ability that god does not have, which is desiring something different.
    -- An ability to desire every single thing? Why is that a requirement? Otherwise you can craft examples adinfinitum. Again, there's the missing standard of better. Perhaps he made another universe better for orcs. Again, too many unknowns given the assumed definition. Multiverse theory could even lay a ground work. You just need to go one dimension higher for each. 

    Quote
    "Finally, we get to the trinity, which you will probably dispute and I am interested in how you will justify things. Personally, I don't think the trinity makes any sense accept to the most learned Christian theologians, but based on the definition you have provided here there are a few contradictions. First and most obvious, being 3 unique persons and 1 being isn't exactly possible, "
    - In our universe. Unproven claim for outside the universe. I never said any of this was likely. Just unprovable or provable. That said reality is weird AF too. Quantum mechanics? Nature? Space? This election? Insane. 

    Quote
    "because by definition a being is the essence of a person, and we would be saying that 1 = 3, which is blatantly false and therefore, this god can not exist. Perhaps you can clarify things by defining what you mean by "being" and "unique persons"."
    - if a being exists outside of the universe then we can't claim to know or understand those rules. 

    Quote 
    "I think this is a pretty good start for now. You can either provide a rebuttal, or redefine your concept of god. Keep in mind that if even just one of these is true, or contradicts further with something in you rebuttal, that this is enough to say that this being is false."
    -- Fair enough. Fantastic and thought provoking arguments! This has been a pleasure so far. You're passionate but focused on the logic and the argument. Passionate is great. Robustly passionate is great haha. Big topics, big implications in either direction. I appreciate the discussion. Looking forward to seeing where this goes. 

  • DeeDee 2800 Pts
    @JesusistheonlyGod777

    of course you can, the tooth fairy is stated by its author to be fake



    Incorrect who is the author again? ...... This tradition is recorded in writings as early as the Eddas(c. 1200), which are the earliest written record of Norse and Northern European traditions.
    JesusistheonlyGod777
  • @JustinC
    You just asserted the opposite claim to my statement. Did you want to engage on the topic or simply preach?

    For someone who is doing post-graduate studies, you sure show very little intellectual reasoning.
    There is absolutely no depth nor inferred meaning in stating that you can't disprove God and there are no-hopers working in junkyards who can at least understand that fairly simple reasoning. 
    And, I know what you are doing.....the preacher bit....knowing that there are deluded, naive, gullible nitwits out there who will take on such absurdities as being witticisms.
    Post-graduate studies in what?......would theology be somehow involved in there?
  • DeeDee 2800 Pts
    @Swolliw


    Post-graduate studies in what?......would theology be somehow involved in there?

    Nailed it , the guy doesn’t even know what theory means 
    JustinC
  • Swolliw said:
    @JustinC


    For someone who is doing post-graduate studies,
    -- When did I say this? I'm definitely not in graduate school. Probably just another incorrect assumption based upon something I said. 

    Quote
    "you sure show very little intellectual reasoning."
    There is absolutely no depth nor inferred meaning in stating that you can't disprove God"
    -- Your opinion. Which you seem not interested in discussing. Why bother on the thread then?

    Quote
    "Post-graduate studies in what?......would theology be somehow involved in there?"
    -- Nope not close. My degree is in applied mathematics. I work as a fraud data analyst to prevent and mitigate fraud for e-commerce and cloud services. 

  • @JustinC ;
    -- Well nothing as in no space-time, matter/energy. The 3d we know. This is assuming there isn't a higher realm of existence beyond our Universe. In essence, claiming the three dimensions of space and one of time containing matter are all that exist is an unproven claim. This is consistent with my premise.
    That isn't "nothing" now is it? A higher realm of existence or dimension of space time would be something, and thus would still violate the 2nd premise. This also applies to a 4th dimension or spiritual realm, this is again, something not nothing and I can know this without needing to comprehend it fully. As such, this rebuttal fails to diminish the point I was making.

    You might fix this by redefining the 2nd premise to: "creator of time, space, energy, and mater from higher realms" but then we are just kicking the can down the road because I might ask where that higher realm came from.
    -- I'd agree the Bible supports this as possible. To have created the universe differently or a different reality. 
    -- Got you. The example was super helpful, thanks. So I would say the part you're missing is that, because God defines the objective standard of morality, his design would also have to be "best" as well as desired. So, you would pick the better color in the car analogy. 
    -- Theres also the problem of assuming what an infinite being would desire. He needed nothing. Then has a singular desire that led to humanity. Whatever else is not claimed and thus would be unprovable to conclude as a potential desire. 

    What's more, if we grant God is all powerful then who's to say they don't exist elsewhere in the universe or at a different time on earth? Perhaps after Christ's return, when he remakes the earth, he'll create orcs so some people can go adventuring. On Mars. I dont know. The Bible never claims besides us living on Earth. This doesn't satisfy the claim to prove or disprove God. 
    -- An ability to desire every single thing? Why is that a requirement? Otherwise you can craft examples adinfinitum. Again, there's the missing standard of better. Perhaps he made another universe better for orcs. Again, too many unknowns given the assumed definition. Multiverse theory could even lay a ground work. You just need to go one dimension higher for each. 
    I really wish you didn't split this up, because it is a single idea and in splitting it up it is clear that you are not contending with it in its entirety and in fact don't think you actually contend with the point I am making here at all.

    First off, everything in the bible is irreverent because that is not part of your definition of god. Nor are claims of objective standards of morality. You would have needed to define it as such beforehand.

    Second, to reiterate the point I am making, if god only has specific desires, then there are certain desires it does not have, therefore there are some abilities it does not have, therefore it is not all powerful, therefore this definition of god can not logically exist.

    Finally to refute your "multiverse" claim, consider that you have described your god as personal, meaning private desires and opinions. If your god creates many worlds, in fact all of the worlds possible, then it is hard to argue that this god is personal because it also made worlds which would not harbor any life, as well as ones much better suited to it than our own which as far as we know, is completely uninhabited with the exception of earth. This means we have the same problem as above but in reverse. If god is all powerful, then it must have all possible desires. If it has all possible desires, then some of those desires will not be conducive to complex intelligent life or worlds they can inhabit. Therefore, this definition of god can not logically exist.
    - In our universe. Unproven claim for outside the universe. I never said any of this was likely. Just unprovable or provable. That said reality is weird AF too. Quantum mechanics? Nature? Space? This election? Insane. 
    You are making rambling broken sentences again, I don't know what your point is.
    - if a being exists outside of the universe then we can't claim to know or understand those rules. 
    If you hold this position, then the claim I made at the very top of the thread which states that we can disprove logically impossible gods is not true, and we could for example have a god composed of all geometric shapes. Think about it. We know that in no possible world does 2 + 2 = Dinosaur because that would be logically impossible. In this way math and logic transcends all realities and becomes a necessary existence which all things possible will follow. This is exactly the assumption we must make in order to have this disscussion, because otherwise I can claim: "Catfish is Jesus is dog" and that would be perfectly coherent because "we can't claim to know or understand those rules".
    -- Fair enough. Fantastic and thought provoking arguments! This has been a pleasure so far. You're passionate but focused on the logic and the argument. Passionate is great. Robustly passionate is great haha. Big topics, big implications in either direction. I appreciate the discussion. Looking forward to seeing where this goes. 
    Glad you are enjoying this so far.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1014 Pts
    edited October 12
    This debate has been going on for centuries. Hopefully, this will be the last one, and that enough facts are uncovered by science to end the following of myths. These myths have caused the deaths of millions, and, if continued, will cause more.  :'(
  • AlofRI said:
    This debate has been going on for centuries. Hopefully, this will be the last one, and that enough facts are uncovered by science to end the following of myths. These myths have caused the deaths of millions, and, if continued, will cause more.  :'(
    The man made religions which were created by the truth Jesus shared. These terrible things done in the name of tradition, false Christianity, and power were not in line with the message Jesus preached. Christians are just as disgusted by man made religion as the non believers. 
  • DeeDee 2800 Pts
    @JustinC


    And if you have a worldview which describes creation of the universe and life, you can't prove or disprove it either.

    But I make no such claims you and others do and you do so based on faith which as I keep telling you is the excuse people give for believing something they don’t have evidence for 

    I put it simply before as in the burden of proof is on you to prove a god exists as you’re making the affirmative claim not I , is so terribly difficult to comprehend?

    Whats the point here? 

    Should I explain it anther 150 times?
  • @Dee
     incorrect, the ghey
     Tooth Fairy was in a playlet written for children by Esther Watkins Arnold in 1927 and was it's it's  appearence as a fictional character!
  • DeeDee 2800 Pts
    @JesusistheonlyGod777

    Giibberish ......


    In Northern Europe, there was a tradition of tand-fé or tooth fee, which was paid when a child lost their first tooth. This tradition is recorded in writings as early as the Eddas(c. 1200), which are the earliest written record of Norse and Northern European traditions.


    JesusistheonlyGod777
  • No you're just restarted. 
  • DeeDee 2800 Pts
    @JesusistheonlyGod777


    You should thank me for educating you, I keep filling gaps in your education , in fairness there are a lot to fill 
    JesusistheonlyGod777




  • dee, 

  • Dee said:
    @JustinC


    And if you have a worldview which describes creation of the universe and life, you can't prove or disprove it either.

    But I make no such claims you and others do and you do so based on faith
    -- Maybe others but don't speak for me. My faith is based on evidence. If I laid it all out you would of course disagree with some points and the weight of evidence in others but that would only be your subjective opinion. Im down for a discussion about topics but not for taking up a discussion where someone thinks they've proven either side to be completely false and isn't open to walking through each side. Otherwise, they're always unfruitful. Ive never seen an argument which didn't have its basis in personal opinion if you're conclusively saying God exists or doesn't. You've been too busy preaching based off falsely based assertions to make any. Like the common misunderstanding of Biblical faith so often rooted in claims such as the ones you make around all the nonsense and off topic rants. I mean, if you're worldview is true, and you're acting in accordance with it, I don't want anything to do with it anyway. Not to mention anything you claim as "good" is stealing from the Christian worldview anyway. 

    Quote
    "I put it simply before as in the burden of proof is on you to prove a god exists as you’re making the affirmative claim not I , is so terribly difficult to comprehend?"

    For a formal debate maybe. You jumped on a discussion that had different premise and topic. Then call it dishonest for not wanting to have the conversation that you want to. If it was your topic I'd agree. But why is the burden on me? 

    If we're talking in reality, you've taken a world view that says fhe Christian God does not exist. Where's your proof?
  • DeeDee 2800 Pts
    @JesusistheonlyGod777

    I’m still a male and your mother is not my type , is she also a Christian?
  • DeeDee 2800 Pts
    edited October 12
    @JustinC


    -- Maybe others but don't speak for me. My faith is based on evidence


    Religious faith is still  the excuse people give for believing something they don’t have evidence for 

    . If I laid it all out you would of course disagree with some points and the weight of evidence in others but that would only be your subjective opinion. 

    Yes it would be subjective but the evidence should stand on its merits , god claims fail to do so 


    Im down for a discussion about topics but not for taking up a discussion where someone thinks they've proven either side to be completely false and isn't open to walking through each side. 

    Give me your best argument


    Otherwise, they're always unfruitful. Ive never seen an argument which didn't have its basis in personal opinion if you're conclusively saying God exists or doesn't. 

    I’ve made neither claim 

    You've been too busy preaching based off falsely based assertions to make any.

    What assertions have I made , list them?


     Like the common misunderstanding of Biblical faith so often rooted in claims such as the ones you make around all the nonsense and off topic rants.

    You mean like asking you to justify your free will gibberish regarding god? A topic you understandably went mute on 

    I mean, if you're worldview is true, and you're acting in accordance with it, I don't want anything to do with it anyway.

    What is my worldview? BTW do you not know the difference between “your” and “you’re “ it seems not 

     Not to mention anything you claim as "good" is stealing from the Christian worldview anyway. 

    What am I stealing from the Christian worldview ?



    For a formal debate maybe. You jumped on a discussion that had different premise and topic. Then call it dishonest for not wanting to have the conversation that you want to. If it was your topic I'd agree. But why is the burden on me? 

    If you claim you believe in god the burden is in you , this concept is proving very problematic for you? 

    If we're talking in reality, you've taken a world view that says fhe Christian God does not exist. Where's your proof?

    Where did I say a god or gods did not exist  100 per cent ? My claim is and remains the burden of proof is with the one making the affirmative claim , you or others can not do so , I have not seen sufficient evidence to prove the claim 


    So if your finished with the personal attacks and whining maybe you could answer at least one of my questions , you do the same whining and deflection every time ....bet you do so again 
  • @JustinC ;
    -- Well nothing as in no space-time, matter/energy. The 3d we know. This is assuming there isn't a higher realm of existence beyond our Universe. In essence, claiming the three dimensions of space and one of time containing matter are all that exist is an unproven claim. This is consistent with my premise.
    That isn't "nothing" now is it? A higher realm of existence or dimension of space time would be something, and thus would still violate the 2nd premise. This also applies to a 4th dimension or spiritual realm, this is again, something not nothing and I can know this without needing to comprehend it fully. As such, this rebuttal fails to diminish the point I was making.

    You might fix this by redefining the 2nd premise to: "creator of time, space, energy, and mater from higher realms" but then we are just kicking the can down the road because I might ask where that higher realm came from.
    -- I'd agree the Bible supports this as possible. To have created the universe differently or a different reality. 
    -- Got you. The example was super helpful, thanks. So I would say the part you're missing is that, because God defines the objective standard of morality, his design would also have to be "best" as well as desired. So, you would pick the better color in the car analogy. 
    -- Theres also the problem of assuming what an infinite being would desire. He needed nothing. Then has a singular desire that led to humanity. Whatever else is not claimed and thus would be unprovable to conclude as a potential desire. 

    What's more, if we grant God is all powerful then who's to say they don't exist elsewhere in the universe or at a different time on earth? Perhaps after Christ's return, when he remakes the earth, he'll create orcs so some people can go adventuring. On Mars. I dont know. The Bible never claims besides us living on Earth. This doesn't satisfy the claim to prove or disprove God. 
    -- An ability to desire every single thing? Why is that a requirement? Otherwise you can craft examples adinfinitum. Again, there's the missing standard of better. Perhaps he made another universe better for orcs. Again, too many unknowns given the assumed definition. Multiverse theory could even lay a ground work. You just need to go one dimension higher for each. 
    I really wish you didn't split this up, because it is a single idea and in splitting it up it is clear that you are not contending with it in its entirety and in fact don't think you actually contend with the point I am making here at all.

    First off, everything in the bible is irreverent because that is not part of your definition of god. Nor are claims of objective standards of morality. You would have needed to define it as such beforehand.

    Second, to reiterate the point I am making, if god only has specific desires, then there are certain desires it does not have, therefore there are some abilities it does not have, therefore it is not all powerful, therefore this definition of god can not logically exist.

    Finally to refute your "multiverse" claim, consider that you have described your god as personal, meaning private desires and opinions. If your god creates many worlds, in fact all of the worlds possible, then it is hard to argue that this god is personal because it also made worlds which would not harbor any life, as well as ones much better suited to it than our own which as far as we know, is completely uninhabited with the exception of earth. This means we have the same problem as above but in reverse. If god is all powerful, then it must have all possible desires. If it has all possible desires, then some of those desires will not be conducive to complex intelligent life or worlds they can inhabit. Therefore, this definition of god can not logically exist.
    - In our universe. Unproven claim for outside the universe. I never said any of this was likely. Just unprovable or provable. That said reality is weird AF too. Quantum mechanics? Nature? Space? This election? Insane. 
    You are making rambling broken sentences again, I don't know what your point is.
    - if a being exists outside of the universe then we can't claim to know or understand those rules. 
    If you hold this position, then the claim I made at the very top of the thread which states that we can disprove logically impossible gods is not true, and we could for example have a god composed of all geometric shapes. Think about it. We know that in no possible world does 2 + 2 = Dinosaur because that would be logically impossible. In this way math and logic transcends all realities and becomes a necessary existence which all things possible will follow. This is exactly the assumption we must make in order to have this disscussion, because otherwise I can claim: "Catfish is Jesus is dog" and that would be perfectly coherent because "we can't claim to know or understand those rules".
    -- Fair enough. Fantastic and thought provoking arguments! This has been a pleasure so far. You're passionate but focused on the logic and the argument. Passionate is great. Robustly passionate is great haha. Big topics, big implications in either direction. I appreciate the discussion. Looking forward to seeing where this goes. 
    Glad you are enjoying this so far.
    Ok, lets slow this down a bit. It's getting a little spread in multiple topics and two weeks ago was the first time I really started putting pen to paper, so to speak, for a lot of this. After years and years of study. 

    I will first say you're right. I took too much as assumed in the definition I agreed to. I flaked completely on morality,  even after calling it out in the rambly but, and was unspecific in other areas. I still have a nagging feeling somethings missing but let me try again and also try to pull some of the primary arguments out. If this is too high a burden i understand the weight of my inexperience and appreciate your patience either way! 

    God is that entity which is:
    • All powerful
    • creator of time, space, energy, and matter from a higher "realm" which exists with different "properties" and "rules", some of which are 
    • Personal, desires creation of complex intelligent life and a world which they can inhabit in relationship with God. 
    • Is three unique persons
    • Is one being
    • Is described in the Christian Bible
    • Whose character and nature set the standard with which an, objective to humanity, law of morality follows. Following this law perfectly is defined as good.
    • Is unchanging 

    To restart with two objections, first regarding nothing. 

    You picked up where I wasn't specific: "creator of time, space, energy, and mater from higher realms but then we are just kicking the can down the road because I might ask where that higher realm came from."

    This i would say is where I was and would reply that we can't know. Not that we don't know but don't have the proper frame of reference to comprehend it. One where we exist inside of this realm in a plane of sorts (2d in flat land) with a encompassing realm outside of it (3d in flat land). Using the flat land example to show incomprehensible knowledge, the 3d world has the concept of up and down. This is utterly nonsensical to the 2d world. A real world example, since time exists as part of space, the view from outside of the universe would be one in which you would see all of time inside the universe, at the same 'time' The Bible refers to this incomprehensible understanding to God's realm and broad view of our Universe's time specifically as well. 


    The second is on desire:

    "Second, to reiterate the point I am making, if god only has specific desires, then there are certain desires it does not have, therefore there are some abilities it does not have, therefore it is not all powerful, therefore this definition of god can not logically exist."

    This assumes God desires anything other than what's been communicated. We know He desires to create our Universe with umanity in it and a relationship with each person. Furthermore, God desires us to have free will and to "rule" over the Earth with us following the standard of morality He sets. 

    There's no obligation for God to have certain desires. The note on this then following to mean there are abilities God doesn't have is begging the question. And there are "abilities " God doesn't have. Well at the very least things He won't do that humanity can. Such as lie or change. Ah! I added unchanging to the definition too. 

    Thanks again for your patience in dealing with a debate newbie! 
  • @JustinC
    There's evidence, yet another discussion. This is simply your opinion. 

    Liar, you know very well that there is not one iota of evidence. There is an active discussion right now and nobody but nobody has tendered one piece of evidence....only dodgy excuses.
  • @JustinC
    I work as a fraud 

    Well, that's about the first honest thing you've said.
  • @JustinC ;
    Okay, so we have made some changes to the definition which I will outline briefly:

    "nothing" in premise 2 has been replaced with:  higher "realm" which exists with different "properties" and "rules"
    added premise 6: "is described in the Christian bible"
    added premise 7: "Whose character and nature set the standard with which an, objective to humanity, law of morality follows. Following this law perfectly is defined as good."
    added premise 8: "Is unchanging"

    I will concede that the amendment to the 2nd premise satisfies my objection for a god to create the universe out of nothing. However, the addition of other premises opens up several new avenues of logical impossibility.
    This assumes God desires anything other than what's been communicated. We know He desires to create our Universe with umanity in it and a relationship with each person. Furthermore, God desires us to have free will and to "rule" over the Earth with us following the standard of morality He sets. 

    There's no obligation for God to have certain desires. The note on this then following to mean there are abilities God doesn't have is begging the question. And there are "abilities " God doesn't have. Well at the very least things He won't do that humanity can. Such as lie or change. Ah! I added unchanging to the definition too. 
    My objection here isn't so much that god should have certain desires, it is that if god does have certain desires then there are certain things which it can not do. For example, there is nothing wrong with wanting to eat Italian for dinner, but that precludes the possibility of also wanting to skip dinner altogether. There is some power which you can not have. You could solve this by saying that god is not infinitely powerful, because a limited being does not have this problem the same way you and I as limited beings can want one specific thing. You could also solve this problem by assuming that god has all possible desires, but this would conflict with premise 6 because the Christian god does have specific desires.

    The addition of the premise as "described in the Christian bible" is quite problematic. For starters, you might want to be more specific as to what is meant by "Christian bible" since there are hundreds of translations, revisions, and collections of this text. I will assume the NIV because that is what I am most familiar with. This of course means that god is now a "he" and I will refer to him using male instead of neuter  pronouns. This in and of itself leads to an interesting objection that I will cover later.

    The lowest hanging fruit for contradictions for god as described in the bible of course starts on the first page. The story of genesis details the creation of the world in just 6 days. This is of course contradictory to actual scientific evidence which suggests a very old earth and universe, thus we have a disproof by reality. There are several ways you might object to this, such as by saying that the earth really was created in 6 days and all the evidence is either mistaken or god just made it look like that way for some reason. There are other reality contradictions too, such as the complete lack of geological evidence for a great flood, and all of the impossible things the bible claims Jesus does, such as violate entropy. If our experienced world as we currently understand it is objectively true, then god as described in the bible can not exist.

    A second would be that the god of the bible does in fact change between the old and new testament and therefore contradicts premise 8. Levitical law as described in the books of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers lay a moral framework which is said to be of god but is then abolished with Jesus's arrival. These are the laws that say that you can't eat pork or shellfish, wear clothing made of different materials, or take slaves from your own people as well as countless other absurdities. These laws however change after Jesus's resurrection so that Christians claim they do not have to follow them. If god has a character which establishes objective moral law IAW premise 7, then this is destroyed in the face of him being unchanging because he does change in the bible. If you don't accept this complex change, then I can point to the general change that god undergoes in the books of Genesis, in modifying the world in response to the "fall of man" or the change he undergoes in the book of Job in his bet with the devil. Consider that even when god says something, he is undergoing a change, specifically he is going from a state of having not said that thing, to having said that thing which implies a change and therefore contridicts with the 8th premise implying this god can not exist.

    Another similar but far simpler objection is that if morality is based on the character of a god, then morality is subjective to that god. In other words, morality is arbitrary but defined only by the god we are describing and therefore not objective. For example, a god can not make 2+2 =/= 4 because it is an objective fact that 2+2 = 4. Similarly, if morality is objective then it would follow that moral laws would have to be like math or logic. If god's character is the basis for morality, then morality is necessarily subjective.

    This will probably be the most interesting objection here: Does god have the desire to be another gender? God as described in the bible is consistently described as a "he", going all the way back to the oldest known Hebrew texts (Hebrew does not have a neuter gender) Presumably, an all powerful being could choose to be whatever gender it wanted to be, and I might make a similar objection to the one I am making about desires. If a god does not desire to become another gender, then he does not have the power to become another gender, and thus is not all powerful. If god does desire to become another gender, he doesn't have the power to not become another gender, and therefore is not all powerful.

    Beyond these, we can move on to the impossibility of a supreme moral being who is all powerful. Consider this: Is it possible for god to violate his own moral laws? If the answer is yes, then they are not supreme moral laws. If god can not violate them, then he is not all powerful. Related to this is the harm, suffering, and deaths caused by god in the bible, which god explicitly commands you not to do. How is it possible that god can command: "Thou shalt not murder" and also cause the great flood? Unless lying is part of god's character and in fact the commandments are a giant troll, I can't see how this is possible. It would be important to note that this also implies that god is okay with all the killing and suffering of the world, since being all powerful he could but does not do anything about it, meaning that allowing pain and suffering is part of his plan.

    That's quite a bit, but I think it is a good starting point for now. Needless to say, the Christian god specifically is a huge can of worms, even more so than a deistic or Muslim definition of god. Typically when people make the claim: "God can not be proved or disproved" they are referring to a deistic one. Naming a specific god from a specific dogma leads to all sorts of trouble as you can see above, and this barely scratches the surface.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Dee said:
    @JustinC


    Quote
    "Religious faith is still  the excuse people give for believing something they don’t have evidence for"


    Quote
    Yes it would be subjective but the evidence should stand on its merits , god claims fail to do so 


    Quote
    "Give me your best argument"
    -- you've shown yourself not to be willing to discuss. Ill pass. It's too long an argument touching too many different areas (physics, chemistry, philosophy, astronomy, history, textual criticism, mathematics, etc). And that's just for why I'm confident. Again you can't prove it. I was seeking conversations at a level after assuming existence. 

    Quote
    "I’ve made neither claim "
    -- The last few days seem to make it clear you don't think God exists. My fault. So what if your position then since you only like to ask questions which support why God doesn't exist as a conclusion if you're correct? 


    Quote
    "What assertions have I made , list them?"
    -- Ctrl+f for assertion on any of these threads. You'll find my claims. 

     
    Quote
    "You mean like asking you to justify your free will gibberish regarding god? A topic you understandably went mute on "
    - i replied. Theres another assertion for the list. 

    What specifically is your contention with the idea of free will? Would you then suggest we simply are matter in motion? Reacting to stimuli as we've been programed to over billions of years of evolution? Another option?

    Quote
    "What is my worldview? BTW do you not know the difference between “your” and “you’re “ it seems not "
    -- hahahaha probably the only time I missed it typing quickly on my phone. Sorry my single mistake is such a burden. I am aware of the difference. What's this got to do with the topic? How is that not a deflection since you seem so confident in asserting that constantly? I don't see the difference. 

    And yes, what is your worldview?


     
    Quote
    "What am I stealing from the Christian worldview ?"
    -- What do you classify as good? Or a good person? Ill let you know. I dont want to assume and have to deal with that response. A loose answer, anything in God's law. 



    Quote
    "If you claim you believe in god the burden is in you , this concept is proving very problematic for you? "
    -- My belief is not the topic of this thread. Regarding my belief in Jesus,, I am confident, but of course not "sure". It's not provable. Hence the topic. 


    Quote 
    "Where did I say a god or gods did not exist  100 per cent ? My claim is and remains the burden of proof is with the one making the affirmative claim , you or others can not do so , I have not seen sufficient evidence to prove the claim"
    -- Why else would you engage with an opposing position with this topic then? What is your standard for sufficient. Or is it one of those ill know it when I see it things?

    Quote
    "So if your finished with the personal attacks"
    -- second assertion in this response for your list. Where did I "personally attack" you?

  • Swolliw said:
    @JustinC

    Quote
    "Liar, you know very well that there is not one iota of evidence. There is an active discussion right now and nobody but nobody has tendered one piece of evidence....only dodgy excuses."


    Before I go further would you define evidence? Also regarding historical texts whats your stance on reliability. E.g. how sure are we in your view that what we're reading in something like Homer's Odyssey or Plato's Reuplic is actually what they wrote down?
  • @JustinC ;
    Okay, so we have made some changes to the definition which I will outline briefly:

    "nothing" in premise 2 has been replaced with:  higher "realm" which exists with different "properties" and "rules"
    added premise 6: "is described in the Christian bible"
    added premise 7: "Whose character and nature set the standard with which an, objective to humanity, law of morality follows. Following this law perfectly is defined as good."
    added premise 8: "Is unchanging"

    I will concede that the amendment to the 2nd premise satisfies my objection for a god to create the universe out of nothing. However, the addition of other premises opens up several new avenues of logical impossibility.
    This assumes God desires anything other than what's been communicated. We know He desires to create our Universe with umanity in it and a relationship with each person. Furthermore, God desires us to have free will and to "rule" over the Earth with us following the standard of morality He sets. 

    There's no obligation for God to have certain desires. The note on this then following to mean there are abilities God doesn't have is begging the question. And there are "abilities " God doesn't have. Well at the very least things He won't do that humanity can. Such as lie or change. Ah! I added unchanging to the definition too. 
    My objection here isn't so much that god should have certain desires, it is that if god does have certain desires then there are certain things which it can not do. For example, there is nothing wrong with wanting to eat Italian for dinner, but that precludes the possibility of also wanting to skip dinner altogether. There is some power which you can not have. You could solve this by saying that god is not infinitely powerful, because a limited being does not have this problem the same way you and I as limited beings can want one specific thing. You could also solve this problem by assuming that god has all possible desires, but this would conflict with premise 6 because the Christian god does have specific desires.

    The addition of the premise as "described in the Christian bible" is quite problematic. For starters, you might want to be more specific as to what is meant by "Christian bible" since there are hundreds of translations, revisions, and collections of this text. I will assume the NIV because that is what I am most familiar with. This of course means that god is now a "he" and I will refer to him using male instead of neuter  pronouns. This in and of itself leads to an interesting objection that I will cover later.

    The lowest hanging fruit for contradictions for god as described in the bible of course starts on the first page. The story of genesis details the creation of the world in just 6 days. This is of course contradictory to actual scientific evidence which suggests a very old earth and universe, thus we have a disproof by reality. There are several ways you might object to this, such as by saying that the earth really was created in 6 days and all the evidence is either mistaken or god just made it look like that way for some reason. There are other reality contradictions too, such as the complete lack of geological evidence for a great flood, and all of the impossible things the bible claims Jesus does, such as violate entropy. If our experienced world as we currently understand it is objectively true, then god as described in the bible can not exist.

    A second would be that the god of the bible does in fact change between the old and new testament and therefore contradicts premise 8. Levitical law as described in the books of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers lay a moral framework which is said to be of god but is then abolished with Jesus's arrival. These are the laws that say that you can't eat pork or shellfish, wear clothing made of different materials, or take slaves from your own people as well as countless other absurdities. These laws however change after Jesus's resurrection so that Christians claim they do not have to follow them. If god has a character which establishes objective moral law IAW premise 7, then this is destroyed in the face of him being unchanging because he does change in the bible. If you don't accept this complex change, then I can point to the general change that god undergoes in the books of Genesis, in modifying the world in response to the "fall of man" or the change he undergoes in the book of Job in his bet with the devil. Consider that even when god says something, he is undergoing a change, specifically he is going from a state of having not said that thing, to having said that thing which implies a change and therefore contridicts with the 8th premise implying this god can not exist.

    Another similar but far simpler objection is that if morality is based on the character of a god, then morality is subjective to that god. In other words, morality is arbitrary but defined only by the god we are describing and therefore not objective. For example, a god can not make 2+2 =/= 4 because it is an objective fact that 2+2 = 4. Similarly, if morality is objective then it would follow that moral laws would have to be like math or logic. If god's character is the basis for morality, then morality is necessarily subjective.

    This will probably be the most interesting objection here: Does god have the desire to be another gender? God as described in the bible is consistently described as a "he", going all the way back to the oldest known Hebrew texts (Hebrew does not have a neuter gender) Presumably, an all powerful being could choose to be whatever gender it wanted to be, and I might make a similar objection to the one I am making about desires. If a god does not desire to become another gender, then he does not have the power to become another gender, and thus is not all powerful. If god does desire to become another gender, he doesn't have the power to not become another gender, and therefore is not all powerful.

    Beyond these, we can move on to the impossibility of a supreme moral being who is all powerful. Consider this: Is it possible for god to violate his own moral laws? If the answer is yes, then they are not supreme moral laws. If god can not violate them, then he is not all powerful. Related to this is the harm, suffering, and deaths caused by god in the bible, which god explicitly commands you not to do. How is it possible that god can command: "Thou shalt not murder" and also cause the great flood? Unless lying is part of god's character and in fact the commandments are a giant troll, I can't see how this is possible. It would be important to note that this also implies that god is okay with all the killing and suffering of the world, since being all powerful he could but does not do anything about it, meaning that allowing pain and suffering is part of his plan.

    That's quite a bit, but I think it is a good starting point for now. Needless to say, the Christian god specifically is a huge can of worms, even more so than a deistic or Muslim definition of god. Typically when people make the claim: "God can not be proved or disproved" they are referring to a deistic one. Naming a specific god from a specific dogma leads to all sorts of trouble as you can see above, and this barely scratches the surface.
    There is a lot here. Too much to tackle simultaneously given the current struggle of being concise but accurate would allow.

    I'm not declining to discuss all these points, just suggesting we take these perhaps in order of category one at a time. 

    Overall categories perhaps could be a more specific definition of all powerful, Bible contradictions with current observations and theories, morality issues, and the gender one. 

    The gender one and all powerful should be fine to handle at the same time. But if im wrong in the depth for these, I might need to go back to just one depending on your response. Then we can start with either morality or the Bible next. 

    All powerful, infinitely powerful, can do anything. Probably best to be specific. We both agree to the nonsense of statements like can God create a rock so big even he can't lift it. Or can God create a married bachelor. 

    But you raise some solid rebuttals here. We might need to kick some of the to morality because I think given the definition it'd be fair to say some things would be answered by establishing if there is a best possible option. I believe your dinner anology to be making this same impossible to reality contradiction. If you want Italian for dinner then you want dinner. Then you don't want to skip dinner. Maybe another analogy would help?

    The all powerful critique about moral laws doesn't fit with the definition though. These laws are communicated to us, based on our universe and our human nature/experience of life. They flow from God's character. He is the standard with which we take this objective law from. It would then be a logical impossibility to violate them, not required to do so being all powerful. So perhaps all powerful from the perspective of our Universe might be better? Can create/destroy matter. Created space-time. Can control anything inside the Universe. 

    The gender thing. God is not a gender. A gender is definitional thing of some living creatures. It's easier to picture a being as reference to another beings you know. He could have went with it. Used the he analogy, perhaps to go with the Father son anology used later who knows. Theres no claim that God is biological (immaterial). A gender requires a material being per our definition. This is like saying image of God means we physically look like God. Not the Biblical stance. 




  • DeeDee 2800 Pts
    @JustinC



    Translation .....You’ve no best argument no surprise there. The only person unwilling to discuss is you here you are running again , I’ve asked you two questions weeks ago you still are running from 




    -- The last few days seem to make it clear you don't think God exists

    Yes correct , because I have not seen evidence to convince me otherwise 

    My fault. So what if your position then since you only like to ask questions which support why God doesn't exist as a conclusion if you're correct? 

    Incorrect yet again ,can you not comprehend simply expressed statements? If you claim you believe in god have you any doubts? If not you believe completely in something you cannot prove , it is and remains a fate based position what’s the point of your debate?


    -- Ctrl+f for assertion on any of these threads. You'll find my claims

    Do you ever stop griping?

     

    - i replied. Theres another assertion for the list

    No , you ran as you couldn’t and didn’t answer how your god cannot have free will and you couldn’t it wouldn’t answer the question of the biblical flood 

    What specifically is your contention with the idea of free will? Would you then suggest we simply are matter in motion? Reacting to stimuli as we've been programed to over billions of years of evolution? Another option?

    My contention is we do not have it only the illusion of such , your god is in a worse position because at least we have that illusion , your god apparently knows everything therefore he knows his future so how in any way has he free will if he cannot change his future?


    -- hahahaha probably the only time I missed it typing quickly on my phone

    It’s not you do it several times a day proving you do not know the difference, that’s ok just thought I’d point it out 

    Sorry my single mistake is such a burden.

    For me it’s not and for you it’s not , in my case knowledge is no burden in yours the opposite seems to apply 

     I am aware of the difference. What's this got to do with the topic? How is that not a deflection since you seem so confident in asserting that constantly? I don't see the difference. 

    Man oh man 

    And yes, what is your worldview?

    Specific questions I will ask narrow it 


     
    -- What do you classify as good? 

    Someone that follows the golden rule to put it simply 

    Or a good person? Ill let you know. I dont want to assume and have to deal with that response. A loose answer, anything in God's law. 

    Anything in gods law has changed and changes as societies evolve are moral codes are ever changing and evolving with society 




    -- My belief is not the topic of this thread. Regarding my belief in Jesus,, I am confident, but of course not "sure". It's not provable. Hence the topic. 

    That’s fine , what is the point of the debate?


    -- Why else would you engage with an opposing position with this topic then? What is your standard for sufficient. Or is it one of those ill know it when I see it things?

    If you claim Uncle Tom is coming to tea today at 4 and he does not show up I may think ok “ something happened to prevent this” if you saying he is coming tomorrow and it’s a no show well I’m thinking “he’s not very reliable “ if we repeat this charade fo a year I can safely conclude there’s a good chance he doesn’t exist , I would call this “sufficient” to warrant my claim .....theists do not in any way follow similar stamps when it comes to a god claim on account of the majority are victims of indoctrination 


    -- second assertion in this response for your list. Where did I "personally attack" you?

    Yawn 


    JustinC
  • @JustinC ;
    There is a lot here. Too much to tackle simultaneously given the current struggle of being concise but accurate would allow.

    I'm not declining to discuss all these points, just suggesting we take these perhaps in order of category one at a time. 

    Overall categories perhaps could be a more specific definition of all powerful, Bible contradictions with current observations and theories, morality issues, and the gender one. 

    You can break this down however you want, what I have here is only a fraction of the possible critiques I could have brought up.
    All powerful, infinitely powerful, can do anything. Probably best to be specific. We both agree to the nonsense of statements like can God create a rock so big even he can't lift it. Or can God create a married bachelor. 

    But you raise some solid rebuttals here. We might need to kick some of the to morality because I think given the definition it'd be fair to say some things would be answered by establishing if there is a best possible option. I believe your dinner anology to be making this same impossible to reality contradiction. If you want Italian for dinner then you want dinner. Then you don't want to skip dinner. Maybe another analogy would help?
    Just to clarify, the analogy is you can not want to both eat Italian, and skip dinner. because that would imply a contridiction.
    The all powerful critique about moral laws doesn't fit with the definition though. These laws are communicated to us, based on our universe and our human nature/experience of life. They flow from God's character. He is the standard with which we take this objective law from. It would then be a logical impossibility to violate them, not required to do so being all powerful. So perhaps all powerful from the perspective of our Universe might be better? Can create/destroy matter. Created space-time. Can control anything inside the Universe. 
    Let's just focus on one specific example:

    One of the ten commandments reads: "Thou shalt not kill" If this is an objective moral standard which stems from god's character, then it stands to reason that god should never kill, but he does do this via the great flood, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, or his commandment to kill all the Canaanites except the virgin women for example. Therefore either killing is in his character, and the commandment is false, or a the commandment is in gods character and god never killed anyone, meaning the biblical verses where he does are not true. Either way, we have a contradiction based on this definition of god.
    The gender thing. God is not a gender. A gender is definitional thing of some living creatures. It's easier to picture a being as reference to another beings you know. He could have went with it. Used the he analogy, perhaps to go with the Father son anology used later who knows. Theres no claim that God is biological (immaterial). A gender requires a material being per our definition. This is like saying image of God means we physically look like God. Not the Biblical stance. 
    Since we have already established that we are talking about the Christian, god, we are necessarily talking about Jesus who was a man made of flesh and bone, and therefore had both sex and gender. Jesus is described as being male, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of him being a transsexual for example. If you want to claim that god is immaterial, then this would be another contradiction to add to the list.

    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @JustinC ;

    Quote
    "Just to clarify, the analogy is you can not want to both eat Italian, and skip dinner. because that would imply a contridiction."

    -- You said "For example, there is nothing wrong with wanting to eat Italian for dinner, but that precludes the possibility of also wanting to skip dinner altogether. There is some power which you can not have."

    This would imply you would need some ability to have all power that isn't being satisfied with the example. Yet, how do you want to eat Italian while also want to skip dinner altogether? Isn't that the same as saying you want to drive a Ferrari as one desire and comparing it with the desire to not drive a car. It's a logical impossibility to both want to drive a specific type of car and not want to drive any car. It's using a contradiction to try to show a contradiction. Perhaps another example??


    Quote
    "Let's just focus on one specific example:

    One of the ten commandments reads: "Thou shalt not kill" If this is an objective moral standard which stems from god's character, then it stands to reason that god should never kill, but he does do this via the great flood, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, or his commandment to kill all the Canaanites except the virgin women for example. Therefore either killing is in his character, and the commandment is false, or a the commandment is in gods character and god never killed anyone, meaning the biblical verses where he does are not true. Either way, we have a contradiction based on this definition of god."
    -- We need to be specific here on what the command is. Otherwise, is killing in self defence a sin? Should I let someone murder me because I'm afraid I could kill them fighting back? There's no Biblical precedent for this kind of thinking. 

    If we look at the original text, we have the Hebrew word ratsach.

    English has some options.

    Kill - To end a humans life at another humans hands. 
    Murder - The intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice.

    This is the important distinction. I suppose we would then ask if you can carry out judgement without malice?


    Quote
    "Since we have already established that we are talking about the Christian, god, we are necessarily talking about Jesus who was a man made of flesh and bone, and therefore had both sex and gender. Jesus is described as being male, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of him being a transsexual for example. If you want to claim that god is immaterial, then this would be another contradiction to add to the list."

    -- Jesus was fully man and fully God. Two natures. His body with a gender died and was buried. He rose again in a new body which didn't have the same properties as the one He had before, the type we're in now. Jesus is God, meaning as an immaterial component which has always existed. There's no contradiction to say when He assumed human flesh, He chose a particular gender. Given the current society, it even makes sense why He would have picked a male body. There's only a contradiction if you assume Jesus existed outside the Universe in a mortal body forever. 


  • @JustinC ;
    This would imply you would need some ability to have all power that isn't being satisfied with the example. Yet, how do you want to eat Italian while also want to skip dinner altogether? Isn't that the same as saying you want to drive a Ferrari as one desire and comparing it with the desire to not drive a car. It's a logical impossibility to both want to drive a specific type of car and not want to drive any car. It's using a contradiction to try to show a contradiction. Perhaps another example??
    No, that's exactly what I am saying. It's logically impossible. But if he does not desire something, then he is not all powerful because there are certain things which he can not do on account of he does not desire to do them, and therefore can not be all powerful.
    -- We need to be specific here on what the command is. Otherwise, is killing in self defence a sin? Should I let someone murder me because I'm afraid I could kill them fighting back? There's no Biblical precedent for this kind of thinking. 
    If we look at the original text, we have the Hebrew word ratsach.
    English has some options.
    Kill - To end a humans life at another humans hands. 
    Murder - The intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice.
    This is the important distinction. I suppose we would then ask if you can carry out judgement without malice?
    I don't think that this quite get's to the heart of my objection. So God says "Thou shalt not kill" yet he murders millions of people who are no threat to him whatsoever. So, is murdering in god's moral nature? (and therefore acceptable) This is a classic logical paradox.
    -- Jesus was fully man and fully God. Two natures. His body with a gender died and was buried. He rose again in a new body which didn't have the same properties as the one He had before, the type we're in now. Jesus is God, meaning as an immaterial component which has always existed. There's no contradiction to say when He assumed human flesh, He chose a particular gender. Given the current society, it even makes sense why He would have picked a male body. There's only a contradiction if you assume Jesus existed outside the Universe in a mortal body forever. 
    So then do we have a contradiction with the bible referring to god as a "he"? Some other religions such as Islam hold that Allah has no sex nor gender, but the god of the bible had a wife named Asherah at one point which was latter forgotten in the text.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @JustinC ;

    Quote
    "But if he does not desire something, then he is not all powerful because there are certain things which he can not do on account of he does not desire to do them, and therefore can not be all powerful."
    - Ah got you. I dont understand why a being who is all powerful must desire to do everything? God doesn't desire to sin. But all powerful is a nod to power within our universe. He's fully in control. No being would be able to desire everything as some desires would conflict. It's not a condition of all powerful to desire contradictory things. 


    Quote
    I don't think that this quite get's to the heart of my objection. So God says "Thou shalt not kill" yet he murders millions of people who are no threat to him whatsoever.
    -- The way you flipped the terms is the problem. God didn't say you can't kill. He said you can't murder. God kills every human who ever lives. He decides when they change location. For everyone. God doesn't murder anyone. Not all killing is murder. 

    Quote
    So, is murdering in god's moral nature? 
    - Not at all.

    Quote
    "So then do we have a contradiction with the bible referring to god as a "he"?"
    -- Construct to make it easier for humans only. Well and combined with the fact Jesus when in human flesh is male. He makes sense given the culture. Women had no place in court. Their word wasn't seen as reliable. To be fair, a good example is that Christians believe in the trinity. So he isn't even accurate. It would be they. Gender makes no sense for a spiritual being. Same goes for the elohim. Any of God's divine council. 

     As far as comparisons with other religions, I don't think that's fruitful. They all make truth claims about reality which contradict Christianity somewhere. Either one is true or both are false. Theres no middle ground by definition. 

  • @JustinC
    Before I go further would you define evidence? 

    The usual dodging stall.
    No accounting for honesty, is there?
    JustinC
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch